Mediaboss Marketing

In the final days of the 114th Congress, while most members were looking to end the last session of the Obama era, Congressman Thomas Massie, R-Ky. (A, 94%) was looking toward the 115th Congress, the Trump presidency, and the need for a knowledgeable voice on Second Amendment concerns.

Rep. Massie revived the Second Amendment Caucus, which had been spearheaded by former Georgia Rep. Paul Broun but had atrophied in Brouns absence the past two years.

Massie sat down with Conservative Review to talk about the importance of the Second Amendment Caucus, what its legislative priorities are, and the importance of gun rights to the American identity. Below is a transcript of his interview with Conservative Review, edited for length and clarity.

I got my first gun when I was 12 years old, and that was a rite of passage where I grew up in Kentucky. My dad took me hunting with it and I learned that this gun actually kills things, and when it happens its not pretty. I learned the awesome responsibility that comes with owning a gun.

When I was 18, I went to school in Massachusetts [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], and I realized there were actually people on the face of this planet that wanted to ban guns. I had heard about them but hadnt met one. And now I was surrounded by them. It blew their mind that I had a gun when I was 12 years old. They would break out in hives to see a gun, and they couldnt believe someone would give a 12-year-old a gun. So it was like taking a hot piece of steel and putting it in cold water. It forged me on this issue. Second Amendment issues were what really got me interested in politics. I started paying attention to politicians, what their position was on the Second Amendment, and how they parsed their words on the Second Amendment.

Some things catalyzed here in the last six months that really made it obvious we needed to do it. First, Trump won. Second, the Democrats staged a sit-in on the House floor last summer. The speaker [Paul Ryan] seemed amenable to bringing some very light gun control to the floor for a vote after that. I was concerned we were going to deprive people of their Second Amendment rights without due process.

So those were a couple of the reasons why I formed this caucus. I saw a voice missing in the House a pro-Second Amendment voice to counteract the whims of congressmen when they feel the political winds blowing. The winds were blowing strongly last summer and our leadership wasnt willing to say, Nope, were not bringing these things to the floor.

Our leadership felt the political pressure of the upcoming November elections and literally told us in conference that those members who are in difficult districts, well get you a vote on this so you can go back home over August and be safe because you got a vote on [gun control].

No! Thats a bad idea. Giving four to six people political cover in exchange for giving up part of the Second Amendment is not OK. Because our leadership was willing to do that, I thought we needed a voice of authority in the House to speak on these issues when they come up.

Well, I want to build consensus and listen to the membership about what our legislative priorities should be. I want the caucus to have informal hearings on bills. There is a lot of pro-Second Amendment legislation in the hopper. But the entire time Ive been here weve never had a hearing on one of those bills, which prevents us from improving the legislation, overcoming objections, and gaining cosponsors.

In a way, a caucus can serve as an informal committee. So Id expect well look at the Hearing Protection Act, national reciprocity bills, and bill to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act, among other legislation.

One of the things on my mind is that I remember talking to [Justice] Antonin Scalia once about the incorporation doctrine about whether the Bill of Rights applies to the states or not. Liberals use it happily to advance their agenda at the state level but I think conservatives are more hesitant because of states rights. Theres a balance here, and thats one of the things well talk about in the caucus about how to address that.

[Justice Scalia] understood concerns about the incorporation doctrine, but he didnt think you would go back and unravel all of the precedents. He thought it was a settled issue and you had to move forward, whereas Justice [Clarence] Thomas might be more aggressive in undoing previous rulings he thought were wrong.

But the incorporation doctrine is definitely something that has a lot of momentum now in jurisprudence. Im torn on the issue myself. Its sad, but in California you get the government you elected, and theres really horrible infringements on the right to keep and bear arms there. But the question is: Do states have the right to do that? I think the best answer is when a state legislature comes to realize that its people are less safe under onerous gun restrictions than they would be if they were allowed to carry guns more freely.

My view on the Second Amendment hasnt changed, but Ive been shocked to find how little time or attention the Republican caucus has paid to this issue. Republican leadership seems not to want to give us a vote on pro-gun legislation. Maybe thats because there are some legislators in the conference who would be put in a difficult situation in more blue districts.

For most people in Kentucky, Second Amendment issues are one of their top three priorities. When I came to Congress, I realized we havent even had a vote ever on the Second Amendment. So, in four years, an issue that is in the top three for many of my constituents has never even been discussed, debated, or voted on with the exception of the one time I got this issue to the floor through a parliamentary procedure. And 20 Democrats voted for it.

I think when you go on the offensive and offer something pro-gun, there are still Democrats that are with us on this. I believe that.

In my opinion, the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. Its not even about protecting yourself from a mugging, unless the mugger is your government. Its about protecting yourself from a government thats gone off the rails.

The militia is every able-bodied person in the country. Some people would try to tell you, Oh, its just the National Guard. But if you look back at what the Founding Fathers meant, they didnt mean for the government to have guns or for people to have government-issued guns; they meant for the people to have guns. Im actually glad they put that clause in there, because that tells me that theyre talking about weapons capable of challenging a tyrannical government not a target pistol, or shotguns. I think thats how you know that the AR-15 fits into the definition of the Second Amendment. I mean, youre not going to defend a free state with a shotgun. I would though, if thats all I had.

I think what prompted it to be in the Bill of Rights as No. 2 instead of No. 10 is that it was fresh in their memory that they had just taken up arms against their government. They knew that for any legitimate government i.e. government that rules through consent of the people that the people would actually have to be armed to ensure that consent.

I think it is uniquely American in concept. But our Founding Fathers borrowed their ideas from philosophers everywhere. They were well read. The right to self-defense they believed fundamentally was a God-given right. They werent the first ones with that notion, but they were definitely the first ones to say were founding a government based on this concept that the people can be armed, not just the king.

Correct. And Im sure they found evidence that it was natural right in all their readings of philosophy. But the fact that they would guarantee it shows that the people were in charge of setting up this government not the king.

Its no mistake that the United Nations is so anti-gun. Most of its membership is dictators and tyrants who have no vested interest in their people having the ability to overthrow an illegitimate government.

The Second Amendment safeguards the entire Bill of Rights. If you take out the Second Amendment, its not possible to safeguard the other nine.

Maria Jeffrey is a correspondent for Conservative Review. Follow her on Twitter @MariaTJeffrey

See more here:
Meet the congressman who wants to protect your 2nd Amendment ... - Conservative Review

TOMBSTONE This Old West town, known for its legendary shootout at the OK Corral, gun-packing locals and gunfight shows, has been proclaimed Americas Second Amendment City.

Tombstone Mayor Dusty Escapule read the proclamation at last weeks City Council meeting to a round of applause and an approving council.

The citizens of Tombstone are accustomed to having firearms around, Escapule said. Just stop and look up and down Allen Street. Most of the guys are carrying a gun.

The idea of a formal proclamation was pitched to the mayor by local business owner Gordon Anderson.

This represents a great day in our history, Anderson said. Right now, were Americas only Second Amendment City. It fits into our past, present and future. I was very pleased to see that Mayor Escapule was able to issue the proclamation with no objections.

Johnny Rowland, a media spokesman for Gun Owners of America a gun advocacy organization with 1.5 million members attended the meeting.

Gun Owners of America is in complete support of this proclamation for Tombstone and in support of Arizona as the most gun-friendly state in America, he said.

A call placed to the National Rifle Association Tuesday morning for comment was not returned.

As a tourist attraction, a large part of Tombstones draw is based on the towns historic gunfights from its years past, Escapule said. He also mentioned the list of venues in Tombstone that have evolved around guns.

We have SASS (Single Action Shooting Society), daily gunfight shows in various locations and the National Fast Draw Contest, Escapule said.

In addition, every third weekend in October, the town celebrates Tombstone Helldorado Days with three days of action-packed street entertainment and gunfight shows.

As soon as word about the proclamation got out, I was getting calls from everywhere, Escapule said. In this part of the country, most residents support the Second Amendment. I felt the proclamation is something I should do for the citizens of Tombstone as well as our neighbors along the international border.

At Tuesdays council meeting, Escapule made it clear the proclamation is not intended to advocate gun violence but simply reinforces the citizens rights under the Second Amendment. Proclaiming Tombstone as Americas Second Amendment City is not intended to alter or change the citys long-standing slogan, The town too tough to die, the mayor said.

We have one of the old pioneer, true West cities in America, and thats what I want people across the country to know.

See the rest here:
Tombstone proclaimed 'America's Second Amendment City' - Eastern Arizona Courier

On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that Chicago had once again violated the Second Amendment, this time with its regulations for gun ranges.

The process is basically the same every time.

First, Chicago enacts some uniquely stupid gun control regime. And when we say uniquely, we mean that nobody else would even try it, not even gun-hating officials in other crime-ridden cities.

Next, a federal court says, in effect: Hey, Chicago, remember when you single-handedly ensured the incorporation of the Second Amendment against all states and localities with your handgun ban? The right still applies. You cant just suppress it for any or no reason at all.

Chicago then loudly insists that against its better judgment it has changed its laws to comply with the court ruling, when it fact everyone knows it really just shuffled the rules around to make whatever it formerly banned outright technically legal but practically impossible.

This provokes further litigation, during which the city will change this or that aspect of its regulations as the case bounces up and down between the trial and appellate courts.

Needless to say, all this happens on the publics dime, as if Chicago with a staggering 762 murders last year -- has no better way to spend money than by enacting and futilely defending useless gun control for which the city cannot produce any evidence of efficacy.

This weeks opinion in Ezell v. Chicago recounted how the Seventh Circuit had previously held that the city could not ban ranges, provoking the above described scenario.

Chicagos response to the prior appellate ruling, according to Wednesdays opinion, was to enact an elaborate scheme of regulations governing shooting ranges. While those rules were in litigation, the city amended them multiple times. Finally, the trial court ruled on the measures upholding some and invalidating others and the litigants appealed the worst of the surviving rules to the appellate court.

These rules included banning anyone under age 18 from so much as entering a range and zoning requirements that eliminated almost 98% of the city as possible locations, with the remaining choices of questionable commercial viability. No range, as the city intended, had managed to open for business.

Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes, writing for a three-judge panel, called out the city on its charade in very plain terms.

To justify its zoning restrictions, the city claimed firing ranges attract gun thieves, cause airborne lead contamination, and carry a risk of fire. Yet according to the court, the city failed to provide any evidentiary support for these claims. As in none.

The court noted, The Citys own witnesses testified to the lack of evidentiary support for these assertions. They repeatedly admitted that they knew of no data or empirical evidence to support any of these claims. And the citys zoning administer conducted no investigation, visited no firing ranges in other jurisdictions, consulted no expert, and essentially did no research at all.

The city also failed to explain why commercial ranges needed to be regulated so much more strictly than police and private security ranges, which have long operated without incident in areas where commercial ranges are banned under the zoning rules.

In other words, Chicago put forth an embarrassingly sloppy and unsupported case. The city, Judge Sykes wrote, cannot defend its regulatory scheme with shoddy data or reasoning or with mere lawyers talk.

The court also held that the city failed to support its claim that minors have no Second Amendment rights at all, and so can be categorically banned from firearm training. Theres zero historical evidence that firearm training for this age group is categorically unprotected, the court stated.

Chicago fared no better with its weak argument that preventing older adolescents and teens from training in the controlled atmosphere of a range is common sense. The court again cited testimony from the citys own witness to rebut this claim. Somewhat incredulously, Judge Sykes pointed out that the witness had testified: my own son took a shooting class when he was 12, so Im well aware of the fact its okay to teach a young person how to shoot a gun properly.

That the case was an embarrassing failure to Chicago and its lawyers, however, is not likely to change the citys tactics. Stringing things along and keeping the regulatory environment in flux is, for the citys purposes, the next best thing to a ban. No business can operate in an environment where the rules that govern its activities are unknown or unknowable. And as long as no range opens in the city, its gun ban bureaucrats can continue to claim victory.

What Chicago cant claim, however, is that any of its gun control schemes which require the publics treasure to uselessly defend time and again have done anything to stem the bloodshed in its streets. Law-abiding Chicagoans will have to wait for their rights, but the criminals committing these crimes remain, apparently, unhindered.

More here:
NRA-ILA | Federal Appeals Court: Chicago Violates Second ... - NRA ILA

Wisconsin Court SystemOn Wednesday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit handed Second Amendment advocates a major victory when it struck down multiple gun range regulations imposed by the city of Chicago as unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. The majority opinion in the case, Ezell v. Chicago, was written by Judge Diane Sykes, whose name appears on Donald Trump's short-list of possible Supreme Court nominees.

The underlying issue in Ezell v. Chicago is the Windy City's hostile reaction to the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Court struck down the city's handgun ban for violating the Second Amendment. In response to McDonald, Chicago enacted a new handgun permitting scheme which, among other things, required permit holders to complete one hour of training at a gun range. Yet Chicago also outlawed the existence of all gun ranges within city limits, thereby placing a rather significant obstacle in the path of any Chicago resident seeking to exercise his or her constitutional rights. In 2011 that city-wide gun range ban was struck down by the 7th Circuit. Judge Sykes also wrote that decision.

Yesterday's ruling follows on the heels of the 2011 case. After losing in federal court five years ago, Chicago adopted another new regulatory scheme for gun ranges. But once again the city tried to smother the Second Amendment with red tape. For example, it imposed new zoning regulations that would only allow gun ranges within manufacturing districts while also forbidding gun ranges from being built within 100 feet of each other and within 500 feet of residential districts, schools, or places of worship. In addition, the city forbid anyone under the age of 18 from lawfully entering a gun range.

Writing yesterday for the majority, Judge Sykes invalidated all three of those regulations. As she points out, under the new zoning laws,

only 2.2% of the city's total acreage is even theoretically available, and the commercial viability of any of these parcels is questionableso much so that no shooting range yet exists. This severely limits Chicagoans' Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use via target practice at a range. To justify these barriers, the City raised only speculative claims of harm to public health and safety. That's not nearly enough to survive the heightened scrutiny that applies to burdens on Second Amendment rights.

Furthermore, "the age restriction also flunks heightened scrutiny." That's because the Second Amendment, Judge Sykes writes,

protects the right to learn and practice firearm use in the controlled setting of a shooting range. The City insists that no person under age 18 enjoys this right. That's an extraordinarily broad claim, and the City failed to back it up. Nor did the City adequately justify barring anyone under 18 from entering a range. To the contrary, its own witness on this subject agreed that the age restriction is overbroad because teenagers can safely be taught to shoot and youth firearm instruction is both prudent and can be conducted in a safe manner.

In short, Chicago tried to bypass the Second Amendment and the 7th Circuit benchslapped the city down.

The decision in Ezell v. City of Chicago is available here.

Related: What Trump SCOTUS Short-Lister Diane Sykes Had to Say About John Roberts and Judicial Deference

See more here:
Federal Judge on Trump's SCOTUS Short-List Issues Major 2nd Amendment Decision - Reason (blog)

We caught up with former Benghazi security contractor Mark Oz Geist, who said pro-gun Americans have won a battle against liberalism with the defeat of Hillary Clinton, but the war is far from over.

Austin, Texas, they got a small bastion of liberalism down there is a state that is 100 percent conservative, Geist said. But its a foothold and if we dont keep active and keep going after, keep our defenses up and on the offense theyre going to have that foothold and grow with it.

Pro-gun advocates still have to contend with statewide initiatives, like the recent ammunition registration scheme in California and Colorados magazine ban.

Criminals are gong to be criminals and theyre going to break the law and what we need to do is make sure that people are empowered to defend themselves that have the rights and most importantly the Second Amendment is the most important amendment that we have to the Constitution because thats what gives us and protects all the others.

See the article here:
Mark Oz Geist talks Shadow Warriors, Hillary Clinton, the Second Amendment and Islam (VIDEO) - Guns.com