Mediaboss Marketing

The Supreme Court unwisely declined to review Drake v. Jerejian, last week, a case that challenged New Jerseys discretionary system of concealed-carry permitting.

By denying review, the Court failed to resolve a nationwide split about the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Eventually, the Court will have to face the issue and decide if it was serious when it held that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Both Heller and McDonald made it clear that the government cannot ban or effectively ban guns, but lower courts are still struggling to define what restrictions are allowed under those rulings.

In 2008, in the landmark case of D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Eventually, the Court will have decide if it was serious when it held that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Later, in 2010s McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects citizens from not just federal prohibitions, as Heller said, but also from state and municipal prohibitions.

Since that time, the Court has not heard another Second Amendment case. Both Hellerand McDonald made it clear that the government cannot ban or effectively ban guns, but lower courts are still struggling to define what restrictions are allowed under those rulings. The Supreme Court needs to clear up the uncertainty.

Gun controllers in cities and states across the country are taking advantage of that uncertainty to test the limits of gun control. After McDonald struck down Chicagos de factogun ban, the city created a restrictive permit system requiring one hour of range training. But the city also banned gun ranges. The Seventh Circuit struck down the ban on ranges.

More recently, a judge struck down Chicagos ban on virtually all sales and transfers within the city because the Second Amendment right must also include the right toacquirea firearm.

See the article here:
Guns and Supreme Court: Is Second Amendment a Privilege, Not a Right?

N.J. Gov. Chris Christie will face a difficult decision in the coming days over an ammunition restriction bill thats nearly found its way to his desk and the pressure from the Second Amendment activists and the gun-control crackdown crowd could very well hang the fate of his White House aspirations.

The legislation seeks to reduce the allowable capacity for ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, down from 15. Its passed through the Senate and heads to the lower house for a second vote, where support is strong. Mr. Christie could see it within days, NJ.com reported. And pressure is mounting for him to take a side.

SPECIAL COVERAGE: Second Amendment and Gun Control

Christie will either veto the magazine restriction bill, or kiss his presidential aspirations goodbye, a headline of the gun rights website Bearingarms.com read.

But from the other side is pressure from parents of Sandy Hook Elementary School victims. Twice, this groups taken their lobby mantra for more gun control and for passage of the ammo limits directly to the steps of the state Capitol.

Theyre likely to make a public appearance during the final Assembly vote, due within days, said Bryan Miller, the executive director of the group, Heeding Gods Call, in NJ.com.

So far, Mr. Christies office has refused to take a stand.

If and when a final version of legislation reaches his desk, it will be carefully reviewed in the 45-day period he has prior to taking any action, one spokesman for Mr. Christie said, in NJ.com.

But any dream he might have for the White House or any GOP-fueled hope that hes the partys 2016 candidate may hinge on which way he goes on the bill.

Any candidate that doesnt do well in these early primaries can kiss their presidential aspirations goodbye and one of the fastest ways to sink a Republican nomination in the current political environment is to be seen as a champion of gun control, said Bob Owens, the author of the Bearingarms.com piece.

Originally posted here:
N.J. Gov. Chris Christie under the gun over ammo bill, as White House beckons

Interview Interrupted by State Highway Administrator
Delegate Smigiel has fought tirelessly to defend the second amendment. Support his re-election by going door to door, putting up signs, hosting a fundraiser, or donating at DelegateMike.com.

By: James Madison

Link:
Interview Interrupted by State Highway Administrator - Video

Lawmakers debate proposed EBT restrictions
State Rep. Timothy Horrigan is blasting a proposed bill that would ban people from buying guns with their electronic benefits transfer cards, saying it violates their Second Amendment rights.

By: WMUR-TV

Visit link:
Lawmakers debate proposed EBT restrictions - Video

Published: Saturday, May 10, 2014, 9:00p.m. Updated 23 hours ago

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens' argument about fixing the Second Amendment ( Fix the 2nd Amendment with 5 words ) rests on false premises.

First is that Newtown and other killing sprees could be curbed by more gun laws. Cities where strict gun laws coincide with high murder rates contradict this.

Second is that state legislatures have a valid power to infringe the people's right to bear arms. No, because the Second Amendment, as applied to the states by the 14th Amendment, prohibits this.

The right of self-defense is an inherent human right that is not granted by government; it precedes government. The Second Amendment protects a right that exists by natural law.

Finally, the right of the people to arm themselves against tyrants cannot be regulated by the would-be tyrants. Notice that it is usually the party of big government that seeks to disarm the people.

Brad Tupi

Upper St. Clair

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

Read more:
Flawed argument I