Mediaboss Marketing

The survey is published here (as well as on StoppingSocialism.com) publicly for the first time. It will also be published by Rasmussen Reports the week of November 25.

For questions about the survey or to book a Heartland policy expert to discuss the results of the survey, contact Heartland Editorial Director Justin Haskins at Jhaskins@heartland.org.

1* Which is better a free-market economic system or socialism?

69% A free-market economic system12% Socialism18% Not sure

2* Would you vote for a presidential candidate who identifies himself or herself as a socialist?

26% Yes50% No24% Not sure

3* Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of Bernie Sanders?

18% Very favorable29% Somewhat favorable17% Somewhat unfavorable31% Very unfavorable5% Not sure

4* Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of Elizabeth Warren?

17% Very favorable25% Somewhat favorable15% Somewhat unfavorable34% Very unfavorable9% Not sure

5*Do you support legislation that would ban private ownership of assault-style rifles?

49% Yes43% No8% Not sure

6*Do you support repealing the Second Amendment, which currently guarantees Americans right to bear arms?

24% Yes66% No10% Not sure

IMPORTANT Crosstabs and Statistics Related to These Questions

*Note that in the following results, those who answered other when asked for party affiliation are referred to as independents below. Respondents were given three options for party affiliation: Republican, Democrat, and other.

Socialism and views of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren

Assault-Style Rifles

Repealing the Second Amendment

NOTE:Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

Read the original:
Heartland/Rasmussen Poll: Likely Voters Reject Socialism, Socialist Candidates, Repeal of Second Amendment - The Heartland Institute

The First Amendment is the First Line of Defense, iStock-1006474816

United States -(AmmoLand.com)-When discussing Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren recently, one thing has been very clear: Both of them have been very open about their desire to silence Second Amendment supporters. Yeah, they say it is just the National Rifle Association, but then again, dont they claim that they dont want to take away guns? Well, they used to say that these days, we know that is a lie.

Cuomo began a campaign of financial blacklisting against the NRA, at the urging of Everytown for Gun Safety, while Warren plans to use the IRS whether it means Lois Lerner comes out of retirement (and her six-figure pension) remains to be seen (and hopefully, we never find out) in conjunction with campaign finance reform that is really aimed at shutting up dissent from her anti-Second Amendment extremism.

Warren and Cuomo are trying to silence the voices of Second Amendment supporters. For good reason when Second Amendment supporters can get a fair hearing from their fellow Americans, they win the argument. The facts often shoot down the pretexts that are used to infringe on our rights. If fellow Americans knew how few people were killed with rifles and shotguns, the bans proposed by many on modern multi-purpose semiautomatics would be dead on arrival, and the politicians responsible for pushing for the bans would find their careers dead in the water.

This is why Second Amendment supporters need to defend the First Amendment with just as much vigor. The First Amendment is the first line of defense for our Second Amendment rights it is with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the rights to peaceably assemble and to petition for the redress of grievances that we fight.

With freedom of speech and freedom of the press comes the ability to persuade our fellow Americans, whether one-on-one or to millions at a time via mass media or social media. With the right to peaceably assemble, Second Amendment supporters strengthen their voice by uniting for a common purpose, sometimes through formal organizations like the National Rifle Association, sometimes through more informal groups. The right to petition for redress of grievances can be as simple as a letter, phone call or e-mail to an elected official or it could entail hiring a professional to present the case to elected officials.

Just having these rights, which pre-exist the Constitution and the protection of which is codified in the Bill of Rights, is not enough. They are merely tools. Their effectiveness depends on how skillfully they are used. For the most part, Second Amendment supporters have been skillful enough in their use of their First Amendment rights to preserve our freedoms.

That said, we as Second Amendment supporters have to recognize that there is a need to up our game on this front. Those who seek to deprive us of our rights have adjusted in the wake of their failures, and we need to adjust to the adjustments they have made.

This includes the recognition that the fight for our rights has become a full-spectrum fight, one that has to be fought not just in the political and legislative arena, but also in corporate boardrooms, PTA meetings, and even when it comes to our professional life. Yet even in these new areas where we have to fight for our freedoms, it will be our First Amendment rights that will help save the Second Amendment.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

Continue reading here:
The First Amendment is the First Line of Defense - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

The right to keep and bear arms is a lot like the right to freedom of speech. In each case, the Constitution expressly protects a liberty that needs to be insulated from the ordinary political process. Neither right, however, is absolute. The First Amendment, for example, has never protected perjury, fraud, or countless other crimes that are committed through the use of speech. Similarly, no reasonable person could believe that violent criminals should have unrestricted access to guns, or that any individual should possess a nuclear weapon.

Inevitably, courts must draw lines, allowing government to carry out its duty to preserve an orderly society, without unduly infringing the legitimate interests of individuals in expressing their thoughts and protecting themselves from criminal violence. This is not a precise science or one that will ever be free from controversy.

One judicial approach, however, should be unequivocally rejected. During the nineteenth century, courts routinely refused to invalidate restrictions on free speech that struck the judges as reasonable. This meant that speech got virtually no judicial protection. Government suppression of speech can usually be thought to serve some reasonable purpose, such as reducing social discord or promoting healthy morals. Similarly, most gun control laws can be viewed as efforts to save lives and prevent crime, which are perfectly reasonable goals. If thats enough to justify infringements on individual liberty, neither constitutional guarantee means much of anything.

During the twentieth century, the Supreme Court finally started taking the First Amendment seriously. Today, individual freedom is generally protected unless the government can make a strong case that it has a real need to suppress speech or expressive conduct, and that its regulations are tailored to that need. The legal doctrines have become quite complex, and there is room for disagreement about many of the Courts specific decisions. Taken as a whole, however, this body of case law shows what the Court can do when it appreciates the value of an individual right enshrined in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment also raises issues about which reasonable people can disagree. But if the Supreme Court takes this provision of the Constitution as seriously as it now takes the First Amendment, which it should do, there will be some easy issues as well.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) is one example. The right of the people protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like the right[s] of the people protected by the First and Fourth Amendments. The Constitution does not say that the Second Amendment protects a right of the states or a right of the militia, and nobody offered such an interpretation during the Founding era. Abundant historical evidence indicates that the Second Amendment was meant to leave citizens with the ability to defend themselves against unlawful violence. Such threats might come from usurpers of governmental power, but they might also come from criminals whom the government is unwilling or unable to control.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) was also an easy case under the Courts precedents. Most other provisions of the Bill of Rights had already been applied to the states because they are deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition. The right to keep and bear arms clearly meets this test.

The text of the Constitution expressly guarantees the right to bear arms, not just the right to keep them. The courts should invalidate regulations that prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying weapons in public, where the vast majority of violent crimes occur. First Amendment rights are not confined to the home, and neither are those protected by the Second Amendment.

Nor should the government be allowed to create burdensome bureaucratic obstacles designed to frustrate the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The courts are vigilant in preventing government from evading the First Amendment through regulations that indirectly abridge free speech rights by making them difficult to exercise. Courts should exercise the same vigilance in protecting Second Amendment rights.

Some other regulations that may appear innocuous should be struck down because they are little more than political stunts. Popular bans on so-called assault rifles, for example, define this class of guns in terms of cosmetic features, leaving functionally identical semi-automatic rifles to circulate freely. This is unconstitutional for the same reason that it would violate the First Amendment to ban words that have a French etymology, or to require that French fries be called freedom fries.

In most American states, including many with large urban population centers, responsible adults have easy access to ordinary firearms, and they are permitted to carry them in public. Experience has shown that these policies do not lead to increased levels of violence. Criminals pay no more attention to gun control regulations than they do to laws against murder, rape, and robbery. Armed citizens, however, prevent countless crimes and have saved many lives. Whats more, the most vulnerable peopleincluding women, the elderly, and those who live in high crime neighborhoodsare among the greatest beneficiaries of the Second Amendment. If the courts require the remaining jurisdictions to stop infringing on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, their citizens will be more free and probably safer as well.

Read the rest here:
Second Amendment | The National Constitution Center

Second Amendment, amendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, that provided a constitutional check on congressional power under Article I Section 8 to organize, arm, and discipline the federal militia. The Second Amendment 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. Referred to in modern times as an individuals right to carry and use arms for self-defense, the Second Amendment was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, according to College of William and Mary law professor and future U.S. District Court judge St. George Tucker in 1803 in his great work Blackstones Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as the true palladium of liberty. In addition to checking federal power, the Second Amendment also provided state governments with what Luther Martin (1744/481826) described as the last coup de grace that would enable the states to thwart and oppose the general government. Last, it enshrined the ancient Florentine and Roman constitutional principle of civil and military virtue by making every citizen a soldier and every soldier a citizen. (See also gun control.)

Until 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States had never seriously considered the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment. In its first hearing on the subject, in Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment prevented the states from prohibit[ing] the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security. More than four decades later, in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), the Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment as enshrining that the duty of individuals to defend our government against all enemies whenever necessity arises is a fundamental principle of the Constitution and holding that the common defense was one of the purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution. Meanwhile, in United States v. Miller (1939), in a prosecution under the National Firearms Act (1934), the Supreme Court avoided addressing the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment by merely holding that the possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length was not any part of the ordinary military equipment protected by the Second Amendment.

For more than seven decades after the United States v. Miller decision, what right to bear arms that the Second Amendment protected remained uncertain. This uncertainty was ended, however, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Supreme Court examined the Second Amendment in exacting detail. In a narrow 54 majority, delivered by Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that self-defense was the central component of the amendment and that the District of Columbias prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also affirmed previous rulings that the Second Amendment ensured the right of individuals to take part in the defending of their liberties by taking up arms in an organized militia. However, the court was clear to emphasize that an individuals right to an organized militia is not the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendments guarantee.

Because the Heller ruling constrained only federal regulations against the right of armed self-defense in the home, it was unclear whether the court would hold that the Second Amendment guarantees established in Heller were equally applicable to the states. The Supreme Court answered that question in 2010, with its ruling on McDonald v. Chicago. In a plurality opinion, a 54 majority held that the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendments due process clause.

However, despite the use of person in that clause, the McDonald decision did not apply to noncitizens, because one member of the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas, refused in his concurring opinion to explicitly extend the right that far. Thomas wrote, Because this case does not involve a claim brought by a noncitizen, I express no view on the difference, if any, between my conclusion and the plurality with respect to the extent to which States may regulate firearm possession by noncitizens. Thomass conclusion was also supported by his view that the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendments privileges or immunities clause, which recognizes only the rights of citizens.

The relatively narrow holdings in the Heller and McDonald decisions left many Second Amendment legal issues unsettled, including the constitutionality of many federal gun-control regulations, whether the right to carry or conceal a weapon in public was protected, and whether noncitizens are protected through the Fourteenth Amendments equal protection clause.

Read this article:
Second Amendment - britannica.com

Second Amendment: The right to bear arms

What is the Second Amendment?

There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by them

As passed by the Congress: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.

As ratified by the 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.

The Second Amendment Defined:

The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.

The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by JamesMadison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.

Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.

The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.

The Second Amendment was developed as a result of the tyrannous rule of the British parliament. Colonists were often oppressed and forced to pay unjust taxes at the hand of the unruly parliament. As a result, the American people yearned for an Amendment that would guarantee them the right to bear arms and protect themselves against similar situations. The Second Amendment was drafted to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States through the ability to raise and support militias.

Court Cases Tied into the Second Amendment

In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm to use for traditionally lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home or on their property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia.

Controversy

The gun debate in the United States widely revolves around the intended interpretation of the Second Amendment. Those who support gun rights claim that the founding fathers developed and subsequently ratified the Second Amendment to guarantee the individuals right to keep and bear arms. Those who want more stringent gun laws feel that the founding fathers directed this Amendment solely to the formation of militias and are thus, at least by theory, archaic.

State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of Rights

New Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article II

Maryland:December 19, 1789; approved all

North Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved all

South Carolina: January 19, 1790; approved all

New Hampshire: January 25, 1790; rejected article II

Delaware: January 28, 1790; rejected article I

New York: February 27, 1790; rejected article II

Pennsylvania: March 10, 1790; rejected article II

Rhode Island: June 7, 1790; rejected article II

Vermont: November 3, 1791; approved all

Virginia: December 15, 1791; approved all

comments

More:
2nd Amendment - constitution | Laws.com