Mediaboss Marketing

By Merrill Ring | Special to the Courier

The words A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the well-being of a Free State are, as Scalia (District of Columbia v. Heller) correctly points out, a preamble to the remaining words the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Preambles, especially in law, typically consist of explanations and justifications for what follows. The preamble to the entire Constitution sets the stage for the Constitution. It clearly communicates the intentions of the framers and the purpose of the document. The preamble is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers or individual rights.

What Scalia (and the Court) does, having noted that there is a preamble in the Second Amendment, is to toss it out as irrelevant to what the Court should hold about the Second. As a result, he takes the right of the people to be the only clause that the Court, in understanding, interpreting, this provision of the Constitution, must pay attention to. And, of course, that clause says flatly that there is an unexceptional (?) right to guns. Thus, the Courts rejection of gun control.

Should we go along with that? Should not the explanatory preamble be taken into consideration in deciding questions about whether people in this country should have a right to gun ownership?

The Courts aim is to understand the Constitution and its provisions. And that explanation in the preamble of why we should have that right is part of the Constitution. The Court, in its constitutional role, must consider the entire Second Amendment. Yet that is just what Scalia and the Court refused to do, treating the words in the preamble as rather like I say unto you, as if they were legal fluff.

However, the preamble explains why a certain right must exist. The reason for the right is that a militia is necessary to the defense of freedom. Given that, a certain consequence follows, a certain right must exist.

The background to understanding that reason is that, while the Constitution does provide for an army, it is not a standing army: Congress has the power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years (Article 1, Section 8). There is no provision, as there is for a navy, for an army being a continuing agency of the government, a continuing military force.

It is in the context of the provision against a standing army that the Second Amendment exists in the Constitution. It says that a militia is necessary to the countrys freedom (there being no standing army) and as a consequence it is necessary that citizens be armed, and as a consequence they have a right to be armed.

So, what happens when the country, contrary to the original Constitution, created a standing army? Then a militia is no longer necessary for its defense. That is, the condition mentioned in the preamble for having the right in question no longer exists: a militia is no longer necessary for the defense of the countrys freedom. As a result of the non-existence of the condition on which the right to gun ownership rests, the entire final clause becomes null and void. No such current right is thus established by the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment, as a result of the creation of a standing army, has become rather like the appendix in the human body: an irritating historical remnant. It, given the existence of a standing army, has no role to play in the Constitution and the country.

That conclusion does not mean that there is no right for citizens to own guns. That right can be defended under the Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Given that, at the time, guns were important to both personal and local defense and for use in hunting, a strong case can be made that gun ownership is a constitutional right.

But of course, the pro-gun faction in the country does not like that way of constitutionally supporting gun ownership. First, it does not make gun ownership an explicit constitutional right it becomes an inferred right. Inferred rights are not as solidly grounded as constitutionally explicit rights, ones so important to our way of life that this one is mentioned right there as the second item in the Bill of Rights. Second, the requirement in the Second Amendment that gun rights shall not be infringed is highly likely not to be part of an inferred right, and that means that all sorts of restrictions on gun ownership might be constitutionally acceptable under the Ninth Amendment and the core of the current pro-gun faction wants unrestricted access to and possession of guns.

For those reasons, the current pro-gun group wants the Second Amendment to be the constitutional source of a right to gun ownership. Consequently, they applaud the Courts misunderstanding.

Merrill Ring, a Claremont community activist for more than 40 years, is a retiredprofessor of philosophy and dedicated Courier letter writer.

See more here:
SCOTUS misses the point of the Second Amendment - Claremont Courier

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. That is it, the entire Second Amendment. Recently, seventy-thousand people went to the NRA convention in Indianapolis to celebrate their Second Amendment rights.

In 1791, when the Second amendment was passed, Arms referred to muzzle loading muskets and pistols. If skilled at reloading, a shooter could get a second shot off within a minute. Seems a bit more sporting than 70 to 90 rounds a minute.

When that kid in Texas killed all those students and teachers, where was his well-regulated militia? Wasnt that part of the Second Amendment deal? His plan was likely to commit suicide by cop but the cops were so impressed with his weapon that they stayed in the school hallway for 70 minutes while wounded children bled out.

Europe has a population of 749 million. In 2022, Europe had 10 mass shootings which was their highest number in decades. The U.S. population is less than half at 326 million. In 2022, we had 695 mass shootings and in 2021 we had 48,000 firearm homicides and suicides. It is painfully obvious that something is terribly wrong.

JON BOGLE

Williamsport

Submitted by email

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the article here:
The Second Amendment | News, Sports, Jobs - Williamsport Sun-Gazette

May 7 (Reuters) - Texas police on Sunday were investigating what motivated a 33-year-old gunman to kill at least eight people at a mall over the weekend, as President Joe Biden called for stricter gun laws.

The Texas Department of Public Safety on Sunday confirmed the identity of the assailant in Saturday's shooting as Mauricio Garcia, a 33-year-old resident of Dallas, Texas.

Police said Garcia killed eight people and wounded at least seven on Saturday afternoon at Allen Premium Outlets mall in Allen, a northern suburb of Dallas, before he was killed by police.

The killings were the latest in at least 199 mass shootings that have occurred in the United States so far in 2023, according to the nonprofit group Gun Violence Archive, which defines a mass shooting as any in which four or more people are wounded or killed, not including the shooter.

In a statement on Sunday, Biden renewed calls for the U.S. Congress to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as to enact universal background checks and end immunity for gun manufacturers. The president noted that Garcia had been wielding an AR-15 rifle and wearing tactical gear.

By Sunday evening, Texas law enforcement had not released any details about a possible motive, or the identities of the victims. A local ABC News affiliate reported that investigators had found several handguns, long guns and ammunition inside Garcia's car at the scene of the shooting.

A family member identified one of the slain victims on social media as Christian LaCour, a security guard.

"We watched this sweet young boy turn into a very sweet gentleman," Kellie Smith wrote in a Facebook post on Sunday, identifying LaCour as the brother of her daughter-in-law. "Words can not even begin to describe the devastation that our family feels."

Allen police said three wounded victims were hospitalized in critical condition on Sunday, and at least three were hospitalized in fair condition, including one at a children's hospital. The assailant fatally shot eight people, including at least one child, before a police officer killed him, police said on Saturday.

A graphic 10-second video was circulating on Twitter on Saturday, showing several dead bodies slumped against a planter and white wall bearing the sign of retailer H&M.

[1/13]A girl runs as other shoppers leave with their hands up after police responded to a gunman who shot and killed eight people and wounded at least seven others at Allen Premium Outlets mall north of Dallas, in Allen, Texas, U.S. May 6, 2023 in a still image from video. REUTERS/Reuters TV

At least one of the victims, lifeless and bloody, appears to be a young child. Reuters was able to verify the video was taken at the mall where the shooting took place.

In past shootings, social media sites have worked to take down links to such graphic images. An emailed request for comment to Twitter, which no longer has a communications team, returned an automated reply with a poop emoji.

The tragedy in Allen, which happened just over a week after another deadly shooting in the Texas town of Cleveland, reignited the heated debate over gun control in the United States.

The U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, a hot button issue for many Republicans who are backed by millions of dollars in donations from gun rights groups and manufacturers.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, called the shooting "devastating" in a Sunday interview on Fox News and said the way to prevent gun violence should involve addressing mental illness.

"There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of anger and violence that's taking place in America," he said. "We are working to address that anger and violence by going to his root cause, which is addressing the mental health problems behind it."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democrats stressed the need to pass stronger gun safety legislation to curtail gun violence.

On Sunday evening, Allen community members packed into Cottonwood Creek Church to hold a vigil for the victims.

"Our hearts were broken yesterday," Allen Mayor Ken Fulk told the congregation. "We thank you for your patience and understanding during this ongoing investigation."

(This story has been corrected to rectify the family member's relation to a deceased victim in paragraph 8)

Reporting by Maria Caspani in New York, Brad Brooks in Lubbock, Texas, Moira Warburton in Washington, and Brendan O'Brien in Chicago; Editing by Lisa Shumaker

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Thomson Reuters

Gabriella Borter is a reporter on the U.S. National Affairs team, covering cultural and political issues as well as breaking news. She has won two Front Page Awards from the Newswomens Club of New York - in 2020 for her beat reporting on healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and in 2019 for her spot story on the firing of the police officer who killed Eric Garner. The latter was also a Deadline Club Awards finalist. She holds a B.A. in English from Yale University and joined Reuters in 2017.

Read this article:
Texas police seek motive in mall shooting that killed 8 - Reuters

On April 28, Judge Stephen P. McGlynn of the Southern District of Illinois, in Barnett v. Raoul, issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the recently-passed Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), which bans "assault weapons" and standard-capacity magazines.

That morning, I had posted "A Judge Who Understands Firearms," describing the oral argument in which Judge McGlynn exhibited superior expertise about firearms and how they work, in contrast to the lack of such knowledge by too many judges.

At the beginning, the court stipulated the following proposition to which any court should agree: "no state may enact a law that denies its citizens rights that the Constitution guarantees them.Even legislation that may enjoy the support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens."

In finding that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits, the court brushed aside the argument that magazines holding more than the verboten number of cartridges are unnecessary to the functioning of a firearm and are thus not "arms." It didn't help Illinois that its own expert called them "arms"!

Also rejected was the argument that the prohibition on pistols with arm braces don't interfere with Second Amendment rights. Despite its recent attempt to restrict some braces, ATF itself recognizes that braces may be necessary for persons with disabilities to hold and fire certain pistols. Again, braces are "arms."

Next, the court succinctly summarized how the banned features facilitate the ability to accurately shoot and hit their intended target in case of confrontation, which is clearly protected by the Second Amendment:

Plaintiffs stated that "[a] pistol grip improves accuracy and reduces the risk of stray shots," that "[t]humbhole stocks likewise provide[] for greater accuracy and decreases the risk of dropping the firearm or firing stray shots," and that "flash suppressors not only prevent users from being blinded in low lighting conditions but also reduce recoil and muzzle movement, makingthe firearm less painful to use." Defendants' have also recognized that such items "facilitate . . . sustained accuracy." This Court agrees that in the case of each of these items "[t]he defensive application is obvious, as is the public safety advantage in preventing stray shots."

What a refreshing contrast to judicial opinions that superficially claim that pistol grips are designed to spray fire from the hip or that fail to address the specific banned features at all, opting instead to parrot the term "assault weapon" in every other sentence.

Next, Judge McGlynn found what is undeniable that AR-15s are in common use and thus meet the Heller-Bruen test for protected arms: "more than 24 million AR-15 style rifles are currently owned nationwide," and they accounted for "nearly half of the rifles produced in 2018, and nearly 20% of all firearms of any type sold in 2020." "Under the Caetano test, even 1% of the 24 million AR-15 style rifles held by citizens is sufficient to result in a finding that such arms are in common use."

To make the statistics vivid, consider that sales of AR-15s more than double the sales of Ford F-150 pickup trucks.

No small wonder that the defendants "were unable to produce evidence showing that modern sporting rifles are both dangerous and unusual." (Notice that Judge McGlynn didn't use the loaded propaganda term "assault weapons.")

Since the banned firearms and magazines are in common use, they are protected and supposed historical analogues are irrelevant. Nonetheless, the state claimed some early restrictions such as those on Bowie knives as historical analogues, but they were concealed-carry regulations with a different "how and why" (Bruen's term) of the current ban on mere possession.

As to the balance of harms that a court must consider in granting a preliminary injunction, the court found it "uncontroverted that many of the banned modifiers, including but not limited to pistol grips, protruding grips, flash suppressors, and shrouds, have legitimate purposes that assist law-abiding citizens in their ability to defend themselves. The other side is less clear there is no evidence as to how PICA will actually help Illinois Communities." Indeed, the Illinois Sheriffs' Association filed a brief opposing the ban and some local Illinois States Attorneys believe the ban to be unconstitutional.

Enactment of the PICA was a response to the Highland Park shooting last July 4, an act of violence that we all condemn. However, as the court observed, "it does not appear that the legislature considered an individual's right under the Second Amendment nor Supreme Court precedent." Judge McGlynn offered the following sage reflections:

"Nothing in this order prevents the State from confronting firearm-related violence. There is a wide array of civil and criminal laws that permit the commitment and prosecution of those who use or may use firearms to commit crimes. Law enforcement and prosecutors should take their obligations to enforce these laws seriously. Families and the public at large should report concerning behavior. Judges should exercise their prudent judgment in committing individuals that pose a threat to the public and imposing sentences that punish, not just lightly inconvenience, those guilty of firearm-related crimes."

With that, the court issued a preliminary injunction state-wide against enforcement of the ban. The state has sought a stay of the injunction pending appeal.

Read more from the original source:
Second Amendment Roundup: Illinois Gun Ban Enjoined - Reason

As Americans continue to come to terms with the pandemics ripple effect on business, unemployment, and snags in the supply chain, one of the bright spots in the economic landscape is the state of the firearm and ammunition industry.

Each year, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) publishes a detailed report on the impact of the firearm and ammunition industry on the U.S. economy and jobs. In addition to examining the effect that companies that manufacture, distribute, and sell firearms, ammunition, and hunting equipment have had in the last year, the report looks at trends more generally.

According to the latest report, Firearm and Ammunition Industry Economic Impact Report 2023, the industrys economic growth in recent years has been nothing short of remarkable and has been driven by an unprecedented number of Americans choosing to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. This includes an estimated 4.2 million new gun owners in 2022.

Since 2008, the overall economic impact of the industry has increased by more than 320% from $19.1 billion (2008) to $80.7 billion last year. 2022 alone represented an increase of over $10 billion over the year before.

Other highlights:

The reports state-by-state breakdown shows that these economic gains are by no means restricted to pro-gun jurisdictions and extend to every state. The economic impact of the gun industry in New York State, for instance, exceeded $3 billion ($3,187,992,000) last year. Likewise, California benefitted by an annual total output of just under six billion dollars ($5,992,739,100).

While anti-gun politicians and their gun-control allies attack the gun industry (here and here, for instance) as part of a campaign against firearm-related commerce in general, the indisputable fact remains that the industrys continued strength relies on millions of law-abiding consumers sport shooters, hunters, farmers and other everyday Americans exercising their fundamental constitutional rights and investing in the Second Amendment.

Read more here:
Investing in the Second Amendment: Gun Industry Shows Continued ... - NRA ILA