Mediaboss Marketing

DENVER The Republican-controlled state Senate on Thursday hosted another debate about expanding Second Amendment rights.

Previous debates focused on magazine capacity and training of school employees to carry firearms.

Thursdays discussion concerned Senate Bill 6, which would amend the concealed carry law to include a provision allowing active-duty and honorably discharged military personnel younger than 21 to apply for permits. The bill was adopted and scheduled for a final reading before moving to the House.

Bill sponsor Sen. John Cooke, R-Greeley, said the measure was inspired by his step-daughter who serves in the military.

Half her unit was deployed in Afghanistan. They can go to Iraq or can go to Afghanistan and defend themselves, but they cannot come back here to the state of Colorado, because they are under the age of 21, to get a conceal carry permit, Cooke said.

Sen. Daniel Kagan, D-Cherry Hills Village, said he was concerned about increasing the number of guns on the streets and the impulse control of adults under 21, even if they were military personnel.

When deployed, these military personnel are allowed to carry guns, but they are closely supervised by superior officers, Kagan said. There are very strict rules about when, where and how they carry those firearms and when, where and how they use them.

Sen. Vicki Marble, R-Fort Collins, said this is based upon the assumption that the young adults who had served in the military were the same as those who had not.

These 18- to 20-year-olds are incredible young people who have been through a great deal of stress, a great deal of hardship, a great deal of loss, she said. They have seen things we will never see, and what really gets under my skin is that we seem to lump them in with everyone else. They are not everyone else.

The bill represents the sixth piece of legislation focusing on gun laws this session.

Four of these bills have originated in the Republican-held Senate, were passed by committees to the full floor and are expected to go to the House, which the Democrats control.

The other two originated in the House, but both died in the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, the so called kill committee.

This committee is the likely landing spot for Second Amendment bills passed by the Senate.

lperkins@durangoherald.com

Read the original:
Colorado Senate debates Second Amendment bill - The Durango Herald

Feb 16 Pc Connection Inc

* On Feb. 10, 2017, Co entered into second amendment to third amended and restated credit and security agreement with Citizens Bank

* Pursuant to amendment, Co renewed for an additional five years its existing $50.0 million secured revolving credit facility- SEC filing

* Secured revolving credit facility, may be increased to $80.0 million at option of company in certain circumstances Source text for Eikon: Further company coverage:

* Fitch on Rolls-Royce Holdings- downgrade reflects view that Rolls-Royce will achieve a weaker than expected recovery in its key credit metrics

ROME, Feb 17 An Italian audit court prosecutor said on Friday she is seeking total damages of 4.1 billion euros ($4.36 billion) over derivatives transactions between Italy's Treasury and U.S. bank Morgan Stanley.

MOSCOW, Feb 17 Russia's Economy Minister Maxim Oreshkin said on Friday he had discussed a recent sharp strengthening of the rouble currency with President Vladimir Putin, TASS news agency reported.

Read more from the original source:
BRIEF-PC Connection enterS into second amendment to third amended and restated credit and security agreement ... - Reuters

WEDNESDAY, FEB. 15, 2017, 1:16 P.M.

From the office of U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo:

Idaho Senator Mike Crapo today voted to support a Resolution of Disapproval that will stop a rule issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA) from stripping the Second Amendment rights of some Social Security beneficiaries.

Todays resolution of disapproval will stop the Social Security Administration from stigmatizing people with disabilities and stripping beneficiaries of their Second Amendment rights, said Crapo, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Social Security Administration is not a court of law and it is unacceptable that it take any action against a beneficiary without due process. Congress has done the right thing to stop this overreach and repeal this rule.

Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress may submit a joint resolution of disapproval to overturn a final rule issued by an Executive Branch agency. The resolution approved today will halt a rule submitted by SSA in December 2016. The rule requires SSA to report individuals who have been adjudicated as mentally defective to the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS). Under the rule, individuals who have been appointed a representative payee may also be submitted to NICS. In some cases, the SSA may appoint, or a beneficiary may request, a representative payee to assist a beneficiary with managing their benefits. The wide-ranging rule will affect many Americans as more than eight million beneficiaries need help managing their benefits, according to SSA. Earlier this year, Senator Crapo introduced a bill to effectively overturn the rule and highlighted it in an op-ed this month. The Resolution passed today by the Senate will enact the changes Senator Crapo sought to address with his legislation.

The measure now goes to President Trump who is expected to sign the measure.

Agree/disagree with this resolution?

Posted Feb. 15, 2017, 1:16 p.m.

More:
Crapo backs 2nd Amendment action - The Spokesman-Review (blog)

Harrisburg Daily Register

Mark L. Hopkins: Why did the US Constitution need the Second Amendment? Harrisburg Daily Register This preoccupation with the Second Amendment began a few months back when I wrote a column entitled Guns don't kill people. Really? The amount of interest in that topic directed me to do additional research on the subject and every avenue pointed ... Revise Second AmendmentYakima Herald-Republic all 5 news articles »

Read the original:
Mark L. Hopkins: Why did the US Constitution need the Second Amendment? - Harrisburg Daily Register

Mark Hopkins | Special to the Daily News

Why did we need a militia/gun amendment added to the Constitution?

As is true with most momentous decisions in the life of our country, to fully understand why something was done, we must study the times in which such decisions were made.

The why of the Second Amendment in the 1780s is very different from answering that same question in 2017. The United States was a very different country in the years following the Revolution than it is today. When President Washington first took office, two key challenges faced him and the leadership in Congress.

First, the Revolutionary War had concluded just eight years before. England had been defeated on our shores and withdrew their troops. However, that didnt make us the strongest nation on the globe. England still had the strongest combination of army and navy. They still controlled Canada, just a short trip up the Hudson River from New York City. In short, they were still a threat to us.

At the conclusion of the war, General Washington and the leadership in Congress did not have the money to support a standing army. It was the consensus that the U.S. must make do with smaller, live-at-home militia units in the various states rather than a centralized army. Thus, it was their hope that the new country could be protected with a citizen army that was armed and ready to be called up at a moments notice. To make that work, each military age male needed to be armed and ready if needed.

Second, several citizen rebellions had occurred between the end of the war and the time of the passage of the new Constitution. Principal among these were the Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Without the creation of a local militia, neither state had the firepower to protect the government or the people.

In short, our young country did not have the money to support a standing army so adding the Second Amendment was for the expressed purpose of making sure that each state had the legal right to call men to arms. Just as important, it was necessary that those men were able to join the militia fully armed and ready to defend their state and their government.

The contention from some that the framers of the Constitution adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could take down the U.S. government should it become tyrannical just has no credence in history.

In past columns about the Second Amendment, we have established the historical context of the creation of the Second Amendment. The primary purpose was to create a legal foundation for a state militia, the forerunner of our National Guard. President Washington not only wrote letters to support such action but actually created his own militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Congress supported his action by creating The Militia Act, that allowed states to call up militia units to protect the government and the people as needed.

Resources used for these columns on the Second Amendment came from His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis (2004), James Madisons arguments for a strong federal government in The Federalist Papers, (1777-78) and The Readers Companion to American History by John A. Garraty and Eric Foner, which tells the stories of Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

If a reader missed the two earlier columns, contact me at presnet@presnet.net for copies.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers.

Originally posted here:
MARK HOPKINS: Why did the Constitution need the Second Amendment? - Holmes County Times Advertiser