Mediaboss Marketing

There are almost two dozen pieces of proposed legislation concerning firearms this session in the Missouri legislature. While I cannot tackle each one, I wish to highlight three bills.

As a reminder to my regular readers and for those of you just discovering the Opinion page, I am a gun owner and used to sell firearms.

I am also an advocate of reasonable gun laws that will keep firearms out of the hands of felons, abusers, underage individuals, straw buyers and terrorists foreign and domestic.

Allow me to start with the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Paragraph 2, establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

The Second Amendment states that 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.

The Second Amendment is not absolute. Because there was no standard of spelling or grammar in 1789, we can argue that the language could have been better, but like the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment should and does have restrictions.

So why would three of our Republican state legislators, Sen. Eric Burlison, Rep. Jered Taylor and Rep. Bishop Davidson, representing Christian and Greene counties, want to write laws that are in apparent violation of the Constitution? I really do not know.

SB 39, HB 85 and HB 310 essentially say the same thing. They declare as invalid all federal laws that infringe on the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution. The laws would also require state and local courts and law enforcement agencies to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

HB 85 and HB 310 go further, stating that any law officer who seeks to enforce federal laws restricting the Second Amendment may be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers in this state or in any political subdivision of this state. Both bills are now on their way to the state Senate.

These three pieces of legislation appear to be in direct violation of the intent of the Constitution. They would surely be shot down by the federal courts. So, why would they propose such laws?

District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. the City of Chicago, as well as numerous lower court cases, declared that the right to bear arms is not without limitations. As Steven Grossman wrote in an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun: Reasonable laws limiting the possession and sale of certain guns are clearly not violative of the Second Amendment.

Grossman concludes, Yes, that might result in some delay and paperwork, but such is a reasonable price to pay to prevent felons and terrorists from purchasing weapons of death. I fully agree with this statement.

For example, how easy is it to convert a semi-automatic AR-15 to fully automatic? In a simple search on YouTube, I found nearly 20 videos on how to make the conversion. Some of these are as short as a minute and a half.

As of today, YouTube has either deleted or modified most of these videos, but there is still enough information to make the conversion.

I must admit it is fun to shoot a fully automatic weapon, but from a practical standpoint there is no reason to make such a conversion. Unless, of course, you believe you need such a weapon as protection from an overreaching government. Ah, conspiracy theorists.

The fact remains that the AR-15/M-16 was designed for military combat. This also holds true for many other semi-automatic rifles and machine pistols currently on the market.

There is no logical reason to claim that you own a semi-automatic rifle for hunting.

There is no logical reason why the gun show loophole should not be closed, requiring that all sales of firearms at gun shows be subject to the federal background check.

There is no logical reason why private sales should not be subject to the same requirements as a sale from a licensed dealer.

This does not mean we will take your guns away, unless of course you are a terrorist, felon or abuser.

So, are these proposed laws merely based on the unreasonable fear of the government taking over or being confronted by a bad guy? I believe they are and need to be voted down by our state senators for public safety.

See the original post:
Firearms legislation and the Constitution aren't matching up in Missouri - Columbia Missourian

I am endlessly amused when I hear a gun owner tell me, I am not political, or, I stay out of politics. In a perfect world, our liberties would be secure enough that we could ignore politics at our convenience. However, we dont live in a perfect world and there are political forces hell-bent on taking your constitutional rights away from you. If you believe in maintaining the tools and skills to defend yourself from evil, then congratulations on preparing for that fight, should it come to you. However, you need to be an active combatant in a second fight: the fight to maintain your liberty.

There is only one firearms-related venue in which I hold my tongue on politics, and that is when teaching people how to shoot. I dont want to turn off new shooters and I applaud them for arming themselves and seeking training regardless of how they vote or what they think. Beyond that, however, I am quite blunt:

If you believe in being armed so that you can defend yourself and your loved ones from violence then you should also be engaged in fighting those who would strip you of that right.

Who is out to take your rights from you? Well, one particular American political party has infringement of the Second Amendment written right into their party platform. I will leave it at that. If you believe in constitutional liberty, that particular party is your adversary. Let us not mince words. If you favor that party over the other because there are different issues that mean more to you, no problem, but be honest with yourself; you are supporting those who seek to strip you of your right to keep and bear arms. True, some on the other side of the aisle seek to do the same, but as a party platform, the choice should be clear to you if you want to protect your 2A rights, and arguably most other Constitutional rights.

So, as a law-abiding gun owner who believes in the founding principles of this nation, what should you be doing to defend those principles? If your answer is to post a come and take it meme on social media, you are not helping. Fighting with your ignorant friends on Facebook or with strangers in a comment section is not particularly constructive. Instead, we must be engaged in a rabid fight in the political and cultural war in a way that matters if we want to preserve our freedoms, and, indeed, win back what has already been lost. How do we do this?

As a gun owner, you should belong to the national gun rights groups as well as your state-level groups. With the NRA in turmoil right now, I will leave joining it to your discretion, but I highly recommend joining Gun Owners of American and Second Amendment Foundation at the national level. Beyond this, join your state-level group. Much of the fight for our rights happens at the state level, so supporting your state group is just as important as supporting the national groups.

Beyond just joining and paying the annual member dues, contribute what you can, when you can. I find that too many shooters who spend thousands of dollars a year on ammunition are not inclined to kick in a hundred bucks to actually protect their rights by supporting the 2A groups. Really? Remember that the anti-gun organizations are well funded by certain billionaires who invest millions upon millions of dollars into the sole mission of disarming you, the law-abiding citizen. We have no such sugar daddies on our side, so it is up to you and me.

Send emails, letters, and most importantly, call your state and federal level representatives. Speak to who picks up, or leave a message. Politely demand that your representatives uphold the constitution and reject anti-gun legislation. The single thing that can override a politicians goal of trampling liberty is the thought of not getting re-elected. When these politicians receive phone calls in favor of rights rather than against them at a ten-to-one ratio they read the cards on their own re-election. Dont let up on this pressure. While the anti-gun radicals have the money, we have the numbers, if we would simply be active.

Be sure to turn out at peaceful rallies that are held to support the Second Amendment. Be sure to turn up when your county or city council has meetings on the subject. Be at the state capital to lobby and make it clear that you and your fellow gun owners are not going to accept further infringements on your rights. The activists for the groups that wish to disarm you always show up. They have big money and organization behind them. We need to show up tenfold compared to what they do. When it comes to electing representatives, be willing to volunteer to help the ones who respect the Constitution. Knock on doors, make phone calls, donate money, do anything you can do to help win this fight.

The best way to cure an emotionally driven fear of firearms is to take the individual suffering from it to the shooting range. Never once have I taken a first-time shooter, no matter their political leaning, to the range that did not have a good time. The best way to fight gun control is to fix the ignorance that too many citizens have on firearms. While those who lead the anti-gun movement are ruthlessly tyrannical, the average sucker that votes in favor of their agenda is simply ignorant. Take people shooting and have civilized conversations with them to give them the facts. It is not rocket science; the places in the United States with the strictest gun laws are the most crime-ridden murder capitols. Arm yourself with the facts and share them.

There are over one hundred million gun owners in the United States, probably well more than this since most gun owners dont volunteer such information to pollsters. If even ten percent were active in preserving our rights, there would be no gun control at all. Time to get motivated and to motivate your fellow gun people. If we take action, we win. If you sit on the sidelines, we lose our rights for ourselves and for our children. Dont let that happen.

See the original post here:
We Fight Two Fights: Second Amendment Rights are Lost without Political Action - USA Carry

A petition is going around to make Twin Falls a Second Amendment Sanctuary City. The petition is to try and convince Twin Falls City Council to pass the resolution protecting citizens of Twin Falls' right to bear arms.

According to the petition, the order is to help protect people's right to bear arms. Something similar has been passed recently in Gooding and other cities in Idaho.

The resolution states that "Whereas the Twin Falls City Council has been elected to represent the People of Twin Falls...and the citizens of Twin Falls are opposed to any legislation or the United States Congress that would infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and would ban the possession and use of any firearms, magazines, ammunition or accessories..."

It looks like it is basically stating that Twin Falls would be a place of sanctuary if laws were passed that would prevent the legality of owning weapons and ammunitions and accessories for weapons.

There is a lot to read through here and if you want to see the complete resolution and sign the petition to ask Twin Falls City Council to make Twin Falls a Second Amendment Sanctuary City you can click here and fill out the form. It goes further into details about what would and would not be allowed if the resolution were to be passed.

View original post here:
Petition To Make Twin Falls A Second Amendment Sanctuary City - kezj.com

With no regard for the Constitution, Hillary Clinton once said, if elected, she would ban guns and leave citizens defenseless. And during his presidency, Barack Obama worked behind the scenes to ban guns. Neither was successful and now Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are boldly declaring their intentions to disarm all American citizens.

A few years ago, Washington State Gun owners staged the largest felony civil disobedience rally in American history. It was never televised and most of us were not aware of it. Around 1,000 openly armed gun owners rallied at the state capitol in Olympia, WA, in defiance of a newly passed, unconstitutional gun control law.

The event was named, I WILL NOT COMPLY, by its organizer, Gavin Seim who said, This isnt just a protest. We are here to openly violate the law. Attendees publicly transferred their guns to each other in violation of I-591s background check provisions, and some even bought and sold guns just a few feet away from law enforcement. Seim refused to obtain a permit to hold the rally, citing another right of the people to peaceably assemble.

By the end of that rally, no one was hurt, no cars were bombed, no stores were looted, no buildings were destroyed, and no cops were killed. The only damage was the burning of over 1000 concealed weapons permits. The peaceful protesters all signed a petition vowing to refuse to submit to the new, unconstitutional, and illegal law. The petition ended with the text, We pledge our blood. We will not comply.

The Washington State Patrol announced there would be no arrests for exchanging or even selling guns.

The rally could not be dismissed as a fringe element. Several lawmakers and lawmen spoke, including former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack of Arizona, Washington State Rep. Elizabeth Scott (R-Monroe), and Rep. Graham Hunt (R-Orting). Mack advised gun owners engaging in civil disobedience to put your sheriff next to you to keep it peaceful. Scott defiantly explained in her speech, I will not comply with I-594 because it is unconstitutional, unenforceable, and unjust. It is impossible to enforce this law unless there is a police officer on every back porch and in every living room. So it will be enforced selectively. She noted that one of Americas Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, said, Any law that violates the Constitution is not valid, and there is a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws.

After leading the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance, Gavin Seim said, I am not pledging obedience to the government; it is to the Republic. We dont ask for our rights, and we dont negotiate for our rights. Today I become an OUTLAW! Arrest me! I will NOT comply.

American patriots have had enough. The Second Amendment is gradually being eroded, state by state, and most of the gun owners I know, are not going to lie down and give up their arms.

View post:
How Strong Is The Second Amendment? | Guest Columns | therogersvillereview.com - Therogersvillereview

The Duke Center for Firearms Law held a virtual roundtable discussion Tuesday.

As guns become an increasing part of conflicts around elections, political protests and demonstrations, law experts say many Americans have a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal and constitutional issues around them.

The Duke Center for Firearms Law held an online roundtable discussion Tuesday exploring the issue in the wake of the 2020 election, the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and a rising tide of militant extremists that call themselves militias.

The forum, moderated by lecturing fellow Jacob Charles of the Duke University Law School, featured law professors Mary McCord of Georgetown University Law Center; Alan Chen of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law; and Timothy Zick of the William and Mary Law School.

The danger in a misunderstanding of established law with regard to guns was made startlingly clear last month, McCord said, when a violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol, killing a police officer and leading to scores of injuries. Despite Washington, D.C. not being an open carry state, photos and video footage make it clear that many of insurrectionists were armed with guns.

Such images have unfortunately become almost commonplace at political protests and ideological clashes all over the country including in North Carolina, where armed neo-Confederates have in the last few years repeatedly clashed with those protesting Confederate monuments.

Even when blatantly flouting local and state gun laws, McCord said, many people will point to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as granting them blanket protection to carry their guns. This is particularly true of people who are part of paramilitary groups that purport to be militias, McCord said.

But the constitution does not give private individuals free license to organize themselves as militia units and call themselves forth, under their own command and control to engage in militia activity, McCord said. The phrase well regulated militia in the Second Amendment has a historical context, McCord said. Even before the founding of the country, it was understood to mean regulated by the state. The founders had an antipathy toward the idea of a standing army and turned to individual militias. But those militias were then trained, funded and directed by the government. The authority to call forth militias lays with the Congress and with governors with regard to National Guard units and state militias.

Our federalist structure has always wanted to have authority over any kind of military, McCord said.

Twenty-nine states still have laws against groups of individuals arming themselves and parading themselves as private military units, McCord said.

In the Supreme Courts decision in the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, the late Justice Antonin Scalia pointedly contrasted the right of private individuals to bear arms for self defense and people doing so to establish private paramilitary groups.

For all the gray areas of law, this really isnt one of them, McCord said. The Supreme Court has been pretty clear. The Second Amendment doesnt protect private armies.

So why is it so common to see people carrying weapons, often as part of organized private groups, in public as parts of protests or to intimidate their political adversaries?

Partially because police dont see it as one of their regular or primary duties to enforce these types of laws, McCord said, and partially because paramilitary groups tend to organize and train in areas that are anti-government, or where people have an absolutist view of the Second Amendment.

In those jurisdictions most of the prosecutors, law enforcement and district attorneys are elected, McCord said. This gives them little incentive and, in fact, plenty of disincentive to enforce gun laws against unlawful militias in areas where they may have public support.

Beyond organized militia groups, Chen said, individuals with guns have increasingly been showing up to polling places during contentious elections. There is a long history of this as a voter intimidation tactic in America, he said.

During and after reconstruction, guns were often used to scare Black voters away from polling places after voting rights had been extended to them, Chen said.

While all fifty states and Washington, D.C. prohibit electioneering in and around voting centers, only six states and the district explicitly prohibit people from openly carrying guns in polling places. Four more states prohibit concealed carry at polling places. If those polling places are government buildings or schools where guns are already prohibited that prohibition stands.

Many argue that federal law already prohibits people with guns being menacing or intimidating in polling places, Chen said. But deciding what speech or behavior is intimidating is difficult and would fall to non-law enforcement election officials who have enough to do already during elections.

Intimidation isnt limited to polling places. Last year, an armed mob took over the state capitol building in Michigan, stopping the work of lawmakers there. In December six men were indicted in a plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

The First Amendment protects speech and expression, Zick said. There is very little legal support, however, for the proposition that carrying a firearm is expressive conduct or speech, he said.

Theres an obvious tension, a commonsense notion that when you bring guns to a protest it is going to have the effect of chilling some speech and assembly, Zick said.

It changes the tenor of speech and protest, he said.

In places where open carry of firearms is lawful, there are sometimes conflicts between that freedom and laws or local regulations prohibiting the carrying of firearms at protests.

We know peaceful protest and open carry can co-exist, Zick said. He himself has seen it in his hometown of Richmond, Virginia at protests over Confederate monuments.

But the central question, Zick said, is how to protect speech that may be chilled when peaceful protest is met with armed resistance?

There are things that can be done to limit the impact of guns on peaceful protests, Zick said, but whether there is the political will to do it is an open question.

A blanket open carry ban is one option, Zick said, though it isnt clear whether the Supreme Court would uphold that.

After deadly violence in Richmond, that city did specifically ban open carry at protests. As North Carolina has seen, however, police are not always willing to enforce such bans and prosecutors are not always willing to charge those who break such laws.

Widening bans already in place in public buildings and schools to places like public plazas and other popular protest areas is another possibility, Zick said. There is also the tactic of prohibiting certain types of displays of firearms or of specific types of firearms.

But again, Chen said, these would all rely on the political will to pass the regulations, the police will to enforce them and ultimately the court to uphold them.

We dont know yet whether the court follows the culture or the culture follows the court on this issue, Chen said.

Read more here:
Law experts: Constitutional issues often misunderstood in gun, protest and militia debates | The Progressive Pulse - The Progressive Pulse