Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Alternative Medicine
- Artificial Intelligence
- Atlas Shrugged
- Ayn Rand
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Conscious Evolution
- Cosmic Heaven
- Designer Babies
- Ethical Egoism
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom of Speech
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- High Seas
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Longevity
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Life Extension
- Mars Colonization
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- New Utopia
- Personal Empowerment
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Private Islands
- Resource Based Economy
- Ron Paul
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Teilhard De Charden
- The Singularity
- Tor Browser
- Transhuman News
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Zeitgeist Movement
The Evolutionary Perspective
Tag Archives: second-amendment
Posted: February 20, 2017 at 6:55 pm
Posted: Feb. 20, 2017 1:14 pm
I read with some skepticism the Feb. 10 New Jersey Herald story about two young neophytes seeking to challenge incumbent Assemblyman Parker Space and his announced running mate, Hal Wirths, in the June Republican primary.
Of particular interest was the claim that Assemblyman Space is not fighting for Second Amendment rights — an allegation I know firsthand to be incorrect.
As executive director of New Jersey’s official state rifle and pistol association, I can state unequivocally that Assemblyman Space is one of the Garden State’s true Second Amendment champions. Not only has he has consistently and reliably opposed every piece of gun control and anti-hunting legislation to cross his desk, but he has also sponsored major pro-gun initiatives including right-to-carry.
Anyone can pay lip service to the Second Amendment, but few can back that up with a proven record of action like Assemblyman Space.
To be sure, there are incumbents who should be challenged in the primaries on Second Amendment grounds, but Assemblyman Space is not one of them.
Scott L. Bach
Executive Director, Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs
Read the original post:
Space a champion of 2nd Amendment – New Jersey Herald
Posted: February 19, 2017 at 10:56 am
Senator Marco Rubios resurrectedSecond Amendment Enforcement Actwill ensure that law-abiding citizens in Washington, D.C. can exercise their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm, should it pass.
Emotionally charged anti-gunners are doing their best to keep the current stringent D.C. gun laws in place. Unfortunately, they dont understand that federal laws, already in place, are more than sufficient to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
It is essential for all to remember that criminals, by the very definition of the word, are law breakers. Boundaries are disregarded, and they act upon their own volition; without concern of consequence. Law-abiding citizens are consistently punished by having their rights infringed upon with layers and layers of laws that are in place to detour the criminal. The oxymoron here is that law-abiding citizens will obey the laws, and criminals wont.
How will enacting layers of laws over and above federal laws change the demeanor of someone who disregards the law, because they act with moral turpitude? Simply put, it wont.
Anti-gunners with their flair for the dramatic and with no foundationin fact spread misinformation. For those of us who know and understand the laws, it is nothing less than frustrating. For those of you who dont, become familiar with federal, state, and your local guns laws. Put them in context of criminal behavior.
Allowing D.C.s excessive gun laws to stand as is only benefits criminals. They already know that they likely wontface life threatening resistance when committing a crime.
The Second Amendment Enforcement Act will put guns in the hands of the good guys. So, when the criminals hear their targetsmay be armed in order to protect themselves, it could be the game-changer that helps to deter crime in D.C.
Author’s Bio: Pamela Jablonski
Posted: February 17, 2017 at 12:59 am
Mark Hopkins | Special to the Daily News
Why did we need a militia/gun amendment added to the Constitution?
As is true with most momentous decisions in the life of our country, to fully understand why something was done, we must study the times in which such decisions were made.
The why of the Second Amendment in the 1780s is very different from answering that same question in 2017. The United States was a very different country in the years following the Revolution than it is today. When President Washington first took office, two key challenges faced him and the leadership in Congress.
First, the Revolutionary War had concluded just eight years before. England had been defeated on our shores and withdrew their troops. However, that didnt make us the strongest nation on the globe. England still had the strongest combination of army and navy. They still controlled Canada, just a short trip up the Hudson River from New York City. In short, they were still a threat to us.
At the conclusion of the war, General Washington and the leadership in Congress did not have the money to support a standing army. It was the consensus that the U.S. must make do with smaller, live-at-home militia units in the various states rather than a centralized army. Thus, it was their hope that the new country could be protected with a citizen army that was armed and ready to be called up at a moments notice. To make that work, each military age male needed to be armed and ready if needed.
Second, several citizen rebellions had occurred between the end of the war and the time of the passage of the new Constitution. Principal among these were the Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Without the creation of a local militia, neither state had the firepower to protect the government or the people.
In short, our young country did not have the money to support a standing army so adding the Second Amendment was for the expressed purpose of making sure that each state had the legal right to call men to arms. Just as important, it was necessary that those men were able to join the militia fully armed and ready to defend their state and their government.
The contention from some that the framers of the Constitution adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could take down the U.S. government should it become tyrannical just has no credence in history.
In past columns about the Second Amendment, we have established the historical context of the creation of the Second Amendment. The primary purpose was to create a legal foundation for a state militia, the forerunner of our National Guard. President Washington not only wrote letters to support such action but actually created his own militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Congress supported his action by creating The Militia Act, that allowed states to call up militia units to protect the government and the people as needed.
Resources used for these columns on the Second Amendment came from His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis (2004), James Madisons arguments for a strong federal government in The Federalist Papers, (1777-78) and The Readers Companion to American History by John A. Garraty and Eric Foner, which tells the stories of Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.
If a reader missed the two earlier columns, contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org for copies.
Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers.
Posted: at 12:59 am
Harrisburg Daily Register
Mark L. Hopkins: Why did the US Constitution need the Second Amendment?
Harrisburg Daily Register
This preoccupation with the Second Amendment began a few months back when I wrote a column entitled Guns don't kill people. Really? The amount of interest in that topic directed me to do additional research on the subject and every avenue pointed …
Revise Second Amendment
CGF, Others Seek Circuit Court Review in Major Second Amendment Lawsuit – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
Posted: February 14, 2017 at 10:58 am
AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
CGF, Others Seek Circuit Court Review in Major Second Amendment Lawsuit
AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
SAN FRANCISCO -(Ammoland.com)- Today, attorneys for The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation, and two individual plaintiffs filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking en banc (full-court) review of a …
Posted: February 11, 2017 at 7:56 am
A bill introduced in Tennessee on Wednesday would make it cheaper to buy a gun for one weekend of the year in that state, with a special tax-free event.
Surprisingly – a county Democratic official opposes the idea.
WJHL reports, State Rep. Dennis Powers, introduced House Bill 744 or Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday. The measure would remove the sales tax on guns and ammunition during the first weekend of September. The proposal is similar to the tax-free back-to-school holiday weekend Tennessee holds at the end of the summer.
Were ecstatic about it, it would be great for our business, Tri-Cities Gun Depot Co-Owner, Tommy Isaacs told WJHL.
Isaacs even said his shop would reduce prices for what hes calling back to school for hunters.
Nancy Fischman, Chair of the Washington County Democratic Party would like to see lawmakers focus on other issues.
Why doesnt he propose a sales tax holiday for groceries? You have to eat but you dont have to buy a gun, Fischman tells WJHL.
If the Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday, were passed – it would take effect this September, joining similar Second Amendment Sales Tax Holidays in Louisiana and Mississippi.
Thank you for supporting MRCTV! As a tax-deductible, charitable organization, we rely on the support of our readers to keep us running!Keep MRCTV going with your gift here!
Read the original post:
Tenn. Considers ‘Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday’ – MRCTV (blog)
Posted: February 10, 2017 at 2:51 am
Under the propsoal, the 1st weekend of September would be called the Second Amendment Sales Tax holiday.
Andrew Weil , WBIR 11:44 PM. EST February 09, 2017
Rows of guns for sale in showcase of retail store with application on counter (Photo: wingedwolf, wingedwolf)
NASHVILLE – An East Tennessee lawmaker wants there to be an annual tax-free weekend geared toward gun owners.
The bill, filed by Rep. Dennis Powers, R-Jacksboro, would establish the “Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday” for the first weekend of September.
The tax holiday would cover firearms and ammunition. Guns covered by the tax discount would include shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers, BB guns, and Muzzleloaders, according to the bill’s text.
Tennessee already features an annual tax-free weekend at the end of summer, but that’s geared specifically toward back-to-school shopping.
Last year, Louisiana and Mississippi each hosted a Second Amendment sales tax holiday weekend.
If approved, Tennessee’s first “Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday” would be in 2017.
( 2017 WBIR)
View original post here:
Tennessee lawmaker proposes tax-free weekend for guns – WBIR.com
Posted: February 7, 2017 at 9:58 pm
Mark L. Hopkins More Content Now
This is the second in a series of columns that relate to the purpose of the Second Amendment and the gun rights issue that continues to fester in our society. The first column pointed out the strong desire on the part of the leadership of the country to have a strong federal government. The focus here is in the feeling of necessity in the leadership to have a means to enforce federal law and to protect the government from citizen rebellions. The Second Amendment became the law of the land in 1791. Prior to that Daniel Shays, a former captain in the Continental Army, became the leader of a citizens rebellion in Massachusetts in response to what Shays and other farmers believed were high taxes and a government that was unresponsive to their grievances. In January 1787, they raided the arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts and continued their anti-government rebellions through the winter of that year. This was two years before the writing of the U.S. Bill of Rights with its all-important Second Amendment. Retired General George Washington was so upset by Shays Rebellion that he wrote three letters commenting on it. Excerpts from these letters follow: But for Gods sake tell me what is the cause of all these commotions. Do they proceed from licentiousness, British influence disseminated by Tories, or real grievances which admit of redress? In a second letter he worried that, Commotion of this sort, like snowballs, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them. I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe. Later he wrote, If three years ago any person had told me that at this day I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws and constitutions or our own making as now appears, I should have thought him a bedlamite, a fit subject for a mad house. Shays Rebellion was eventually put down when a group of wealthy merchants in Boston pooled their resources and created their own militia to quell the uprising. In the early 1790s, a second major rebellion began in Western Pennsylvania. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion and, again, was a revolt against taxes. Thus, the Second Amendment was written and signed into law in the shadow of these two major citizens rebellions. The U.S. Congress reacted to this second major rebellion by passing The Militia Act which gave teeth to the Second Amendment by requiring all military-age free adults to stand for service to enforce the laws of the Union, thereby insuring domestic tranquility. President Washington himself gave orders to form a militia of 13,000 men to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. His words later were ..this is how a well-regulated Militia should be used to serve the government in maintaining a strong security in each state, as the Second Amendment of The Bill of Rights intended. From the letters written by George Washington and the actions of Congress it is obvious that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to strengthen the Federal Government against rebellion and insurrection. It was not, as some contend, to equip the citizens to make war on the government. In fact, it was just the opposite. My first of the three gun rights columns focused on the desire of the U.S. leadership to have a strong central government and the means to protect that government from rebellion. In this column the focus has been on the like-minded efforts of both President George Washington and Congress to put teeth in the Second Amendment so security and an orderly society could be fostered. My third and final column on this subject will come next week.
Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers. He is past president of colleges and universities in four states and currently serves as executive director of a higher-education consulting service. You will find Hopkins latest book, Journey to Gettysburg, on Amazon.com. Contact him at email@example.com.
Posted: at 9:58 pm
On Nov. 3, Donald Trump announced a group of grassroots and mainstream groups as well as public figures called theSecond Amendment Coalitionwith the sole purpose of protecting Second Amendment liberties.
While many of the groups and individuals already service the mission, it was unclear whatthey would do as a conglomerate.Guns.com caught up with two of its members, gun maker Jesse James and six-time Olympic medal winner Kim Rhode, at SHOT Show in Las Vegas in January 2017 to discuss more about it.
The coalition is really about bringing a lot of industry and experience to the table to help, advise and give him the best advice opportunities to help the industry that we can, saidRhode.
At the top of the list for James is universal concealed-carry reciprocity. If youre fingerprinted and youre double background checked and youre firearm trained to have a concealed carry license in your state, that should transfer to every other state. And it doesnt now, he said. There is currently a bill in Congress that hopes to achieve this.
Posted: at 7:54 am
Trumps nomination of federal judge Neil Gorsuch to the US Supreme Court has been greeted with much glee by conservatives and a well-anticipated gnashing of teeth by the progressive Left. Naturally, those of us in the gun community have our own particularized questions about what a Justice Gorsuch might mean for the Second Amendment. Lets take a look, shall we?
A look at Judge Gorsuchs generalized judicial philosophy is certainly encouraging. Given that it was Scalia who led the proSecond Amendment decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and MacDonald v. Chicago, and that Gorsuch has been described not inaccurately as Scalia 2.0, we may reasonably hope that Gorsuch will bring a Scalia-like originalist and textualist approach to Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Judge Gorsuchs actual record on the Second Amendment is rather sparse, however. He has not been involved in first-principle cases such as Heller and MacDonald, so his decisions have nothing as explicitly affirming. It is worth asking, then, whether any of his decisions could suggest he would approach the Second Amendment in a negative manner.
Having spent decades fighting antiSecond Amendment legislation and jurisprudence, the gun community is sensitive to any suggestion, however slight, that a Supreme Court nominee might be predisposed against their views. The result is sometimes a tendency to object prematurely and cry wolf.
Some in the gun community seem to be leaning in this direction because of a case in Judge Gorsuchs recent past: U.S. v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481 (10th Ct. App. 2013). In my view, however, this 30 opinion (which Gorsuch did not write, but in which he concurred) is entirely consistent with a robust reading of the Second Amendment. Rodriguez is perhaps best described as a Fourth Amendment case (right against unreasonable search) with Second Amendment overtones, much like the recent Robinson decision out of the Fourth Circuit.
In both cases, the police lawfully that is, with reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed stopped an armed person and disarmed him during the stop for purposes of safety. In both cases the person stopped was found to be in unlawful possession of a gun and was ultimately arrested.
In Rodriguez, the Court of Appeals unanimously, with Judge Gorsuch concurring, found the police seizure of the stopped persons gun for purposes of safety to have been lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and not an infringement of the Second Amendment.
Some in the gun community have characterized Rodriguez and Robinson as holding that a person who exercises his Second Amendment rights is now required to sacrifice his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search. I disagree with that view. While we must always be vigilant against substantive infringement of our Second Amendment rights and we know that those intent on such infringement will never cease their attacks we also need to acknowledge that all constitutional rights are subject to reasonable limitation, particularly when that reasonable limitation is transient.
The Fourth Amendment, for example, does not protect us from all government searches it protects us from unreasonable government searches. Similarly, the Second Amendment does not provide an absolute right to keep and bear arms under any circumstance.
Most in the gun community, for example, would agree that violent felons and the mentally deranged should be denied the right to arms and that doing so does not infringe the Second Amendment. Even in the context of law-abiding gun owners, few would consider a prohibition against carrying a gun into the Oval Office when meeting with President Trump to be an infringement of the Second Amendment, so long as our right to be armed could be asserted immediately afterward.
The transient seizure of a gun in the course of a lawful police stopa seizure, that is, based on reasonable suspicion that a crime is underwayand under circumstances in which the police do not know whether the person stopped is armed lawfully is, in my view, not an infringement of the Second Amendment. Requiring the officer making a lawful stop to presume that the person stopped stopped on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is law-abiding and is armed lawfully strikes me as unreasonable.
The rationale for such a transient taking the safety of the officer, his partners, the public, and even the person stopped is compelling and reasonable. Guns are, in fact, dangerous thats why those of us who concealed-carry them for personal protection do so in the first place: to make ourselves more dangerous to criminal predators.
As a strong Second Amendment advocate and someone who has concealed-carried a firearm for pretty much every day of my adult life (so, for most of the last 30 years), I find it difficult to get too worked up over a temporary seizure of my handgun during a lawful police stop so long as my gun is returned once the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity has been dispelled and the stop completed.
I, for one, welcome Judge Gorsuchs nomination to the Supreme Court, with great optimism for the Courts future Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Andrew F. Branca is an attorney and the author of The Law of Self Defense: The Indispensable Guide for the Armed Citizen.