Mediaboss Marketing

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is going to war with the U.S. Supreme Courts Heller decision, and its reasoning is both troubling and erroneous. Essentially, the court says Americans have no inherent right to own vaguely defined assault weapons.

That ruling, if later upheld by a post-Scalia Supreme Court, would gut the Second Amendment - which was never about hunting.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment doesnt protect assault weapons - an extraordinary decision keenly attuned to the brutal havoc these firearms can wreak, writes Slate magazine. Issued by the court sitting en banc, Tuesdays decision reversed a previous ruling in which a panel of judges had struck down Marylands ban on assault weapons and detachable large capacity magazines.

The majority opinion begins with an appeal to emotion, by citing a list of recent shootings. It then goes on to invent an entirely new test for Second Amendment policy - whether guns or devices have a military purpose.

Whatever their other potential, the court wrote, such weapons are unquestionably most useful in military service. That is, the banned assault weapons are designed to kill or disable the enemy on the battlefield.

These military combat features have a capability for lethality - more wounds, more serious, in more victims - far beyond that of other firearms in general, including other semiautomatic guns.

As Slate sums up, the AR-15 is a weapon of war, not the tool of self-defense envisioned by the Heller court, and therefore can and should be regulated.

Thats flawed reasoning, says Daniel Horowitz in the Conservative Review.

The notion that any common weapon can be banned violates the inalienable right to self-defense, which predated the Second Amendment, he writes. It is a natural right. Yet, given that we live in a world where rights come from the Supreme Court, we should at least ensure that lower courts properly read the text of the Heller decision.

He quotes Justice Scalia, who wrote that majority opinion: A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

The Fourth Circuit says its balancing interests - the right of self-defense versus public safety. That, too, is flawed, Horowitz contends.

There is no government interest balancing for perceived benefits of public safety that can justify the infringement upon the right to self-defense for any commonly held weapon used for lawful purposes, he writes.

And thats clearly laid out in Heller.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution, that decision reads. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.

The Fourth Circuit was wrong in its reasoning and in its ruling.

Read this article:
Tyler Morning Telegraph - Editorial: Second Amendment rights aren ... - Tyler Morning Telegraph

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