Mediaboss Marketing

Mark L. Hopkins More Content Now

This is the second in a series of columns that relate to the purpose of the Second Amendment and the gun rights issue that continues to fester in our society. The first column pointed out the strong desire on the part of the leadership of the country to have a strong federal government. The focus here is in the feeling of necessity in the leadership to have a means to enforce federal law and to protect the government from citizen rebellions. The Second Amendment became the law of the land in 1791. Prior to that Daniel Shays, a former captain in the Continental Army, became the leader of a citizens rebellion in Massachusetts in response to what Shays and other farmers believed were high taxes and a government that was unresponsive to their grievances. In January 1787, they raided the arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts and continued their anti-government rebellions through the winter of that year. This was two years before the writing of the U.S. Bill of Rights with its all-important Second Amendment. Retired General George Washington was so upset by Shays Rebellion that he wrote three letters commenting on it. Excerpts from these letters follow: But for Gods sake tell me what is the cause of all these commotions. Do they proceed from licentiousness, British influence disseminated by Tories, or real grievances which admit of redress? In a second letter he worried that, Commotion of this sort, like snowballs, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them. I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe. Later he wrote, If three years ago any person had told me that at this day I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws and constitutions or our own making as now appears, I should have thought him a bedlamite, a fit subject for a mad house. Shays Rebellion was eventually put down when a group of wealthy merchants in Boston pooled their resources and created their own militia to quell the uprising. In the early 1790s, a second major rebellion began in Western Pennsylvania. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion and, again, was a revolt against taxes. Thus, the Second Amendment was written and signed into law in the shadow of these two major citizens rebellions. The U.S. Congress reacted to this second major rebellion by passing The Militia Act which gave teeth to the Second Amendment by requiring all military-age free adults to stand for service to enforce the laws of the Union, thereby insuring domestic tranquility. President Washington himself gave orders to form a militia of 13,000 men to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. His words later were ..this is how a well-regulated Militia should be used to serve the government in maintaining a strong security in each state, as the Second Amendment of The Bill of Rights intended. From the letters written by George Washington and the actions of Congress it is obvious that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to strengthen the Federal Government against rebellion and insurrection. It was not, as some contend, to equip the citizens to make war on the government. In fact, it was just the opposite. My first of the three gun rights columns focused on the desire of the U.S. leadership to have a strong central government and the means to protect that government from rebellion. In this column the focus has been on the like-minded efforts of both President George Washington and Congress to put teeth in the Second Amendment so security and an orderly society could be fostered. My third and final column on this subject will come next week.

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.

View original post here:
Mark L. Hopkins: The Second Amendment and Shays' Rebellion - Wicked Local Wayland

SALISBURY, NC (FOX 46) - There's renewed optimism among those in the gun business as gun owners say this new administration brings a better sense of stability to their second amendment rights.

It's a feeling those at the Salisbury Gun & Knife show say they haven't felt in nearly a decade.

"I'll think you'll see what the second amendment supporters feel is a repair on their rights and what they feel was tarnished over the last eight years," said promoter, BrandonCupp.

"I think everybody feels safe at least for the next four to eight years that they aren't going to have any problems getting any guns or buying any guns that they want," said Adam Ervin of Pistol Pop's Firearms.

Vendors are looking forward to the end of panic buying that took place during the Obama Administration. Those feel that over the next four years this will be a positive change for those that are pro second amendment.

"I think the gun industry is going to get better. People still want to protects themselves. One man, one administration is not going to keep crime down. It may help keep it down, but it won't totally be snuffed out," said Todd Edwards with Gold Rush Carolinas..

Go here to see the original:
Optimism over second amendment rights on display at Salisbury Gun & Knife Show - FOX 46 Charlotte

This week, President Trump kept one of his most important campaign promises by nominating an originalist judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalias death last February. Scalia was the courts foremost practitioner of originalism and textualism, judicial philosophies that seek to resolve constitutional questions by reference to the language of the document, as publicly understood at the time of its enactment.

This approach led Scalia to author the historic opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for defensive purposes.

Judge Gorsuchs embrace of originalism is a bulwark for our Second Amendment rights. When given the opportunity to consider the matter in his professional capacity, Judge Gorsuch has made clear that he understands the importance of the right to keep and bear arms.

In a case concerning a technical question of what the government must prove to establish a violation of the Gun Control Act, Judge Gorsuch noted that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly. His statements in that case strongly indicate that he would hold the government to a high standard before allowing it to strip someone of the right to keep and bear arms.

Its hardly a secret that many in the federal judiciary have not shown the Second Amendment the respect it deserves. Justice Thomas, another originalist on the Supreme Court noted as much in 2015 when dissenting from the courts refusal to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a San Francisco ordinance requiring firearms in the home to be kept locked away or disabled with a trigger lock. Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendments core protection for the right of self-defense, Thomas wrote, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it.

Opposition to Judge Gorsuchs confirmation has already started amongst gun control supporters, and they are once again proving that dishonesty is no impediment in pursuing their agenda. Addressing Judge Gorsuchs nomination, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi claimed that Judge Gorsuch favors felons over gun safety. This claim was nothing more than a desperate attempt to smear the distinguished jurist, which is why it has already been found to be false by the fact-checking (and left-leaning) website Politifact.

Disappointed supporters of Hillary Clinton are wailing, gnashing their teeth, and vowing to obstruct Judge Gorsuchs confirmation. Their tactics, as usual, are heavy on hysteria and short on facts or reason.

Yet both sides understood that the 2016 presidential election was largely a referendum on the future direction of the U.S. Supreme Court. The American people spoke loudly and clearly in favor of respecting the original meaning of the Constitution. The Senate should therefore do its sworn duty and swiftly confirm Judge Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read more from the original source:
Trump Supreme Court Nominee Neil M. Gorsuch Would Respect the Second Amendment - NRA ILA

Mark L. Hopkins | Special to the Daily News

A few months back I wrote a column titled, Guns dont kill people. Really? My column usually will draw between 30 and 40 responses each week, some positive and some negative. That column, however, kept me answering emails through much of the next week and beyond.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Read this article:
Mark L. Hopkins: More on guns and the Second Amendment - The Northwest Florida Daily News

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has asked congressional leaders to take action to protect Second Amendment rights of Social Security beneficiaries, according to a news release.

A group of 13 state attorneys general, including Schmidt, Wednesday urged congressional leaders to repeal an overreaching federal regulation that they said denies certain Social Security beneficiaries the right to keep and bear arms, according to the release.

In late December 2016, the Social Security Administration under then-President Obamas direction published a final rule that broadened a previously narrow prohibition for those adjudicated as a mental defective or who have been committed to a mental institution to include numerous individuals that Congress never intended to cover with this exclusion, such as program beneficiaries with representatives or alternate payees, according to the release.

This new rule allows the Social Security Administration to designate an individual a mental defective by its own discretion and relies heavily on overly broad definitions included in previous guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice, according to the release.

Read the original:
13 attorneys general seek Second Amendment protections | Local ... - Ottawaherald.com