Mediaboss Marketing

by Merrill Ring | Special to the Courier

Douglas Lyons and I disagree [SCOTUS misses the point of the Second Amendment, May 5, and The Second Amendment is clear, obvious, and directly stated, May 12] about what the Second Amendment means because we disagree about the function of its first clause: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, I call those words a preamble because they are crucial to understanding the Second while Lyons thinks they are minor prefatory verbiage.

The particular labels are irrelevant. Is the clause important or not? Let me use something Lyons himself says to start showing its function. He correctly points out the clause is grammatically incomplete and so cannot be asserted on its own. A militia being necessary to must have a second clause to make a complete assertion. In logical form the whole is like, Being tired, he went to bed, Being tired is not an assertion on its own. However, we all know the whole means Because he was tired, he went to bed. Being tired is the explanation of what he did.

So too, the first clause of the Second Amendment means Because a Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, That is, the first clause explains why a right to arms is given in the second clause. An explanation is not a trivial preface, as Lyons calls the first clause. Rather, it gives the justification for a Constitutional grant to the American people of a right to arms.

Lyons further tries to trivialize the first clause by saying it merely gives examples; for him the reference to a militia is made simply as an example of what guns can be used for. But did Madison just accidentally single out militias as an example of the many uses of guns? Come on. The clause mentions militias because that is what the entire amendment is about. Madison in framing the Second did not just happen to refer to a military entity an example. The amendment sets out the connection between militia service and a right to privately own a gun.

Hurrying to dispense with the first clause and its reference to a militia, Lyons pays no attention to what it says about militias: being necessary to the security of a free State. Whoa! Is that true? We today do not have a militia, yet we are a free state. Despite the Second Amendments claim, a militia is not necessary to our national security.

Why is that false thesis in our Constitution?

The problem is solved by noticing that the Constitution rejects the idea of a permanent army, or a standing army (Article 1, Section 8). Given that we originally did not have a government organization to ensure our security, what then would be necessary for the military defense of the country? Militias! (Like those who harassed the British at Lexington and Concord.) The Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights to make sure private citizens have the right to what they need, namely privately owned guns, to enable them to join in the defense of their country.

There is, however, a massively important consequence of having the Constitution attach a citizens right to keep a weapon to their service in a militia. We now have a permanent army to meet our military needs. With that, the necessity of having militias to provide military security has vanished. Without militias, the Second Amendments right to keep a weapon has become null and void. Thus, the Second Amendment has lost its reason for existence (just as has its companion, the Third Amendment). Yet, though irrelevant to the contemporary American way of life, it remains there in our Constitution (just as the human appendix remains in our bodies), a reminder of how the world used to be, a matter of historical interest only.

I would remind Lyons and friends that a right to own a gun can in all likelihood be developed by relying on the Ninth Amendment. They need to get to work on that: forget the Second Amendment.

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

Continued here:
Second Amendment jousting continues - Claremont Courier

A constitutional challenge to Illinois gun and magazine ban is under advisement at the Illinois Supreme Court.

Illinois bans the sale and possession of more than 170 semi-automatic firearms and certain magazines. If the law is sustained, those with such firearms owned before the law was enacted must register the weapons under criminal penalty by Jan. 1. The law is being challenged in federal and state courts.

Tuesday at the Illinois Supreme Court in Springfield, justices heard oral arguments in the case Caulkins v. Pritzker. The case comes out of Macon County where state Rep. Dan Caulkins, R-Decatur, and others allege, among other things, the law violates equal protections because it does not apply to active and retired police officers and others in law enforcement and security fields.

Justice Elizabeth Rochford asked Caulkins attorney Jerry Stocks about the training exemption law enforcement officers have.

And that they continue to maintain that training while they maintain their exempt status as opposed to just everyone else, Rochford said. Is that an arbitrary

It is arbitrary, Stocks said.

Stocks said retired military who have training arent exempt. Other justices asked whether this is a Second Amendment challenge or an equal protections challenge.

You cannot even begin to address the grounds that are in this complaint without addressing and finding what the Second Amendment says in this case, Stocks said during the hearing.

The court took the issue under consideration and could rule in the months ahead. The states ban also faces challenges in federal court with several cases consolidated at the appeals court level and a motion for emergency injunction pending in front of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Defending the state, Attorney General Kwame Raoul said he was confident the ban is constitutional after the Illinois Supreme Court hearing, especially with continued news of recent mass shootings. Raoul was asked about similar training the public could take.

Well, you play a different role, right, Raoul said. Its not just a question of training, youre not in a law enforcement role, I dont think.

Raoul criticized the plaintiffs for not arguing the Second Amendment in their pleadings but raised it in the court.

Stocks reiterated his claim the law violates equal protections of civil liberties.

This was about the fundamental individual right under the Second Amendment that could not be diluted by Illinois version of the Second Amendment, Stocks said after the hearing.

Go here to read the rest:
Illinois justices hear 2nd Amendment, equal protections arguments ... - AdVantageNEWS.com

NBA

By Ryan Glasspiegel

May 15, 2023 | 2:50pm

Fox News host Will Cain does not believe Ja Morant should be suspended for his latest instance of appearing to flash a gun on IG Live.

Cain, who is hosting Fox News this week in the 8:00 pm slot previously hosted by Tucker Carlson, wondered aloud why the NBA would be infringing upon the Grizzlies stars second amendment rights.

Explain to me something. Does Ja Morant not have 2A rights? Cain asked.

Can he not do what he wants outside of his work environment if its still legal? It may be stupid, but I dont know what hes done to be suspended.

Morant is suspended indefinitely from team activities, and ESPNs Adrian Wojnarowski has reported on the possibility of Morant facing a lengthy suspension to start the 2023-24 NBA season.

Morant was previously suspended eight games for brandishing a firearm while on IG Live from a Denver-area strip club, immediately following several months in which there were a number of incidents where Morant and his circle were accused of threatening violence.

This isnt to endorse his lack of responsibility for handling his gun, Cain continued on Twitter. Or his image. But cmon, suspended?

Employment has become too big of a mechanism for behavior control. When Kaepernick did what he did the salient point was he did it ON THE JOB, at the workplace. Now employers control too much dumb but legal parts of life unrelated to work. Dumb statements? Wrong think?

And dont think employment is devoid of politics. Im not saying there is a bright line or an easily identifiable principle here. Its tough. As so many times, its a judgment call. But I dont like the instinct of your job controlling your legal but maybe dumb (in someones opinion) life.

Clay Travis, the founder of OutKick, which was acquired by Fox, responded to Cain.

Theres a really good, smart debate to have on employer restrictions of legal behavior outside of work but I think the challenge here for Ja is he has several alleged gun incidents in his recent past: alleged crew pulling gun on Pacers team buses, alleged gun to threaten a teenager in pick up game at his house, strip club insta gun video, Travis tweeted.

Not crazy to me for Grizz and NBA to be concerned about his behavior with guns. Then to follow it up with this within a couple of months of a big suspension where he claims he understands the team and league find his behavior unacceptable, its just really dumb and immature. Even his buddy in this video tried to protect him because he knew how dumb this was.

Cain was not swayed that Morant deserves a suspension.

Great response. And I think Ja should be judged and is and has behaved stupidly. Still not sure about suspension, he responded to Travis. But I also think employer image in controlling legal behavior outside of work has gone way too far.

Load more...

https://nypost.com/2023/05/15/fox-news-will-cain-pffers-2nd-amendment-defense-for-ja-morant/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

Continue reading here:
Will Cain's second amendment defense for Ja Morant: 'Can he not do what he wants?' - New York Post

I dont know about you, but Im getting really bummed out by all of these mass shootings. One after another, day after day, more than one a day since the beginning of the year. Something has to change. This is America after all. The United States has a long history of dealing with challenging problems.

So, whats the solution? Simple, rebranding.

America has a long history of rebranding, of changing the terms we use when dealing with unpleasant issues.

When slaughtering Indigenous people and stealing their land started to sound bad, we rebranded. We called it Manifest Destiny and said it was about spreading freedom from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This made it sound noble.

Clearly, we Americans have a long history of successfully rebranding difficult issues. Or more accurately, I should say that conservatives have a long and successful history of rebranding troubling issues.

When enslaving and dehumanizing the people stolen from Africa started to get bad press, slave owners knew they had to do something. So they rebranded. They began calling it The Peculiar Institution. Peculiar, sort of like your weird Uncle Phil, with his handlebar mustache and old MG, who affects a British accent. Although, as peculiar as old Phil was, he never whipped anyone to death or bred them like cattle.

After the South lost the Civil War, Southerners knew they needed to change the terms of the debate. They knew that if everyone thought they had simply been fighting to maintain slavery they would lose sympathy. They knew they had to do something to preserve any vestige of their traditions (you know, white supremacy). So they rebranded. They starting to refer to the war as The Lost Cause. This just sounds mundane, non-offensive. It made it sound not much different than the loss of a hard-fought, though honorable, soccer match. Simply a Lost Cause, never mind the fact that they were seeking to preserve the enslavement and systematic brutalization of millions of human beings, or the fact that Confederate soldiers routinely and summarily executed Black Union soldiers on the spot. Reality often is bad, and so sounds bad. Much better to hide behind banality, behind The Lost Cause.

When systemic and frequently violent racism in the 1950s started to get bad press, Southerners wisely rebranded it from white supremacy to States Rights. This sounds so much more noble, and hearkens back to the nations founding. Who could argue with a state simply seeking to preserve its own rights?

Perhaps the most recent example of rebranding involves Parental Rights. This is how conservatives now sell book bans and restrictions on medical care for transgender youth. After all, what kind of monster doesnt support the right of a parent to protect and safeguard their own child? Were not banning books, they say, were not discriminating against gay or transgender children, conservatives add, were simply protecting the rights of parents to safeguard their children. That just sounds so much better, doesnt it?

Clearly, we Americans have a long history of successfully rebranding difficult issues. Or more accurately, I should say that conservatives have a long and successful history of rebranding troubling issues.

Now there are nearly daily news reports about mass shootings. And in nearly every news story there is also someone, a liberal politician or a grieving family member, demanding a solution. More often than not they call for restrictions on access to guns.

Mass Shooting has such a negative connotation, particularly when paired with Mass Casualties. The term is scary, and frankly it almost seems as if the biased liberal media has coined the term to embarrass gun rights advocates, and to make them look callous and uncaring. This must change.

Ive batted the idea around in my mind for a while now, trying to come up with something more palatable or benign. And I think Ive finally got it. Heres my proposal.

Lets changed Mass Shooting to Second Amendment Celebration. That shifts the tone from scary to laudatory, and when people hear about it (for example on Twitter at the hashtag Active Shooter) it will put a smile on their faces. They will know that somewhere a true patriot is expressing his God-given Constitutional right. This will also change the unwilling victim (victim is another downer of a word) from a casualty to a patriot, since they are nobly sacrificing their lives to preserve one of the primary rights in our revered Constitution.

This way, at each mass shooting sorry, old habits die hard at each Second Amendment Celebration, Americans can be reminded of what the Second Amendment means to all of us.

View post:
Opinion | Rebrand 'Mass Shootings' as 'Second Amendment ... - Common Dreams

As much as Id like to delve into a different topic, Bill Gouveias column on Monday was a telling essay that seems to reinforce the distinction between constitutional originalists and those who believe gun control regulation falls to individual, sovereign states.

His column (We need sensible gun regulations May 15) got my attention and commands a response.

I would imagine those who subscribe to the notion of strong individual state sovereignty will take exception to Gouveias comment that questions the mental health of those who believe more gun regulation delivered by the federal government is not warranted.

He suggests anyone not advocating for unified, presumably federal mandated laws is, in fact, part of the gun violence problem.

Ignorant political crap, silly pro-gun propaganda lies, chief among the nations mental health problems are those who do not believe guns need better regulation, if such people cant see what is going on, they are a big part of the problem ... hows that for a sample of from a we need more gun laws proponent? Not exactly the basis of a reasonable, civil dialogue.

Gouveia then goes on to contradict his first thoughts when early in his essay he notes that those who oppose more legislature at the federal level are in fact a large part of the problem. He then asks readers to spare the garbage approach when less-rules-supporters argue guns are not the problem.

Its not clear if he thinks guns are the problem or those who believe people are the issue behind gun violence. I guess it is both in his mind.

Gouveia then suggests that it ought to be made harder for criminals to get guns, all while suggesting virtually no one wants to ban guns yet suggesting the guns are not the problem view is garbage.

I suppose his diatribe against constitutionally supported laws and individual state sovereignty describes an approach that has been advocated by many who oppose interpretation of the Second Amendment as a right for all Americans, tempered by laws and regulation meant to straddle a rocky compromise of originalist constitutional interpretation.

My intuition hints that a large number of those who do not support private gun ownership and/or more restrictive regulations for ownership, are unaware of Massachusetts laws in that regard.

When people demand stronger laws for gun ownership the argument invariably moves to federal regulation and then, as Gouveia notes, the legislature cant seem to find the wisdom or courage to dig into new, more restrictive gun control.

What Gouveia fails to acknowledge, for example, are actions like proposals forwarded by the Obama-Clinton administrations at enrolling the country in an international gun control treaty. While such an accord with other nations had/has the proverbial snowballs chance of passing, just discussion of such a charter suggesting gun control imposed by other countries, raised hackles with irrational fears of gun confiscation that drove increased gun ownership.

Only ardent no-guns advocates would ever entertain the United States accepting another nations gun control rules.

Hyperbolic rhetoric and tagging those who view the Second Amendment through an originalist lens as being the problem and having mental health problems is not going to advance any sort of meaningful discussion for so-called increased gun control or banning of certain firearms.

There are many people who say things like I dont know why anyone would want a gun. Obviously they are entitled to that perspective. However, the Constitution, in originalist interpretation, says such ownership is a right, not to be infringed.

If you are not in agreement, your argument should be that the Constitution needs to be amended.

Bob Foley is a Sun Chronicle columnist. His essays are published here each Friday.

More here:
Bob Foley: Change the Constitution if you are unhappy with the ... - The Sun Chronicle