Review: 'The Second Amendment' is a smart history of guns and the U.S.

 By David L. Liun - 5/24/2014

The 2nd Amendment is just 27 words long: "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." But in that single, awkwardly constructed sentence, Michael Waldman suggests in "The Second Amendment: A Biography," the essence of the United States may be revealed.

"A living Constitution," Waldman writes, "does not discard the spirit of the document, but seeks to apply its timeless principles to modern challenges that could not have been imagined by the Framers or their contemporaries. It reflects with frankness that our sense of human dignity has, in fact, evolved."

These notions of dignity and evolution motivate "The Second Amendment," which offers a smart if occasionally frustrating historical overview of America's 200-plus year relationship with guns.

Guns represent a microcosm of an America divided between left and right, urban and rural, collective and individual rights.-

Sheriffs: Obama bowing to immigration pressure

By Boston Herald (MA) - 5/20/2014  

Tough-talking Bay State lawmen are slamming a possible move by the Obama administration they say would "water down" a controversial crackdown on illegal immigrants, and they're accusing the White House of trying to score political points during an election year.

"This program would absolutely be efficient if the Obama administration hadn't been trying to find ways to break it down," said Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson, a Republican who's backed the use of the so-called Secure Communities program.

Secure Communities allows the Department of Homeland Security to match fingerprints of suspects charged with local or state crimes with their immigration database, detain them if they're in the country illegally and potentially deport them.

Washington DC: gun carry rights case blocked in court

 

By Emily Miller - 5/9/2014

            

Washington, D.C. is the only place in the country where no one is allowed to legally carry a gun outside the home.
District residents are trying to challenge the law in court, but the justice system has denied them due process. The almost five-year delay in Palmer v. District of Columbia is so extreme that some suspect political games.

In August 2009, Tom Palmer and three other D.C. residents filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court that said the total ban on carrying firearms -- open or concealed -- violated their Second Amendment rights.

 

On Tuesday, Alan Gura, the attorney for the Palmer case, filed a second writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals asking it to force the lower court to issue a decision.

He will not speculate on the reason for the long wait, but says this is not normal.

OUTRAGEOUS: Veterans are now receiving letters prohibiting the purchase, possession, receipt, or transport of a firearm/ammunition...

  

 

By Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D. - 2/20/2013

How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.

What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?
That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.

The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.

Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.

Think about it, the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied. There are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent. It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening.

The answer seems to be it is simply because they are veterans. At the USJF we intend to find the truth by filing a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Veterans Affairs to force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors.

The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway. He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation. That means we have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans. 

Gun makers moving to more Second Amendment friendly states

By Marty Roney - 5/10/5/2014
Montgomery Advertiser
Attendees look over a pistol display at the National Rifle Association's annual convention April 25 in Indianapolis.

Some of the bluest of the blue bloods in the nation's gun industry are looking at moving production from state's that recently have passed stricter gun control laws, and the South is the hotspot.

As Remington Outdoors Co. considered 24 states for a new firearms production plant, support of the Second Amendment was high on its criteria list.

Remington announced in February it would build a $110 million plant in Huntsville. During the next decade, the plant is expected to create 2,000 jobs, company officials say.

We considered numerous factors in our decision-making process, said Teddy Novine, director of public affairs for Freedom Group Inc., the parent company of Remington. These factors included, among others, labor quality, pro-business environment, strong existing infrastructure and pro-Second Amendment policies.

Remington Outdoors, headquartered in Madison, N.C., has facilities in 19 states. Its largest plant is in Ilion, N.Y., where the company has had a presence since 1816. Remington has seen tremendous growth in the past five years, going from 2,400 employees in 2008 to 4,200 in 2013.

New York's passage of the Safe Firearms and Ammunition Enforcement (SAFE) Act in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings is the major reason those Remington jobs didn't settle in Ilion and went to Alabama, a union official told syracuse.com.

The SAFE Act bans the ownership of AR-15 style rifle in the state. Remington makes AR-15 style rifles.

The SAFE Act has been a terrible thing from the beginning, said Fran Madore, president of United Mine Workers Local 717, which represents 1,180 of the 1,300 Remington employees in Ilion, N.Y. You'd think New York would be doing everything to keep us. Instead, it passes a law that cripples us.

Remington has no plans to move production from the Ilion plant, Novine said.

The Remington decision is not unique. Increasingly, gun makers with plants or headquarters in states that have passed more stringent gun control laws are looking to gun friendly states when it comes time to expand.

Beretta USA, headquartered in Accokeek, Md., announced in January that it will build a $45 million production plant in Gallatin, Tenn. The plant, which is the first U.S. Beretta production plant outside of Maryland, will employ 300 people.

Beretta USA manufactures the M-9, the standard .9 mm sidearm for the U.S. military, among other guns.

Finding a state that supported the Second Amendment did play a sizable role in our search, said Ryan Muety, spokesman for Beretta USA. There were several factors, one of which was a strong level of support for constitutional rights.

Beretta USA continues to have a significant impact in Maryland, said Nina Smith, spokesman for Gov. Martin O'Malley.

We appreciate Beretta's continued presence here in Maryland and their commitment to Prince George's County and our state, she said. Private sector business is driving economic growth in Maryland. We have created over 36,000 jobs since December 2012. We'll continue to work with members of our business community to create jobs and expand opportunity for more Marylanders.

Other firearms companies on the move include:

Ruger, headquartered in Southport, Conn., announced in July that it will build a production plant in Mayodan, N.C. The move marks the company's first major expansion in 25 years.

Kahr Arms, headquartered in Pearl River, N.Y., has purchased 620 acres in Blooming Grove Township, Penn. It plans on moving its corporate headquarters and research and development arm to Pennsylvania in the first phase of expansion. The second phase will include building a production plant at the site.

PTR Industries, which makes semi-automatic rifles, announced last June that it will relocate all operations from Bristol, Conn., to Aynor, S.C. The move was completed in January, the company's website says. The facility plans on producing 120 jobs by 2017.

Firearms economic impact

The firearms industry was responsible for about $38 billionin total economic activity in the United States in 2013, up97 percent from 2008.

Economic impact of the firearms industry in 2013 in states that have passed more strict gun control laws:

• New York: $2.1 billion
• Connecticut: $1.9 billion
• Massachusetts: $1.6 billion
• Colorado: $825
• Maryland: $511 million

Source: 2013 Firearms & Ammunition Industry Economic Impact report, compiled by the National Shooting Sports Foundation

 

The Development and Declaration of The Right to Bear Arms in England.

By James Giudice - 5/9/2014
Observations from Chapter three, The Second Amendment Primer by Les Adams: The Development and Declaration of The Right In England.
Why does the development and declaration of the right to bear arms in England matter to modern Americans? It is because the English system of Government had a profound impact on the development of the American system of Government. As you will recall from the study of Ch.1, our founding fathers were classically educated statesmen. They were extremely well read and well versed in the philosophy of the greatest minds and systems of government throughout history, from ancient Greece until the Whigs of 18th century England. Also, they were intimately familiar with the English legal code and relied heavily on that system to establish our American Constitutional Republic.

The Development and Declaration of The Right in England page 39

NH Lawmaker: Gun Purchases With Food Stamps Should Be Legal

          

By Fox News Insider - 5/9/2014

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to have a firearm. But does it guarantee the right to purchase that gun using taxpayer dollars?

A New Hampshire lawmaker raised some eyebrows this week when he argued to his fellow lawmakers that recipients of food stamps should be allowed to use that money to buy a gun.

"The firearms ban is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment. Cash benefit recipients presumably have the same rights as the rest of us to purchase guns for hunting, sports shooting, or even self-defense. Obviously they don't have much money to spend on that, but they do have the right under the Second Amendment to do so," said State Rep. Timothy Horrigan (D).

He added that the ban seemed "ironic" to him because many of its supporters are pro-Second Amendment, Breitbart.com reported.

The proposed legislation reads:
"Any person who receives public assistance is prohibited from using an EBT card or cash obtained with an EBT card to gamble or to purchase tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, lottery tickets, firearms, or adult entertainment."

Second Amendment in real time boils down to politics

 

Nothing in the Constitution prevents private gun ownership, or reasonable regulation of guns. The balance is a matter of politics.

 

By Jerry Large - 5/8/2014

Related

Seattle Times staff columnist

 

Related

                                                                                                                                                    
History, politics and law are all tangled up in contemporary court interpretations and public understanding of the Second Amendment, and politics is the greater part of the mix these days.

Last week, I wrote that we’ve so misread the amendment that maybe we ought to get rid of it. That’s certainly not on the horizon, but the idea drew a strong response and suggested to me that a review of the amendment’s history might be helpful. (Some of the responses also reinforced my belief there are many people who should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. What does racist name calling have to do with gun rights anyway?)

Likely Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton Calls for the Government to. . ."Rein in Guns"!

By Associated Press - 5//7/2014  

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hillary Rodham Clinton says the nation's gun culture has gotten "way out of balance." She tells a mental health conference that the U.S. needs to rein in the notion that "anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime."

The potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate says the idea that anyone can have a gun is not in the "best interest of the vast majority of people." But she says that doesn't conflict with the rights of people to own firearms.

Clinton spoke Tuesday at the National Council for Behavioral Health conference in Oxon Hill, Maryland.

The Democratic-controlled Senate voted against legislation pushed by President Barack Obama last year that would have expanded background checks for firearm purchases to gun shows and online sales. The legislation came in the aftermath of the deadly Sandy Hook elementary school shootings in Connecticut.

Anti Gun Foes: Rely on shoddy studies, lack stats

  

By: Raquel Okyay - 5/4/2014

The economist John Lott Jr., who is the leading expert on gun violence statistics, told Guns & Patriots that gun control advocates produce faulty research to confuse the public and further their gun ban agenda.
 
“If they can control the numbers that are used in the gun control debate, then they can control the debate,” said John R. Lott Jr., founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, a research and education organization that studies the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety.

A recent nationwide study conducted by the Violence Policy Center have concluded grossly inaccurate figures about conceal handgun carry permit holders and violent crime rates. These studies are being regurgitated in the news without sufficient review and scrutiny, he said.

Supreme Court of the United States declines to hear challenge to NJ gun law

By United Press International - 5/5/2014  

The Supreme Court on Monday shied away from tackling a case limiting the extent of the Second Amendment, declining to review a challenge to a New Jersey law prohibiting most people from carrying a gun in public.

The court's decision not to hear the case -- Drake v. Jerejian -- lets stand several lower court rulings to uphold a law that requires gun owners to demonstrate an urgent need to be approved to carry a handgun outside the home for self defense, openly or concealed.