Mediaboss Marketing

JF Finigan 6:35 a.m. MT May 23, 2017

A few cosmetic items does not make an AR-15 a "weapon of war," columnist Joanna Allhands says.

About 400 people gathered Wednesday, April 26, 2017, for the Michigan Second Amendment March at the State Capitol. Pro-gun and legal gun ownership activists met with legislators to discuss gun right issues, to show the political strength of Michigan's legal gun owners.(Photo: MATTHEW DAE SMITH | Lansing State Journal)

Robert Robbs Man up, Brnovich, and get Tucson's gun case out of our court on May 19 never says if Mr. Robb has a problem with Tucson (theoretically) destroying guns in the future, but reminds me of a friends question during a conversation about guns. (The friend has some nice guns and strong opinions.)

(Rephrased with multiple strong expletives deleted.) Is it possible to support the Second Amendment without being a prototypical junior jackass? I think I can answer that.

Back in the day, before the crazies were told by Wayne LaPierre and Charlton Heston that there was a Constitution and Second Amendment thereto, sportsmen owned guns, seasonally hunted birds and big game and participated in sundry activities with their guns.

There was little in the way of gun legislation issues. For example, there was no legislation (as was proposed recently) to require selling guns to the insane if they wanted one. Nope. No siree. Not a bit of it. Nor was there legislation prohibiting the destruction of guns in Tucson.

Unlike today, however, even Republican state legislators had at least an average IQ. No one was waiting for a house to house invasion by the feds to take away peoples guns.

The short answer:People still exist who agree with the Second Amendment, who own firearms and support gun safety training and practices - without wearing cheap camo to the grocery store, without engaging in panic gun buying encouraged by Wayne LaPierre, who dont pass incredibly stupid and unnecessary gun legislation.

But, then, there are also many more of the others.

JF Finigan, San Tan Valley

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2rd6OjV

Here is the original post:
Letter: Can you support the Second Amendment without being a nut? - AZCentral.com

For the last two years, I have been on a mission to find the impossible. I have been trying to find the law that allows police chiefs to "do what they want" with firearms licensing. Those words from our city councilors, as well as their repeated claims of not knowing gun laws, rang so loudly in my ears I almost didn't hear Councilor Corey Belanger refer to our rights as "privileges." Now that I knew where they stood, my mission began.

I have asked gun rights groups, lawyers and state legislators, and haven't been cited any law. In fact, when I handed Lowell's firearm policy to a member of the Joint Committee on Public Safety, he said that there were "issues with items 5-10" which happen to be what our chief "wants to do." Another state representative and former police chief told me that chiefs were not allowed to add new requirements.

My path then led back to our City Council. They didn't provide answers before, so I decided to try again. I messaged the council twice in the past weeks -- no cited law. Well, here's a law that I did find on my mission: Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 says, "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both .

So again, I ask City Council, what Massachusetts General Law allows our police chief to "do whatever he wants" with the Licensing of a Civil Right protected by the Constitution?

To see and hear Councilor Belanger refer to our rights as hobbies and privileges, watch the Jan. 19, 2016, on demand at http://www.ltc.org/watch/channel-99/city-council-on-demand/. He starts speaking around the 55-minute mark. Throughout the meeting, the council refers many times to the chief's ability to set whatever policy he wants.

DANIEL GANNON

Lowell

Link:
Chiefs can't ignore Second Amendment - Lowell Sun

Mec-Gar USA announced the introduction of its latest eight-round 1911 magazine, designed to offer support to Second Amendment organizations.

"We have always been strong supporters of the right of people to own and possess firearms," said David Larson, Mec-Gar USA national sales manager. "We are offering this magazine because we see the 1911 as America's gun and are donating a portion of the proceeds to ensure Second Amendment rights are protected."

The magazine is designed for .45 ACP-chambered guns only and features the full text of the Second Amendment engraved on the body of the magazine. The magazine is constructed using carbon steel and features heat treatment for added strength, as well as a blued finish to prevent corrosion.

The magazine spring is made using Type D music wire, and the magazine's construction is finished of with a polymer baseplate that is designed to withstand high-impact treatment. The baseplate is also easily removable for cleaning.

Mec-Gar is donating 10 percent of the profits from the sale of each of these Second Amendment 1911 pistol magazines to organizations that fight for the right to bear arms. The suggested retail price on the new magazines is $29.20.

Read more:
Mec-Gar Introduces Second Amendment 1911 Magazines - Shooting Illustrated (press release) (blog)

I hope the Supreme Court grants the Peruta cert petition but that is unlikely to happen. The reasons why the cert petition will likely be denied are many and most of the reasons have been addressed in my earlier articles.

This Monday morning we will know whether or not the Peruta concealed carry cert petition is granted, denied or postponed.

Yesterday (Thursday May 18th) was the third time the Peruta cert petition was considered by the justices in private conference. Most cert petitions do not even make it to their first conference, and nearly 99 percent of cert petitions are summarily denied without ever having been considered by the justices.

The always impressive website SCOTUSblog.com analyzes the probability of cert petitions being granted. The Peruta cert petition was relisted from its first conference which is rare and, for these past few years, almost always the case for cert petitions which are granted.

But the Peruta cert petition was relisted to a second and then a third conference of justices. If the Peruta cert petition is neither denied nor granted Monday morning but is instead relisted for another conference then the probability of the cert petition being granted drops from 93.4% to 6.6%.

So far this term, no cert petition has survived its fourth relist.

The US Supreme Court will release its Orders list at 6:30 AM Pacific Time. The folks at SCOTUSblog have one or more people inside the Supreme Court who live-blog the petitions as they are granted as well as live blogging the opinions of the court as they are released.

Although it is likely that the Peruta cert petition will be denied, the justices may decide to hold off until the Norman v. State of Florida Open Carry cert petition is filed.

And who knows, in the unlikely event that I win my appeal against Californias Open Carry bans before a decision is made to grant or deny the Peruta cert petition, my win would moot the Peruta appeal to SCOTUS.

Follow this link:
Second Amendment Case Peruta vs. California May Strike-Out at Supreme Court - NewsBlaze (registration) (blog)

The Second Amendment is only 27 words, but Americans have used millions of words arguing over what it means. It guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But which people, what arms, and under what circumstances?

Two milestone cases involving the Second Amendment that reached the Supreme Court are District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), declaring an individual has a right to own a firearm, and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), affirming the Second Amendment applies to state law.

WHY JUSTICE GORSUCH WILL HAVE AN IMMEDIATE (AND BIG) IMPACT ON THE SUPREME COURT

Now, if the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade: Peruta v. California.

At issue is the right to keep and bear arms outside the home.The Heller case specifically applies to situations within the home.Those who have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case are hoping the justices will see it as a logical extension of their earlier opinions.

The case arose when Edward Peruta and other gun owners who lived in or near San Diego, Calif., couldnt get concealed-carry permits in their county. The Sheriffs Department handles permit requests and requires good cause to carry a gun outside of the home.This does not mean a generalized concern for safety, but something specific, such as fear of domestic violence or a regular need to move large amounts of money.

If the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade involving the Second Amendment. (Reuters)

There were two separate lawsuits challenging the interpretation of good cause, but the district courts found no violation of the Second Amendment.

CALIFORNIA CONCEALED WEAPON LAW TOSSED BY FED APPEALS COURT

Then, in 2014, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the policy did indeed violate the right to bear arms for self-defense. The state, however, got a new hearing in front of 11 9th Circuit judges, who decided 7-4, the restrictions for concealed-carry permits were allowable.

The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court and though the Justices have rescheduled its consideration several times, some experts feel the court is finally ready to hear Peruta.

I suspect theyre going to grant it, said John Eastman, former law dean at Chapman University and the director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Eastman told Fox News, its percolating all across the country.

He also feels the justices may have put it off while waiting for a full complement on the court, which they got when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed last month.Gorsuch, in fact, may be the justice to tip the opinion in one direction or the other, as previous Second Amendment cases were determined in a 5-4 ruling.

According to Eugene Volokh, professor of law at University of California at Los Angeles, this case is primed for the Supreme Court, as it deals with a basic constitutional right and the lower courts are split on the issue.

It would be a good time for the highest court to step in and settle the controversy.He also feels that while no one is sure how Gorsuch will vote, there is a sense that hes sympathetic to a broader view of the Second Amendment.

The case may turn on how the court frames the issue.To Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, the legal question to be settled is whether a state like California may determine its own rules on concealed-carry permits.

The Second Amendment isnt an absolute right, Chemerinsky notes. Throughout British and American history, theres never been a right to have concealed weapons.

But Eugene Volokh believes theres a bigger issue at stake. If the state of California, which essentially bans open carry of a gun, makes it next to impossible for a typical citizen to get a concealed-carry permit, this is tantamount to banning the right to bear arms except for a few favored people.

Experts agree on one point. As Chemerinsky puts it, if Peruta is taken up, no matter what the Supreme Court says, it will be a landmark decision.

Read more:
Second Amendment case may be headed to Supreme Court