Mediaboss Marketing

Attendees at the Myrtle Beach Gun Show this past weekend may have seen a sad sight as they walked inside the South Carolina citys convention centermembers of a major political party protesting the exercise of a constitutional right. A few members of the Horry County Democrat Partys Gun Sense Committee, numbering less than a dozen (including some kids the protestors dragged along) held signs calling for more gun control laws in South Carolina and used a compliant local media to attack gun shows and those who attend them.Rather than going over and having a conversation with gun owners, these party activists were more interested in condemning them instead.

According to WBTW-TV in Myrtle Beach, Rosemary Wolfe, with the Democrat Partys Gunsense Committee, believes that gun shows are an example of how accessible firearms are, telling the station that while she and fellow activists were stumping for more gun laws, inside the show, You can get a discount on assault rifles. Based on the paltry number of protestors, it looks like there are many more South Carolinians interested in a good deal on a gun than there are interested in trying to shame people for exercising their constitutional rights. Many Democrats, though, just dont seem to care about that. Rather than going over and having a conversation with gun owners, these party activists were more interested in condemning them instead.

So, where has this gotten Democrats in South Carolina? In the 2016 elections, Donald Trump won almost 55 percent of the presidential vote to Hillary Clintons 41 percent, improving on Mitt Romneys 11-point election victory in the state in 2012. Republican Sen. Tim Scott won a full term in the U.S. Senate by running up more than 60 percent of the statewide vote. The Democrat candidate, Thomas Dixon, could only get the support of 37 percent of the states voters. Six Republican candidates won election or re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives, while only one Democrat, James Clyburn (in office since 1993) won a House race. In the state legislature, Democrats hold just 18 of the 46 seats in the state Senate, and only 44 seats in the state House, compared to 80 for Republicans.

Not only is gun control not the way to reduce violent crime, its not going to win you many elections throughout the country. Sure, there will always be places where voters dont see why anybody needs a gun, and will vote for the anti-gun candidate in every election. But there are many more legislative districts at both the state and federal level where the majority of voters actually do care about protecting and exercising their Second Amendment rights. The party that demands its candidates follow the lead of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer isnt going to play well with the men and women who liveand votein these districts.

This is one reason why Michael Bloomberg can outspend gun owners in Maine by a more than 6-to-1 margin and still get defeated in his push for a universal background check referendum. Its one of the reasons why so many counties that voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 went for Donald Trump this year. Its one of the reasons why Republicans control 68 percent of state legislative chambers around the country, and one of the reasons why Democrats have lost more than 1,000 state legislative seats across the United States since 2008. There are tens of millions of American gun owners, and millions of us vote freedom first each and every election. Democrat leaders in D.C. still think they can turn millions of Bloomberg bucks into reliable anti-gun voters, but their efforts actually have cost them seats and made their party brand toxic among many gun-owning voters.It would be nice if both major political parties in the United States supported all our constitutional rights.

Our rights exist for all of us, regardless of political party or ideology. Its not just the right of the political right to keep and bear arms, its the right of the people. It would be nice if both major political parties in the United States supported all of our constitutional rights. Hopefully well get to that point one day. But with members of the Democrat Partys Gun Sense Committee protesting gun shows, were certainly not there yet.

Follow this link:
Democrats Continue Losing Ways In Battle Against Second Amendment - America's 1st Freedom (press release) (blog)

Last week, the Illinois Senate received Senate Amendment 2 to Senate Bill 9 from state Senator Toi Hutchinson. In an attempt to address the ongoing budget problem in Illinois, Sen. Hutchinson decided to tax Illinois residents Second Amendment rights, and by extension, their right to safety.

Under SA 2, a 5% tax would be imposed on any membership or access fee for gun clubs, shooting ranges, hunt clubs, training classes and match fees. Not only is this an abhorrent tax on your Second Amendment rights, it also requires that any of those places/people to register with the state and pay an annual fee of $75 just so that they can offer their service or membership with the 5% tax added.

By increasing the price of self-defense classes as well as any fee spent on range time and practice, this amendment is making it more expensive for Illinoisans to seek training to be able to defend themselves. SA 2 to Senate Bill 9 effectively sees Illinois residents' right to safety as an opportunity to ease the budget burden on the entirety of the state.

Further, any repair, servicing, alteration, fitting, cleaning, painting, coating, towing, inspection, or maintenance of tangible personal property is also taxable under SA 2. This section would include all gunsmithing and gun refinishing under taxable services.

It is extremely important that NRA members and Second Amendment supporters contact their state Senator and strongly urge them to oppose Senate Amendment 2 to Senate Bill 9. The Second Amendment rights and right to safety of Illinoisans is not something that the legislature should tax.

View post:
Illinois: Anti-Gun Tax Proposed on Exercising Second Amendment Rights - NRA ILA

Thomas Hardiman may be Donald Trumps nominee for the Supreme Court. (Duquesne University School of Law)

Thomas Hardiman may become the nextUnited States Supreme Court justice.

President Donald Trump will reveal his pick for the Supreme Court on Tuesday night; this is the person who will be replacing Antonin Scalia. One of the men emerging as a front-runner isThomas Hardiman, who is currently a judge ontheUnited States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; he works there alongside Donald Trumps sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, who is a senior judge.

Hardiman is 53 years old, meaning he could realistically serve on the Supreme Court for over 30 years, dramatically shaping American policy from now into the 2050s. Based onHardimans previous rulings, we can get a pretty good idea of where he stands politically, although its not clear where he comes down on certain issues. For instance, Hardiman has not really weighed in on abortion, although the fact that he is on the presidentslist indicates that he is pro-life, considering Trump has said he will require this of his Supreme Court nominees.

So who isThomas Hardiman, the potential next Supreme Court justice? Heres what you need to know about his positions on somekey issues.

Thomas Hardiman is a registered Republican. (Western District of Pennsylvania)

According to the Pittsburgh City Paper,Thomas Hardiman registered as a Republican in 1994 after previously not having been registered with a party.

In 1999, he supported Republican businessmanJim Roddey asAllegheny County executive and donated$8,500 to his campaign; he went on to serve as a co-chair onRoddeys transition team. Roddey then appointed Hardiman to the position of treasurer of the Republican Committee of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania.

During the next few years of his legal career, Hardiman often represented Republicans, such as in a case where Democrats argued a candidate for a senate race in Pennsylvania could not serve military duty and run for office at the same time.

Fred Thieman, a Democratic lawyer who worked withThomas Hardiman at Titus & McConomy, said in 2003 thatHardiman is not an overly political person. This was when Hardiman was appointed by President George W. Bush to be a judge of theUnited States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

I find anyone who wears their politics on their sleeve, Democrat or Republican, as bothersome. And Tom isnt one of them, Thieman said. Id be really comfortable in front of [Hardiman] as a judge.

Law enforcement officers in New Jersey, on September 19, 2016. (Getty)

In the case ofFlorence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders,Thomas Hardiman argued that police can strip-search individuals who have been arrested for any crime, regardless of if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is carrying contraband and regardless of how long the person is being held for.

Hardiman concluded that this would not qualify as anunreasonable search and seizure and therefore does not violate theFourth Amendment to the Constitution.

In his argument, Hardiman said that prevention of the entry of illegal weapons and drugs is vital to the protection of inmates and prison personnel alike and that the strip-search procedures reasonably balance the Jails security interests at the time of intake before arrestees enter the general population against the privacy interests of the inmates.

This case went to the Supreme Court, wherethe district courts decision was affirmed.

Customers shop for a handgun at Metro Shooting Supplies on November 12, 2014 in Bridgeton, Missouri. (Getty)

In the case ofUnited States of America vs. James Francis Barton, Jr., Hardiman rejected a challenge to a law preventing felons from purchasing guns, saying that this restriction does not violate the Second Amendment.

However, in 2016, he specifiedinDaniel Binderup v. Attorney General of United States of America and Director Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms & Explosives that this restriction can only apply to dangerous individuals who are likely to use the weapons for illicit purposes. The plaintiff in this case had been convicted of a non-violent crime.

According to SCOTUS Blog, Hardiman wrote thatthe most cogent principle that can be drawn from traditional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms is that dangerous persons likely to use firearms for illicit purposes were not understood to be protected by the Second Amendment, and he said that the defendants in thiscase did not fall into that category.

In the case ofDrake v. Filko, Hardiman argued against a New Jersey law that required gun owners to show a justifiable need to own a weapon.

In 2013, a school district banned students from wearing I Heart Boobies bracelets. (YouTube/keep-a-breast.org/

In the case of B.H. ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area School District, the court held that when a school banned students from wearing I Heart Boobies bracelets, which are intended to promote breast cancer awareness, this was a violation of the First Amendment.

However, Hardiman disagreed, writing the dissentin favor of the school. He said that it was objectively reasonable to interpret the bracelets, in the middle school context, as inappropriate sexual innuendo and double entendre. He added that ruling in favor of the students wouldpermit more egregiously sexual advocacy messages.

However, he did say that this was a close case and that the bracelets would seem to fall into a gray area between speech that is plainly lewd and merely indecorous.

A Bible is open at the Time In Destiny Church held at the Universal Hilton Hotel on March 30th, 2008. (Getty)

Hardiman has weighed in on a number of issues concerning the separation of Church and state over the years, such as the 2008 case of Busch vs. Marple Newton School District.

With this case, an Evangelical mother sued a school district when they would not allow her to read from the Bible during a Kindergarten show and tell. The school district won, but Hardiman wrote the dissent arguing in defense ofthe mother.

I believe the school went too far in this case in limiting participation in All About Me week to nonreligious perspectives, he wrote, going on to say that this clearly constituted discrimination.

Hardiman also ruled against a school district in the case of Ayers v.Pocono Mountain School District, in which a student was prohibited from distributing flyers to her classmates promoting a Christmas party at her church. The court ruled against the school district, saying that the school had not provided evidence that the students actions would threaten a substantial disruption of the school environment or interfere with the rights of others.

See more here:
Thomas Hardiman's Political Views: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know - Heavy.com

In his own words, President Donald J. Trump supports the Second Amendment, reinforcing the fact that law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms. On May 20, 2016, during his presidential campaign, speaking at the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum, President Trump pledged his support to the NRA. Reiterating his pledge to a packed room, he said, I will not let you down.

President Trump took an aggressive stance during his first week in office, implementing swift action on a number pledges he made to the American people during the course of his campaign. It should come as no surprise from hisrequest to review and identify the flaws in Obamacare then replace them with more affordable, lower deductible, multi-choice option plans for everyone; to his high-priority request to review and expedite best practices for moving forward with infrastructure projects that he is fast tracking and making good on all of his previously outlined campaign promises.

Considering the speed with which hes implemented hisexecutive orders to secure our borders and review our immigration processes, there should be nodoubt that President Trump will also implement executive orders censuring the past administrationsprevious actions of gun control, which undermine the Second Amendment.

With impending executive actionson the horizon, the president has the opportunity toseal his pledge to the NRA and the millions of law-abiding Americans who responsibly own and carry guns for personal protection, hunting, and for sport. Obamas previous actions that compromised Americans rights to legally possess and bear arms, per the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, will hopefully soon be repealed.

Stay tuned for breaking news updates on his expected soon-to-be penned2A-related orders.

Author's Bio: Pamela Jablonski

Read the original here:
Trump's Executive Orders on Gun Control Expected Soon - Bearing Arms

Mark L. Hopkins More Content Now

A few months back I wrote a column entitled, Guns dont kill people. Really? My column usually will draw between 30 and 40 responses each week, some positive and some negative. The Guns dont kill people, column kept me answering emails through much of the next week and beyond. Beginning today, I am going to write three columns that relate to the gun issue of The Second Amendment of the Constitution. The others will appear over the next couple of weeks. So, stay tuned.

The Second Amendment reads, 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.

When the Guns dont kill people, column was published I heard from a number of NRA members. The NRA has often claimed that back in the late 18th century the men who are known as the framers of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that would have the weaponry at hand to take down the U.S. government should it become tyrannical. The actual history which preceded the Second Amendment says otherwise. It says, in fact, that the framers of the constitution wanted a strong federal government. To protect that government, they wanted a Second Amendment that would legally create and arm state citizen-based militias capable of stopping citizen rebellions and insurrections against state or federal governments. Though we can date the creation of the National Guard back to 1636 in Massachusetts, the Second Amendment was the first official reference to such militia at the federal level.

So, why did the framers of the Constitution believe they needed an armed militia? The key leaders of the United States at the time were wealthy members of what was in effect an American aristocracy, men like George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin. Because of their own experience and knowledge of European countries, especially England and France, they clearly understood the need for an orderly, controlled, and smooth-running society, not only for the general population but also to protect their own economic interests. They understood this because they and many other Americans had already experienced the negative effects of citizen rebellions here in their own new country.

By the time the Second Amendment was passed the United States government had already experienced several citizen rebellions. Chief among these were Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whisky Rebellion in Pennsylvania. This was at a time when the federal government did not have an army. Without a military unit available to assert control they had no way to deal with such rebellions. In Boston, a wealthy group of merchants put together a militia to stop Shays rebellion. Two years later when the Whisky Rebellion occurred in western Pennsylvania President George Washington was alarmed enough that he put together his own militia, marched into Pennsylvania and arrested the perpetrators. In short, the countrys leadership had experienced citizen rebellions and wanted something with teeth to handle such problems in the future.

In subsequent columns I will lay out the foundational history that precipitated the creation of the gun clause in the Second amendment. The next column will focus on President George Washingtons perspective on the rebellions and what he thought should be done about them.

For those who believe that I am twisting the tail of the tiger by again broaching the sore subject of gun ownership and control, please view this effort as one of promoting discussion. I am not for removing guns from homes. Such would be as impossible as sending 11 million illegal aliens back to their home countries. Righting some wrongs is just not feasible. We have to make the best of our current situation. Our people have guns, more than 300 million of them, and most are not for going deer hunting on the weekend.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers. He is past president of colleges and universities in four states and currently serves as executive director of a higher-education consulting service. You will find Hopkins latest book, Journey to Gettysburg, on Amazon.com. Contact him at presnet@presnet.net.

Continue reading here:
Mark L. Hopkins: More on guns and the Second Amendment - Mail Tribune