Mediaboss Marketing

TREMPEALEAU COUNTY (WQOW) - A resolution to oppose any legislation that would infringe upon the right to bear arms was voted down Monday by the Trempealeau County Board of Supervisors.

The resolution has caused controversy, and last month a county committee meeting on the measure brought dozens of community members in to speak their mind.

Related Story: Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution spurs controversy

The board did not hold public comment during Monday's meeting but many board members spoke on the issue, and all who spoke said why they were against the measure. Some said it doesn't make sense to create a resolution responding to a law that doesn't exist. Others, like board member representing District 3, Sally Miller, said the county going over the federal government if they did create a gun law would in itself be government overreach.

"Because if this month we do this, what issue do we take on next month and decide what we get to do overreach on? What group comes to us next month and says 'please ignore the law on this,'" Miller said. "I am not at all comfortable trying to decide what is constitutional or not, but I am even more uncomfortable with the idea of committing government overreach of exceeding my authority."

The resolution, had it passed , would have been a symbolic measure to protect community members right to bear arms should a government body ever try and revoke that right.

Before a vote took place, they also voted on an amendment that would have put the question to a referendum on April's ballot. If it had gone to a referendum, that vote would have been advisory and the question would again be up to the county board in the spring. This measure was voted down.

The vote on making the county a 2nd Amendment sanctuary was 4 in favor of the resolution, 12 against and one abstention.

Follow this link:
Board votes against making Trempealeau County a 2nd Amendment 'sanctuary county' - WQOW TV News 18

When Vice President Kamala Harris kinda, sorta visited the Mexican border last week she at least made it to the El Paso airport where she was greeted by a Texas Democratic congresswoman who declared El Paso was the new Ellis Island.

And that seems to comport with the Democrats plan to turn America into a sanctuary country.

But most of America is now a sanctuary for gun owners.

Last week the pro-Second Amendment website SanctuaryCounties.com reported that 1,930 of Americas counties, or 61 percent of the total, are considered safe spaces for gun owners.

More than half that number 1,137 are counties that have taken it upon themselves to pass Second Amendment Sanctuary laws, the website notes.

The remainder seems to fall under the 21 states that have adopted Constitutional Carry laws, which allow gun owners to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

The idea of an ever-increasing number of Americans being allowed nearly unfettered ability to carry guns or be free of government regulation of them is happening in a media vacuum, according to Lee Williams, a pro-Second Amendment gun policy columnist.

The mainstream media has missed one of the biggest trend stories ever the massive surge in Second Amendment sanctuaries at the state, county, and local levels, Williams noted.

He wrote that last month when the number of sanctuary counties was 1,459.

Williams also pointed out that this movement seemed to take off after Democrats seized control of the Virginia state government and began a crackdown on guns.

Youd be hard-pressed to get half of America to agree that beer is good, or that steak should be served medium rare, Williams wrote. Yet millions of Americans have forced their elected officials to erect a legislative wall around their communities to protect their gun rights.

Despite the skyrocketing trend, Williams added, stories about the Second Amendment sanctuary movement are scarce unless theyre anti-gun.

Case in point: The media last week quickly picked up Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, vetoing a bill authorizing constitutional carry.

Williams further noted, There has been very little of the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth over this nationwide trend from anti-gun groups, which could indicate they realize the scope of what theyre up against.

Some cable TV news actors have referred to Second Amendment sanctuaries assymbolic, [emphasis original] in what can be seen as an attempt to downplay or trivialize the movement, Williams concluded. When a half of the country supports an issue any issue theres nothing symbolic about it.

Maybe thats even more so now that the sanctuary movement has hit 60- percent and keeps rising.

Android Users,Click Here To Download The Free Press AppAnd Never Miss A Story. Its Free And Coming To Apple Users Soon.

Support journalism byclicking here to our gofundmeor sign up for ourfree newsletter by clicking here

Related

More here:
Second Amendment Sanctuary Movement Secretly Growing, Mainstream Media Ignores It - The Free Press

Judge Benitez: Miller v. Becerra, AR15 Rifles ARE Protected by Second Amendment!

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On June 4th, 2021, in the Southern District of California, Judge Roger T. Benitez found the complex regulatory scheme of California gun laws that outlaw the ownership of Assault weapons, particularly semi-automatic clones of the AR-15, are unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment on their face.

From the decision:

Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR-15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs challenge a net of interlocking statutes which impose strict criminal restrictions on firearms that fall under Californias complex definition of the ignominiousassault weapon. Hearings on a preliminary injunction were consolidated with a trial on the merits pursuant to F.R. C.P. Rule 65(a)(2). Having considered the evidence, the Court issues these findings of fact and conclusions of law,1 finds for the Plaintiffs, and enters Judgment accordingly.

This is the opening salvo in a tightly worded and beautifully constructed 94 page decision by Judge Roger T. Benitez. This correspondent will lead the reader through a modest sampling of the decision, so those who do not wish to read the entire decision will not need to do so. Reading the entire decision is highly recommended.

Judge Benitez demolishes the argument that AR-15 style rifles are unusual on page 2:

This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned assault weapons are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed assault weapons are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.

He shows how silly it is to ban a rifle for features that make it more accurate on page 8:

The mechanical design features that identify a rifle as a California assault weapon, it is argued, tend to help a person shoot the rifle more accurately under pressure. The Plaintiffs make the point that this is a better condition for all lawful uses, i.e., a more accurate gun is better for everyone. After all, responsible gun-owners worry about the ending point of every round fired. If shooting in self-defense, a home defender wants every round to hit only attackers.

In contrast, the Attorney General argues that better accuracy makes it a more dangerous weapon.

The Judge cites the Caetano decision, where the Supreme Court unanimously held the Second Amendment protects modern weapons on page 10L

The Second Amendment protects modern weapons. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, 412 (2016). The firearms banned by California Penal Code 30515 and deemed assault weapons are modern weapons. They are principally AR-15 type rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Plaintiffs and others refer to them as modern sporting rifles although they are clearly useful for more than just sport.

He shows the clear inclusion and protection of militia weapons by the Second Amendment on page 11:

Although the Attorney General sees it differently, the Supreme Court also recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantee includes a right to keep and bear firearms that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Miller, 307 U.S., at 178. Miller implies that a weapon that is commonly owned and that is useful for the common defense for a militia member is also protected by the Second Amendment.

Judge Benitez shows how common modern rifles are in the United States on page 15:

Nationally, modern rifles are ubiquitous. In 2018 alone (the most recent year with data), 1,954,000 modern rifles were manufactured or imported into the United States. Over the last three decades, 19,797,000 modern rifles have been manufactured or imported into the United States and the numbers have been steadily increasing.

He shows the California assault weapon ban was flawed from the start on pages 24-25.

Moving through the trial record here, it becomes clear that AWCAs assault weapons ban-by-prohibited-features was not designed to address a real harm, and even if it did, does not alleviate the harm in a material way. Guiding the intermediate scrutiny path are some checkpoints.

On page 26, he shows it is the government which bears the burden of proof when it attempts to limit a fundamental Constitutional right:

The presumption in favor of rightfully possessing a citizens arm was made during the adoption of the Second Amendment. The government may carry its burden in a myriad of yet undefined ways, but it is the governments burden to bear.

On page 28, he shows the idea that some weapons can be banned because others are allowed, is a flawed and silly argument with no stopping point:

The problem is that the alternatives-remain argument has no limiting principle and would justify incremental firearm bans until there is only a single-shot derringer remaining for lawful self-defense. The same argument that a handgun ban might be justified because government-approved alternatives are available was rejected in Heller and it is rejected here.

Judge Benitez unequivocally shows AR-15 rifles are used for defense on page 34:

Without question, there is clear evidence that AR-15 rifles are and have been used for self-defense.

He shows the state contradicts itself in its claims about accurate fire on page 39:

Accuracy is very important for self-defense because a civilian is accountable for every round he fires. If he misses the attacker, he will hit something he did not intend to hit, which may be an innocent bystander.61 The State does not dispute the importance of accuracy alone for self-defense.62

Does the state want rifles that are less accurate? No and yes . The State wants rifles that are less accurate during rapid firing because rapid firing, it is claimed, correlates with criminal use. And there is no need for rapid firing for self-defense, according to the Attorney General.

On page 44, Judge Benitez explains the state cannot restrict a right merely because some arms are used more commonly in some crimes:

In other words, if modern rifles are misused in crime(even disproportionately), government must deal with those wrongful acts directly; it may not deal with the problem by suppressing the rights of law-abiding citizens to have modern rifles for lawful uses. Thus, disproportionality is not a valid constitutional concern. Common ownership by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes is the test. Moreover, there is little evidence that modern rifles are used disproportionately in crime.

Then, in a series of arguments starting on page 47, he shows how the claim that AR-15 rifles are more commonly used in a crime is not correct:

Koper concludes, while some surveys suggest that ownership and, to a lesser extent, use of AWs may be fairly common among certain subsets of offenders, the overwhelming weight of evidence from gun recovery and survey studies indicates that AWs are used in a small percentage of gun crimes overall.76 Kopers conclusions comport with the ATF firearm tracing report from 2019.

Recall that to pass intermediate scrutiny, AWCA must have at least been designed to address a real harm and alleviate the harm in a material way.Turner II, 520 U.S., at 195. The evidence described so far proves that the harm of an assault rifle being used in a mass shooting is an infinitesimally rare event. More people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California. Even if a mass shooting by assault rifle is a real harm, the evidence also shows that AWCAs prohibited features ban has not alleviated the harm in any material way.

On page 53, Judge Benitez shows how useful a modern rifle is, merely by its presence:

On the other side, a fully loaded modern rifle is surely a powerful psychological criminal deterrent. Simply brandishing such a weapon may cause an intruder to flee precisely because it appears to be dangerous and fully loaded. It is difficult to imagine the same psychological effect on a home invader (or two invaders) from brandishing a 2-shot derringer.

On page 59, the Judge shows how other firearms were used in the vast majority of the crimes the state claims would be reduced by banning AWs.

Analyzing the list of 161 national events, Allen finds that 78% of mass shooting events did not involve an assault weapon. Put differently, across the U.S. only 22% did involve an assault weapon.115 Her opinion comports with other evidence in the record. Professor Mark Gius reports even less frequent use of assault rifles in mass shooting events.116 Gius says, [c]ontrary to popular belief, however, assault rifles were not the predominant type of weapon used in these types of crimes. In fact, according to a recent study, handguns were the most used type of firearm in mass shootings (32.99% of mass shootings); rifles were used in only 8.25% of mass shootings.117

On page 60, he shows how the ban in California is a failure:

From Allens list of mass shooting events, it is reported that in California there have been 25 mass shooting events over approximately 40 years.118 How well has the California ban on assault weapons worked? Before AWCA, twice in a decade, an assault weapon was used in a mass shooting. On average, since AWCA, twice a decade, an assault weapon was used in a mass shooting.119 The assault weapon ban has had no effect. Californias experiment is a failure.

On page 64, he notes that AR-15 type rifles are lower-powered than many common rifles:

A modern rifle like the AR-15 platform rifle typically uses lower power cartridges than either military rifles or hunting rifles.

On page 69 the judge states what has become obvious from the research:

Put simply, the evidence indicates gun bans are in effective at reducing gun crimes.

Then Judge Benitez starts taking apart the wrong decisions in other circuits which have been hostile to the Second Amendment, on page 70:

In the past, Second Amendment cases were wrongly decided by following a majority of circuit courts down the wrong path.

He shows how the California government has infringed on Second Amendment rights on page 75:

Today, the Attorney General goes beyond N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol and suggests that intermediate scrutiny should permit a class-wide ban on extremely popular assault rifles, assault shotguns, and assault handguns, in addition to an existing ban on buying any handgun not found on a shrinking list under Californias handgun roster of safe handguns, because some alternatives remain. This is too far.

On page 77, he explains how the other circuit decisions do not apply because they were deficient in various ways:

None of the out-of-circuit decisions comfortably fit this case. None of the cases went to trial. None of the cases had substantial evidence that AR-15 type rifles are useful and used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes like home-defense and sporting competition. None of the cases considered an AR-15s militia use. None of the cases scrutinized a statute like Californias 30515 that bans assault rifles, assault shotguns, and assault pistols, while at the same time prohibiting the sale of all potentially alternative handguns not included on the States shrinking handgun roster.

He shows there is no logic to the AW ban. It has to have a real purpose to restrict Second Amendment rights, yet the ban does not make sense, on page 80:

The point is that most of what the Attorney General says are dangerous features on a prohibited modern rifle are also features on a Second Amendment-protected semiautomatic pistol. The Ruger Mini 14 is not banned by AWCA but it is capable of shooting the same ammunition, at the same speed, with the same type of large capacity magazines, as an AR-15.

On pages 80-81, he puts forward the reasons the AR-15 type rifle is protected as a militia weapon:

Banning the Ideal Arm for Militia Use Fails Intermediate Scrutiny

The Attorney General does not address or acknowledge whether the ban also imposes a burden on the Second Amendment right to own a firearm that is the ideal weapon for use in the militia. If the modern rifle is the ideal weapon, which it is according to the testimony of General Youngman, then the ban forces a choice of a less-than-ideal weapon for militia use.

On page 84-85, the expert testimony for the militia argument is explained:

Youngmans testimony is uncontroverted. Youngman is very well qualified to opine on the usefulness of an AR-15 for militia use. He has served in the regular army and the army reserves. He served as Kentuckys Adjutant General commanding the states national guard. He is a firearms trainer and armorer. He was a member of the bar and worked as a prosecutor. His opinion that an AR-15 is an ideal firearm for use in a militia is unequivocal and uncontested. Of the prohibited features in 30515(a), most are important for militia use.

On page 85, the protection of militia weapons is directly tied to Supreme Court precedent in the Miller case from 1939:

But Miller held that it is precisely this type of firearm a firearm that has a reasonable relationship to militia service that is protected by the Second Amendment. It is a principle that Heller grasped. This holding [of Miller] is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia).

On page 87, he categorically declares the AR-15 in particular, and militia weapons in general, are protected by the Second Amendment:

The evidence is clear, however, that the AR-15 type of modern rifle bears a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency, as well as the effectiveness, of a modern well-regulated militia. It is therefore categorically protected by the Second Amendment.

On page 92, Judge Rodger T. Benitez sums up the rationale for the Second Amendment as valid today as it was in 1791. It is beautifully done:

There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens are better. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes. In early America and today, the Second Amendment right of self-preservation permits a citizen to repel force by force when the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent that injury. Heller, 554 U.S., at 594. Then, as now, the Second Amendment may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. Id. at 606 (citation omitted).

This is a remarkable and long-awaited Second Amendment decision. It will now be appealed to a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit.

It is impossible to know how they will respond.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

More here:
Judge Benitez: AR15 Rifles ARE Protected by Second Amendment! - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Bryan Oberc, in Munster, Ind., tries out an AR-15 from Sig Sauer in the exhibition hall at the National Rifle Association Annual Meeting in Indianapolis in 2019. Michael Conroy/AP hide caption

Bryan Oberc, in Munster, Ind., tries out an AR-15 from Sig Sauer in the exhibition hall at the National Rifle Association Annual Meeting in Indianapolis in 2019.

For more than three decades, California has banned certain types of semiautomatic rifles including the AR-15 under an "assault weapons" ban. On Friday, a federal judge threw out the ban, ruling that it violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"The Second Amendment is about America's freedom: the freedom to protect oneself, family, home, and homeland," Judge Roger Benitez wrote for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. "California's assault weapon ban disrespects that freedom."

California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the decision "a direct threat to public safety," and state Attorney General Rob Bonta has said the state would appeal.

Courts differ on whether assault weapons bans are constitutional. That's because the Supreme Court has never actually heard a case testing their constitutionality.

The main guidance for lower courts comes from District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark 2008 decision permitting private citizens to keep handguns in the home. The Heller test is straightforward: Is the firearm commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes?

"If the lower courts were following Heller directly ... that would be the end of the case," said David Kopel, a constitutional law professor at Denver University Sturm College of Law, and adjunct scholar at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.

But some courts, including federal courts in California, use a multi-step test that requires "policy-balancing," Kopel told NPR. That's why Benitez's 94-page opinion so exhaustively examines the pros and cons of an assault weapons ban.

Among similar cases that have been heard across the country, Benitez's opinion is "by far the most thorough in its careful examination of the evidence," Kopel said.

"This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection," Judge Benitez wrote. The firearms that the California legislature had deemed "assault weapons" are actually "ordinary, popular, modern rifles," he said.

The judge was trying to demonstrate how ordinary the AR-15 is because when a weapon is in common use, it's protected by the Second Amendment, said Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston who is also an adjunct scholar at Cato.

"I think the case for protecting the AR-15 is greater than the case for protecting the handgun," Blackman said. "The Second Amendment has a couple touchstones: One is self-defense. The other one is protection from the government itself. This is the weapon."

Michael Morley, a professor of law at Florida State University College of Law and contributor to The Federalist Society, said that the court "engaged with the record evidence, statistics, and factual underpinning of expert witnesses' conclusions at a highly granular level of detail."

But, Morley told NPR, "the opinion contains some rhetorical flourishes and argumentative portions that I don't believe strike the right tone for a judicial issuance."

One such rhetorical flourish came at the start of Benitez's opinion. The judge compared the AR-15 to a "Swiss Army Knife," calling it "a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense weapon." Benitez, appointed to the bench in 2003 by President George W. Bush, repeatedly criticized the state's ban as a "failed experiment" that "has had no effect" on mass shootings in the 30 years it was enacted.

The opinion reads like it's written "by an AR-15 salesman rather than a constitutional analyst," said Larry Tribe, professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. "The bias fairly drips from the opinion, and the analysis certainly does not follow from the Supreme Court's jurisprudence about the Second Amendment."

This isn't the first time Judge Benitez has weighed in on controversial gun laws. In 2019, he struck down a state law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. "Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts," Benitez wrote at the time.

It's very likely that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will ultimately reverse Benitez's ruling, said Kopel, because "no pro-Second Amendment has ever survived in the Ninth Circuit."

After that, legal observers say, it's possible the Supreme Court will step in to settle the matter. But that's far from certain. In 2016, the high court declined to hear a challenge to assault weapons bans in Connecticut and New York. The year before, the court rejected a similar challenge over local ordinances in Cook County, Ill.

Read more from the original source:
'Ordinary, Popular' Guns Protected By Second Amendment, California Judge Rules - NPR

The Supreme Courts decision to hear a case pertaining to New Yorks strict limits on carrying guns outside the home provides conservative justices the opportunity to apply one of their pet theories: originalism. If they are intellectually honest about doing so, the restrictions will stand.

One of conservatives favorite tropes over the past several decades is a defense of the original intent of the founders. Conservatives have deployed this judicial doctrine against what they decry as judicial activism, rulings on the part of judges that, conservatives insist, abrogate the separation of powers mandated by the founders in the Constitution. Curiously, however, these same conservatives have yet to apply originalism to the Second Amendment.

The proper approach to the Constitution, these originalists argue, is to discern what the founders intended rather than treat the Constitution as a living document that articulates fixed principles that must be adapted to changing historical and cultural circumstances.

As the late Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice most identified with originalism, said in 2012, The Constitution is a static being. A decade earlier, Scalia had declared, The Constitution I apply is not living but dead, or as I put it, enduring.

Originalists, for instance, insisted that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment should not be applied to sexual orientation and the right to marry. Because the amendment was drafted to protect freed slaves, the argument goes, it has no applicability to same-sex marriage.

For Scalia and other originalists, determining original intent requires immersing oneself in the political and intellectual atmosphere of the time somehow placing out of mind knowledge that we have which an earlier age did not, and putting on beliefs, attitudes, philosophies, prejudices and loyalties that are not those of our day.

Some conservatives have taken originalism to ridiculous extremes. Years ago, while touring the South with students from the Columbia School of Journalism, I sat in shocked disbelief as Roy S. Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court (and, more recently, defeated Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate) informed us that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment applied only to Christianity because the founders did not know any religion besides Christianity.

That assertion, of course, is demonstrably false the founders were well aware of Jews and Muslims as well as other religions but it illustrates conservatives almost slavish allegiance to originalism.

Lets return to Scalias comments about immersing oneself in the political and intellectual atmosphere of the time and shift our attention from the First Amendment to the Second Amendment, which reads, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Surely, any self-respecting originalist, someone sincerely trying to understand the political and intellectual atmosphere of the time, would not ignore the full text of the amendment.

Although the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates routinely quote the second half of the amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, a more honest reading would include the initial clause: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. ...

Indeed, historians have demonstrated that the founders were eager to ensure that militias were properly armed against the British. Very likely, therefore, the founders intended to secure the right to bear arms for members of militias.

(Whenever I see a gun enthusiast swaggering with a firearm, Im tempted to ask very politely, of course, and in a conversational tone the name and location of his militia. Tempted, as I say, but Ive found that discretion is the greater part of valor when dealing with someone heavily armed.)

Even if we set aside the militia argument, an originalist approach to the Second Amendment one concerned about the political and intellectual atmosphere of the time would surely strain to justify a constitutional right to brandish the modern weapons used to create the carnage we have seen again and again.

Did the founders really intend to ensure civilian access to the AR-15 essentially the semi-automatic version of the militarys M16 automatic rifle that a mentally unbalanced teenager used to kill 17 in Parkland, Fla.? Or the semi-automatic weapons used in Boulder, Orlando, Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Aurora, San Bernardino, Pittsburgh or Midland/Odessa? (Im sure I missed a few in that accounting.)

A true originalist might reasonably argue for the constitutional right to wield a musket, but modern weapons of war with their power, range and capacity would surely go beyond the bounds of original intent.

The founders had no knowledge of such weapons.

Instead, the National Rifle Association has announced yet another advertising campaign, this one for $2 million, to ensure constitutional rights and thwart any attempt at sensible gun safety, and lawmakers in Texas recently voted to allow anyone to carry weapons without a license.

After still more horrific shootings Indianapolis, San Jose, Miami Beach we hear once again that conservatives thoughts and prayers are with the victims families.

Rather than accept another round of empty pieties, we should demand that they, along with Scalias acolytes on the Supreme Court, embrace their own rhetoric and apply the doctrine of original intent to the Second Amendment, thereby clearing the way for sensible measures on gun safety.

Randall Balmer, a professor at Dartmouth College, is the author of Solemn Reverence: The Separation of Church and State in American Life.

Read the original post:
Column: 'Originalism' and the Second Amendment - Valley News