Mediaboss Marketing

At the center of the gun control debate, few things are as hotly disputed in the United States as the Constitution's Second Amendment.

History of the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says:

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.

James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified and the anti-Federalists those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees the inalienable rights of citizens.

Interpretations of the Second Amendment

Since its ratification, Americans have been arguing over the amendment's meaning and interpretation. One side interprets the amendment to mean it provides for collective rights, while the opposing view is that it provides individual rights.

Those who take the collective side think the amendment gives each state the right to maintain and train formal militia units that can provide protection against an oppressive federal government. They argue the "well regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these organized groups. They believe this allows for only those in the official militia to carry guns legally, and say the federal government cannot abolish state militias.

Those with the opposite viewpoint believe the amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The individualists believe the amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

Both interpretations have helped shape the country's ongoing gun control debate. Those supporting an individual's right to own a gun, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that the Second Amendment should give all citizens, not just members of a militia, the right to own a gun. Those supporting stricter gun control, like the Brady Campaign, believe the Second Amendment isn't a blank check for anyone to own a gun. They feel that restrictions on firearms, such as who can have them, under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available, are necessary.

The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment

While the right to bear arms is regularly debated in the court of public opinion, it is the Supreme Court whose opinion matters most. Yet despite an ongoing public battle over gun ownership rights, until recent years the Supreme Court had said very little on the issue.

The Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.

One of the first rulings came in 1876 in U.S. v. Cruikshank. The case involved members of the Ku Klux Klan not allowing black citizens the right to standard freedoms, such as the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. As part of the ruling, the court said the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the Constitution. Ten years later, the court affirmed the ruling in Presser v. Illinois when it said that the Second Amendment only limited the federal government from prohibiting gun ownership, not the states.

The Supreme Court took up the issue again in 1894 in Miller v. Texas. In this case, Dallas' Franklin Miller sued the state of Texas, arguing that despite state laws saying otherwise, he should have been able to carry a concealed weapon under Second Amendment protection. The court disagreed, saying the Second Amendment does not apply to state laws, like Texas' restrictions on carrying dangerous weapons.

All three of the cases heard before 1900 cemented the court's opinion that the Bill of Rights, and specifically the Second Amendment, does not prohibit states from setting their own rules on gun ownership.

Until recently, the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on the Second Amendment since U.S. v. Miller in 1939. In that case, Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for carrying an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines, which had been prohibited since the National Firearms Act was enacted five years earlier. Miller argued that the National Firearms Act violated their rights under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

It would be nearly 70 years before the court took up the issue again, this time in the District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. The case centered on Dick Heller, a licensed special police office in Washington, D.C., who challenged the nation's capital's handgun ban. For the first time, the Supreme Court ruled that despite state laws, individuals who were not part of a state militia did have the right to bear arms. As part of its ruling, the court wrote, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

The court would rule on the issue again two years later as part of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which challenged the city's ban on private handgun ownership. In a similar 5-to-4 ruling, the court affirmed its decision in the Heller case, saying the Second Amendment "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

Despite the recent rulings, the debate on gun control continues. Incidents like those in Aurora, Colo., and Sandy Hook, N.J., only serve as motivation for both sides to have their opinions heard and considered.

Related:

Originally posted here:
The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms

|

Posted: Jun 18, 2017 12:01 AM

All lives matter. As do Second Amendment rights.

Which is why the killing of 32-year-old Philando Castile last July was disturbing, and the acquittal of St. Anthony, Minnesota, police officer Jeronimo Yanez, this past Friday, so troubling.

Castiles girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who live-streamed the chilling aftermath of the shooting on her cell phone, assumed the traffic stop was for a broken tail-light. But Officer Yanez, four years on the force, stopped Castile believing he might be the perpetrator of a recent robbery. Castile was not; he was merely the same race (black), roughly the same age, and had the same hair-style (dreadlocks).

Of course, many men in the Twin Cities metro area fit those characteristics.

Much about the incident remains unclear and in dispute. What seems indisputable is this: Philando Castile told the Latino officer that he was carrying a gun, for which he had a concealed carry permit. That doesnt sound like an admission someone would make if planning to whip out that pistol and start blasting away.

Also certain is the fact that Officer Yanez fired seven times into the automobile carrying Castile, Reynolds and Reynolds four-year-old daughter. Five bullets struck Castile, two in the heart. One bullet barely missed the toddler strapped into a car seat in the back. Castile later died at a local hospital.

The audio on the cellphone footage, which began after the shots were fired, has Yanez yelling: I told him not to reach for it! I told him to get his hand out.

You told him to get his I.D., sir, his drivers license, Ms. Reynolds responds, almost eerily calm. Please dont tell me, please dont tell me my boyfriend is gone. Please dont tell me hes gone. Please Jesus, no.

Yanez was charged with second-degree manslaughter and reckless discharge of a firearm. The officer testified in court that he fired his weapon after seeing part of the gun emerging from Castiles pocket. Reynolds told jurors that Castile was slowly pulling out his wallet in response to Officer Yanezs request, definitely not his handgun.

The jury was initially deadlocked, ten jurors voting to acquit and two to convict. But the judge urged them to continue deliberating. Though whites outnumbered African Americans on the jury five to one, some jurors told reporters that the two jurors initially favoring conviction were not the two black jurors.

Late in the deliberations, the jury requested to again review several videos introduced into evidence. The two videos the judge allowed them to re-watch were an interview of Diamond Reynolds and the dash-cam recording from the police car. The dash-cam recording has not been released to the public.

Last Friday, the jury unanimously acquitted Officer Yanez of all three charges.

Mistakes happen. Deadly ones, even. One can certainly sympathize with the plight of police fearing for their safety at traffic stops, which they know can turn deadly in an instant. Yet, law enforcement officers cannot go around blowing away innocent people because they are scared.

A young man who worked as a supervisor at a public school cafeteria and had no criminal record is dead. Many others black and white are dead in incidents that suspiciously lack good explanations. There is nothing in our American can-do spirit that accepts fatal errors. Especially repeated ones.

What to do?

Lets outfit police with body cameras. And lets write the rules for those cameras as voters in Ferguson, Missouri, did last April by passing a ballot initiative such that (1) police face repercussions for not having the cameras on, and (2) the footage is made publicly available, so people know there will be accountability and no cover-ups.

Then-President Obamas Justice Department investigated the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson and found that Brown was at fault, as the aggressor, not the police officer. Had body cam footage been publicly released the riots that followed may not have erupted. Citizens would have been saved millions in property damage and spared the divide along racial and political lines all across the nation.

In other instances, body cams might help convict the cops.

Still, even with body camera footage available, it seems difficult to gain convictions against police when they clearly err by killing innocent folks. Numerous cases of police shooting unarmed men have been caught on video and yet either not resulted in officers being prosecuted or with officers acquitted of charges.

Like Officer Yanez, the officers are often removed from the police force. But too late.

Police need better training on how to protect both themselves and citizens they encounter. Too much of the current training appears to encourage a warrior ethic of shoot-first and ask-questions-later. In fact, Officer Yanez attended a controversial seminar called the Bulletproof Warrior in 2014, which some police forces have discouraged their officers from attending.

Yet, even with better training, and with cameras always rolling, the problem wont be solved completely. I do not have all the answers, but as Americans we must find those answers.

Rarely do I agree with Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, but hes hard to rebut when, after police killed Philando Castile in Minnesota and Keith Lamont Scott in North Carolina, last year, he wrote, If you are a black man in America, exercising your constitutional right to keep and bear arms can be fatal.

Black lives matter. Blacks Second Amendment rights matter. If we cannot protect black lives and rights, we cannot protect white lives and rights. Much less all lives and rights.

BREAKING: UN Mission Official Says Terror Attack Underway in Mali Resort Area Popular With Foreigners

See more here:
Black Lives, and Black Second Amendment Rights, Matter - Townhall

Rep. Mo Brooks said Wednesday's shooting at the Republicans' congressional baseball practice has not altered his view of the Second Amendment.

Brooks, R-Ala., was on deck to bat and gave a harrowing account of the gunfire. Asked later whether it had affected his views on gun control, Brooks said, "not with respect to the Second Amendment."

"The Second Amendment right to bear arms is to ensure that we always have a republic. And as with any other constitutional provision in the Bill of Rights, there are adverse aspects to each of those rights that we enjoy as people. And what we just saw here is one of the bad side effects of someone not exercising those rights properly."

Brooks said many amendment rights besides the Second Amendment can have "adverse aspects" as well.

"We're not going to get rid of freedom of speech because some people say some really ugly things that hurt other people's feelings," Brooks said. "We're not going to get rid of Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights because it allows some criminals to go free who should be behind bars. These rights are there to protect Americans, and while each of them has a negative aspect to them, they are fundamental to our being the greatest nation in world history."

Read more:
Rep. Mo Brooks: Baseball shooting doesn't change Second ... - Washington Examiner

Your NRA-ILApreviously reported that Governor Greg Abbott signed two important pro-Second Amendment measurespassed by the Texas Legislature during the recent 140-day session into law:Senate Bill 16, priority legislation of Lt. Governor Dan Patrickthat slashes the cost of an original License To Carry from $140 to $40 and reduces the price of a renewal LTC from $70 to $40 to bring fees down to among the lowest in the nation; andHouse Bill 1819which revises Texas statutes to track federal law regarding ownership and possession of firearm sound suppressors. [The Texas Penal Code currently requires these devices to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives. If the Hearing Protection Act that eliminates this federal requirement were to pass Congress before the Texas Legislature meets again in 2019, suppressor owners would have no way of complying with state law and could be guilty of a felony offense without this important change.] An amendment was added to HB 1819 in the Senate to clarify that non-NFA, short-barreled firearms with a pistol grip -- such as the Mossberg 590 Shockwave -- are not unlawful to sell or own in Texas. The Lone Star State is one of just two states where this particular gun cannot currently besold lawfully. Bothlaws take effect on September 1, 2017.

Governor Abbott has nowalso signed the following bills into law, which also have an effective date of September 1:

Senate Bill 263repeals the minimum caliber requirement (.32) for demonstrating handgun proficiency during the range instruction portion of the License To Carry course. This unnecessary provision negatively impacts LTC applicants with hand injuries or arthritis who would benefit from being able to use a smaller caliber handgun.

Senate Bill 1566contains provisions fromHB 1692 andSB 1942 to allow employees of school districts, open-enrollment charter schools and private elementary or secondary schools who possess valid LTCs to transport and store firearms out of sight in their locked cars and trucks. These employees had been left out of the 2011 law banning employer policies restricting the lawful possession of firearms in private motor vehicles.

Senate Bill 2065includes language fromHB 421 andHB 981 to allow volunteers providing security at places of worship to be exempt from the requirements of the Private Security Act. This could include License To Carry holders approved by congregation leaders, since the prohibition on possession of firearms by LTCs at places of worship is only enforceable if the location is posted or verbal notice is given.

House Bill 1935repeals the prohibition on the possession or carrying of knives such as daggers, dirks, stilettos and Bowies, by eliminating them from the prohibited weapons section of the Texas Penal Code. Restrictions remain in place for possession or carrying of knives with a blade over 5 inches long in public places and penalties are enhanced for carrying those in the same locations where the possession of firearms is prohibited, generally.

House Bill 3784allowspersons approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety to offer an online course to cover the classroom portion of the required training for a License To Carry. The measure alsoexempts active military personnel and veterans who have received firearm instruction as part of their service within the last 10 years to be exempt from the range instruction portion of the LTC course.

See more here:
Texas: Governor Abbott Signs Remaining Pro-Second Amendment Bills from 2017 Regular Session - NRA ILA

Several college professors took advantage of Wednesdays shooting of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise to mock his support for gun ownership and the Second Amendment.

Daniel Blair, a physics professor from Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., tweeted that he hopes Scalise will rethink his A+ rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) following the shooting.

"My tweet was a gut reaction and pretty insensitive. I'm sorry I posted it."

I wonder if #SteveScalise will rethink his A+ NRA rating. #thoughtsandprayers do nothing, Blair tweeted.

Blair eventually expressed remorse for the tweet, telling Campus Reform in an email Friday that it was a gut reaction that he now regrets.

I think what happened to the Representative was a terrible and reprehensible act, he explained. My tweet was a gut reaction and pretty insensitive. I'm sorry I posted it.

Similarly, Merve Emre, an assistant professor at McGill University in Quebec, retweeted a post offering thoughts and prayers for the GOP lawmaker before snidely remarking that Scalise accepted $18,500 from the NRA and wants more guns on the streets.

Karl Qualls, a History professor at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania, contended that the incident was a direct result of easy access to guns and little regulation, even throwing the shooters race into the mix for good measure.

Another angry white man w easy access to guns (and state w almost no reg). Gabby Giffords, Steve Scalise. It isnt politics; Its guns, he wrote, referencing the shooting of former Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords.

In a follow-up tweet, Qualls said that although he doesnt condone the shooting, he is wondering whether it is too much to ask our legislators to AT LEAST work 9-5. Especially since no real legislation passed this term.

[RELATED: Anti-gun prof calls for shooting up NRA, ensuring no survivors]

When contacted by Campus Reform, Qualls said that he tweeted as a concerned citizen, not a professor.

I think all citizens can agree that we would like to see our elected officials do something (tax or healthcare reform, a budget, rational gun reform....anything), he told Campus Reform. Not a single piece of legislation has passed Congress and made it to the president's pen. Both parties need to do their jobs on a daily basis like the citizens they represent. That is why we send them to DC.

Meanwhile, Robin Morris, a professor from Agnes Scott College, tweeted that she wishes Steve Scalise a full recoveryexcept for the part of him that thinks a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.

In an email to Campus Reform, Morris explained that she hopes the Republican lawmaker will revisit his beliefs on gun control, adding that she was saddened, but not shocked by the shooting.

My tweet regarding Rep. Scalise meant to express that I hope he recovers fully, and that he will revisit his beliefs on gun control as so many of us who have been touched by gun violence have done, she explained, while noting that she herself has lost two friends to gun violence and even witnessed a shooting when she was a teenager.

[RELATED: College rejects gun club because NRA opposes gun control]

Morris went on to explain that while she is not anti-gun, she is pro-gun sense, saying she believes that people have a right to guns for hunting and for protectionwith proper background checks, licensing, and training.

Notably, Morris later deleted one of her tweets in which she claimed that the shooter was still alive because of his race.

Well we already knew it was a white guy who did the shooting. They got him into custody instead of killing him, the tweet read, with Morris telling Campus Reform that she made the mistake historians hate to doI tweeted without enough evidence.

I have deleted that tweet. It was also insensitive to the family of James Hodgkinson who are experiencing their own grief, I am sure on many levels, today. I pray for all the families, she added.

While several professors used Wednesdays shooting as an opportunity to advocate for gun legislation, there was one professor, Mike Plugh, who did not, instead tweeting that as a radical leftist college professor, I feel its important to hope that Steve Scalise gets a standing ovation if/when he returns for work.

Plugh explained to Campus Reform that while he is not necessarily "against" professors speaking out on issues "when the situation is hot," he would opt to discuss such issues with his students "in a closed classroom setting."

"I think some people feel strongly about gun violence and gun control and feel that it's important to discuss it when the situation is hot. I'm not against that at all. I think uncomfortable times are important times for discourse too," he stated. "I would probably talk to my own students, in a closed classroom setting, about the tragedy of the event and raise questions about policy priorities, political lobbying, and cultural values."

Campus Reform also reached out to Emre, but did not receive a responsein time for publication.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @spaduhhh

Visit link:
Profs mock Scalise support for Second Amendment after shooting - Campus Reform