Tag Archives: Second Amendment

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→

Joe Biden and Guns, by Andrew Napolitano

The Constitution doesn’t confer rights, it confirms them—rights citizens already have. If you want to win gun control arguments, start by asking if people have a natural right to defend themselves. The answer is yes, and that right is regardless of the Second Amendment, which only memorializes the preexisting right to defend one’s self with the most effective means of doing so: firearms. From Andrew Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

“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.”
— Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

President Joseph R. Biden Jr. recently announced his determination to use his powers as the chief executive of the federal government to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. This is a profound violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution.

It also perpetuates an attitude about the Second Amendment that was prevalent in state and federal officeholders in both major political parties from the FDR to the George W. Bush eras. That attitude was based on a misreading of the Second Amendment, which characterized the right to own a gun as a collective and not an individual, personal right. In 2008, the Supreme Court corrected that misreading.

Here is the backstory.

In the mid-1930s, Jack Miller reduced the size of his shotgun by three inches and transported it in his automobile from Oklahoma to Arkansas. The FBI got wind of his travels and stopped his car and searched it. When they saw Miller’s sawed-off shotgun, they arrested him and charged him with violating a 1934 federal statute that prohibited the transportation of shotguns across state lines with a barrel below certain lengths. The shotgun was lawful in Oklahoma and Arkansas. The offense consisted only in its interstate transportation.

Continue reading→

Joe Biden: America’s Biggest Gun Salesman, by Roger L. Simon

The best ad for guns is a video of any Democrat talking about gun control. From Roger L. Simon at theepochtimes.com:

Commentary

With his new—most likely unconstitutional—executive orders regarding weapons, Joe Biden is cementing his place as America’s leading gun salesman.

Gun sales have been wildly up all year. He just pushed them to a new level.

It’s almost as if he were marketing director for Smith & Wesson.

(As America’s president he might have made that clear to prevent people from running out to buy yet more Austrian-made Glocks when the locally-produced version is arguably as good.)

The hypocrisy of this doddering man who threatened to punch out Donald Trump is nothing short of monumental.

Any sentient being—not a slavish, ultra-conformist Democrat who no longer thinks for him or herself—has been alarmed at the escalating violence in our streets.

Murders are way up. Assaults are way up. Police protection way down.

This is all thanks to our Democrat friends many of whom seek to defund and/or handcuff the police, even, in some cases, after the latest group of self-described revolutionary maniacs has decided to torch their house.

But the president wants to disarm us. Hello, Germany 1938.

Continue reading

Biden’s New Executive Orders Could Turn a Whole Lot of Gun Owners Into FELONS, by Robert Wheeler

The Biden administration has formalized its war on the Second Amendment with a series of executive orders. From Robert Wheeler at theorganicprepper.com:

Joe Biden promised to do it and he has finally delivered. Today, the cognitively declining President of the United States signed a number of Executive Orders allegedly designed to “curb gun violence” but actually designed to destroy the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

In the process, Biden has turned many Americans into felons with a stroke of his pen.

Details are still emerging as to just what the Executive Orders will mean for gun rights but we are aware of some of the ramifications.

Biden has signed 6 Executive Orders related to guns:

1.)Tightening regulations on “ghost guns.” Ghost guns are of course the labels liberals use to describe homemade firearms (because “we will win by slogans”) that are generally put together from parts assembled and drilled with machine tools. As a result, they often do not have serial numbers so it is harder for the government to be able to trace them. It is legal to build a gun in a home or workshop and there is no federal requirement for a background check. But Biden aims to stop this, saying his administration will “rein in the proliferation of so-called ‘ghost guns.’”

“These are guns that are homemade. Built from a kit that include directions on how to finish the firearm. You can go buy the kit. They have no serial numbers. So, when they show up at a crime scene they can’t be traced. And the buyers aren’t required to pass the background check to buy the kit. To make the gun. Consequently, anyone from a criminal to a terrorist can buy this kit for as little as 30 minutes, put together a weapon,” Biden explained.

Biden wants these guns treated as firearms under the Gun Control Act. He argues that, under the act, key parts of gun-making kits would be required to have numbers for traceability and would also require background checks for people purchasing the kits.

Continue reading→