- Threat Watch
- Warrior Tools
- Body Armor
- Long Guns
- Accuracy International
- Desert Tactical Arms
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- Mosin Nagant
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- SIG Sauer
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Wilson Combat
Posts Tagged Bill of Rights
From The Washington Post:
There are questions, however, about Congress’s authority to pass the bill, which seems to stretch the limits of the commerce power and of the 14th Amendment’s enforcement power, as discussed in posts by Josh Blackman and Joseph Blocher, among others. But there may be another way.
In a letter sent today, Stephen Sachs, Randy Barnett and I argue that Congress should not rely on the commerce power but should instead rely on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
From The Libertarian Republic:
Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez (R-Lake Elsinore) says “It is our Constitutional right to defend ourselves.” She, of course, is referring to the right to bear arms. California’s laws regarding firearms are some of the most confusing in the nation. By introducing Assembly Bill 757, Melendez is attempting to standardize the criteria used in California to issue concealed carry permits. Similarly to how states often issue driver’s licenses, Melendez says, “If a citizen passes the background check and completes the necessary safety training requirements, there should be no reason to deny them a concealed carry permit.’’
From The Trace:
Writing for the 10-4 majority, Judge Robert King of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said that the landmark Heller v. District of Columbia decision rendered in 2008 explicitly allows governments to regulate firearms similar in design and function to those issued to members of the military.
The decision marks the fifth time that a federal appeals court has upheld a state assault weapons law, but it goes further than those previous decisions. It is the first to exclude AR-15s and other similar guns from Second Amendment protection on the grounds that they are virtually indistinguishable from weapons of war. The court found that such designation overrides considerations of the common usage or suitability for home self-defense of a gun like the AR-15.
The judges in this case are choosing to be willfully ignorant of the weapons used at the time of the Constitution. There was no difference between arms used in the military/militia and those used for hunting or self defense. Townships had their own armories stocked with cannons (the equivalent of modern artillery). Their argument that the lethality of the weapons disqualifies the weapons is exactly what you would expect from elites in positions of power. They fear the power that the people would wield if allowed to keep and bear such weapons. On another point I would like to know how many of these judges have ever shot or held a gun, let alone own one.
From Military Arms Channel:
From KTVZ Oregon:
A measure challenging gun regulations is popping up around the state. Since 2015, four counties have passed a measure known as the Second Amendment Preservation ordinance, and commissioners in Malheur, Union and Lake counties have heard the same measure in the past few weeks.
The ordinance is a reaction to the Oregon Firearms Safety Act, passed by the state Legislature in 2015, which requires background checks for transfers of firearms between private parties. These county ordinances allow sheriffs to ignore this law – which gun advocates see as unconstitutional.
From The Verge:
In the film, Wilson is openly positive about the election of Donald Trump, which may help explain the film’s chilly reception among the liberal-leaning Sundance audience. Then again, there are plenty of reasons for people on the left — Lough included — to find Wilson unsettling. Lough interviews him at length in The New Radical, about other pioneers of the crypto movement, other libertarian radical activists, and how printable weapons level the playing field for anyone who wants a potentially undetectable plastic gun without any government oversight.
From Phoenix New Times:
Fortunately for DPS Trooper Edward Andersson, whose life hung on the edge before Yoxall showed up on January 12, Yoxall had his gun rights restored in 2003 after he successfully completed probation.
Yoxall has paid back his debt to society — big-time.
From National Review:
So, if concealed-carry permit holders are presumptively dangerous, does this mean that they forfeit other constitutional rights? Wynn explained (approvingly) that under the majority’s reasoning they certainly do:
I see no basis — nor does the majority opinion provide any — for limiting our conclusion that individuals who choose to carry firearms are categorically dangerous to the Terry frisk inquiry. Accordingly, the majority decision today necessarily leads to the conclusion that individuals who elect to carry firearms forego other constitutional rights, like the Fourth Amendment right to have law enforcement officers “knock-and-announce” before forcibly entering homes. . . . Likewise, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that individuals who choose to carry firearms necessarily face greater restriction on their concurrent exercise of other constitutional rights, like those protected by the First Amendment.
On Wednesday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit handed Second Amendment advocates a major victory when it struck down multiple gun range regulations imposed by the city of Chicago as unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. The majority opinion in the case, Ezell v. Chicago, was written by Judge Diane Sykes, whose name appears on Donald Trump’s short-list of possible Supreme Court nominees.
On behalf of its five-million members, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauded the introduction of H.R. 38, The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, authored by Congressman Richard Hudson (NC-8). This legislation would eliminate the confusing patchwork of state carry laws by allowing individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.
From The Federalist:
The lack of nationwide reciprocity also creates a bizarre legal paradox. For almost a few hundred years now, American courts have recognized that interstate travel is a right possessed by all Americans and guaranteed by the Constitution.
Yet when a state does not offer recognition for a citizen’s out-of-state concealed-carry permit, the right to travel comes into direct conflict with the right to self-defense. In other words, under current law an American citizen can lose the constitutional right to self-defense simply while exercising his or her constitutional right to interstate travel.
From Fox St. Louis:
Shortcomings at federal and state agencies allow sales of firearms to people prohibited from buying them, a Justice Department inspector general probe found.
But for the past 15 years, the FBI and ATF have disagreed over what is a “fugitive from justice,” which would disqualify a prospective buyer from legally obtaining a firearm, the inspector general report said. There were nearly 50,000 such purchases between 1999 and 2015 that the FBI sought to deny, but that the ATF didn’t agree required the agency to try to retrieve the gun.
On Sept. 11, 2015, Michael Picard, known locally as an open carry advocate, was protesting at a Connecticut State Police checkpoint in West Hartford, which he feels are contrary to the Fourth Amendment, and a waste of public money. Standing several hundred feet from the checkpoint, Picard held a three-foot by two-foot yellow sign reading, “Cops Ahead: Keep Calm and Remain Silent.”
At the event, he had his camera, phone, legally carried pistol and pistol permit confiscated by troopers. He was subsequently cited by the troopers with use of a highway by a pedestrian and creating a public disturbance, then released.
From The Federalist:
Nobody—not even the editorial board of The New York Times—is free from the moral responsibility to do a little research before commenting on a matter of public import. If you are going to talk about a contentious public issue, you should learn a little bit about it beforehand to avoid misleading others and making yourself look profoundly foolish.
Unfortunately the Times’s editorial board recently ignored this timeless advice and issued an editorial that was essentially a grand exercise in willful ignorance. According to the Times, Missouri’s recent passage of a “constitutional carry” gun law has transformed the Show-Me State into “the shoot-me state.” The Times says the law represents “a wholesale retreat from gun safety in the state.”
Sponsored by state Senator Brian Munzlinger (R-18), and state Representative Eric Burlison (R-133) SB 656 would:
- Recognize Missourians right to Constitutional/Permitless Carry where open carry is not prohibited
- Expand Missouri’s current Stand your Ground laws
- Expand Castle Doctrine protections for anyone legally allowed into your home, vehicle, business and property
- Specify that except for credit card fees incurred, no additional fee beyond $100 may be charged to process concealed carry permits and allows military members extra time to renew their permits
- Implement 10, 20 and 50 year options for non-reciprocity issued permits
- Allow components of firearm training for RTC permits to be online