- 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 second amendment
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:
Sen. Maralyn Chase (D-Edmonds) says people have to buy insurance for their homes, their cars, and other items, so having it for guns makes sense to her.
Chase insists her bill is not about gun control, but rather public and private protections.
“I fully believe in Second Amendment rights, however, with those rights come great responsibilities,” Chase said. “We see the destructive power of guns almost nightly on the news and yet we do not require gun owners to have any type of liability insurance. Requiring liability insurance may cause an irresponsible gun owner to exercise extra care in preventing firearm-related accidents, especially in tragic accidents involving children.”
As previously reported, after the California Department of Justice submitted regulations regarding newly classified “assault weapons” to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) for publication in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), NRA and California Rifle & Pistol Association submitted a joint-letter to the DOJ explaining the flaws in the regulations and demanding that the regulations be withdrawn or we would be forced to pursue legal action.
Late on Friday, February 10, the DOJ withdrew the problematic regulations from the OAL’s consideration. It is unclear exactly why the DOJ took this action, however it can be surmised that the NRA-CRPA legal letter likely prompted the move. NRA/CRPA’s letter explains the flaws in both the content and process in which DOJ sought to adopt the submitted regulations. While the regulations have been withdrawn, the underlying statutes remain in effect and new/revised regulations will likely be submitted to OAL in the near future.
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.
From Bearing Arms:
While I’d be thrilled that I’d no longer be disarmed and treated like a second class citizen when I visit my friends in the Northeast (other than needing to acquire some “NY legal” downloaded magazines, and another few boxes of Federal Guard Dog 9mm to get around New Jersey’s ignorant ban on hollowpoint ammunition), I frankly am opposed to federal gun laws.
I don’t want more federal gun laws, but instead want the federal gun laws that exist (the National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, etc) repealed or declared unconstitutional.
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 KMOV St. Louis:
A recent Missouri Court of Appeals decision has clarified the law, saying it is not a criminal offense to carry a firearm into the airport or through airport security if you are a concealed carry permit holder.
From America’s First Freedom:
With his time in office quickly winding down, President Barack Obama gave America’s law-abiding gun owners one last poke in the eye on Friday by sending the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to the U.S. Senate for consideration.
We’ve been reporting on the Arms Trade Treaty for years (see two examples, here and here, for some background on its dangers). John Kerry signed the ATT on behalf of the Obama administration back in 2013, and it took effect in 2014. But 67 U.S. senators must vote for its ratification—a tall order to fill with the Senate’s current pro-gun landscape.