Washington Times | Second Amendment protects the assault rifles Washington Times For decades the federal judiciary has been trying to interpret the Second Amendment out of the Constitution. It is, as Sanford Levinson has termed it, an embarrassment to an elite class of legal scholars that finds firearms to be unusual and ... |
Read more:
Second Amendment protects the assault rifles - Washington Times
Latest State to Restore Gun Rights
Fairfax, Va. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today applauded Gov.Terry Branstad for signingHouse File 517 (HF517) into law. The newly enacted law strengthensIowans fundamental right to self-defense and follows a national trend to expand Second Amendment rights.
It is a great day for freedom. Today, Iowa joined the nationwide movement to expand law-abiding citizens constitutional right to self-protection, said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA.The NRA and our five million members thank the IowaLegislature and Gov.Branstad for working to strengthen Iowans Second Amendment rights so they have the freedom to protect themselves and their families.
Included in HF 517:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.
Read the original here:
Iowa Governor Signs Monumental Pro-Second Amendment Legislation - NRA ILA
This event is 2A FlashMob Approved by AmmoLand News, anyone attending willautomaticallyqualify for their own FREE 2A Mob Patch.
Michigan -(Ammoland.com)-The Second Amendment March (SAM) is coordinating a pro-gun march and rally at the Michigan State Capitol on Wednesday, April 26th from 10:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M.
This event is open to the public.
The purpose of the event is to show support for the 2nd Amendment and allow citizens to meet with their legislators to discuss gun rights issues. Along with the SAM will be representatives for Michigan Gun Owners (MGO) and Michigan Open Carry, Inc. (MOC).
The event will start with speakers at 10:00 AM until noon. At noon a march will take place around the Capital Mall. Speakers will resume again at 1:00 PM. From 10:00 to 2:00 people are encouraged to meet with their local legislators and discuss their support of the 2nd Amendment. Throughout the event representatives from each gun groups as well as some State legislators will speak on the Capitol steps.
Tables for each gun group will be in the large tent on site with fundraising merchandise and literature available. Vendors can rent a table at this event. Lawful firearm carry is allowed on and in the Capitol building and we encourage all participants to exercise their 2nd Amendment right in a responsible manner.
Oh, and did I mention there will be a raffle?
Tom Lambert President Michigan Open Carry, Inc. [emailprotected]
Michigan Open Carry, Inc is a Not-For-Profit organization that depends on our dues paying members to continue our operation. We are an all-volunteer organization. As such, no one is paid a salary and very few of the personal expenses of our officers are reimbursed. Won't you consider joining us or renewing as a dues paying member today? please email [emailprotected]
About 2A Flashmob: In an effort to motivate gun owners and Second Amendment Supporters to show up in person at important events and rallies AmmoLand Shooting Sports News is giving away FREE 2A Flashmob Patches to anyone who attends a protest, rally, open carry event, committee hearing at your state capital or a Moveon.org counter protest. (You may already be eligible)
Spread the word, get out, get active!
Here is the original post:
Michigan 2017 Second Amendment March Is Less Than Two Weeks Away - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
Neil Gorsuch, newly sworn in as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, is taking his seat at a busy time for the court. Beginning this week, the Court will meet in conference to decide what cases it will hear in the near future, and the future of the right to keep and bear arms could depend on the outcome.
In the Peruta case, which is one of the cases up for consideration this week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals originally concluded in a 2-1 decision that San Diego County is violating the constitutional rights of residents by not recognizing self-defense as a valid reason to acquire a concealed-carry license. The judges found that the denial of a concealed-carry license, coupled with Californias ban on the open carrying of firearms, amounts to an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. However, that decision was overturned by a broader panel of judges on the 9th Circuit. In the en banc decision, the 9th Circuit held that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public. What about the open carry ban? The en banc review claimed that the question was beyond the scope of the lawsuit and would require additional litigation before the constitutionality of an open carry ban could be addressed.To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.
If the Supreme Court doesnt agree to hear Peruta, then the en banc decision will remain in force throughout the western states that comprise the 9th Circuit. A new challenge to the states open carry ban has been filed, but it will be years before it gets to the Supreme Court for an appeal. In the meantime, millions of Americans will have their Second Amendment rights curtailed by a court that refuses to examine the real question: Do we have a right to bear arms for self-defense outside of the home?
Increasing the chances that the Supreme Court might hear Peruta is the fact that there is a significant split among the courts of appeals on the issue of bearing arms for self-defense outside of the home. In Moore v. Madigan, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded: A Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan decided not to appeal the 7th Circuits decision to the Supreme Court, and instead the state moved to adopt a shall-issue concealed-carry law (Its interesting to note that Illinois didnt adopt a law similar to Californias, even though anti-gun sentiment runs strong in the state legislature). If the Supreme Court had the chance to consider this case back in 2013, perhaps the Peruta case would be superfluous. Its not. Its the best chance the Supreme Court will have in years to put to rest the idea that the right to keep and bear arms exists only inside the home. Lets hope with the addition of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court that there are four justices ready to vote to hear the case.
Cam Edwards is the host of Cam & Co., which airs live 2-5 p.m. EST on NRATV and midnight EST on SiriusXM Patriot 125.He lives with his family on a small farm near Farmville, Va. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @camedwards.
Read this article:
Will The Supreme Court Hear A Second Amendment Case This Year? - America's 1st Freedom (press release) (blog)
The City by the Bayon behalf of Californiasues mom and pop firearms accessories companies across the country.Dylan Saunders, owner of one such shop,7.62 Precision, is fighting back.
By Dave Gahary
San Francisco officials recently made news for vowing to protect undocumented (read: illegal) immigrants by refusing to order local law enforcement to assist in enforcing federal immigration law and sued the Trump administration over its order to cut off federal funds to sanctuary cities. Now they have a new target in theirsights: the Second Amendment.
Dennis J. Herrera, first elected city attorney of San Francisco in 2001, is the most well-known champion of same-sex marriage in the Golden State. Today, he wants to make a name for himself by capitalizing onthe many alleged massacres that have been frothily reported by the fake news media.
A week after his attack on the presidents plan to rein in the rampant illegal immigration, Herrera filed suit on Feb. 9 against five named and 50 unnamed companies selling magazine repair kits to California residents, who have had their Second Amendment rights severely limited by gun control-crazy politicians.
Magazine repair or rebuild kits are new magazines that have been opened, disassembled, and packaged for shipping and are used to repair existing magazines, create limited-capacity magazines, or otherwiseassembled and used in accordance with local laws and restrictions.
On the first page of the 34-page complaint, the lawsuit evokes several so-called massacres that have ostensibly occurred in this country over the past decade.
American Free Press sat down with the owner of one of the five named companies, Alaska-based 7.62 Precision, to discuss the lawsuit.
Dylan Saunders, who grew up in Alaska mostly in bush villages without electricity or running water and spent some time in the U.S. Army as a cavalry scout and later as a sniper in an infantry unit, livesin Wasilla, Alaska, where former Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor for six years.
I was injured in Iraq and came back trying to figure out how to support my family, Dylan told AFP. So I started doing what I knew, and that was working with firearms as a way to try to pay the bills.
Listen to AFPs interview with Dylan Saunders by clicking the image below:
He added, Several weeks ago I was very surprised to get a knock at my door at about 10:30 in the evening and receive a summons stating that I was being sued.
Saundersexplained how he got tangled up in this lawsuit.
California some years ago passed a law that prohibited most people in California from purchasing what they call a large capacity magazine, which would be anything larger than 10 rounds, Saunders explained. In the language of that law, they clearly allowed for magazine repair kits to be sold to residents of California, in order to keep grandfathered magazines working. Magazines are consumable items in firearms. They wear out, and theyre usually one of the first components to wear out. So, in order to keep a firearm running you need to be able to repair your magazines since they couldnt replace them.
When California banned magazine repair kits a few years ago, Saunders stopped selling them.
However, Herreras legal staff had simply accessed an old web page from Saunderss website, where ordering the kits is impossible. Once publishedon the World Wide Web,all pages remain accessible, even pages and websites that no longer exist.
Had they simply called me and asked if they could order one from me or even called me and told me that it was the attorney for the city of San Francisco, Saunders said, I wouldve been willing to prove to him that I was not selling these kits and had not intended for that page to be visible. But instead of getting that, they simply sued.
Saunders suspects there is another agenda at play here.
Its pretty obvious that their intent is not to keep people from selling magazine kits in the state of California. Their intention is to attack firearms companies and try to put them out of business, Saunders said. Thats why theyre using lawsuits rather than criminal charges. In the case of criminal charges, they would have to prove that a crime had been committed, while they can bring a lawsuit and hope to bankrupt a company without actually having to win the lawsuit, without having to provide proof. A lot of companies would just fold as a result.
Instead of folding, Saunders fought back, by tapping into what is called crowdfunding, by which a project (in this case, legal fees) is funded by raising money collectively from a large number of people across the world.
These guys were going to get a default judgment if I couldnt retain a law firm, so what I did was I established a GoFundMe campaign, Saunders explained. I was blown away that people from all over the United States jumped in. I think it was less than a week wed raised $10,000, which was our goal.
Saunders has retained a top-notch law firm thanks to the donations, and is still overwhelmed by the support.
We had people donating hundreds of dollars, he said. I was expecting that people would donate $15, $20, $25, and maybe some people would go big and donate $50, but I was just blown away by the support, both monetary and by people sending messages and saying, Were pulling for you in this. It really says something about our country and about shooters across the country.
Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit broughtby the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him.
See the original post here:
San Francisco Tries End-Run Around Second Amendment ... - American Free Press