Mediaboss Marketing

MASON CITY, Iowa (KIMT) The Second Amendment, although a part of federal law, is not in the Iowa Constitution. The Hawkeye state is one of just six in the country to not have it. But that could be changed soon due to a new proposed state constitutional amendment.

The constitutional level, the federal level, the second amendment talks about the right to keep and bear arms, History and Political Science Instructor Bennett Smith said. What the language in this proposed amendment does is it expands upon that.

The proposal says citizens can acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer and use arms. It also addresses licensing, registering and taxing.

The debate might be in terms of how some of the language is used and whether it eliminates the possibility of the state, namely the legislature, to impose a permit requirement or other kinds of training and education requirements, Smith said.

Opponents are concerned about a lack of permits and education this would bring up. For those who deal arms, reading through the language brings up some concerns.

Theres a lot of ambiguities in there, it leaves us with enough rope to hang ourselves again, Kemlin Hart, owner of Hart Brothers said. Last time we did this was with our carry law, you know shall issue that worked out just fine so I think Iowa legislators have the ability to make this work just fine again but its going to take some doing to get it there I think.

A lot of the debate about this is dependent on how its interpreted. But Hart is hoping his right to bear arms is protected under state law soon.

I think all the other amendments in the Constitution are dependent on the Second Amendment, Hart said. If we cant fight for our right we dont really have any rights.

The proposal has to be passed by two general assemblies, meaning this year and next years legislature. Then it has to be passed by a majority of voters in the state of Iowa.

Continued here:
Iowa proposes to add second amendment in state constitution - KWQC-TV6

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

On Jan. 12, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clementone of the finest Supreme Court litigators of this generationfiled a petition for certiorari in Peruta v. California, backed by the full support of the National Rifle Association of America.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

As Breitbart Newss previous report explains in greater detail, in Peruta, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a California law under which an elderly citizen was denied a permit to carry a handgun because his general desire to have a handgun for self-defense was not sufficient good cause for him to receive a permit.

The question presented in the petition is Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

This comes on the heels of current Acting Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn petitioning the Supreme Court to hear arguments to overturn a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where a divided court held that the lifetime ban in federal law on felons possessing firearms cannot be applied to some nonviolent individuals who committed relatively minor crimes many years ago.

The Philadelphia-based appeals court held in Binderup v. Lynch that applying the law to all such people goes too far, and violates the Second Amendment. The U.S. government is now asking the High Court to reverse that decision.

Clement has argued over 80 cases before the Supreme Court, and the justices frequently grant review in cases that he asserts are worthy of the Courts time.

Gershengorn represents the U.S. government. The Court virtually always grants the federal governments request to hear a case when a federal law has been struck down.

The Supreme Court has only decided a total of two major Second Amendment cases, both of them recent: Heller in 2008, and McDonald in 2010. So the impact of a thirdand possibly fourthcase could be tremendous.

If review is granted in either case, arguments are expected in October, with a decision likely in the first half of 2018.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

Continue reading here:
Second Amendment Returns to Supreme Court in Peruta and ... - Breitbart News

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

185

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Gun manufacturers, NRA standing in way of sensible restrictions

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

5:28 p.m. ET Jan. 14, 2017

The Second Amendment does not say you have the right to bear arms.(Photo: Getty Images/iStockphoto)

If you read the Second Amendment, it does not say you have the right to bear arms. It states, 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.

How many people belong to a militia? Ill bet that not one executive of the NRA belongs to one. Why does anyone need an MK47, AR-15, M4 or Glock 9mm? I keep a baseball bat. I can get to it faster than trying to load a gun. Any intruder is going to think he got shot. He is going to wish he got shot.

LETTER: God help middle class, poor under Trump

England has strict laws and restrictions on guns. Even their police dont carry them. Gov. Chris Christie was a proponent of tough gun control legislation until he decided to run for president. He needed the NRA backing and money. Why? Because the NRA has lots of lobbyists and money, and most politicians have deep pockets.

Im not against guns. My father had a 12-gauge shotgun. It was always kept unloaded and the shells were hidden He used to hunt. If he didnt, we wouldnt have meat.

People are being shot every day. Thats all you read and see. The politicians wont require any gun registration or gun restrictions because of the money from the NRA, gun manufacturers and ammunition-makers.

Victor Pizzi

Brick

MORE LETTERS

Read or Share this story: http://on.app.com/2jJXFaW

0) { %>

0) { %>

See the article here:
LETTER: Second Amendment isn't blank check on guns - Asbury Park Press

TOMBSTONE This Old West town, known for its legendary shootout at the OK Corral, gun-packing locals and gunfight shows, has been proclaimed Americas Second Amendment City.

Tombstone Mayor Dusty Escapule read the proclamation at Tuesdays City Council meeting to a round of applause and an approving council.

The citizens of Tombstone are accustomed to having firearms around, Escapule said. Just stop and look up and down Allen Street. Most of the guys are carrying a gun.

The idea of a formal proclamation was pitched to the mayor by local business owner Gordon Anderson.

This represents a great day in our history, Anderson said. Right now, were Americas only Second Amendment City. It fits into our past, present and future. I was very pleased to see that Mayor Escapule was able to issue the proclamation with no objections.

Johnny Rowland, a media spokesman for Gun Owners of America a gun advocacy organization with 1.5 million members attended the meeting.

Gun Owners of America is in complete support of this proclamation for Tombstone and in support of Arizona as the most gun-friendly state in America, he said.

A call placed to the National Rifle Association Tuesday morning for comment was not returned.

As a tourist attraction, a large part of Tombstones draw is based on the towns historic gunfights from its years past, Escapule said. He also mentioned the list of venues in Tombstone that have evolved around guns.

We have SASS (Single Action Shooting Society), daily gunfight shows in various locations and the National Fast Draw Contest, Escapule said.

In addition, every third weekend in October the town celebrates Tombstone Helldorado Days with three days of action-packed street entertainment and gunfight shows.

As soon as word about the proclamation got out, I was getting calls from everywhere, Escapule said. In this part of the country, most residents support the Second Amendment. I felt the proclamation is something I should do for the citizens of Tombstone as well as our neighbors along the international border.

Tombstone as Americas Second Amendment City is making a statement that the citizens of Tombstone understand the importance of the Second Amendment. I think all the communities along the border should recognize how the right to bear arms plays an important part in our day-to-day lives.

Escapule said that proclaiming Tombstone as Americas Second Amendment City is making a statement that the citizens of Tombstone understand the importance of the Second Amendment. At Tuesdays council meeting, Escapule made it clear the proclamation is not intended to advocate gun violence, but simply reinforces the citizens rights under the Second Amendment. Proclaiming Tombstone as Americas Second Amendment City is not intended to alter or change the citys long-standing slogan, The Town too Tough to Die, the mayor said.

We have one of the old pioneer, true west cities in America, and thats what I want people across the country to know.

Originally posted here:
Tombstone proclaimed 'America's Second Amendment City' | Free ... - Sierra Vista Herald

In a racist ruling that primarily functioned as a way to disarm black residents while protecting white Southern paramilitary groups, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government. Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote for the majority:

The most frequently-cited Second Amendment ruling in U.S. history has been United States v. Miller, a serious but challenging attempt to define the Second Amendment's right to bear arms on the basis of how well it serves the Second Amendment's well-regulated-militia rationale. As Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote for the majority:

In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court decidedfor the first time in U.S. historyto strike down a law on Second Amendment grounds. Justice Scalia wrote for the narrow majority:

The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a 'right of the people.' The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase 'right of the people' two other times, in the First Amendments Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendments Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology ('The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people'). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body ...

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. Unable to point to any such evidence, the Court stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the Amendments text; significantly different provisions in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in various 19th-century State Constitutions; postenactment commentary that was available to the Court when it decided Miller; and, ultimately, a feeble attempt to distinguish Miller that places more emphasis on the Courts decisional process than on the reasoning in the opinion itself ...

Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Courts announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations ...

The Court properly disclaims any interest in evaluating the wisdom of the specific policy choice challenged in this case, but it fails to pay heed to a far more important policy choicethe choice made by the Framers themselves. The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Courts opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.

Read this article:
Second Amendment and Gun Control Supreme Court Cases