Tag Archives: Second Amendment

Why We Need Our Guns, by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Guns are the last defense against government tyranny, and history has demonstrated repeatedly that governments will tyrannize defenseless populations. From Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., at lewrockwell.com:

Make no mistake about, brain-dead Biden and his gang of criminals want to take our guns away. And these efforts didn’t start with him. As James Bovard pointed out in 2020, ““’Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15,’ declared ‘Beto’ O’Rourke at a Democratic party presidential candidate debate in September. Compelling Americans to surrender their so-called assault weapons is ‘the newest purity test’ for Democratic presidential candidates, according to the Washington Post. O’Rourke and other Democratic presidential candidates, including Cory Booker, Kristin Gillibrand, and Bill de Blasio (now withdrawn from the race, as are Gillibrand and O’Rourke) have all endorsed mandatory buy-backs of assault weapons. Though such proposals are momentarily politically profitable, they could start a cascade of public-policy dominoes that ends in civil war.

When Australia and New Zealand mandated buy-backs of assault weapons, most gun owners ignored the decrees despite politicians repeatedly ratcheting up their threats. Similar noncompliance to laws requiring surrender or registration of assault weapons has occurred in California, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and elsewhere.

Congress passed an assault-weapons ban in 1994 that lasted for a decade. The original assault-weapons ban protected Americans from being shot with rifles that included features such as grenade launchers, bayonet lugs, or other detailing whose primary impact was to fuel the phobias of gun haters.

Continue reading→

Recent Events Only Reinforce Our Need For Gun Rights And Community Militias, by Brandon Smith

The gun controllers pretend not to notice, but those of us who defend the Second Amendment do so because we don’t trust either the gun controllers or governments. Would anyone like to make the ludicrous argument that we should? From Brandon Smith at alt-market.us:

I want to stress a very important point first and foremost, because I don’t think the political left and the average gun grabber understands the gravity of the situation and they need to be educated:

Liberty advocates will NEVER give up their guns. It’s not going to happen. We have drawn a line in the sand when it comes to the 2nd Amendment and we are not going to move, not even an inch. It does not matter what legislation or executive orders Joe Biden promotes, and it does not matter if there are future criminal events involving firearms. There is no scenario in which we are going to hand over our ability to defend ourselves and rely on the government alone. All the indignant wailing and preaching from anti-gun leftists is for naught; they will get nothing.

Gun rights are integral to a free society because they act as a deterrent to potential government over-reach and authoritarianism. Tyrants might infiltrate politics and take over governments, and they might even THINK they have the ability to oppress the public, but they will never be quite sure they can get away with it as long as the public has the means to “reach out and touch them” from a distance. They will always have doubts and this is vital for freedom – When tyrants have doubts, liberty prevails.

Continue reading→

National Concealed Carry? It Might Be Sooner Than You Think, by BKROP

The current Supreme Court is the most sympathetic the right to bear arms in decades. From BKROP at themachinegunnest.com:

If you’re unaware of the most recent 2nd amendment case in the Supreme Court, let me give you a quick refresher. NYSRPA v. Bruen deals with the “may-issue” scheme plaguing liberal states. Essentially, the government decides whether you can carry a firearm based on specific criteria or an atypical need from the general population. Suspiciously missing from this criterion is “self-defense.”

Maryland has a scheme very similar to New York’s. The Machine Gun Nest is a Maryland-based company, and I grew up in Maryland. I recently received my concealed carry permit from Maryland State Police after submitting to an intensive background check which required me to prove (with tax forms, bank account statements, and more) that I was indeed a business owner. If I had merely said that I was a humble tax-paying, law-abiding citizen who was concerned about their safety on my evening walks through Baltimore city, I would have denied that permit.

See the issue here?

Well, so does the Supreme Court.

Oral Arguments for NYSRPA v. Bruen took place on Nov. 3rd, and afterward, it seemed like the majority of Justices were staunchly on the 2nd amendment side. We’ll have to wait until summer 2022 to get the verdict, but it appears that the state of New York has seen the future and has already started crafting legislation to render a concealed carry permit useless.

New York Bill A08684 is an apparent reaction to the almost certainty that the Supreme Court will rule New York’s permitting scheme as unconstitutional. The bill itself states that no firearms can be possessed anywhere on “public” transportation (including rideshares, trains, and taxis), in restaurants, or anywhere where 15 or more people are gathered.

While this bill may be depressing to read for the New Yorkers who are desperate for the ability to defend themselves, the evidence is clear that even the government of New York seems to be confident that they’re going to lose NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Continue reading→

Gun Control Is Dooming Dems To Defeat In Rural America, by Cam Edwards

Democrats’ gun control advocacy has never won them many votes—they’re generally preaching to the choir—and its cost them plenty. From Cam Edwards at bearingarms.com:

I don’t know about you, but though I’m a conservative (or at least conservatarian), I’d love to actually have an election where it was difficult to choose between the two major parties. Since the Second Amendment is by far the most important factor in my vote, however, it’s been really easy to decide where my vote is gonna go. But based on the absolute ass-kicking delivered to the Democrats last Tuesday in my home state of Virginia, you’d think they’d get the message that maybe its time to move on from their goals of disarming American citizens. Based on the reaction so far,though the Democrats are in deep denial or simply unwilling to waver on their commitment to denying Americans their Second Amendment rights, and disparaging those who exercise them.

Witness the reaction to Republican Winsome Sears winning election as Lt. Governor in Virginia. Sears is the first Black woman to win statewide election in Virginia, but Democrats by and large have preferred to focus on the campaign ad with her proudly holding an AR-15. In fact, Saturday Night Live’s Michael Che declared that the picture was actually good news for Democrats, because “nothing will get Republicans to support gun control faster than this picture.”

Che should come hang out with me in central Virginia sometime. I guarantee that conservative white folks are far more comfortable with Winsome Sears (or himself) owning an AR-15 than his white liberal neighbors in New York City. The “tolerant Left” is never more bigoted than when it comes to conservatives of color, which is evident when it comes to the Left’s collective disdain over Sears’ embrace of the Second Amendment.

Continue reading→

Locked and Loaded: The Supreme Court Argument Appears To Confirm A Major Gun Rights Victory in the Making, by Jonathan Turley

It looks like the Supreme Court is going to come down on the side of the Second Amendment. From Jonathan Turley at jonathanturley.org:

We have been discussing (here and here and here) the Supreme Court challenge in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. (NYSRPA) v. Bruen, the first Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court in over ten years. Yesterday’s oral argument appeared to confirm the expectations in those columns on the likely reversal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and a reinforcement of Second Amendment rights.

In 2008, the Supreme Court recognized the right to bear arms as an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller. Two years after Heller, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court ruled that this right applied against the states.

This case concerns concealed-carry restrictions under N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f) that require a showing of “proper cause.” Lower courts have upheld the New York law, but there are ample constitutional concerns over its vague standard, such as showing that you are “of good moral character.” New York wants to exercise discretion in deciding who needs to carry guns in public while gun owners believe that the law flips the constitutional presumption in favor of such a right.

The oral argument quickly confirmed the likely votes of five justices against the New York law. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh appeared clearly committed to a reversal as well as a possible expansion of protections for gun rights. Chief Justice John Roberts appeared committed to vote against the law but not necessarily on board with a significant expansion of protections from the earlier holdings of the Court.

The surprise of the argument came from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote a strong Second Amendment opinion as an appellate judge.  Barrett appeared open to arguments that greater regulation of guns may be appropriate in cities or “sensitive places.”

As I wrote earlier, justices like Roberts could vote down the law but retain the view in Heller that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” That includes restrictions in “sensitive places.”

However, in one telling moment, Roberts noted that gun rights should be more expansive in cities to allow self-defense. After all, he asked New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, “How many muggings take place in the forest?”

Continue reading→

The Supreme Showdown: Bruen Has The Makings of a Major Second Amendment Victory, by Jonathan Turley

The Supreme Court has an opportunity to clarify and expand gun rights under the Second Amendment, and the betting is that they will do so. From Jonathan Turley at jonathanturley.com:

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will take up arguably the oldest and most controversial right in our history. New York State Rifle Association v. Bruen is the first major gun rights case in over ten years to come before the Supreme Court and it has the makings of a major gun rights victory in the making.

The case concerns concealed-carry restrictions under N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f) that require a showing of “proper cause.” Lower courts have upheld the New York law, but there are ample constitutional concerns over its vague standard, such as showing that you are “of good moral character.” New York wants to exercise discretion in deciding who needs to carry guns in public while gun owners believe that the law flips the constitutional presumption in favor of such a right.

There are few constitutional rights that have been debated so long in this country as gun rights. Indeed, before other Englishmen were given a written guarantee of the right to bear arms, colonists in Virginia in 1607 were given such a written guarantee by the Crown.  Since that time, the right to bear arms has been an engrained part of our culture and ultimately our Constitution.

Despite that history, the meaning of the right has remained the subject of heated debate. That is evident from the fact that it was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court finally recognized the right to bear arms as an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller. Two years after Heller, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court ruled that this right applied against the states.

This is actually the second time in two years that the New York State Rifle Association has come knocking on the door of the Supreme Court. The Association previously challenged a New York law that imposed stringent conditions on the ability of gun owners to even transport their guns outside of their homes. The law was viewed by some of us as unconstitutional under existing case law, but New York politicians insisted that it would be defended all the way up to the Supreme Court.  However, when the Court called their bluff and accepted the case, those politicians quickly changed the law and pulled the case before the Court could rule.

Continue reading→

Locked and Loaded: Supreme Court is Ready for a Showdown on the Second Amendment, by Jonathan Turley

The Supreme Court has been looking for the right case to reaffirm the Second Amendment and it looks like they’ve found it. From Jonathan Turley at jonathanturley.org:

Below is my column in the Hill on the makings of a blockbuster case in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the first major gun rights case before the Supreme Court in ten years.  Justices have been openly discussing a case to push back on lower courts that have been chipping away at its Second Amendment jurisprudence. They found that case with a strikingly familiar plaintiff.

Here is the column:

In the movie “True Grit,” federal marshal Rooster Cogburn is asked if the gun that he brandished at a crime scene was loaded. Cogburn, played by John Wayne, dryly responds, A gun that’s unloaded and cocked ain’t good for nothing.” Something similar might be said of a Supreme Court docket, particularly when there is a Second Amendment case that could prove one of the most impactful decisions of the term.

The court will soon take up New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, more than a decade after its last major gun rights decision. The case promises to be a showdown between the Supreme Court and lower courts, which have been chipping away at the high court’s prior Second Amendment rulings.

In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. Two years after Heller, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court ruled that this right applied against the states.

The new case concerns concealed-carry restrictions under N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f) that require a showing of “proper cause.” Lower courts have upheld the New York law, but there are ample constitutional concerns over its vague standard, such as showing that you are “of good moral character.” The case presents a single short, direct question — whether New York’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

The high court has been carefully waiting for just the right case to address states and cities that have sought to limit gun rights. Indeed, just this week, the court turned down a challenge of a Wisconsin law imposing a lifetime ban on gun ownership for former felons, including cases involving nonviolent crimes. That and other cases seemed tailor-made for Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote a strong defense of the Second Amendment in a similar case as an appellate judge.

Continue reading→

The Second Amendment’s Right to Bear Arms: What It Means, by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead

Without the Second Amendment, none of the other amendments mean spit. From John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead at rutherford.org:

“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.”—The Second Amendment to the US Constitution

You can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives.

In the first group are those who see the government as a Nanny State, empowered to look out for the best interests of the populace, even when that means overriding our rights as individuals and free will.

These individuals tend to interpret the Second Amendment to mean that only members of law enforcement and the military are entitled to own a gun. Case in point: President Biden recently (and wrongly) asserted that “the Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.”

In the second group are those who see the government as inherently corrupt.

These individuals tend to view the Second Amendment as a means of self-defense, whether that involves defending themselves against threats to their freedoms or threats from individuals looking to harm them. For instance, eleven men were recently arrested for traveling on the interstate with unlicensed guns that were not secured in a case. The group, reportedly associated with a sovereign citizens group, claimed to be traveling from Rhode Island to Maine for militia training.

And then there is a third group, made up of those who view the government as neither good nor evil, but merely a powerful entity that, as Thomas Jefferson recognized, must be bound “down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” To this group, the Second Amendment’s assurance of the people’s right to bear arms is no different from any other right enshrined

Continue reading→

Judge overturns California’s 32-year ban on assault weapons, by Don Thompson

As the government gets ever more tyrannical, guns and gun rights loom ever larger. From Don Thompson at apnews.com:

FILE - In this Dec. 27, 2012, file photo are some of the weapons that include handguns, rifles, shotguns and assault weapons, collected in a Los Angeles Gun Buyback event displayed during a news conference at the LAPD headquarters in Los Angeles. A federal judge has overturned California's three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled Friday, June 4, 2021, that the state's definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File)
1 of 5
FILE – In this Dec. 27, 2012, file photo are some of the weapons that include handguns, rifles, shotguns and assault weapons, collected in a Los Angeles Gun Buyback event displayed during a news conference at the LAPD headquarters in Los Angeles. A federal judge has overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled Friday, June 4, 2021, that the state’s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge has overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, calling it a “failed experiment” that violates people’s constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled on Friday that the state’s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive,” Benitez said. He issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law but stayed it for 30 days to give state Attorney General Rob Bonta time to appeal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the decision, calling it “a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians, period.”

In his 94-page ruling, the judge spoke favorably of modern weapons and said they were overwhelmingly used for legal reasons.

“Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle,” the judge said in his ruling’s introduction.

Continue reading→

The Reasons Why Leftists Will Never Successfully Disarm Americans, by Brandon Smith

The firearms crowd has read their history and know full well what the gun control crowd wants: to seize privately owned guns. From Brandon Smith at alt-market.com:

Gun confiscation has always been the Holy Grail of totalitarian regimes. Without disarmament, fully centralized control of a population is not possible. And though it is true that not every evil regime seeks to disarm every single citizen (at least not right away), they always disarm the people they specifically intend to hurt the most.

For example, gun control advocates today like to point out that the Third Reich in Germany did not disarm the entire German population. This is a rather bizarre position for leftists as they continually wail and scream about Nazis around every corner and behind every tree, but they will STILL defend their gun grabbing policies by arguing that the Nazis were not as bad as conservatives assume. Of course, what they rarely mention is that the Nazis DID disarm millions of people; most of them Jews and political opponents under 1938 German gun laws.

The National Socialists disarmed the people they planned to destroy. It’s not hard to figure out why; they didn’t want their targets to be able to fight back. They allowed their political supporters to keep their weapons legally; this is not a relaxation of gun laws, in fact, it’s the reverse – It is selective enforcement of gun confiscation based on ideological loyalty.

Hilariously, leftists in the US when confronted with this fact double down on their gun control arguments. Instead of admitting their foolish error they will say: “Yes, the Nazis disarmed the Jews and others, but having guns would have made no difference in saving their lives…” And there you have it – The most backwards circular logic of all time. If Jews and others owning guns was not a deterrent to their slaughter, then why would the Nazis bother disarming them in the first place? Leftists have no answer to this question.

They are trying to argue against facts using a hypothetical; really, how would they know? Maybe owning guns might have saved the lives of millions of people the Nazis had deemed enemies of the state? Maybe it would have acted as a deterrent to the Holocaust? Maybe the Nazis would have been afraid to expand tyranny into Europe if they had to worry about their own population fighting back and disrupting their momentum? Maybe, WWII would have never happened? We could argue hypotheticals all day long…

What we do know for certain is that disarmament is ALWAYS one of the first steps by totalitarians in cementing their control of a population, and this is most common among the biggest political killers in modern history – And no, it’s not the Nazis; it’s the communists.

Continue reading→

%d bloggers like this: