Mediaboss Marketing

Kyle Roerink

Daniel Lawson, a lobbyist for the American Knife and Tool Institute, holds a knife with a two-inch blade that he says is much more of a tool than it is a deadlyweapon.

By Kyle Roerink (contact)

Wednesday, March 4, 2015 | 2 a.m.

Carson City

Its the other Second Amendment debate dividing the Legislature.

And it has nothing to do with guns.

Two bills aiming to relax current knife laws are raising new questions about the right to bear arms in a legislative session embroiled by gun legislation, setting up a battle between law enforcement and pro-knife advocates.

Lobbyists representing knife makers and owners are pushing the legislation as a civil rights matter and say murky descriptions in state law are unjustly limiting knife constitutional rights in the state. Law enforcement says loosening knife laws could prove lethal for police and the public.

The proposed laws would allow the manufacture and sale of switchblades, currently an illegal knife, in Nevada. They would also legalize the concealed carry of machetes, switchblades, dirks and daggers while eliminating a permit requirement for openly carrying them.

See more here:
Bearing other arms: Lawmakers take stab at loosening knife laws

CS:GO- The Second Amendment.
R.I.P. 24.1 GB of footage.

By: PCRevolt

Read more from the original source:
CS:GO- The Second Amendment. - Video

BOSTON The state's highest court has ruled that Massachusetts' ban on the possession of stun guns does not violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Judicial Court, in a unanimous decision on Monday, upheld the 2011 conviction of Jamie Caetano in Ashland. Police investigating a shoplifting report found the stun gun in the woman's purse.

Caetano told police she carried the weapon as self-defense against an abusive former boyfriend and argued in her appeal that she had a constitutional right to carry it.

The justices disagreed, saying a stun gun which can administer incapacitating electrical shocks is not the type of weapon that is subject to Second Amendment protection.

The court said it was up to the state Legislature to determine if they should be legal in Massachusetts.

Read the original:
High court upholds Massachusetts ban on stun guns

BOSTON The states highest court has ruled that Massachusetts ban on the possession of stun guns does not violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Judicial Court, in a unanimous decision on Monday, upheld the 2011 conviction of Jamie Caetano in Ashland. Police investigating a shoplifting report found the stun gun in the womans purse.

Caetano told police she carried the weapon as self-defense against an abusive former boyfriend and argued in her appeal that she had a constitutional right to carry it.

The justices disagreed, saying a stun gun which can administer incapacitating electrical shocks is not the type of weapon that is subject to Second Amendment protection.

The court said it was up to the state Legislature to determine if they should be legal in Massachusetts.

Story continues below

Read more here:
Mass. High Court Upholds State Ban On Stun Guns

By JOE CARLSON

jcarlson@njherald.com

ANDOVER TWP. The Second Amendment Foundation recently announced it was financially backing a township man in his fight against the state's justifiable need law to carry a handgun.

That's actually very important because financially it will allow the case to go all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court if it is allowed to get that far, said Israel Albert Almeida, the suit's namesake.

Almeida said the foundation is fully financing his efforts.

This is part of our ongoing effort to have New Jersey carry laws declared unconstitutional, said Alan Gottlieb, Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president, in a press release. We were drawn to Almeida's case because it provides one more example of how the Garden State's concealed carry law is simply Draconian in the way it is administered.

In New Jersey, when residents apply to either their municipality's police chief or New Jersey State Police, they must specify the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than an issuance of a permit to carry a handgun.

Almeida was denied by Andover Police Chief Achille Taglialatela, who cited a lack of justifiable need in 2013.

Almeida said his need is that he manages buildings in Essex County, specifically Newark and Irvington, and has been the subject of death threats and an attempted carjacking.

I carry large amounts of cash, and people around there know that, Almeida said. The areas I enter are very high crime. I face that every single day.

Original post:
Second Amendment group backs Andover Twp. mans bid to carry gun