Gun control or second amendment infringement?

By Joseph Kirk - 4/29/2013

Correspondent Joseph Kirk - It would seem to infringe upon an entire society’s rights based on the actions committed by a singular person would be not only significant but intrusive far beyond the extent of usurping the procedural protections of due process and and the constitutional provisions of the rights the people ...

Gun owners across America are unsettled at the tactics and propaganda being pursued to circumvent the second amendment of the United States Constitution. Propaganda comes in many forms and is defined as chiefly derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. It was a low blow for politicians to use a singular incident of a school house shooting to push their private agenda by sensationalizing the suffering of those families and their lost loved ones.

Gunmakers aim for greener pastures as states pass new firearms laws

Fox News - 4/29/2013

Arms manufacturers in at least two states with strict new gun laws are making good on their promise to move their operations -- along with thousands of jobs and millions in tax revenues -- to locales they deem friendlier to the industry.

In Connecticut, where venerable gunmakers like Colt and Sturm, Ruger & Co. have been joined in the last decade or so by upstarts like Stag Arms and PTR, reform of gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shootings has left the industry feeling unwelcome. Bristol-based high-end rifle manufacturer PTR Industries announced this month via Facebook that it would be taking its 40 jobs and $50,000 weekly payroll to an unspecified new state, widely believed to be Texas.

“With a heavy heart but a clear mind, we have been forced to decide that our business can no longer survive in Connecticut – the former Constitution State,” PTR said in a statement earlier this month.

Second Amendment Protects Our Rights

By Karl Duckworth - 4/25/2013

We, the people, have come to a crossroads, where we need to decide if we are going to be a nation that follows the law or a nation where the mob rules. This is apparent when members of Congress and the president are debating how to enact gun controls.

We have a law, a very eloquent one that states: “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.” This is the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

There are two very important words in this law: infringed and arms. “Infringed” means to act so as to limit or undermine. “Arms” means weapons and ammunition. These two words are critical, because the Second Amendment prevents the government from limiting or undermining the right of the people to keep and bear weapons and ammunition.

Cops: Gun Owners

By Richard L. Johnson - 4/21/2013

Almost to a man, police officers think gun owners are dangerous. Cops strongly believe the best way to reduce crime is to ban “assault weapons,” high capacity magazines and small, concealable handguns. They also believe that the best way to solve crimes is to establish a comprehensive, national database of firearms and gun sales.

Or at least, that’s what anti-gun politicians and the media would like you to believe.

It wasn’t that long ago that most people assumed police officers supported the rights of gun owners to keep, carry and use firearms for self defense. Yet, it seems that in modern days the popular belief is most cops would prefer a disarmed populace.

"Open Carry" Demonstration: Guns Openly Displayed in PA

By Lauren Cappuccio


The words of the Second Amendment were spelled out on a man's shirt. A young boy waved an American flag. A woman adjusted the rifle on her back and talked to a young man with a handgun attached to his belt.

These individuals and many more gathered Sunday afternoon in front of the Fulton County Courthouse in McConnellsburg for a rally and walk to exercise their right to carry guns.

With signs that read "Free Men Do Not Ask Permission To Bear Arms" and American flags held high, the walkers listened to speakers who praised the numbers, read the Second Amendment and talked about the importance of their rights before walking from the courthouse through McConnellsburg.

"This is a gathering of like-minded individuals exercising their rights," said Bill Watson, who organized the rally.

Buddhist's view of killing, guns and 2nd Amendment

By Glenn Hughes

Notwithstanding Congress, the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment, believe it or not, there are some of us who would like to ban all kinds of guns completely and stop the hunting and killing of both people and animals.

Buddhism is consistent with most of the world’s religions in its prohibition against killing. This commandment and precept, however, is sometimes as unclear as is the constitutional right to bear arms and kill, as is deemed acceptable by the individual and by law. Most religious or even nonreligious followers make exceptions to the prohibition, although the commandment or precept doesn’t make any.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is similarly open for further explanation and intention. Not just Congress, but the people need and deserve a definitive meaning of the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.

Why Not Simply Amend the 2nd Amendment?

By Jeffrey Goldberg

Several months ago, not long before the massacre in Newtown, Conn., I asked Dan Gross, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, why his group refused to argue for amending the Second Amendment.

Maybe a revision stipulating that only members of organized state militias could own firearms. Or maybe spelling out what sort of citizen should be allowed to have weapons, and what sort of weapons would be legal to possess.

Gross was dismissive. “I’m happy to consider the debate on the Second Amendment closed,” he said. “We have to respect the fact that a lot of decent, law-abiding people believe in gun ownership.”

Congressional Gun Vote Defeating Restrictions Triggers Media Outcry

By: Dylan Byers - 4/18/13

If you thought President Obama was outraged after the Senate killed the plan to expand background checks on guns, you should have seen some members of the press.

Even by the standards of today’s partisan media environment, the response has been noteworthy. Television hosts, editorial boards, and even some reporters have aggressively criticized and shamed the 46 Senators who opposed the plan, while some have even taken to actively soliciting the public to contact them directly.

The decision by some members of the media to come down so firmly on one side of a policy debate has only served to reinforce conservatives’ longstanding suspicions that the mainstream media has a deep-seated liberal bias.

“I guess the liberal media get annoyed when Senators listen to their constituents and think for themselves, rather than doing the media’s bidding,” Bill Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, told POLITICO.

”It’s clearly biased and unmistakably ideological,” said John Podhoretz, the conservative New York Post columnist. “These outlets can do what they do want, but nobody should kid themselves about what they’re doing.”

The Second Amendment is a Mess

By Eric Black

When Second Amendment extremists start talking about how Hitler took away people’s guns, are they alluding to the so-called “insurrectionist” motivation behind the Second Amendment?

First of three articles.

When he was in Minneapolis in February to argue for his proposed new gun-control measures, President Obama said “there’s no legislation being proposed that would subvert the Second Amendment.”

Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, surely has a more informed and nuanced view of this than I could ever hold, but he can’t possibly be as confident of that statement as he sounds because the Second Amendment is a mess. You don't have to tune in very closely to the 2013 debate to hear opponents of additional gun control measures denouncing the proposals as not only bad ideas but blatant violations of the constitutional right to bear arms.

Stricter Gun Laws Shake Up Firearm Industry

By New Haven Register (CT) - 4/16/2013

Each time tougher gun laws are enacted, the firearms industry responds by retooling to get around a weapons' ban and this time is no different.

They did it to serve the huge California market by offering a "featureless" centerfire semiautomatic weapon built on the AR-15 platform, and the "bullet button" to get around restrictions on military style components and detachable magazines.

Mark Malkowski, president of Stag Arms in New Britian, where all his AR-15 rifles are on the expanded assault weapons ban just adopted by the state as part of its attempt to lower gun violence, said he is looking at a prototype that can possibly be sold in Connecticut and New York in light of their new restrictions.

Best .380 guns

By Richard L. Johnson - 4/15/2013

One of the first rules of carrying a handgun for self-defense is “have a gun.” The most accurate .45 in the world won’t do you a bit of good if you leave it in the safe at home. For that reason, many people rely on a .380 ACP pistol for self-defense.

Pistols chambered in .380 tend to be smaller than guns designed for higher pressure or bigger bore handguns. These other guns need beefier frames and consequently are bigger and heavier.

The downside of carrying a small .380 can include small sights, relatively little grip to hold while shooting, and the perception that the cartridge is not effective for self defense. I won’t go into my thoughts on stopping power, but relative to cartridges like the 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum and others, the .380 ACP is definitely at the low end of the power spectrum.

In general terms, those are the pros and cons of deciding to carry a .380 to save your life. Should the caliber make sense for your needs, here are some of the best pistols to consider.

Growing Trend: Veterans targeted for gun confiscation

By: Raquel Okyay - 4/15/2013

Former top Senate staffer, Capitol Hill gun advocate decries how the Department of Veterans Affairs screens America’s veterans as mentally incompetent, then targets them for gun confiscation.

“Since the mid-1990s approximately 160,000 veterans have lost their guns,” said Michael Hammond, the legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America. GOA is a national membership organization of 300,000 Americans dedicated to promoting their Second Amendment freedom to keep and bear arms.

Hammond said when William J. Clinton was president, he directed the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms department to effect the confiscation of firearms if a person is deemed mentally defective by a psychiatrist pursuant to the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The 1968 Gun Control Act says: “It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person . . . has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

Obama's United Nations Backdoor to Gun Control

Luckily, the Constitution gives the Senate exclusive power to ratify, or block, the Arms Trade Treaty.

By John Bolton and John Yoo

Even before his most ambitious gun-control proposals were falling by the wayside, President Obama was turning for help to the United Nations. On April 2, the United States led 154 nations to approve the Arms Trade Treaty in the U.N. General Assembly. While much of the treaty governs the international sale of conventional weapons, its regulation of small arms would provide American gun-control advocates with a new tool for restricting rights. Yet because the Constitution requires that two-thirds of the Senate give its advice and consent to any treaty, Second Amendment supporters still have a political route to stop the administration.

Like many international schemes, this treaty has seemingly benign motives. It seeks to "eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market," where they are used in civil wars and human-rights disasters. The treaty calls for rigorous export controls on heavy conventional weapons, such as tanks, missiles, artillery, helicopters and warships.

Supreme Court will Hear "Carry vs Keep" Challenge

Blog Monitor - The Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have the right to "bear" arms. Some State courts however have ruled that "bear" does not mean "that they can be carried outside the home.


By Richard Wolf - 4/14/ 2013

WASHINGTON ­ Guns are on the docket in Congress and dozens of state legislatures. Can the Supreme Court be far behind?

The court may decide as early as Monday to consider whether the Second Amendment's right to keep a gun for self-defense extends outside the home.

The case under consideration is a challenge to New York's law that requires "proper cause" to carry a weapon in public. Ten states, including California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maryland, have similar restrictions. Most have been challenged in court.

Whether it grants the petition from New York or waits for another case, the court is virtually certain to weigh in soon. That's because lower federal courts have issued split decisions on state laws designed to restrict the prevalence of handguns on the streets.

"It's only a matter of time before the court decides whether people have a right to carry guns in public," says Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor and author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "This is the biggest unanswered question about the Second Amendment."

Defend the Second Amendment or Repeal It

By Paul Brown

In discussing Second Amendment issues with other gun rights advocates, I have sometimes encountered an attitude along the lines of, "Why even argue about this? If they don't like it, they should try and repeal it."

I am actually sympathetic to this point of view because the Second Amendment speaks for itself. Regardless of what anyone thinks about gun ownership, our right to keep and bear arms is legally guaranteed by this amendment. In theory, repealing it is the only way that anyone can address this right legitimately.

Theory and reality are often quite different, though. Many disagree with the constitutionality of gun control, but gun-control advocates have succeeded in getting legislation passed that most certainly infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Real gun threat in US: Illegal-alien street gangs

By Aaron Klein - 01/09/2013

With the national debate focused on civilian gun control, is perhaps the biggest armed threat within the U.S. being minimized?

According to the FBI, criminal street gangs – mostly comprised of illegal aliens – are acquiring high-powered, military-style weapons to potentially engage in lethal encounters with law enforcement members and citizens alike.

Criminal street gangs are responsible for the majority of violent crimes within the U.S. and are the primary distributors of most illicit drugs, according to a 2009 report by the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center, or NDIC.

The NDIC was a task force established in 1993 to coordinate law enforcement actions to stop drug trafficking and to curb the growing threat of violent gangs in the U.S. The agency was closed by the Obama administration in June 2011.

Prior to the shutdown of the NDIC, the agency released statistics on street gangs that some found unusual.

Sowell: Guns Save Lives

By Thomas Sowell

We all know that guns can cost lives because the media repeat this message endlessly, as if we could not figure it out for ourselves. But even someone who reads newspapers regularly and watches numerous television newscasts may never learn that guns also save lives-- much less see any hard facts comparing how many lives are lost and how many are saved.

But that trade-off is the real issue, not the Second Amendment or the National Rifle Association, which so many in the media obsess about. If guns cost more lives than they save, we can always repeal the Second Amendment. But if guns save more lives than they cost, we need to know that, instead of spending time demonizing the National Rifle Association.

The defensive use of guns is usually either not discussed at all in the media or else is depicted as if it means bullets flying in all directions, like the gunfight at the OK Corral. But most defensive uses of guns do not involve actually pulling the trigger.

NY lawmaker: Gun snitch program like the East German Stasi

By Raquel Okyay - 3/31/2013

An upstate New York lawmaker comdemned Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo new program to reward informers helping him enforce the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 his landmark restriction of gun rights.

“What was initially designed to be a tip line for citizens to call in suspected criminals in hot pursuit in six urban areas that showed a spike in crime has morphed into an old German Stasi – snitch line,” said Assemblyman William R. Nojay (R – Pittsford).

The freshman said the governor sent out a letter addressed to the chiefs of police calling for a program that rewards and encourages citizens to report so-called illegal firearm possession, he said. “This type of network targets ordinary citizens not engaged in violent crimes without protection from unreasonable search and seizure by agents of government.”

He said that the governor has taken the concept of a tip line to an absurd extreme.

Last Word:The Founders and the 2nd Amendment

By Rob Natelson - 3/23/2013

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states that:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

What does this amendment really mean?

In recent years, people offering answers to that question have often focused on the militia part of the Second Amendment: “A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. . .”

But in my view, that’s the wrong place to begin. The militia phrase is what lawyers call a “preamble”­a non-binding explanation of intent. It is not the effective, or operative, part of the amendment. In other words, it is only a guide to interpretation, not the actual law. The actual law is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”