2nd Amendment Rights - Bullet Proof?

By Bob Greenslade

Following the recent school shooting in Connecticut, American citizens have once again displayed their total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment. Facebook postings, comments to so-called news articles and letters to the editor are calling for repeal of the Second Amendment. These individuals believe the right to own a firearm is based on the Second Amendment and the right will vanish if the Amendment can be repealed. Unless the Second Amendment created the right, then repeal of the Amendment cannot constitutionally abolish the right.

U.N. Debates New Anti-Gun Treaty

By Louis Charbonneau - Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:13pm EST

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Monday to restart negotiations on a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global trade in conventional arms, a pact the powerful U.S. National Rifle Association has been lobbying hard against.

U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because U.S. President Barack Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney before the November 6 election if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge U.S. officials have denied.

The NRA, which has come under intense criticism for its reaction to the December 15 shooting massacre of 20 children and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, opposes the idea of an arms trade treaty and has pressured Obama to reject it.

Guns in Schools Can Save Lives

By John R. Lott Jr. - December 26, 2012 9:02 am

USA Today - Has anyone noticed that these mass shootings at public schools increased after the 1995 Gun-Free School Zone Act? Passed with good intentions, banning guns would supposedly make schools safer.

But law abiding citizens, not criminals, obey these bans. Instead of making places safer, disarming law abiding citizens left them sitting ducks.

When ‘Assault Weapons’ Saved Koreatown

By Ryan James Girdusky - 12/23/2012 06:12 PM

Opponents of assault rifles best argument is. . ."there is NO situation or circumstance where a citizen might need an assault rifle." This writer begs to differ. -Editor

This year marked the 21st anniversary of the Los Angeles riots, sparked by the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department officers accused of beating the now-deceased Rodney King. During the five days, mobs around Los Angeles looted stores, burnt 3,767 buildings, caused more than $1 billion in property damage, and led to the deaths of more than 50 people and left another 4,000 injured. A story that has been forgotten since then is that of the brave storeowners in Koreatown who fended off mobs with handguns, rifles and assault weapons.

On the second day of the riots, the police had abandoned much of Koreatown. Jay Rhee, a storeowner in the area, stated to The Los Angeles Times, “we have lost faith in the police.”

An individual right: Obama and the 2nd Amendment?

EDITORIAL - Unionleader.com

In his Wednesday press conference on gun control, President Obama said something hugely important. He said that he agreed with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008, that it protects an individual (not a collective) right to keep and bear arms.

"Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms," he said. That might sound perfectly ordinary to most Americans. It is the whole point of the Second Amendment, after all. But that is not how the political left has misinterpreted the amendment for a long time.

Good Guys with Guns - National Rifle Association

By Wayne LaPierre - President NRA

The National Rifle Association’s 4 million mothers, fathers, sons and daughters join the nation in horror, outrage, grief and earnest prayer for the families of Newtown, Connecticut … who suffered such incomprehensible loss as a result of this unspeakable crime.

Out of respect for those grieving families, and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment. While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent.

Now, we must speak … for the safety of our nation’s children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one ­ nobody ­ has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?

Teachers Support Guns

By Michelle Celarier - December 21, 2012 6:45 am

NY Post - America's teachers are facing a $100 million conundrum.

That's roughly the amount various teacher pension, school and retirement funds have invested in the publicly traded stocks of four gun makers, according to regulatory filings.

It's a problem that has sent them scrambling since a 20-year-old man used a semiautomatic rifle in a massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

They are being forced to choose between the typically reliable investment in gun makers and the public outcry for decisive action.

Elder: Gun Violence - Let's Shift the Odds in Favor of the Good Guys!

By Larry Elder  - December 20, 2012 6:55 am

The unimaginable horror of Sandy Hook jumpstarts another "national conversation" about firearm violence. President Barack Obama, promising "meaningful action," said: "We will have to change. ... We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end."

Let's examine four of the "commonsense" measures frequently proposed by "gun control advocates":

One, closing the "gun show loophole." What gun show loophole? Restricted from selling at guns shows prior to 1986, a licensed dealer today requires a background check whether he sells guns at a store, a gun show or the back of his SUV.

We Know How to Stop School Shootings

By Ann Coulter - 12/19/2012 07:05 PM

In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman’s mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation’s attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.

Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.

Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

A 21st Century Witch Hunt

By Michelle Malkin - December 19, 2012 6:58 am

In the aftermath of the horrific Newtown, Conn., school massacre, Americans from all parts of the political spectrum agree that we need to pay more attention to mental health issues. Public death threats and incitements to violence must be taken seriously. The incendiary witch hunt against law-abiding, peaceful gun owners is neither noble nor effective. It's just plain insane.

Over the past week, I've witnessed a disturbing outbreak of off-the-rails hatred toward gun owners and Second Amendment groups. Whatever your views on guns, we can all agree: The Newtown gunman was a monster who slaughtered his own mother, five heroic educators and 20 angel-faced schoolchildren. He ignored laws against murder. He bypassed Connecticut's strict gun control regulations, and he circumvented the Sandy Hook Elementary School's security measures. Every decent American is horrified and heartsick by this outbreak of pure evil.

Gun-Rights Advocates Should Fear History of Second Amendment

By Saul Cornell - Dec 18, 2012 4:45 AM EST

On Sunday, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer went on CBS’s Face The Nation and argued that people who support gun control “have to admit that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms”.

Schumer’s effort to reach out to the gun-rights community may be well-intentioned, but it is also deeply ironic. If the nation truly embraced the Second Amendment as it was originally written and understood, it would be the NRA’s worst nightmare.

More Guns - Less Murder

By Thomas Sowell - December 18, 2012 6:55 am

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?

The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.

Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown

By David Kopel 

There were 18 random mass shootings in the 1980s, 54 in the 1990s, and 87 in the 2000s.


Has the rate of random mass shootings in the United States increased? Over the past 30 years, the answer is definitely yes. It is also true that the total U.S. homicide rate has fallen by over half since 1980, and the gun homicide rate has fallen along with it. Today, Americans are safer from violent crime, including gun homicide, than they have been at any time since the mid-1960s.

Mass shootings, defined as four or more fatalities, fluctuate from year to year, but over the past 30 years there has been no long-term increase or decrease. But "random" mass shootings, such as the horrific crimes last Friday in Newtown, Conn., have increased.

One in 300 Million

By Neil W. McCabe - Editor, Guns & Patriots

The Dec. 13 mass shooting at the Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Conn., is an unspeakable tragedy. The victims, most of them first graders, were behind locked doors and beginning the school day with no idea of what was to follow.

In our age, there is only one other tragedy that comes close to what happened in Newtown­and sadly, other places too, the mass casualty airliner crash. There too, too many completely innocent individuals are lost to us at once.

In the mainstream media, there is a big difference in how these two occurrences are treated. In the case of the airliner disaster, whether caused by weather or by terrorists, we are told over and over again that the actual percentage of deaths by flying passengers is very small­so small that it would be foolish not to fly over such concerns.

But, what are we told after a mass shooting at a school?

In sharp contrast, we are told that because one individual out of 300 million went on a rampage, the rest of the 300 million Americans must forgo a right acknowledged in the Bill of Rights as existing before the founding of our current Republic.

While we are looking at percentages, Larry Pratt, the president of Gun Owners of America, points out: "What a lethal, false security are the Gun Free Zone laws. All of our mass murders in the last 20 years have occurred in 'Gun Free Zones."

I am not convinced that because a school in the Nutmeg State did not have an armed guard­or teacher, groundskeeper or cafeteria worker, we need to ignore the Bill of Rights.

Progressives Hope Supreme Court Will Restrict Concealed Carry

By Mark Sherman - December 17, 2012

Washington (AP) - The next big issue in the national debate over guns ­ whether people have a right to be armed in public ­ is moving closer to review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A provocative ruling by a panel of federal appeals court judges in Chicago struck down the only statewide ban on carrying concealed weapons, in Illinois. The ruling is somewhat at odds with those of other federal courts that have largely upheld state and local gun laws, including restrictions on concealed weapons, since the Supreme Court's landmark ruling declaring that people have a right to have a gun for self-defence.

In 2008, the high court voted 5-4 in District of Columbia v. Heller to strike down Washington's ban on handgun ownership and focused mainly on the right to defend one's own home. The court left for another day how broadly the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution may protect gun rights in other settings.

Legal scholars say the competing appellate rulings mean that day is drawing near for a new high court case on gun rights.

Top 10 Concealed Carry Guns

By: Mark Walters - 12/7/2010

This article is sure to generate a ton of emotion and that is a good thing. A “top ten” list of anything is going to be helpful to some, controversial to many and just plain flat out wrong to others. No matter what I put on the list or where I may rank it, someone is certain to tell me I’m right just as someone else is certain to tell me I’m wrong. (That’s what makes America great)!
So, here we go.

Why long-gun registries don’t work and never did!

Gary A. Mauser - December 11, 2012

In March, Stephen Harper’s Canadian government reversed decades of increasing restrictions on civilian firearms, scrapping the controversial long-gun registry on grounds that it was wasteful and ineffective. Gun laws, the prime minister correctly said, should focus on criminals rather than law-abiding citizens such as farmers and hunters.

Some claim that this Conservative policy flies in the face of a mountain of evidence, and even represents an assault against reason. Canadian voters seem divided on this issue, as well as some basic related questions: Are firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens a serious threat to public safety? Is registration an effective approach to controlling misuse? How useful was the long-gun registry to police? This article will answer some of those questions.

Tyrants Beware . . . the 2nd Amendment

By Bart Wilburn

"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"

As simple as these word are, we have been arguing about what they mean for a long time. Part of the problem is that many people engaged in the argument do not interpret the 2nd Amendment with respect for its historical context, but rather in light of what they want it to mean in support of their purposes. If we want to be honest about it, we must look to the origins of the amendment to understand it in the context of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, and only then can we consider it in our present context. The issue is further complicated by the fact that an increasingly large proportion of the U.S. population has no experience in the use of arms; they see arms as irrelevant to their lives at best or a threat at worst. This is important because the 2nd Amendment is always susceptible and becomes vulnerable when too many think it is an archaic artifact.

Lock Your Doors and Load Your Guns

December 1, 2012
By Bobby Eberle 

A city attorney in California is taking heat for comments made during a recent city council meeting. Faced with a bankrupt city government and cutbacks to the police force, the official told citizens to "lock their door and load their guns" as a way to fight crime. Was this over the top or simply telling it like it is?

As reported by CBS in Los Angeles, San Bernardino City Attorney Jim Penman spoke before a group of about 150 local residents. They are frustrated and worried about the growing crime rate and falling police response times.

Concealed Carry -- Only for a few?

November 28, 2012

By: Mark Wachtler

Two separate cases, each arguing basically the same question, have been making their way through the American federal justice system. The cases involve a fundamental Constitutional question. Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee the right to keep and bear arms…outside the home? The first of two US Appeals Courts has just returned a verdict, and that verdict is no.
The 2 cases

One case is regarding a New York law and is in the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The other case involves a Maryland law and is in the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. In each case, state legislatures enacted laws that restricted the right to carry concealed firearms outside of the gun owner’s home.

Disarm and Conquer

By Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D. - November 26, 2012

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.­ Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

DATELINE: Warsaw, Poland, 1943

In the Spring of 1943, the inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto, having become aware the Nazis were deporting the remaining Jews to the gas chambers of Treblinka, took up arms, whatever they could nd, and rebelled against the German occupiers. These determined insurgents had only homemade Molotov cocktails and a handful of small arms, revolvers, pistols, and a few military or hunting ri es. It took vastly superior Nazi forces to subdue the rebels, and the Germans suffered up to 300 casualties in pacifying the city.(1)

No Bullets. . .No Guns

By JW Ross


The purpose of 2nd AmendmentPA.com is to promote the birthplace of the 2nd amendment. However, when the very existence of the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights is in jeopardy, I feel that I owe my readers a truthful discussion of this reality.

The reality, in a new Obama term, of the appointment of one or two progressive judges to the Supreme Court is certain - as one or more Justices are reaching retirement by choice or for health reasons. President Obama has clearly indicated by his most recent appointment to the Court that he seeks out very progressive appointees who have made it clear that they do not support the 2nd amendment.

He has also made it clear, in numerous statements, that the 2nd amendment should be "revisited", what many say is code language for, "abolished". The appointment of one new Justice by Obama would move the court from approval to the disapproval of the tenets of the 2nd amendment.

Original Intent of 2nd Amendment - AK-47s

By Earl Schwartz

The authors of the amendment clearly intended to guarantee citizens the right to the kinds of weapons issued to ordinary infantry, not only to the specific type of firearm available when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

Consider what the amendment says: "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." Given that all able free men between 18 and 45 had to be enrolled in the militia (see Statutes at Large, 2nd Congress, 1st Session, 271), the militia clause amounts to a promise that citizens can have the weapons needed to defend the security of the state. Nowadays that means, at the least, an ordinary infantry weapon such as an M-16 or an AK-47.

One might argue that such a promise is anachronistic in this age of sophisticated warfare. Even in the 18th century most understood that militia men could not stand up to well-drilled professionals. But the Second Amendment still says what it says. Don't like it? Repeal it, if you can.

The Columbian, WA

Perspective On the 2nd Amendment

By Neil W. McCabe, Editor Guns & Patriots

When a plane crashes with 100, 200 even 300 people killed. The main stream media constantly reminds us how very, very safe flying actually is. You know this is true.

When one or two or five madman out of 300 million Americans in a given year goes on a rampage with firearms, what does the MSM say?

I don't have to tell you. Turn on your radio or TV right now are hear that it is time to instill gun control on the rest of the 300 million who did not go on a rampage.

In the case of the attack on the Sikh temple, some reporters focused on the heroism of the temple leader. He died trying to stop the killer with his ceremonial knife. This was the right lesson. Sadly, he died defending the people and temple he loved.
Imagine now if the leader had a gun.

Conceivably, if the temple leader was armed with gun, he could have put the killer down--saving more lives and his own.

Of course, were that to happen, the main strean media would never mention it. Go figure.

From - GunsandPatriots@email.humanevents.com

2nd Amendment Strangled by Regulation

By JW Ross

The Universal Health Care Bill is turning out to be the Trojan Horse that the critics predicted.

The bill is written with such broad strokes that almost "anything" can be construed to be under the purview of "health care" (and health care administrators).

Now it is the 2nd Amendment.

With any game changing laws on the "right to own and bear arms" awaiting the appointment of a new justice to the Supreme Court, opponents are now trying to regulate guns as if they were a virus, a car, tobacco or alcohol?

Doctors call for public-health approach to controlling gun violence
By Marilynn Marchione, The Associated Press

MILWAUKEE -- Is a gun like a virus, a car, tobacco or alcohol?

Yes! say public-health experts, who in the wake of recent mass shootings are calling for a fresh look at gun violence as a social disease.

What we need, they say, is a public-health approach to the problem, like the highway safety measures, product changes and driving laws that slashed deaths from car crashes decades ago, even as the number of vehicles on the road rose.

India - Women & the 2nd Amendment

By Dwaipayan Ghosh - TNN Aug 4, 2012

NEW DELHI: It could be a new measure of women's emancipation or just a passing fad, but Delhi Police has been stumped by the huge number of working women seeking gun licences. The trend is partly a response to the city's lawlessness but may also reflect the growing need of women to be in control, claim senior officers.
In the past two years, Delhi cops have received over 900 applications for guns from women. While year 2010 saw around 320 applications, the figure had grown to around 500 in 2011. But it's not only the numbers that's a break from the past. There's a change as well in the reasons cited by women for bearing arms.

Illinois: Governor Abuses Amendatory Veto Powers to Propose Semi-Auto Ban

NRA - August 1, 2012

Quinn uses a previously NRA-Backed Ammunition Purchase Reform Bill as Vehicle for Gun Ban

Yesterday, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (D) vetoed the NRA-backed ammunition purchase reform bill, Senate Bill 681, after this common sense legislation had passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the Illinois legislature (previously reported on here). In a crass attempt to exploit the recent tragedy in Colorado and seek media attention, Quinn used his Amendatory Veto powers in a foolhardy attempt to impose more draconian gun control in Illinois. Quinn rewrote the entire bill as an amendment to the Illinois Criminal Code that includes an onerous ban on the manufacture, possession, delivery or sale of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms (inaccurately referred to as “assault weapons”), .50 caliber rifles and cartridges and “high capacity” magazines in Illinois. Quinn’s amendment additionally tramples on the rights of Illinois citizens by creating a de facto statewide registration scheme for currently-owned firearms and magazines.

Second Amendment at risk in Obama's Second Term

By Emily Miller

Democrats just couldn't hold it together. With less than 100 days to go before the election, the left let slip its vision of a second term for President Obama that will be the end for the Second Amendment.

They're riding on an emotional wave created by James Holmes, the suspected Aurora, Colo., movie-theater shooter who was charged with 24 counts of murder on Monday. As the courtroom proceedings in that case unfolded, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, New York Democrat, took to New York's city hall to introduce legislation making it much harder for law-abiding citizens nationwide to purchase ammunition.

The liberal duo would restrict ammunition sales to licensed dealers and require buyers to show a photo ID at the time of purchase, effectively banning people from doing their shopping online. Also, the dealer would have to maintain detailed records for each ammunition sale and report anyone purchasing over 1,000 rounds.

Second Amendment - Not Settled Law

By Madeleine Morgenstern


Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday left open the possibility that some types of guns could be regulated by the government, such as assault weapons capable of holding 100 rounds of ammunition.
“What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases, what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible,“ Scalia said on ”Fox News Sunday,” referring to the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that protected the right to possess firearms.

“Some [limitations] undoubtedly are because there were some that were acknowledged at the time,” he continued. “There was a tort called a ”frighting” which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes there are some limitations that can be imposed, what they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”

Weapons for Peace - Not War

By John R. Lott Jr.

July 27, 2012 4:00 A.M.

‘AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities,” President Obama told the National Urban League on Wednesday. After the deadly attack in Colorado last Friday, the president’s concern is understandable. However, even ­ or perhaps especially ­ at such a time, distinctions need to be made.

The police in Aurora, Colo., reported that the killer used a Smith & Wesson M&P 15. This weapon bears a cosmetic resemblance to the M-16, which has been used by the U.S. military since the Vietnam War. The call has frequently been made that there is “no reason” for such “military-style weapons” to be available to civilians.

Russia - And the Second Amendment

By Moskovsky Komsomolets - Izvestia


Russia May Legalize Possession of Handguns . . .Federation Council Vice-Speaker Alexander Torshin intends to propose a bill that would allow Russians to possess handguns and use them for self-defense without fear of being exposed to criminal liability. Presumably, the bill will be proposed in the State Duma early next year.

In the meantime, the Federation Council has launched an active indoctrination effort meant to influence the public into adopting a sober-minded attitude toward the Torshin initiative. On July 24, the vice-speaker himself will deliver an expert report to legislators, senators, Public Chamber members and representatives of gun associations. The same report will be submitted to the President’s Executive Office.

The report suggests amending the Federal Law On Weapons that allows the possession of shotguns, non-lethal weapons, gas guns, stun guns, pneumatic weapons, and cold steel arms (knives), but says nothing about handguns. Proponents insist that violent crime statistics tend to decline as the number of legal firearms owners increases.

Armed People - Kill Armed People

By Jerry Ross

Armed People - Kill Armed People. . . Although it may sound like an obvious statement, it is central to the debate over the CO shooting. Key is the fact that the movie theater had a "No Firearms Allowed" policy.

No one in the theater had a weapon but the shooter.

Pro-gun advocates surmise that if a few, maybe one, theater goer had a weapon, even a handgun, they could have prevented or minimized the carnage. Even though the shooter had a bullet-proof vest a series of shots, even from a 22 caliber pistol could have given other individuals time to over power him.

Unless we place an armed officer in every public place, "No Guns" policies insures more massacres like the one in CO. 

U.N. treaty - No Right to Bear Arms

By Tribune-Review (Sunday, July 1, 2012 )
 Regardless of how it’s couched, the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) treats the constitutional guarantee of U.S. gun ownership, let alone self-defense, as a cultural failure.



But that message will be muted in the propaganda run-up to the U.N.’s conference this month to finalize ATT. Why, this is simply about the lack of “standards” on arms transfers, according to Turtle Bay. The fact that so many U.N. member states are gun-grabbing dictatorships has no bearing on any of this, right?

Supposedly the ATT “does not aim to impede or interfere with the lawful ownership and use of weapons,” according to the U.N.’s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) program. But in a paper prepared by CASA, the actual intention couldn’t be more clear:

The 2nd Amendment and Obama Care

By JW Ross


While those in favor of Obama Care celebrate its confirmation by SCOTUS and those who were against it lick their wounds, both miss the real issue raised by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling . . .which is that, for the first time in American history, Congress can tax the public not only to raise revenue but also to formulate social policy under a very broad definition of public health.

If you read the Obama Care Bill you will note that it is only partly about what we would all agree is related to health care, ie, doctors fees, coverage of the poor, previous ailments, etc. Written deep into the text are laws that enable unelected bureaucrats to regulate (by taxation) just about anything they wish without any oversight if they deem it as a health issue - anything under the categories of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is fair game, not just obvious health related products like cigarettes.

No Right to Bear Arms . . . Blood-Soaked Streets

By Louis J Beradi


Illinois stands alone in two categories: the city with the most blood-soaked streets and the only state that denies the right to keep and bear arms.

I would like to point out the obvious fact that Chicago has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country, yet criminals, for some reason, do not seem to obey those laws. Criminals by definition do not obey laws.
The letter writer takes the position that because criminals commit crimes with firearms, Illinois is justified in denying law-abiding citizens their Second Amendment rights. Let me extend his logic to other rights. Because some people abuse their First Amendment right of free speech by practicing hate speech, we are justified in prohibiting him from ever writing another letter to the editor and he must close down his blog forever.
Law-abiding Americans should never be denied basic constitutional rights because criminals abuse those rights.

The letter writer points out that Illinois stands alone in denying its citizens the basic human right of self-defense because otherwise we would have blood-soaked streets. Let me point out two truths: 1. Every state that passed right-to-carry legislation, despite predictions to the contrary, saw violent crime either go down or remain the same. 2. Every Monday morning, the Tribune tells us that the streets are already soaked with blood and it is only getting worse.

The Chicago anti-gun policies have proven to be a deadly failure and it is time to join the other 49 states in the 21st century.

Letter to the Editor - Chicago Tribune

People's Republic of China Bashes U.S. 2nd Amendment as Human Rights Violation

by John Haughey


According to the faceless, monolithic regime that rules the People’s Republic of China, the United States is a flagrant abuser of human rights because its Second Amendment allows ordinary rank-and-file citizens to bear arms.

The Orwellian irony of criticizing Americans’ constitutional guarantee of unalienable gun rights as a human rights violation elevates hyperbole to new levels of looking-glass blatherspeak.

The PRC issued a report entitled “Human Rights Record of the United States in 2011,” a day after the U.S. State Department published its annual update on human rights abuses in mainland China by the Communist leadership, which regularly "disappears" critics, prohibits free exercise of religion, tortures dissidents and their families, forces women to have abortions to enforce its "one-child policy," censors the Internet, harvests body organs from opponents, and on and on.

Those aren't human rights violations by China's standards, but your Second Amendment right to own a weapon is.

“The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens' lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership,” the report says. “The U.S. people hold between 35 percent and 50 percent of the world's civilian-owned guns, with every 100 people having 90 guns [and] 47 percent of American adults reported that they had a gun.”

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Chairman Alan Gottlieb called the Chinese "a laughing stock."

“Perhaps what offends them most is that our Second Amendment was authored to prevent this country from going down the same road toward totalitarianism that rulers in the People’s Republic have embraced," Gottlieb said. "We are not like China, and we will never be like China so long as American citizens retain their right to keep and bear arms, and they know it.”

Before the 2nd Amendment -- GOD

By AWR Hawkins - May 6, 2012

A recent article in The New Yorker titled “American Battleground,” by Harvard’s Jill Lepore, has been gnawing at me ever since I critiqued it last week for The Daily Caller.

As I wrote then, it is a convoluted piece of quasi-academic work that is intended to make gun owners question the founders’ position on private gun ownership and, if possible, open 21st-century American minds to the idea of more gun control.

Lepore does this via subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on the Second Amendment throughout the article. By attacking the Second Amendment, she hopes to somehow convince us that we really don’t have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Rather, we were only intended to have a right to form militias to use guns in that capacity when emergencies arise.

Does a civilized society really need a 2nd Amendment?

By Bryan Hyde on April 20, 2012

A number of questions are being raised following the highly publicized Florida shooting case in which a neighborhood watch member shot and killed a young man. As is the case in most highly sensationalized stories, a great deal of effort is being put into placing the blame in a politically advantageous manner.

Race baiters have been quick to blame racism while gun control advocates are blaming easy access to firearms and laws that don’t require a person to flee before using deadly force in self-defense. Tragedy too often spells opportunity for those who wish to draw attention to either themselves or their pet causes.

But beyond the political posturing, there is a valid question raised by the incident: Do firearms in the hands of private citizens still have a place in civilized society?

Why a Nation Arms Itself - 2nd Amendment

by Patrick J. Buchanan

With the shooting death of Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch volunteer who was legally carrying a 9-millimeter handgun, the familiar wail has arisen from our cultural and media elite:

America has too many guns!
"Open carry" and "concealed carry" laws should be repealed.

Florida's "Stand-your-ground" law, replicated in two dozen states, threatens to turn America into the Tombstone of Doc Hiday and Wyatt Earp. This is insane!

The United Nations agrees. This year, the world body takes up the global control of firearms, including small arms in the hands of citizens.

According to Sen. Rand Paul, the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" will almost surely mandate tougher licensing requirements to own a gun, require the confiscation and destruction of unauthorized civilian firearms, call for a ban on the trade, sale and private ownership of semi-automatic weapons, and create an international gun registry.

No more Colt .45s in the top drawer or M-1 rifles in the closet.

2nd Amendment -- Last Frontier

By Glen Wunderlich

Courts Split on Right to Carry Firearms Outside the Home

Unquestionably the hottest issue in Second Amendment litigation today is whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry firearms outside the home for personal protection—and if so, what might be the limits on that right. Until recently, far too many courts have wrongly claimed that because the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago only struck down bans on handgun possession in the home, that’s all there is to the Second Amendment.

Now, there are signs that this resistance is weakening. In a big win for gun owners’ rights in Maryland, on March 5, a federal judge ruled in the case of Woollard v. Sheridan that a key provision of the state’s gun laws is unconstitutional. Judge Benson Everett Legg declared that Maryland’s requirement for a “good and substantial reason” to obtain a concealed-carry permit violates the Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms. Though this is not an NRA-funded case, both the result and the reasoning give hope for future progress on the issue.

“The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home,” Judge Legg wrote in his 23-page ruling. “In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment’s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be.’’

Judge Legg added, “A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

From www.thinkingafield.org and the NRA

Individual or Collective Right – A brief history of the 2nd Amendment

by Gary Wood 

Today we are struggling with people who believe the right to keep and bear arms is somehow a collective right, tied to militia membership, and not an individual natural right. This false assumption is based on today’s understanding and rhetoric. We also have the ambiguous 1939 Supreme Court case, U.S. vs. Miller that significantly fails to embrace the founding generation’s intent. The other area we have is the 2nd Amendment’s preamble that some point to as a reason to support the collective, militia tied concept. Yet history and understanding of bearing arms teaches us what is really the intent – the right to keep and bear arms is an individual natural right!

One key to understanding any rights found in what we know of as the Bill of Rights is the deep tie to our English roots, as a country. The colonial citizens were mostly English citizens serving under the Crown with guidance from the Parliament. Of course, self-rule was also deep rooted due to the fact colonies were separated from England by a little thing called the Atlantic Ocean. The colonists became very independent and felt extremely competent to legislate their daily lives.

Come with me on a swing back in time, before the 17th and 18th centuries, before 1689 when the English Bill of Rights came into existence…back to a time when it was not a right to bear arms…not a right at all but rather a requirement. Our first stop takes us back to the 9th Century under Alfred the Great. As Scott Bradley reminds us “…all of his peoplewere required to be armed with personal weapons and were subject to perform in the defense of the nation.”

2nd Amendment - Right-to-carry lowers violent crime

By John R. Lott Jr.

Among peer-reviewed national studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime temporarily increases slightly. The possibility that permit holders might lead to more crime is easily evaluated by looking at how incredibly law-abiding they are, with them losing their permits for any firearms-related violations (usually trivial ones) at hundredths or thousandths of 1 percentage point.

Forty-one states currently have right-to-carry laws where permits are based on objective criteria, such as passing a criminal background check. These laws have worked well — so well that no state has chosen to repeal the law or even held legislative hearings to reconsider it.

Baltimore Sun Opinion

2nd Amendment - Colleges find ways to foil pro-gun rulings

By Valerie Richardson

DENVER ­ Courts are ruling in favor of allowing those with concealed-carry permits to bring their handguns on campus, but universities are figuring out ways to keep the guns out.

Gun rights advocates recently notched major legal victories in Colorado and Oregon, with courts in both states agreeing that university policies banning firearms on campus must defer to state laws allowing permit holders to carry concealed handguns.

In response, however, university officials in Oregon and Virginia have enacted policies allowing concealed carry on campus but not in buildings, including classrooms, dormitories, event centers and dining halls.

The result is that permit holders may do little more than walk across campus with their handguns, an outcome that circumvents the intent of the court decisions, critics say.

2nd Amendment -- Well Regulated Militias in the Colonies

By Prof. Joerg W. Knipprath

When Paul Revere and his companions alerted the Massachusetts countryside of the movement of British troops, he warned his fellow-British subjects, “The Regulars are coming out.” In contrast to those troops, with their standard drill, formations, equipment, and armament, the Patriot combatants at Lexington and Concord (as well as Revere himself) were “Minutemen,” a lightly-armed, organized rapid-response component of the colonial militia. As all such militias at the time, they were “irregulars,” though the quality of the Minutemen’s equipment and training was superior to that of the militia as a whole. The distinction between such organized parts and the general militia was continued by the states, and, beginning in 1792, in the second federal Militia Act. It is a distinction that, despite changes in the nature of the militia concept, is preserved in current law.

2nd Amendment -- President's Plan to Challenge New Gun Rights

By JW Ross

To 2nd Amendment supporters who thought that the recent Supreme Court's decision (specifically Heller and McDonald v. Chicago) was the final word regarding their "right to bear arms", a recent ruling by a Federal judge will prove troublesome.

The judge who has the support of the White House and DOJ has ruled inexplicably that the recent Supreme Court decision does not grant licensed gun owners the right to carry their guns in public. Although this seems counter to the "intent" of the ruling by the highest court in the land, the issue remains in question because the Supreme Court justices were not explicit on the issue of "bearing" arms.

Watcher feel that the White House is setting the stage with this Federal judge's ruling for another court test during President Obama's second term, when he will very likely have the opportunity to replace at least two retiring court justices with more liberal appointees. New appointees will undoubtedly sway the present 5 to 4 decision in favor of a strong 2nd amendment to a 5 to 4 vote in favor of renewing gun restrictions or the elimination of the right altogether.

In the meantime, it is expected that liberal judges will continue to throw up "smoke screen rulings" to thwart any serious changes to right to carry laws in major cities throughout the United States.

Federal judge severely limits Second Amendment rights

By Bob Barr

Over the last few years, the Second Amendment has experienced somewhat of a rebirth, thanks largely to a pair of Supreme Court decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.

In these seminal decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed the understanding of the Founding Fathers that there is indeed an individual right to keep and bear arms, a God-given right to protect oneself that is guaranteed to us in the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Cities with oppressive restrictions on guns, including the District of Columbia and Chicago, have been forced to at least recognize that they cannot simply deny citizens their right to possess firearms. At the same time, however, these cities continue to erect barriers to citizens seeking to exercise their rights.

2nd Amendment -- Pure and Simple

By Ralph Glasser

The Second Amendment was written back in the 1700s and must be interpreted in the vernacular of that era. It can only be truly understood by studying contemporaneous expositions on the subject written by the men who actually signed the document.

“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.”

Back in the 1700s, the term “well regulated” meant well trained or proficient. It had absolutely nothing to do with “regulation” in modern terms.

In fact, the independent clause of the sentence specifically disallows such modern regulation, in that the right “shall not be infringed.”

Since the “militia” was then defined as the “able-bodied men” in the community, what the Second Amendment really said in its original context is:

Freedom is secure only when able-bodied men in the community are well trained in its defense. Therefore, there shall be no encroachment on the right of the people to own arms and to carry them.

Clearly, U.S. citizens residing in Illinois have had their fundamental rights infringed for far too long.

­ From the opinion pages of  SJ-R.com

Does the 2nd Amendment protect "right to bear arms" outside the home?

January 2, 2012

NRA will appeal yesterday’s decision by a federal court in Texas, which held that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect any right to keep or bear arms outside the home.

The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings of the Northern District of Texas, came in the case of Jennings v. McCraw, in which a group of law-abiding 18- to 20-year old adults challenged the state law prohibiting issuance of concealed handgun licenses to persons under 21, who are treated as adults for virtually every other purpose under the law. (NRA is also a party on behalf of its members in this age group.) Judge Cummings ruled that it was unnecessary to address the state’s discrimination against young adults because “the right to carry a handgun outside of the home … seems to be beyond the scope of the core Second Amendment concern articulated in Heller [v. District of Columbia].”