Mediaboss Marketing

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

It is already legal to carry a handgun openly without a permit in Michigan. The situation is as it was in New Hampshire, where law-abiding citizens could carry their handguns openly without having to ask governments permission but were suddenly obligated to ask government before carrying if their jacket or sweatshirt hung down over the gun.

New Hampshire lawmakerspassed legislation abolishing their concealed carry permit requirement earlier this year and Gov. Chris Sununu (R) signed the bill on February 22. North Dakota followed suit and abolished their concealed permit requirement on March 24, 2017. Now Michigan lawmakers are pushing to make the same change.

The Detroit Free Press reports that Rep. Michele Hoitenga (R-Manton)a sponsor of the permitless carry billsuggested the only reason a permit exists is so the state government can collect fees for the exercise of natural rights.

Hoitenga said:

It is currently legal in the state of Michigan for a law-abiding person to openly carry a firearm on their person without any training classes, fees or state bureaucracy. It only becomes illegal when a person puts on a coat because the gun then becomes concealed. Our Second Amendment should not be used as a money grab for permit fees

Michigan Open Carry president Tom Lambert echoed Hoitenga, equating the fee for a concealed carry permit with a coat tax.

Presently, law-abiding Michigan residents have to pay about $100 to the state and take a class before being allowed to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense. This burdensome fee will be done away with if Hoitengas bill passes and is signed into law.

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 more:
Michigan House Considers Bill to Make 2nd Amendment Your ... - Breitbart News

While the National Rifle Association and North Korea and Iran may not like each other, there is one policy position they all mutually share in common: They all do not approve of the United States government interfering with and preventing their right to own and possess the weapons and armaments they choose in the interests of self-defense.

While the U.S. president might speak in glowing terms of approval to the NRA and threatening disapproval toward North Korea and Iran, his approving comments would probably change and he has become well-known for changing his mind when the guns become known to be pointed in his direction, rather than at his adversaries and opponents.

Neither North Korea nor Iran may understand the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But they readily reflect understanding the principle inherent to the amendment. A Second Amendment interpreted without qualification or reservation creates a formula for self-defense being suddenly transmuted into mass self-destruction.

When any, all and everyone is armed to their maximum ability, at some random unexpected point an equally random and unexpected incendiary spark omnipotently stands to be struck for creating an Armageddon nuclear or otherwise.

We may not know what the spark might be or when it will occur -- but everyone will know when it does, and we will all come to bear the scars for our ignorance.

Read the original here:
Letter, 5/14: Second Amendment ignorance - Lincoln Journal Star

By Steve Kurtz, Georeen Tanner | Fox News

The Second Amendment is only 27 words, but Americans have used millions of words arguing over what it means. It guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But which people, what arms, and under what circumstances?

Two milestone cases involving the Second Amendment that reached the Supreme Court are District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), declaring an individual has a right to own a firearm, and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), affirming the Second Amendment applies to state law.

Now, if the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade: Peruta v. California.

At issue is the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. The Heller case specifically applies to situations within the home. Those who have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case are hoping the justices will see it as a logical extension of their earlier opinions.

Visit link:
Second Amendment Case Peruta vs. California May Be Heading to ... - Fox News

There is no question that last year's election represented a significant victory for supporters of the Second Amendment and a defeat for those who want to limit our constitutional freedoms. The American people maintained pro-gun majorities in both the House and the Senate, elected a new president who believes in our God-given right to bear arms, and paved the way to protecting our freedoms before the Supreme Court. We're reminded, however, that there are still some in this country who believe the Second Amendment is for sale.

Despite our victories, it is more important than ever for the gun rights community to stand together.

After spending tens of millions of dollars in the 2016 election, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently announced he is spending at least another $25 million in the 2018 election cycle. Bloomberg has said that this influx of cash will be spent to prop up anti-gun candidates and attack those who stand up for the Second Amendment. This liberal billionaire and his rich friends are clearly undeterred by the repudiation of their agenda by voters last year and will continue to fund the fight against our freedoms.

The good news is that Americans with concealed carry permits are among the most engaged of citizens, who put a premium on protecting themselves, their families, and their communities. This is a group of diligent citizens we as a country should be grateful for, not targeting for the erosion of their right to self-defense.

This is also demographic that has jumped through the bureaucratic hoops in order to comply with the laws of their state and obtain a permit to carry their personal firearm with them in public. Fortunately, lawmakers in Congress are moving to streamline concealed carry permit requirements at the federal level, and make national reciprocity a reality. Currently, there is a patchwork of reciprocity policies throughout the country, with some states recognizing certain out of state permits, in addition to their own, but it is inconsistent and causes unnecessary confusion for gun owners.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., have introduced legislation that would allow concealed carry permits to be nationally recognized, giving gun owners the freedom to travel wherever they please without fear of being on the wrong side of the law. This legislation would allow anyone with a valid concealed carry permit to move freely from state to state without fear of being thrown into jail because their home state's permits aren't recognized elsewhere.

Yet, even though the 2018 elections are still far away Bloomberg and others who oppose the Second Amendment are determined to block these efforts and rollback our freedoms. Rights expressly written into the Constitution and granted by our Creator cannot be bought. There are approximately 14.5 million Americans who hold concealed carry permits, and they vote.

Spending $25 million to try to put anti-gun candidates into office is the same old political theater that everyday Americans are tired of watching. We have seen this show before, and voters will see this effort for what it truly is: efforts by the wealthy trying to make their personal opinion into public policy. At the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, we will continue to stand with all gun-rights supporters in opposing the efforts by Bloomberg and other anti-gun liberals and work together to protect our Constitutional freedoms.

Tim Schmidt (@TimUSCCA) is the president and founder of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read ourguidelines on submissions here.

View post:
The Second Amendment is not for sale, Michael Bloomberg - Washington Examiner

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The case,Thomas Pinner v. State,revolved around Pinners arrest after dropping a handgun while exiting a taxi outside a movie theater.The taxi driver claimed the sight of the gun made him fear he was going to be robbed.

The Indiana Supreme Courts (ISCs) opinion explains that Pinner is a black male who was with a black female. The opinion describes that officers Jason Palmer and George Stewart arrived at the movie theater to find Pinner sitting on a bench:

The officers approached the seated Pinner with Officer Palmer standing on one side and Officer Stewart was standing on the other side[.] Officer Palmer introduced himself and informed Pinner that they had received a call that someone of [his] description . . . has a handgun on him. Officer Palmer then asked Pinner if he possessed a weapon. Pinner paused for a few seconds during which he was kind of a little rocking back and forth [wringing] his hands. Although hesitant to answer, he denied having a weapon. Officer Palmer then instructed Pinner to stand up and keep his hands up where they could be seen; Pinner complied and Officer Palmer saw the butt of a gun in Pinners front pocket. Officer Palmer secured the weapon and detained Pinner for further investigation.

Pinner was subsequentlyarrested and charged with class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license enhanced to a level 5 felony due to a prior felony conviction. During trial, he sought to suppress the discovery of the gun by contending the search and seizure were conducted in violation of both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. A trial court denied Pinners petition, and an Appeals Court handed down a divided opinion.

The ISC observed:

At the time the officers approached, Pinner was seated alone on a bench with a wall behind him. Both officers were in full uniform and stood in front of himone flanked on either side. Although nervous, Pinner made no furtive or suspicious movements, nor did he reach for the weapon; and he made no attempt to flee. The officers introduced themselves, immediately stated that they were searching for a man with a handgun, and asked whether Pinner was in possession of such a weapon. When Pinner answered negatively, Officer Palmer directed him to stand up and keep his hands up high. Assuming for the sake of argument that on these facts Pinner was free to disregard the questions and walk away, the encounter quickly shifted from a supposed consensual encounter to an investigative stop. And such a stop is permissible if, based upon specific, articulable facts, the officer has reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot.

The court added, Assuming without deciding the tip from the taxicab driver was reliable, the threshold question is whether the mere allegation that Pinner possessed a handgunwithout moreis sufficient to establish that Pinner [wa]s, or [wa]s about to be, engaged in criminal activity.' The court then ruled that the mere possession of a handgun was not sufficientto establish that Pinner was engaged in criminal activity.

ISC issued a conclusion thatmakes clear that the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment cover those exercising Second Amendment rights, too. The opinion said, We conclude the evidence [against Pinner] was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and thus the trial court erred in denying the Defendants motion to suppress. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this cause for further proceedings.

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.

Originally posted here:
Indiana Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment Rights Protected by 4th Amendment - Breitbart News