Mediaboss Marketing

Get Breaking News First

Receive News, Politics, and Entertainment Headlines Each Morning.

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/AP) Gun owners and defenders of the second amendment saw success during the 2014Floridalegislative session, but one battle is still being waged.

Major wins came in the form of the warning-shot bill which protects people from mandatory sentences when they threaten to use a weapon in self-defense and the pop-tart bill that keeps children from being punished for playing with imaginary guns or wearing clothing with images of firearms.

The biggest loss was legislation to extend carry and conceal privileges during a declared state of emergency. The bill was killed, in part, by a late push from theFloridaSheriffs Association.

Those who hoped to see changes in the stand your ground law were left empty-handed.

I told my constituents when I left to come to Tallahassee that the second amendment would be safe, said Sen. Greg Evers, R-Pensacola. I feel reasonably sure that we held true to that. In fact, we made some headway. The second amendment is definitely safe, so my folks back home are going to be happy.

Both Evers and Marion Hammer, a lobbyist and former NRA president, said the carry-and-conceal issue is not going away.

The sheriffs association argued that the language in the bill (SB 296) was too open-ended and left room for interpretation without time and place specifications. Hammer called that argument just a smoke screen.

It was never about anything other than their convenience and the fact they didnt want citizens carrying guns, Hammer said.

View post:
Success For Gun Owners & 2nd Amendment Defenders In 2014

WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court on Monday refused to take up a case over whether Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms in public.

It comes amid a rumbling and divisive debate between pro- and anti-gun lobbies after several high-profile shootings or massacres in recent years.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms, but states have enacted various laws governing gun ownership.

John Drake, who operates an ATM business, was challenging a strict New Jersey state law that requires people wanting to carry a handgun outside the home to demonstrate a "justifiable need."

Backed by the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), Drake argued that his employees need to be able to defend themselves because they are carrying large sums of money.

The NRA said in its argument backing Drake: "The Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry weapons for the purpose of self-defence - not just for self-defence within the home, but for self-defence - period."

It added that the "right to bear arms for self-defence" was "as important outside the home as inside."

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess a gun at home for self-defence.

But in dismissing the complaint, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court of appeal decision stating that the New Jersey law is consistent with the Second Amendment.

It has declined to hear similar challenges to the concealed carry laws of New York and Maryland.

Continue reading here:
US Supreme Court refuses to consider gun-rights case

Posted Mon, May 5th, 2014 12:00 pm by Lyle Denniston

Two areas of the law where the Supreme Court made major pronouncements, and then all but dropped the subject, continued on Monday to remain off the Courts decision docket. One wasthe intensifying controversy over Second Amendment rights; the other was the lingering controversy over the fate of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Without comment, the Court denied review of new cases, keeping intact a lengthening list of refusals.

Since the Courts 2008 decision declaring a personal right to have a gun under the Second Amendment, and its 2010 decision expanding that right nationwide, the Justices have steadfastly refused to say anything more about how far that right extends. And since its 2008 decision giving Guantanamo Bay detainees a right to go to court to protesttheir prolonged imprisonment, it has routinely denied pleasto spell out how that ruling should be applied.

The pattern continued on Monday, as the Justices without explanation and with no dissenting votes recorded chose not to take on the Second Amendment case of Drake v. Jerejian, or the Guantanamo case of Al Warafi v. Obama.

Only two explanations seem plausible: either the Court is content to let lower courts work out the details of gun rights and detention authority, or the Justices are hesitating to take on a new case because they are not sure how the votes will be cast on final decisions.

Probably the biggest question overhanging the Second Amendment is whether the right to have a gun for personal self-defense exists outside the home. Some courts have said yes, some have said no, and some have not been sure either way. That was the issue raised in the Drake case, seeking to test a New Jersey law that requires an individual who wants to carry a handgun in public to get a permit to do so; to obtain such a permit, one has to convince officials that the person has a justifiable need for that privilege.

There is a clear split among federal appeals courts on the outside-the-home issue. In the Drake case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found no Second Amendment violation with the handgun permit law.

Probably the biggest question overhanging Guantanamo Bay prisoners that is, those being held there who are not being prosecuted for any crimes is whether and how long they can be kept there if they did not actively engage in armed conflict against the U.S. or its allies before they were captured. Justice Stephen G. Breyer signaled in a recent opinion that this is an open question.

And that appeared to be the situation in the new Al Warafi case. He and his lawyers have insisted that he went to Afghanistan to act as a medical worker, in clinics and hospitals, and his stint with Taliban forces was only as a medical aide. His detention was upheld by lower courts, however, because he was found to have been a part of the Taliban terrorist network regardless whether he had engaged in armed hostilities himself.

Those denials came among a series of orders the Court issued before beginning a two-week recess. Here, in summary, were some of the other actions:

Read more from the original source:
Staying away from guns and Gitmo

Ann Coulter Thinks We Bombed Egypt!!!
Wow, just watch the dumbass that is Ann Coulter make a complete fool out of herself.... as usual.

By: Wendi K.

Read the rest here:
Ann Coulter Thinks We Bombed Egypt!!! - Video

People soaking up the sun on China's only nudist beach are flouting an order to cover up by wearing shorts - but only around their knees.

The half mast protest came after sun worshippers flocked to the Dadonghai beach in Sanya, a resort town on the tropical island of Hainan, to find local government party officials have ordered bare-bottomed bathers off the white sands. The ban was part of a bid to create a "civilised social environment".

The local council said they had been forced to act after being flooded with complaints, particularly from families, who said they could not go there with their children because of the large number of naked men.

They said that the nude sunbathers were always men, adding that there was no problem with women stripping off their clothes on the beach.

Earlier this year, as these pictures below show, officials went to Dadonghai beach with orders to clothe dozens of naked bathers.

They handed out leaflets outlining the Communist Partys ban on all "nude swimming or sunbathing" on the beach, a 1.4-mile crescent of sand along the South China Sea near a Peoples Liberation Army base.

The officials ordered naked bathers to put their trunks back on, and they have followed the letter of the law, if not the spirit.

The region has been known as Chinas top nudist destination for more than a decade despite never having been officially recognised by the government.

Continued here:
China's Only Nudist Beach Stages Protest Against Clampdown (PICTURES)