Mediaboss Marketing

What happens when you mix contempt for individual rights with a healthy dose of willful ignorance and fear? You get the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court thats teaching the legal Left the recipe for attacking the Second Amendment.

Twice in less than a month, the court has radically restricted the constitutional rights of gun owners. In January, it held that even lawful gun owners are inherently dangerous and can face limitations on their constitutional rights, including the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, simply because they possess a gun. In the words of a concurring judge:

In sum, individuals who carry firearms lawfully or unlawfully pose a risk of danger to themselves, law enforcement officers, and the public at large. Accordingly, law enforcement officers may frisk lawfully stopped individuals whom the officers reasonably suspect are carrying a firearm because a detainees possession of a firearm poses a categorical danger to the officers.

But this holding, as dangerous as it is, pales in comparison with the courts decision yesterday, when it not only upheld Marylands assault-weapons ban but categorically stated that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to own so-called assault weapons or the right to own a magazine that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition.

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. To illustrate how, lets turn to the next part of the formula willful ignorance.

RELATED: The Fourth Circuit Runs Roughshod over Heller and the Second Amendment

In discussing the civilian, semi-automatic AR-15, the court comprehensively described the history of the military, fully automatic weapon that became the M-16 (and also the lighter and shorter M-4). Then, attempting to equate the M-16 and the AR-15, it published this spit-out-your-coffee sentence: Semiautomatic weapons can be fired at rates of 300 to 500 rounds per minute, making them virtually indistinguishable in practical effect from machineguns.

The word rates does a lot of work in that sentence. Yes, a person can pull the trigger very quickly on a semi-auto rifle (of any type) for a very short time. No, you cannot send 300 to 500 rounds downrange in one minute. You cant even do it with an M-16 in burst mode.

To the Fourth Circuit, every shooters the same as the legendary Jerry Miculek:

But wait, he can do the exact same thing with an M1 Garand, an actual (more powerful) military weapon thats specifically exempted from Marylands ban. As the dissent notes, under the majoritys reasoning, it is legal in Maryland to possess a rifle that was actually used by our military on the battlefield, but illegal to possess a rifle never used by our military.

The majority also argues that the AR-15 is like the M-16 because soldiers typically fire their weapons in semi-automatic mode. True enough. They also use exclusively semi-auto pistols, sometimes use bolt-action sniper rifles, and brought pump-action shotguns to combat for generations. By that reasoning, virtually every firearm is like a military weapon.

What really is the limiting principle? Thats where we get to the final ingredient in the unconstitutional stew fear.

The court begins its opinion by reciting the horrible facts of the Sandy Hook massacre. It then walks through shooting after shooting in which the killers used assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, or both. These anecdotes are horrible, but the plural of anecdote is not data, and the data show that fewer people are murdered by rifles than by fists or feet and that a previous nationwide assault-weapons ban led to no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence. Indeed, even if the ban had been renewed, its effects on gun violence [were] likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.

Even more perniciously, the court hypes the fear of mass shootings at the same time that it takes from civilians the best weapon for confronting a mass shooter a semi-automatic handgun carrying a high-capacity magazine. Even though law-abiding holders of concealed-carry permits commit less crime than the police (more data for the court) and have stopped mass shootings time and again, the Fourth Circuit mandates that they be outgunned in the face of the common threat of a large-capacity magazine.

Lets put this as plainly as possible. This court has determined that your right to self-defense is limited to the use of weapons less effective than those used in the most notorious massacres. In other words, criminals define your rights. Whatever gun they choose to use in the rarest of crimes, youre going to have to settle for less, even if the criminal retains broad and easy access to superior firepower. After all, the Fourth Circuit, in its infinite gun wisdom, has determined that no one has needed to fire more than ten rounds to protect himself.

Heres the bottom line, citizens of Maryland: A federal court has defied the Supreme Court and decided that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is limited to those guns that have no modern military analog and have not (yet) been used to carry out a mass shooting. So dust off those pearl-handled revolvers. Learn to shoot like Doc Holliday. Criminals wont comply with Marylands brainless law, so your aim had better beat their firepower.

In two key cases, deception, fear, and ignorance have overcome the Constitution. This is how Heller dies one defiant decision at a time.

David French is a staff writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Read the original:
A Federal Court of Appeals Goes to War against the Second Amendment - National Review

Rep. Keith Ellison denied Thursday that he previously said the Democratic Party should come out against the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

That is not what I said at all, Mr. Ellison said during a CNN debate between the candidates seeking to lead the Democratic National Committee, after he was asked about a 2012 appearance he made on Real Time with Bill Maher.

In the episode, Mr. Ellison told the HBO host that he supported common-sense gun rules.

When Mr. Maher countered that the party should come out against the Second Amendment, Mr. Ellison said, I sure wish they would. I sure wish they would.

In the CNN debate, Mr. Ellison said his comments are being taken out of context.

I did not say that, he said. That was not an accurate statement.

The Minnesota Democrat then said he hunts with a conservative Democrat in rural Minnesota and said that he supports stricter background checks for guns.

Read the original here:
Keith Ellison denies saying Democrats should come out against 2nd amendment, guns - Washington Times

Just weeks after the mass shooting at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida, the local Orlando gay community reached out to NRA Certified Firearms InstructorJo Martinin an effort to start their own Pink Pistols chapter.

Now, almost nine months later, the Central Florida chapter of Pink Pistols has noticed an increase in attendance at their monthly meetings. The Pulse tragedy, although recognized by the LGBTQ community as a terror incident, has also reaffirmed their vulnerability as it relates to hate crimes and the need for self defense. In fact, there was so much interest in the group that Martin is now starting a second organization shes calling the Rainbow Shooting Club.

Martin saidthrough a generous donation made by a Connecticut gun manufacturer, the firearms classes are now being provided to the LGBTQ community free of charge. The grant covers everything: the costs of the training materials, instruction, range time, rental firearms, evenammunition.

The thought of me holding a gun is terrifying, said Diana Georgey, who signed up for the classes. She told NBC affiliateWESH-TV. It (the Pulse Shooting) affected me in a way that I felt like I cant ever go anywhere and be safe.

According to Martin, this was the sentiment of a majority of her LGBTQ students. However, she has noticed a change. The group now appears to be embracing not just firearms, but an overall support of the Second Amendment.

Martin, a Scottish immigrant to the United States and staunch Second Amendment advocate, said she never discussed politics in her classes before, but thats changed. Many of her LGBTQ students have questions and they cant be ignored. She said this community has so much misinformation, especially about conservatives and the Second Amendment.

The media is negative and divisive and Im just glad I can provide factual information that I hope can open up some minds, said Martin. Its ok to have a difference of opinion, but conservatives are much more tolerant than the media gives us credit for; why is it we have to have a tragedy of this magnitude to bring people together? We need to make it clear that we cherish not only our rights, but each other too.

Through the efforts of Jo Martin, her training crew, and their positive Second Amendment advocacy, the Central Florida Pink Pistols, a previously skeptical community now understands the importance of embracing and supporting their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Author's Bio: Pamela Jablonski

Read the original post:
Central Florida's LGBTQ Community Begins to Embrace Second Amendment - Bearing Arms

Residents on Wednesday night show support for the Borough Council.(Photo: Tom Nobile/NorthJersey.com)

RAMSEY The Borough Council approved an outside legal defense Wednesday night as it prepares for litigation against an ordinance that would block a 60,620-square-foot gun range from coming to town.

Troutman Sanders, an international law firm based in New York, will defend the borough on a pro bono basis, said Mayor Deirdre Dillon.

On March 8, the council will vote to amend a 1961 ordinance that prohibits the firing of any pistol, shotgun, rifle or other type of firearms anywhere in the borough. The ordinance currently contains an exemption for gun ranges, but the council plans to remove that loophole.

Local officials put forth the ordinance change as a matter of public health and safety, justweeks after a Pennsylvania developer proposed the range to the Planning Board last month.

Multiple parties have pledged to sue if the ordinance is adopted. Among them is the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, an advocacy group for gun owners. President Alexander Roubian said his organization is ready to partner with the Second Amendment Foundation, a national nonprofit, on filing a complaint in federal court.

James Jaworski, an attorney for the range, also plans to protect his clients constitutional rights if necessary.

Troutman Sanders brings experience arguing before the appellate division and Supreme Court, according to Dillon.This is a constitutional law issue, she said.

Roubian said his attorneys are eager to take the case in light of the latest court decisions in Chicago. In years past, and most recently in January, the appellate court ruled against the city for trying to ban and limit gun ranges by zoning.

On a separate track, resident Chance Parker has created a legal fund to challenge the application at the Planning Board level. To date, it has raised $4,500 of its $25,000 goal. The money would help hire an independent planner, engineer and environmental consultant to review the application.

Were trying to provide an effective third-party opinion, he said.

The full-service firing range would have 67 firing stalls, a space for retail sales, gun rentals and a restaurant. Members would have access to locker and bath facilities, and a country-club-style room with a fireplace, billiards and gaming.

Read or Share this story: http://northjersy.news/2lxL2BS

Here is the original post:
Ramsey hires legal defense against 2nd Amendment challengers - NorthJersey.com

The Constitution does not allow the state to muzzle doctors who wish to inquire about gun safety.

Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by iStock.

In recent years, most states have been clever enough to dress up unconstitutional statutes in pretext that might just fool courts into affirming their legality. But apparently the Florida legislature did not get this memo, because in 2011, the state passed a law that did not really pretend to be anything other than what it was: a blatant act of censorship.

Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, struck down the bulk of Floridas Firearms Owners Privacy Act (FOPA) last Thursday in an emphatic and near-unanimous ruling. But the law, as well as the decision in Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Florida that has invalidated it, are worth examining at length because this fight is far from over. FOPA gagged doctors who wished to discuss gun safety with patients based on the contents and viewpoints of their speech. In defending it, pro-gun advocates have concocted a clash between the First and Second Amendments, hoping that the Second Amendment wins out. Just because they lost this battle does not mean they have given up on the broader war.

Some background: The sponsors of FOPA, frequently referred to as the docs vs. glocks bill, claimed they were responding to anecdotal evidence of Florida doctors talking to patients parents about gun safety in the home, which they felt constituted an egregious invasion of privacy. (You may remember one sponsor, Greg Evers, as the state senator who raffled off an AR-15.) In reality, the bill was peddled by the National Rifle Association, which donates significant sums to Floridas GOP state legislators and routinely requests favors in return. This particular gift was designed as a rebuke to the medical groupsincluding the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physiciansthat encourage physicians to talk to parents about childproofing firearms. These groups and their members believe firearm safety education is critical, especially in a country with so many gun accidents involving children.

The NRA does not want physicians to talk to patients about firearm safety. It considers a mere question about gun ownership, as well as advice about childproofing guns, to be a privacy violation meant to advance a political agenda, according to the courts majority opinion. FOPA prohibits doctors from asking patients or their parents about guns in the home; recording the answer to such questions; harassing a patient about firearm ownership during an examination; and discriminating against patients on the basis of gun ownership.

In a lengthy ruling, the 11th Circuit struck down all these provisionsexcept the nondiscrimination ruleas a violation of the First Amendment. The issue of free speech protections for professional expression, particularly in the course of medical treatment, is notoriously thorny. Courts typically give the government more leeway to regulate speech issued in the course of professional conduct: For instance, states can, without infringing upon the First Amendment, ban harmful treatments that involve speech, like conversion therapy. But the court found that FOPA is a different beast: It takes direct aim at doctors speech on the basis of its content, one of the most insidious kinds of censorship.

Protecting the Second Amendment right of Floridians from private encumbrances may, as Florida claimed, outweigh constitutional protections for free speechbut there was no evidence whatsoever, the court noted, that any doctors or medical professionals have taken away patients firearms or otherwise infringed on patients Second Amendment rights. As the court wryly added, This evidentiary void is not surprising because doctors and medical professionals, as private actors, do not have any authority (legal or otherwise) to restrict the ownership or possession of firearms by patients (or by anyone else for that matter).

Florida may generally believe that doctors and medical professionals should not ask about, nor express views hostile to, firearm ownership, the court explained, but it may not burden the speech of others in order to tilt public debate in a preferred direction.

Next, Florida argued that the legislature passed FOPA to protect patient privacy. (This, by the way, is the same legislature that also passed a law granting the state broad access to patient recordsat abortion clinics.) But as the court noted, there is no evidence that doctors or medical professionals have been improperly disclosing patients information about firearm ownership. Moreover, patients are fully empowered to not answer doctors questions about firearms. So any patients who have privacy concerns about information concerning their firearm ownership, the court writes, can simply refuse to answer questions on the topic.

Several other judges then took turns clobbering the law on different grounds. Judge Stanley Marcus, writing for a majority of the court, explained why FOPAs anti-harassment provision is also an unconstitutionally vague restriction on speech. Judge Charles R. Wilson, joined by Judge Beverly B. Martin, slammed that act as a subversive attempt to stop a perceived political agenda [that] chills speech based on not only content but also a particular viewpoint.

And even the extreme conservative Judge William Pryor felt moved to concur, expressing his belief that the profound importance of the Second Amendment does not give the government license to violate the right to free speech under the First Amendment. Only one judge, Gerald Bard Tjoflat, disagreed, devoting his dissenting opinion to a bizarre attack on the Supreme Courts current free speech jurisprudence.

Top Comment

. More...

These multiple writings all drive home the same critical point: FOPA marked an attempt to limit the protections of the First Amendment by expanding the scope of the Second Amendment. Floridas radical defense of FOPA held that the Second Amendment is so powerful that, in order to safeguard it, the state should be allowed to diminish other constitutional rights. The 11th Circuit was right to reject this argument. Florida already does a great deal to protect the rights of gun owners in the name of the Second Amendment. But the Constitution does not allow the state to muzzle doctors who wish to inquire about gun safety.

In recent years, a considerable amount of ink has been spilled criticizing the American left for allegedly censoring speech it finds offensive. But FOPA is one of the most censorial pieces of legislation to emerge from a state in this decadeand it is the work of Republican legislators, and a Republican governor, whose intentions were to shield gun owners, those delicate snowflakes, from experiencing a brief moment of mild discomfort. There are real threats to free speech in America today. But they are more likely to emerge from Republican statehouses than from liberal college campuses.

Excerpt from:
Docs vs. Glocks Shows the Threat to Free Speech Is the Pro-Gun Right - Slate Magazine