Mediaboss Marketing

A lot of people falsely utilize the Constitution as a shield for selfish conduct.

However, free speech doesnt mean one can yell fire in a crowded theater; nor does free speech entitle one to commit libel or slander. Freedom of assembly does not override municipal permitting processes reasonably controlling marches or parades. Freedom of religion does not let one practice polygamy, cannibalism or forced marriages.

Fifth Amendment rights can be waived, and the Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial, can be blocked by an arbitration clause buried on the back of a receipt.

Before District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, no United States Supreme Court case ever held that the Second Amendment provided a right to own a handgun for residential protection. However, in Heller, Justice Scalia noted, Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

One may feel unnecessarily constrained by a mandatory seat belt law, but that does not make it unconstitutional. Selfishly questioning the constitutionality of masking requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic ignores a states power under the Tenth Amendment to protect health, safety and the general welfare.

So when we hear the Constitution invoked to support some real or imagined grievance, we should pause and consider who the speaker is and what their motivations are.

Fortunately and unfortunately, even ignorant whining is constitutional.

Craig OlivierDurango

Visit link:
Letter: Claims of constitutional rights are often wrong - The Durango Herald

Webster defines regulate as such: to control, direct or govern according to a rule, principle or system.

The Second Amendment states, 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. I assume well-regulated authorizes the governments ability to wisely determine the best way to control and direct said right.

On April 3, 2018, in a fit of rage, Nasim Aghdam used a handgun to shoot innocent victims at the YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California. Compare that to the massive carnage inflicted by numerous shooters, also consumed in fits of rage, who brandished military- style assault weapons to gun down their prey.

Although injured, no one was killed by Aghdam. Compare that to the dozens instantly annihilated by those using military, high-capacity-style weapons.

Dont be misled by the National Rifle Association. The Second Amendment allows for regulating the possession of high-powered weapons originally intended for use in times of war. Additional regulation wouldnt be anything new. For example, machine guns and short-barreled shotguns are already prohibited.

Raymond Hult

Bountiful

Link:
Letter: The Second Amendment allows for reasonable gun control - Deseret News

Gun violence prevention advocates

There is a good reason the process of amending Iowas Constitution is drawn-out. Two separate legislative sessions must act, followed by ratification by Iowa citizens. The intent is clearly for careful deliberation by legislators and a final decision by a fully informed public. Sponsors of SJ1 and HSB9, a constitutional amendment to ensure Iowans the right to bear arms, seem uninterested in either.

Its sponsors would have you believe it simply enshrines federal Second Amendment protections in Iowas Constitution. However, this is a supercharged Second Amendment stipulating that Any and all restrictions of this right [to bear arms] shall be subject to strict scrutiny. The Second Amendment does not say (and the U.S. Supreme Court never held) that strict scrutiny applies to all gun regulations.

Strict scrutiny is the highest level of scrutiny by the courts, putting up a high barrier not only to enactment of new restrictions on gun ownership and use but any and all restrictions. Recent polls in Iowa show the vast majority of the public, including a majority of gun owners, favor closing loopholes in the background check system and other sensible restrictions such as permit requirements. At a time when gun violence is increasingly recognized as a public health crisis, legislative committees dealing with SJ1 and HSB9 should show their commitment to responsive government by offering adequate time for their deliberation.

Gun violence prevention advocates:

Temple Hiatt, Iowa City

Lori Durian, North Liberty

Jodie Theobald, Iowa City

Lenore Holte, Coralville

Patricia Zebrowski, Iowa City

Leslie Carpenter, Iowa City

Susan Bryant, Iowa City

Rebecca Truszkowski, Coralville

Julie Kearney, Iowa City

Liz OHara, Iowa City

Gun violence prevention advocates

More here:
This is not the Second Amendment - The Gazette

On Monday, Feb. 1 there will be a public hearing, on Tuesday, Feb. 2 the Vernon County Board of Supervisors will vote on a resolution masquerading as something allegedly designed to preserve the Second Amendment of the United States.

This partisan resolution will preserve nothing. The Second Amendment like all the others is well protected by the U.S. Constitution. To make any change to a Constitutional Amendment requires a vote to pass by a minimum of three-quarters of the 50 states.

The Second Amendment is not in danger of being nullified or modified. No evidence has been presented to show the Second Amendment to be in danger.

The Second Amendment consists of just one comprehensive, concise sentence that needs no expansion or modification by Vernon County nor anyone else. There is nothing in the resolution that is new other than semantics intended to provide a solution for a problem that does not exist.

Rather than predicting future problems why not work on solving Vernon County's real problems and concerns rather than inventing one.

If this passes we can be assured that it will become precedent for more of the same in the future. We in Vernon County do not need this resolution. Represent the citizens of the county not some partisan idealism.

See the original post here:
Letter to the editor: Second Amendment preservation resolution is unecessary - La Crosse Tribune

To the editor,

In recent times, gun regulations have been spoken of quite frequently.

I see the point of gun regulation proponents quite frequently, and I empathize with their stories. However much I understand, I disagree with their idea. In my opinion, the most important thing in America is our right to bear arms.

Some people say that the Second Amendment was created exclusively to uphold militias. They argue that the police force is this militia. When you break it down, that is a foolish understanding of the amendment.

The Bill of Rights was established to give rights to the people and to limit the government. The question is would it really make sense for the government to give itself the right to have guns. Ultimately that makes no sense.

So, we have now established that the Second Amendment is established for the people to bear arms. Once we get to this point, many people say that it is only for hunting and self-defense. Once again, upon further examination, this can be concluded as false.

The Second Amendment was established swiftly after the American Revolution. The thought of a revolution was fresh on everyones mind. It is entirely reasonable then that they would plant the tools for independence should the event arise again.

So, it can be clearly stated that our right to bear arms in the U.S. has been infringed far past its extended existence. My end point is that we should not stand for gun control any longer.

There is a saying that says give them an inch and they will take a mile. This applies especially to the government. We must not give them an inch, or they will take a mile.

Therefore, we must resist so that we may have a more-free future.

Duncan Lamb

Franklin

Excerpt from:
Letter to the Editor: We must resist any attempt to weaken 2nd Amendment - williamsonherald.com