Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 28, 2016, 09:08:07 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94228 Posts in 2307 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff )
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] Print
Author Topic: We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff )  (Read 404995 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1650 on: October 09, 2015, 08:01:46 PM »

Not familiar with this site.  Sure hope this is true!

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1#wkxIfmhhRK2fHgZC.01
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2946


« Reply #1651 on: October 10, 2015, 11:33:39 AM »

I amuses me to know end to see this published in the WaPo--blood vessels are surely contending with spiking pressure in sundry "progressive" craniums--and the team assembled for this amicus has stellar second amendment credentials. Pardon me while I purchase a truck load of popcorn:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/09/amicus-brief-on-history-of-right-to-carry-in-wrenn-v-dc/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1652 on: October 15, 2015, 12:08:52 AM »

http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/battle-of-athens?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=facebook-referral-traffic&utm_source=watm-facebook-fan-page&utm_content&utm_term 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1653 on: October 21, 2015, 08:02:05 PM »

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/court_decision_paves_the_way_for_australianstyle_gun_ban.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13452


« Reply #1654 on: October 21, 2015, 08:04:36 PM »


Court decision paves way for second civil war.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7790


« Reply #1655 on: October 27, 2015, 08:19:00 PM »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3291978/Shotguns-virtually-sold-Austria-citizens-rush-buy-arms-amid-fears-massive-influx-migrants-dealers-claim.html

Shotguns have 'virtually sold out' in Austria as citizens rush to buy arms amid fears of a massive influx of migrants, dealers claim
There are now thought to be estimated 900,000 firearms in Austrian homes
Police say around 70,000 guns have been sold this year alone in Austria
Dealers say shotguns have almost sold out because you don't need permit
Women are driving the sales rush as fears grow amid influx of refugees
By ALLAN HALL
 27 October 2015
Weapon sales are soaring in Austria as citizens of the small Alpine nation become paranoid over the numbers of refugees crowding into their country.
In a country of 8.5 million people, there are now an estimated 900,000 firearms in homes.
And gun dealers report that it is women driving the sales rush. This year
Police say 70,000 guns have been sold.
'Virtually all shotguns are currently sold out, because you need no permit for them', said Thomas Ortner, spokesman for an arms dealer in Upper Austria.

Migrants wait for buses after crossing the border between Slovenian and Austria in Spielfeld, Austria. Weapon sales have reportedly soared in Austria as citizens of the small Alpine nation become paranoid over the numbers of refugees crowding into their country

Migrants wait for buses after crossing the border between Slovenian and Austria in Spielfeld, Austria. Weapon sales have reportedly soared in Austria as citizens of the small Alpine nation become paranoid over the numbers of refugees crowding into their country
For every other type of weapon, a licence is required.
Licence courses, in which applicants must demonstrate knowledge of firearms, used to take place every five weeks but they are now held weekly because of spiking demand.
In cities like Salzburg, a line of people outside the necessary government office to get the paperwork to buy a gun is now an everyday sight.

Broadcasters and local media say the numbers of refugees - coupled with a fear of break-ins as a result - is fuelling the arms race.
'Because of the social change, people want to protect themselves,' one arms dealer told the broadcaster oe.24. He said 'many women' were among his customers.

The flood of 'refugees' into Austria is continuing without interruption.

The Hungarian route has become less active, and traffic is now flowing at a rapid rate through Slovenia instead.
Hundreds of migrants wait to enter a camp in Spielfeld, Austria. Thousands of people trying to reach central and northern Europe via the Balkans often have to wait for days in the cold rain and mud at the borders

Hundreds of migrants wait to enter a camp in Spielfeld, Austria. Thousands of people trying to reach central and northern Europe via the Balkans often have to wait for days in the cold rain and mud at the borders
Czech Independent TV also reported on the arms upsurge. As of Monday most rifles in the country are out of stock.
The daily paper Heute reported recently: 'The cash registers are currently ringing loud at local gun dealers.
'Figures of the Ministry of the Interior prove it: more and more people are buying guns and rifles.'
A Central weapon register was introduced in June 2014 to record all legal firearm sales.
This year over 14,000 new weapons have been purchased.
Dealers reported that women are also driving up sales of pepper spray because of their fears for personal security in the midst of the great migration of refugees heading to Germany.
'We cannot complain about a lack of demand,' said Stephan Mayer, a gun merchant.
'People want to protect themselves.

'The most common purchasers of arms are primarily Austrian women who are also buying tear [pepper] sprays, which are much in demand.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1656 on: October 27, 2015, 10:07:48 PM »

Res ipsa loquitor!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1657 on: November 04, 2015, 12:16:00 PM »

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/11/nine-more-defensive-gun-uses-by-permit-holders-during-october-bringing-total-number-of-cases-covered-by-the-news-to-18/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1658 on: November 06, 2015, 04:53:00 PM »

http://barbwire.com/2015/10/28/second-amendment-foes-target-the-sovereignty-of-the-american-people/

Second Amendment Foes Target the Sovereignty of the American People
[​IMG]
Dr. Alan Keyes
on 28 October, 2015 at 11:00

If we are to secure our right to liberty and decent self-government, it’s imperative that people read the Second Amendment and base their views on its words and logic. Instead they reason from whatever happens to be their own preoccupation, and use the result as an excuse to stand for or against gun control laws, 2nd Amendment rights, etc. But, as worded, the amendment is not simply “against government” or “for guns”. Its logic begins from the premise that “a well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free state.” Anyone familiar with the background its authors’ took for granted will realize that the word “state” is used in the sense of “condition, or state of being”, as in the phrase “state of nature”, which was used (for diverse purposes) by English theologians and political philosophers like Robert Filmer, Thomas Hobbes, Richard Hooker and John Locke.

Used in this way, the “security of a free state” refers to the human condition, and how human beings safeguard themselves and their belongings in light of its vicissitudes. In this respect, the naturally free condition of human beings is held to be a mixed blessing, ever inclined to produce a condition of violent injustice in which human individuals are hardly “free” in any objective sense. Hobbes famously described it as a condition in which the life of man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

Though he takes a somewhat more optimistic view of its overall character, Locke sees that “the inconveniences of the state of nature… must certainly be great, where men may be judges in their own case…” He admits that, in the absence of civil government, whereby people in society are “subjected to the fair determination of the law”, the state of nature is a condition “wherein every the least difference is apt to end” in war.

But war is the state in which people must live constantly in bondage to fear, injustice and/or righteous indignation. Or else, without reference to justice and right, they are prey to a thirst for vengeance or self-satisfaction arising from some self-adjudged perception of disrespect to their persons or other belongings. According to Locke, a state of civil government, wielding powers derived from “the consent of the government” (i.e., their own individual commitment to lend themselves to a government instituted to uphold right), is therefore the only state that frees human beings from this oppressive bondage.

Obviously, in this sense of a free state, it is right for people to keep and bear arms because their arms are the source and means of their civil government’s actual power justly to maintain peace, the power that removes them from the nature’s state of bondage, which is perpetual war. In this regard, the right to keep and bear arms is clearly the consequence of their duty to lend themselves to the defense of freedom, thus rightly understood.

Of course, when individuals in government, by abusing their authority, make themselves a threat to the right the government is instituted to secure, the arms of the people are necessary to oppose them. But in this opposition the people do not act against just government. Rather they act to defend just government against abuses that threaten the rightful peace that is the goal and key of their free condition.

The reference to “a well-regulated militia” points to the fact that, though its aim is to secure freedom, the exercise of right the 2nd Amendment aims to secure is not just about each individual’s freedom to keep and bear arms. It is also about their obligation to employ the arms thus preserved in their possession to defend the just peace (i.e., peace arising from respect for justice) that corresponds to the state in which human beings are objectively free (i.e., not bound by fear or passion to perpetrate or endure violence and/or injustice.)

Obviously, this sense of the root of obligation involved in the right to keep and bear arms illustrates the logic of every one of the other unalienable rights. The freedom involved in each and every such right is not some absolute good, worthy in and of itself simply because it expresses the power of individual human will and preference. Rather rightful freedom has to be respected, and preserved inviolate, because it accords with the ultimate standard of right, which is God’s will for the existence and perpetuation of human nature, i.e., the good of all.

This is the logic of God-endowed unalienable right succinctly summarized in the American Declaration of Independence. But the Providential genius of American liberty was never more strikingly displayed than in the 2nd Amendment’s evocation of that logic in the phrase “a well-regulated militia”. As a matter of history this refers to the fact that, in New England and elsewhere, able bodied men who possessed and were capable of bearing arms in the defense of their local community were required by law to participate in periodic exercises, conducted in order to prepare such members of the militia for organized action in case of an emergency.

Anyone who thinks this through will realize that the current debate over the Second Amendment has been speciously framed to legitimize false doubts about each individual’s God-endowed unalienable right to keep and bear arms. But, unless someone is mad enough to suggest that individuals be deprived of their arms in the literal sense, can there be any real doubt of God’s natural provision with respect to this right? After all, with the right training, the human hand is a lethal weapon, quite capable of producing the kind of mayhem characteristic of the episodes of violence anti-gun activists exploit to fuel the demand that private ownership of guns be eliminated.

However when we ponder the implications of the Constitution’s reference to a “well-regulated militia”, it becomes clear that the left’s tendentious focus on the need for gun-control laws distracts from the truly egregious absence of legislation that actually updates and applies the 2nd Amendment’s logic to the very real threats we presently face.

In a series of articles on my blog entitled The Security of a Free State I discussed at length how and why, when properly updated, the 2nd Amendment concept of a “well-regulated militia” should be the basis for achieving a locally rooted response to the threat of violent attacks against soft targets (schools, offices, churches, etc.) throughout our country, whether by individual rogues or organized terrorist cells. But instead of studying and applying the practical wisdom derived from appreciating the duty that is at the heart of our 2nd Amendment rights, people have promoted a government monopoly of arms with the lie that we must sacrifice liberty for safety.

What is the real purpose of this lie? To rouse and exploit the fear most likely to be fatal to a free people, which is the fear of themselves. Come what may, it is a lie that must be countered with the truth, at all costs

For people…convinced that they cannot be trusted with the deadly power of arms will soon be persuaded that they have no right to control the power of government, which includes, by necessity, control over arms in their most organized and destructive form. So, in the end, by inducing Americans to accept the abrogation of their right to keep and bear arms our would-be tyrants prepare the people to endure the abdication of their Constitutional sovereignty.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1659 on: November 19, 2015, 09:34:15 PM »

by Ashby Jones
Nov. 19, 2015 2:42 p.m. ET
132 COMMENTS

Both sides of the national gun debate are poring over history books to try to bolster their case on whether residents of the nation’s capital can more freely carry guns on the street.

On Friday, in a possible preview of a U.S. Supreme Court showdown, a federal appeals court in Washington will hear a challenge to a law that restricts who can legally carry a handgun outside the home.

A key question in the case is whether such regulations have “long-standing” precedent. That has led lawyers to comb through historical documents for examples of how guns were used during the colonial era and earlier, in England during the Middle Ages.

The lawyers are taking the unusual step with the U.S. Supreme Court clearly in mind. No matter the outcome in the case on appeal, many legal experts think the high court will soon have to step in to more clearly settle whether and to what degree the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home—a question the justices have yet to address.

The emphasis on historical events makes sense given how “deeply the current Supreme Court considers history in some of its rulings,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an expert on gun laws.

The issue of guns, and limits on their use, is under fresh scrutiny in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris. Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) this week reiterated their support for a bill, introduced in February, that would grant the U.S. attorney general the authority to ban gun sales to anyone suspected of terrorism-related activities.

The National Rifle Association and many lawmakers oppose the legislation, partly on grounds that it sweeps too broadly. “Pretty much anyone can end up on a terrorist watch list,” said NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker.
Open-carry gun activists gathering Monday in Ferguson, Mo.
Open-carry gun activists gathering Monday in Ferguson, Mo. Photo: Michael B. Thomas/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

The majority of states largely allow anyone who wants a concealed-carry permit and meets a few qualifications to get one. Illinois in 2013 became the last state to do away with a total ban on concealed carry.

In Washington, D.C., and nine states, people can carry handguns outside the home only if they can show a specific need to do so, for instance if they have recently been threatened with bodily harm. At issue in the case, Wrenn v. D.C., is whether this more stringent type of permitting regime violates the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court, in its landmark 2008 decision Heller v. D.C., struck down Washington’s total ban on handguns, ruling that under the Second Amendment individuals have the right to keep handguns in their homes. Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the majority opinion, wrote that certain “long-standing” gun restrictions were permissible under the Second Amendment, which protects the right “to keep and bear arms.”

But the opinion otherwise said little to help guide lower courts, especially in regard to one’s right to carry a gun outside the home. Nor did the court specifically define “long-standing.”

In the current case, parties that want to keep Washington’s gun-control rules in place—lawyers for both the city and Everytown for Gun Safety—are pointing to a 1328 English law passed during the reign of Edward III, decades before guns existed anywhere in the British Isles.

The law expanded on a 1285 statute that made it a crime “to be found going or wandering about the Streets of [London], after Curfew…with Sword or Buckler, or other Arms for doing Mischief,” according to a brief filed in September by lawyers for Everytown, a gun-control group backed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

A collection of historians and the California Rifle and Pistol Association, a group associated with the NRA, filed their own understanding of the 700-year history of Anglo-American arms regulation. That brief, as well as one filed by the plaintiffs in the case, argues that the jury acquittal in 1686 of a man, “Sir John Knight,” who brought to a church in Bristol “a gun, to terrify the King’s subjects,” serves as evidence that the 1328 law wasn’t meant to apply broadly.

Lawyers for Washington and gun-control groups argue that officials in densely populated areas should be allowed some say over who can carry guns outside the home. Since the Heller ruling, that argument has held sway in appeals courts in New York, Philadelphia and Richmond, Va.

Gun-rights advocates and lawyers for the plaintiffs say the Second Amendment confers an ironclad right. A federal appeals court in San Francisco last year agreed, striking down permitting rules in two California counties. A larger, 11-judge panel has since decided to review that decision.

The three-judge opinion in San Francisco last year wrestled deeply with guns and history, and sent a message to those who work on gun cases that rulings of future courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, might hinge on historical precedent.

“It’s very tricky to use history like this in a contemporary legal argument,” said Priya Satia, a history professor at Stanford University.

Still, judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in addition to several Supreme Court justices, frequently look to history for help in interpreting parts of the Constitution. And the Wrenn case is no exception.

“The lawyers and their teams have dug up a lot of new historical material,” said UCLA’s Mr. Winkler. If the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, “I’m betting we’re going to see a lot more.”
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2946


« Reply #1660 on: November 20, 2015, 06:23:40 PM »

David Kopel has done some great work digging into the constitutional origins of the second amendment, following threads that that first appeared in 1600s England, for example. Might be too inside baseball for some, and it makes me giggle that this appeared in the WaPo, doubtless causing heads to explode, but those interested in the genesis of the second tenth of the Bill of Rights will likely enjoy this piece:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/20/the-second-amendment-versus-anti-catholicism/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1661 on: November 21, 2015, 03:49:20 PM »

Sen. Feinstein has proposed that the No Fly List become a No Gun Buy List.  Apparently the NRA and Reps disagree.

I must say that on its face her bill has a certain obvious logic AND opposing it may well be profoundly stupid politically.

Yes, yes, lots of people on the list don't belong there, but given what we know about how porous we are to bad people getting in, do we really want them sashaying in to the local gun store and arming themselves for major hits on America?  What would be left of the wonderful pro-gun political consensus that we have built in the last twenty years?

Discuss.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13452


« Reply #1662 on: November 21, 2015, 06:32:16 PM »

Sen. Feinstein has proposed that the No Fly List become a No Gun Buy List.  Apparently the NRA and Reps disagree.

I must say that on its face her bill has a certain obvious logic AND opposing it may well be profoundly stupid politically.

Yes, yes, lots of people on the list don't belong there, but given what we know about how porous we are to bad people getting in, do we really want them sashaying in to the local gun store and arming themselves for major hits on America?  What would be left of the wonderful pro-gun political consensus that we have built in the last twenty years?

Discuss.

Perhaps Lois Lerner could be coaxed from retirement to administer it?

We have given up on the rule of law, who needs due process?
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2946


« Reply #1663 on: December 02, 2015, 08:47:46 AM »

Good piece about the folly of current "gun control" efforts:

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/costs-consequences-gun-control#full
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1664 on: December 05, 2015, 12:50:09 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7790


« Reply #1665 on: December 06, 2015, 03:54:55 PM »





http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/
« Last Edit: December 06, 2015, 09:59:00 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2946


« Reply #1666 on: December 20, 2015, 08:45:23 PM »

Strikes me as a basic examination, but it provides compelling reasons why the rate of defensive gun uses are likely undercounted by the FBI:

http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=325026118089093121098091074085084010034050058012070082112080118071107005085088088099038035127124020121002005068022077099126126105060069010052119003089105096007008030073037024085029000026030071025005024069020094087068065073028115104118116016020085008&EXT=pdf
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7790


« Reply #1667 on: December 27, 2015, 07:00:29 PM »

Our G M has been saying buy (canned goods) and ammo for at least 7 years.  Now Obama is banning certain types of ammo by Executive Order and the price is skyrocketing.    I should have acted when he first said that.  I wonder if Wesbury called this 'market' move.  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560750
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1668 on: December 29, 2015, 09:05:25 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1669 on: January 01, 2016, 11:47:26 PM »

http://concealednation.org/2015/05/armed-citizen-pulls-gun-on-suspect-who-was-brutally-beating-police-officer-with-baton/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13452


« Reply #1670 on: January 03, 2016, 12:01:14 AM »


As it should be.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1671 on: January 05, 2016, 02:59:22 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208338704645575&set=a.10200272884125103.2201021.1243332336&type=3&theater
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1672 on: January 06, 2016, 01:30:03 PM »

http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/11/knives-kill-more-people-each-year-than-rifles-time-for-knife-control/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1673 on: January 07, 2016, 11:14:42 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8mgAgf3UOc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qCg15ChCZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLtFWOU0NvE
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1674 on: January 08, 2016, 12:57:16 PM »

http://www.agirlandagun.org/discoveries-of-an-anti-gunner-my-conversion-to-the-other-side/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1675 on: January 20, 2016, 12:36:14 AM »

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/judge-order-anti-gun-group-to-pay-ammo-companies-legal-fees-after-dismissing-lawsuit/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1676 on: January 20, 2016, 11:10:09 AM »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/20/rifle-capable-taking-down-helicopter-found-at-el-chapo-hideout-purchased-through-fast-and-furious-program.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13452


« Reply #1677 on: January 20, 2016, 11:17:33 AM »


Something poetic about that.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1678 on: January 27, 2016, 04:54:41 PM »

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/40303
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1679 on: January 28, 2016, 03:06:18 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/NYPost/videos/10157083489025206/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1680 on: January 31, 2016, 03:42:53 PM »

http://abcnews.com.co/obama-signs-executive-order-limiting-us-gun-owners-to-three-guns/

WTF?!?!?!?!??!?!!??!?!!??!!??!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13452


« Reply #1681 on: January 31, 2016, 04:28:27 PM »


Really got my blood pressure elevated there for a moment. Realistic looking hoax site.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1682 on: February 05, 2016, 12:18:05 AM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/assault-weapons-constitutional-protection_us_56b38ec7e4b08069c7a65c21


People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules
Certain semiautomatic firearms deserve the highest level of protection the Constitution allows, says appellate court.
02/04/2016 06:06 pm ET

    Cristian Farias
    Legal Affairs Reporter, The Huffington Post

Jae C. Hong/Associated Press
A federal appeals court on Thursday said Maryland's 2013 assault weapon ban, passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, must be held to a stricter constitutional standard.

In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Thursday sided with a broad coalition of gun owners, businesses and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and other laws aimed at curbing gun violence.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state's prohibition on what the court called "the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens" amounted to a violation of their rights under the Constitution.

"In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment -- the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home," Chief Judge William Traxler wrote in the divided ruling.

Provisions that outlaw these firearms, Traxler wrote, "substantially burden this fundamental right."

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who recently suspended his Democratic presidential campaign, signed Maryland's Firearm Safety Act of 2013 in the wake of the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, which spurred similar initiatives in other Democratic-leaning states.

The legislation mostly targets specific kinds of semi-automatic firearms -- such as AR-15s and AK-47s -- and large-capacity magazines, and adds certain registration and licensing requirements.

But gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association, quickly moved to challenge these laws in the courts, claiming that the restrictions they imposed on lawful gun ownership were overly broad and weren't proven to save lives.

    "This case was a major victory for the NRA and gun rights advocates." Adam Winkler, UCLA law professor

The legal attacks have largely failed. Last October, a federal appeals court in Manhattan upheld the most iconic of these laws -- those passed in New York and Connecticut in direct response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. And in December, the Supreme Court declined to review a ruling out of Illinois that upheld a similar ban on assault weapons.

The high court's reluctance to intervene in these disputes has left the Second Amendment in a bit of a state of flux. Since the Supreme Court established in 2008 and 2010 that the amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for self-defense within the home, judges have struggled to apply those decisions to the newer spate of gun legislation. And inconsistent rulings and standards across the country have left the scope of the law unclear.

When the Supreme Court refused to take up the Illinois case, Justice Clarence Thomas complained that the Second Amendment was being relegated to "a second-class right."

"If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing," he wrote, and added that those earlier decisions enshrining the right to gun ownership shouldn't be expected to "clarify the entire field."
X

The lack of clarity since then underscores why Thursday's decision may be a boon to those who want to see a broader interpretation of the Second Amendment, setting the stage for the next Supreme Court confrontation.

"This case was a major victory for the NRA and gun rights advocates," said Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA who specializes in Second Amendment law. "This opinion is an important one because it subjects important gun control laws to the most strict form of judicial scrutiny."

Indeed, the biggest surprise in Chief Judge Traxler's 66-page opinion is the words "strict scrutiny," a stringent constitutional test that most government laws and regulations fail. Other courts have applied more forgiving standards to similar gun legislation and upheld it.

The 4th Circuit's decision didn't outright strike down the Maryland legislation. Instead, it instructed a lower court to subject the provision to the higher legal standard, meaning more litigation and the possibility of a future showdown at the Supreme Court -- though maybe not yet, according to Winkler.

As if to illustrate the volatile politics and legalities of gun control, dissenting Circuit Judge Robert King all but declared that the court's ruling would lead to the next mass shooting.

"Let's be real," King wrote. "The assault weapons banned by Maryland's [law] are exceptionally lethal weapons of war."
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2946


« Reply #1683 on: February 05, 2016, 01:53:48 PM »

Expanding upon Crafty's post above, the recent ruling and its "strict scrutiny" standard is bad juju for folks like Mikey Bloomberg who want to smoke and mirror the second amendment out of existence:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/02/big-2a-win-4th-circuit-applies-strict-scrutiny-to-maryland-gun-control-law/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1684 on: February 27, 2016, 10:38:02 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/26/we-have-three-different-definitions-of-mass-shooting-and-we-probably-need-more/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1685 on: March 16, 2016, 07:49:09 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC4owhBrEtw&feature=youtu.be
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1686 on: March 22, 2016, 11:44:38 AM »

The Supreme Court’s Eight Gun Salute
A unanimous rebuke to legal resistance to the right to bear arms.
The Supreme Court building in Washington on Feb. 19. ENLARGE
The Supreme Court building in Washington on Feb. 19. Photo: Associated Press
Updated March 21, 2016 10:36 p.m. ET
195 COMMENTS

The Supreme Court decides many cases unanimously, but not often regarding the Second Amendment. That rare occasion happened Monday when the eight sitting Justices threw out a Massachusetts ruling that the right of individuals to bear arms doesn’t include stun guns.

Jaime Caetano began carrying a stun gun as protection against an abusive ex-boyfriend who remained a threat despite restraining orders (Caetano v. Massachusetts). When officers found her stun gun during a search, she was arrested and convicted for possessing an unlawful weapon. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld her conviction on grounds that stun guns are “not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because they weren’t around when the Second Amendment was written.

The Supreme Court’s brief per curiam (unsigned for the court) opinion dismissed that reasoning, as well as the Massachusetts’s court’s argument that stun guns were not meant to be protected because there is “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” That’s irrelevant, the Justices noted, because the U.S. High Court’s 2008 Heller precedent explicitly “rejected the proposition ‘that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.’”

The Caetano ruling, however brief, is an important legal brushback to the many politicians and judges who are still engaging in guerrilla legal resistance to Heller and the follow-up McDonald v. Chicago case that applied Heller to the states. The Massachusetts judges cited Heller, but they willfully misread it to reach the anti-gun rights conclusion they wanted. We’re glad to see even the liberal Justices stand up to that.

In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito also put a finer point on the absurdity of the lower court’s position that the Second Amendment protects only guns in common use at the time of the Founders.

“Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendment’s protections, simply because they were unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment,” he wrote. This would have been a stronger message had Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy also joined the concurrence, but at least two Justices made the case in detail.

The timing of Monday’s ruling is notable because Heller and the individual right to bear arms will be major progressive targets if there is a new left-leaning majority on the Supreme Court. Progressives will at the very least try to blow major holes into Heller by narrowing its limits on gun regulation. But for now the ruling is a reminder that Heller is a landmark that needs to be enforced, not resisted.
 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13452


« Reply #1687 on: March 22, 2016, 01:08:39 PM »


Nice to see such clear and well reasoned opinions!


The Supreme Court’s Eight Gun Salute
A unanimous rebuke to legal resistance to the right to bear arms.
The Supreme Court building in Washington on Feb. 19. ENLARGE
The Supreme Court building in Washington on Feb. 19. Photo: Associated Press
Updated March 21, 2016 10:36 p.m. ET
195 COMMENTS

The Supreme Court decides many cases unanimously, but not often regarding the Second Amendment. That rare occasion happened Monday when the eight sitting Justices threw out a Massachusetts ruling that the right of individuals to bear arms doesn’t include stun guns.

Jaime Caetano began carrying a stun gun as protection against an abusive ex-boyfriend who remained a threat despite restraining orders (Caetano v. Massachusetts). When officers found her stun gun during a search, she was arrested and convicted for possessing an unlawful weapon. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld her conviction on grounds that stun guns are “not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because they weren’t around when the Second Amendment was written.

The Supreme Court’s brief per curiam (unsigned for the court) opinion dismissed that reasoning, as well as the Massachusetts’s court’s argument that stun guns were not meant to be protected because there is “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” That’s irrelevant, the Justices noted, because the U.S. High Court’s 2008 Heller precedent explicitly “rejected the proposition ‘that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.’”

The Caetano ruling, however brief, is an important legal brushback to the many politicians and judges who are still engaging in guerrilla legal resistance to Heller and the follow-up McDonald v. Chicago case that applied Heller to the states. The Massachusetts judges cited Heller, but they willfully misread it to reach the anti-gun rights conclusion they wanted. We’re glad to see even the liberal Justices stand up to that.

In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito also put a finer point on the absurdity of the lower court’s position that the Second Amendment protects only guns in common use at the time of the Founders.

“Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendment’s protections, simply because they were unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment,” he wrote. This would have been a stronger message had Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy also joined the concurrence, but at least two Justices made the case in detail.

The timing of Monday’s ruling is notable because Heller and the individual right to bear arms will be major progressive targets if there is a new left-leaning majority on the Supreme Court. Progressives will at the very least try to blow major holes into Heller by narrowing its limits on gun regulation. But for now the ruling is a reminder that Heller is a landmark that needs to be enforced, not resisted.
 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1688 on: March 28, 2016, 02:27:45 PM »

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." —Thomas Jefferson (1785)

Bureaucrats Strip Vets' Gun Rights
 

Congressional lawmakers want answers. Senators Charles Grassley and Johnny Isakson sent a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs asking why the agency reports any veteran who is assigned a fiduciary trustee to the FBI as mentally defective, thus stripping the veteran of their right to keep and bear arms. So far, the VA has reported to the FBI 260,000 individuals — equivalent to a quarter of the number of people in Texas who have a license to carry. While all federal agencies are required to report "mentally defective" individuals to the FBI so they can be noted in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the VA refers an astounding 99.3% of such cases. All other agencies account for just 0.7%. With ruthless "efficiency" like that coming from the same bureaucracy guilty of the wait-time scandal, does anyone suspect abuse of the system?
In a statement, Grassley said, "Our military heroes risked their lives to protect and defend this country and all that we stand for, including our most basic constitutional rights. Now the very agency created to serve them is jeopardizing their Second Amendment rights through an erroneous reading of gun regulations. The VA's careless approach to our veterans' constitutional rights is disgraceful."
No one wants someone with serious mental health issues to become a danger to themselves or others because they had access to firearms. But before basic constitutional rights are denied, the question is what constitutes mental illness? And who decides?
A bureaucracy with no due process is most certainly not the answer. Yet the gun-grabbing Obama administration wants to institute a similar policy as the VA within the Social Security Administration. Our hope is that this new bureaucratic scheme won't survive the increased scrutiny that was established through the Supreme Court's Heller decision.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36588


« Reply #1689 on: March 28, 2016, 05:00:41 PM »

42,000 Sign Petition to Allow Republicans to Bring Guns to G.O.P. Convention
It may have been created in jest, but the conservatives in favor of open-carry laws are deadly serious
Tina Nguyen

With the potential for a convoluted, multi-round fight to determine its presidential nominee (and the threat of riots if Donald Trump loses), this summer’s Republican National Convention is shaping up to be a historic, if not historically messy, spectacle. As if to make matters worse for a party that is already trying to fend off Trump’s takeover bid, the G.O.P must now contend with a new petition that calls for attendees, already in a high-pressure environment, to be allowed to “recognize our constitutional right to open carry firearms at the Republican National Convention at the Quicken Loans Arena in July 2016.”

More than 42,000 people have signed the petition, which appeared on Change.org last week and originally set a goal of just 5,000 signatures. Signatories are asking the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, the R.N.C.’s convention venue, to override its no-gun policies and allow attendees to open-carry approved weapons. While people are legally allowed to openly carry firearms in Ohio, the stadium itself does not allow guns inside. Security protocols for the presidential candidates, who are protected by the Secret Service, would also likely prohibit attendees from bringing weapons within their proximity.

But people supporting the petition, begun by someone listing his or her name as “N.A.,” according to USA Today, and backed by a group that the Akron Beacon Journal has found no evidence of outside the petition itself, argue it would be dangerous not to allow guns inside the venue. “This is a direct affront to the Second Amendment and puts all attendees at risk,” he or she writes, citing the National Rifle Association’s belief that gun-free zones are “the worst and most dangerous of all lies.” Without people openly showing off their guns, N.A. argues, attendees will be vulnerable to a terrorist attack or even the people of Cleveland, a city “consistently ranked as one of the top ten most dangerous cities in America."

It's possible that the petition began as a prank, judging by the Twitter account allegedly run by the petition’s creator, who describes him or herself as “speaking truth to stupid.” Said troll seems to enjoy retweeting people who support the poll, if only to participate in the trolling itself...
•   https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/714205589388156929
•   https://twitter.com/AoDespair/status/714317939554422784
•   https://twitter.com/LewSOS/status/714214435628261377
But the argument underlying the petition is deadly serious for many conservatives, whether or not its creator meant to mock them. Republican lawmakers have routinely decried gun-free zones as a risk, especially in the wake of mass shootings at U.S. schools and universities. In Texas, a new gun law requires people with concealed handgun permits to begin taking their firearms with them to college beginning August 1. Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin also have laws on the books allowing concealed weapons on campus, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Donald Trump has often argued that the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris last November could have been prevented or mitigated if the victims had been armed.

Asked Sunday on ABC’s This Week about allowing convention attendees to bring guns, Trump told host Jon Karl that while he hadn’t read the petition, “I want to see what it says [and] read the fine print” before making a statement.

“I’m a very, very strong person for Second Amendment. I think very few people are stronger. And I have to see the petition,” Trump, known for accidentally accepting support from Klan members and fascists, said.
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!