Posts Tagged 2nd amendment

Justice Breyer – Ideology vs Machete

Justice Stephen Breyer

Justice Stephen Breyer

In a bit of timely and ironic justice, Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote in his dissenting opinion in McDonald vs Chicago, “… the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense”, was robbed by a machete-wielding miscreant a few days ago on the island of Nevis. Despite the island paradise’s complete ban on handguns (much like the Justice would have preferred to be the case in Chicago) there still seems to be the odd armed robber, threatening peoples lives and inconveniencing vacationers. Normally the Justice doesn’t need to bring along his own firearms for protection like the rest of us, that is the job of the U.S. Marshals Service. I wonder where they were during the attack? You see this is the problem, there is never a taxpayer-funded, well trained, armed bodyguard around when you need one, even if you are a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

More from CNN

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Chicago Mayor Writes $399k Check to Second Amendment Foundation – Ouch!

SAF Check


The Second Amendment Foundation received a check for $399,950 recently for recovery of legal fees expended in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the landmark Supreme Court case that struck down the city’s ban on handgun ownership. The check, signed by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, is the largest the foundation has ever received, said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. According to an news report, the funds will be directed into Moore v. Madigan, litigation that is challenging the constitutionality of Illinois state laws that prohibit the carrying of loaded firearms for personal protection.

, , , ,

No Comments

Open Carry in Utah


The bill is entitled H.B. 49, “Firearms Revisions,” and states “… in the absence of additional threatening behavior, the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm visible or concealed” would not constitute a violation of Utah’s various criminal provisions and statutes.

In short, if the bill is passed law enforcement can’t arbitrarily charge one with a crime for lawfully carrying a firearm – as in the case with Taylor.

, , , ,

No Comments

Accepting Your Limitations

by Bruce N. Eimer, Ph.D

“If you carry a gun, you need to recognize that the reason you do so is for personal protection, not to transform yourself into a would-be super hero. Carrying a gun does not give you a license to get involved in situations that are none of your business. It does not give you the authority of a police officer. Your job is to stay safe and keep your loved ones safe.

It makes good sense as a general principle to avoid becoming inextricably involved in confrontations where you are not directly affected in the first place. You take a risk when you involve yourself in other people’s arguments. This is not to say that there will never be a situation that is worth the risk, but that is a personal decision.”

, , ,

No Comments

Gun owners are compensating for something.

, , , ,

No Comments

Texas concealed handgun carrier thwarts robbery at Denny’s

“Two armed suspects attempted to rob a Denny’s restaurant, but ended up fleeing for safety after a shootout with a customer.

Officials said two armed suspects wearing bandannas entered and attempted to rob the store. The sole customer in the restaurant, a licensed concealed handgun carrier, observed the suspects enter, pulled out his own gun, took cover and fired at the robbers.

Officials said the suspects returned fire and fled the restaurant. The customer followed the suspects, firing as he went. The suspects jumped into a white minivan and fled the scene.”


, , , , , , ,

No Comments

NRA Interviews Emily Miller

NRA interviews editor Emily Miller from the Washington Times about her quest to acquire a gun in D.C.

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

All White House communications on government gun-smuggling scandal at ATF have been subpoenaed.

by Dudley Brown

“In just a few short weeks, Barack Obama’s hand-picked, anti-gun Attorney General, Eric Holder, will be forced to testify before Congress about the ATF’s scandal, “Fast & Furious.”

But this time, there is more evidence.

A number of Eric Holder’s deputies may testify what you and I knew all along — that Eric Holder was well aware of the scandal. Others are also coming forward.

“This was an effort by Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano to make an aggressive assault against our 2nd Amendment rights. I’m calling for Eric Holder’s resignation and prosecution,” an Arizona Sheriff recently stated.

Ten Arizona Sheriffs have joined the battle to hold Eric Holder accountable for his actions, which have endangered innocent lives all along the border.”

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Gallup Poll: Don’t take away guns


“This year marks the first time that more people were against a ban than for it.”

“Support for gun control is at its lowest level in more than 50 years, according to a recent Gallup Poll.

In fact, 26 percent of those surveyed think there should be a law banning the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized people, reports a Wednesday Gallup poll. On the other hand, 73 percent oppose such a ban — the highest percentage reflecting such sentiment since polling on the issue started in 1959.

Over the past 50 years, the United States has changed its mind drastically on whether a handgun ban is appropriate. In 1959, 60 percent supported a handgun ban, while only 36 percent opposed it.

With regard to semiautomatic guns … 53 percent oppose laws that would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess them; only 43 percent agree with that sort of ban. This year marks the first time that more people were against a ban than for it.

A plurality of respondents — 44 percent — want firearms regulations to be kept as they are now, while 11 percent favor less strict gun laws; 43 percent suggest stricter gun laws are necessary.

Views on gun laws have changed dramatically over the past twenty years to the point where no key demographic subgroup favors a ban on handguns. Only those living in Eastern America, Democrats and those without guns in the household still have majority support for stricter gun laws generally, Gallup reports.”

Read more:

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban

From: Gallup

PRINCETON, NJ — A record-low 26% of Americans favor a legal ban on the possession of handguns in the United States other than by police and other authorized people. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years.


, , , , ,

No Comments

Could HR 822 be amended like the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986?

The fears presented in the previous post on the dangers of amendments to HR 822 are not unfounded, they are based on precedent, and the fact that the NRA seems to have ignored addressing this issue is troubling. The net result  in 1986 was that the “Firearm Owners Protection Act” created a de-facto ban on the ownership of “machine guns” from that day forward.

This was not the original intent of that legislation and yet that is the legislation that was passed into law.

I’m not a legal expert and I would love to have the NRA experts explain to us how another Firearm Owners Protection Act debacle can be avoided.

From: Wikipedia

Machine Gun Ban: The Hughes Amendment

As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 [4]that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.

In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No’s 72, 73, and 74.

Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision.

Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the “amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to.” However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.[5][6]

The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act.

, , , , ,

No Comments

H.R. 822: Protecting Gun Owners rights or handing more control to the Federal Government?

The NRA has come out strongly in favor of H.R. 822, while the National Association for Gun Rights has taken the exact opposite view, warning that H.R. 822 is a dangerous threat to the rights of gun owners.

The National Association for Gun Rights calls the bill a “Trojan Horse”, warning that although the bill looks OK on the surface, it’s writers are naively allowing the Federal Government more control in an area that needs to remain solidly under the authority of the States.

The position of the National Association for Gun Rights is that the Constitution grants Americans the right to bear arms, we don’t need or want the Federal Government to have any more control, adding layers of bureaucracy, making it more difficult for Americans to own and carry firearms.

Dudley Brown, of the NAGR, says, “While the idea that all states should recognize a concealed weapons permit is sound public policy, the use of the anti-gun federal bureaucracy to implement it is simply foolish.”

The NAGR warns that the current bill makes it too easy for a rider or amendment to be slipped in, turning H.R. 822 from a positive-sounding measure to something that hands more power to the Federal Government – that gun owners face the serious risk politicians will pull a fast one and gun owners will lose ground that we will not be able to take back.

Dudley Brown said,

“So-called “pro-gun” Republicans even KILLED an amendment that would have allowed permit holders to defend themselves in the District of Columbia, one of the most dangerous cities in the country.

Over the past two days, amendments have been offered to require REAL ID-type government requirements on state CCW permits as well as giving Eric Holder the power to classify even more gun owners as “terrorists.”

And while these amendments may have failed in the House, Harry Reid’s Senate is sure to put the screws to gun owners.

The Senate DOES have the votes to impose a HOST of anti-gun amendments to H.R. 822 much like they have done with legislation in the past.”

Brown also warns:

“This bill isn’t just about the right to carry for self defense — it’s a battle over the role of government and the ability to restrict our Second Amendment rights.

Many statists in Washington will co-opt H.R. 822 as part of their grab for more federal power and less individual liberty.”

That is the real danger here.

These are few of the potential threats the NAGR says could result from H.R. 822 being passed:

  • More onerous standards to acquire a permit, so that only FBI agents can pass muster (look at New York’s permit system);
  • Higher fees;
  • More training requirements;
  • A demonstration of “Need” for a permit;
  • More frequent renewal periods;
  • Federally-mandated waiting periods;
  • A national database of all permit holders, accessible by Attorney General Eric Holder;
  • An extensive, federally-created list of Criminal Safezones, where only criminals will carry and where law-abiding gun owners are vulnerable

We’d like to think that the NRA stands solidly with gun owners, that they are using their political and financial clout to protect the rights of gun owners, but there is a precedent for bills starting out to be supportive of gun rights but winding up actually legislating stricter gun control.

A classic example of this was the the bill H.R. 4332, which eventually became the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act.

“The gun rights movement lobbied Congress to pass the FOPA to prevent the abuse of regulatory power — in particular, to address claims that the ATF was repeatedly inspecting FFL holders for the apparent purpose of harassment intended to drive the FFL holders out of business (as the FFL holders would constantly be having to tend to ATF inspections instead of to customers).”

The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 addressed the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report. Gun rights advocates pushed for it and this is what they got:

  • It reopened interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, allowed ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act),
  • ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing,
  • permitted travel between states supportive of Second Amendment rights even through those areas less supportive of these rights, and
  • addressed several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights.

“However, the act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement.

Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000.”

So, although H.R. 4332 was intended to improve the status of gun owners, the Hughes Amendment ended up banning machine guns – which has not been reversed. In an Orwellian turn of events, the “Firearms Owners’ Protection Act” ended up preventing Americans from owning an entire class of firearms.

Rights are easy to lose and very difficult to re-gain.


, , , , ,

No Comments

New regulation requires firearms dealers along border to report multiple sales


WASHINGTON — “The Obama administration on Monday approved a new regulation requiring firearms dealers along the Southwest border to report multiple sales of certain semiautomatic rifles, a rule intended to make it harder for Mexican drug cartels to obtain and smuggle weapons from the United States.

Under the rule, dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas will be required to inform the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives if someone buys — within a five-day period — more than one semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and uses ammunition greater than .22 caliber. Such weapons include AK-47s.

…Mr. LaPierre contended that it should take an act of Congress to impose such a requirement, not a regulation developed by the executive branch alone. He noted that the similar rule requiring dealers to report multiple handgun sales was part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

“We view it as a blatant attempt by the Obama administration to pursue their gun-control agenda through backdoor rule making, and the N.R.A. will fight them every step of the way,” he said. “There are three branches of government and separation of powers, and we believe they do not have the authority to do this.”

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

NRA’s LaPierre: Obama will wait second term to gut Second Amendment rights, Eric Holder should resign

“President Barack Obama will wait until a second term frees him from political concerns to gut Second Amendment rights, NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre tells Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview.

Speaking Saturday at the NRA’s 140th annual meeting in Pittsburgh, LaPierre also called for the resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder over a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms sting that sold weapons to figures associated with the Mexico drug trade.

“Operation Fast and Furious may have gotten one or perhaps two federal agents killed, and countless other innocent victims have been murdered with the illegal guns that our own government allowed into Mexico all to advance a political agenda,” he said, adding that Holder has claimed he didn’t OK the sting..

“He’s the attorney general of the United States of America – the highest law enforcement officer in our land,” LaPierre said. “Who’s in charge? If he didn’t know, then who’s minding the store? If Holder didn’t know, Holder has got to go.

, , , ,

No Comments

Why should college campuses be “Criminal Safezones”?

Amanda Collins, 25, shows a 9-mm Glock that she is permitted to carry and use for self defense.

“A concealed weapon permit holder, mother and student at UNR (University of Nevada, Reno), Amanda wasn’t allowed to carry a firearm on her college campus because it was a “gun free zone.”

That meant she was unarmed on a night in October, 2007 when she was attacked while walking to one of her classes.

You see, her attacker didn’t care about the “gun free” designation. He had his gun. And he held it to her temple while he raped her.

She had left her firearm at home because that was the law. A law that left her completely vulnerable when she needed a way to defend herself the most.”

by Dudley Brown, National Association for Gun Rights

, , , , ,

No Comments