Chicago sets 72 hour waiting period on gun purchases

By United Press International - 6/26/2014

The Chicago city council, under the gun from a court order, approved Mayor Rahm Emanuel's plan to allow gun dealers in the city in a 48-0 vote Wednesday.
The plan has strict limits on dealers that the mayor described as the stiffest he believes would pass muster with the courts. A judge recently overturned Chicago's ban on gun sales. Handgun sales would be subject to a 72-hour waiting period and limits of no more than one per month to a customer, while buyers of rifles and shotguns would have to wait 24 hours.

Emanuel called the bill a "smart, tough and enforceable ordinance."

Dealers would also be subjected to zoning restrictions and would have to be at least 500 feet from schools and parks. Emanuel's office estimates they would be able to open in areas that make up less than 1 percent of Chicago.

The city is known for gun violence. Critics say its restrictions on weapons sales do little since most guns that are seized in the city were purchased elsewhere, often in southern Illinois.

Pennsylvania: Suit to allow Sunday hunting shot down, not protected by 2nd Amendment

By Angel - 6/24/2014

A federal judge found that the Second Amendment protections do not include recreational hunting in dismissing a lawsuit brought about to grant hunting on Sundays in Pennsylvania.

 

The suit, brought about by the Lancaster County-based Hunters United for Sunday Hunting against the Pennsylvania Game Commission, was an attempt to ask the courts to compel the state to end its so-called “blue law” forbidding the taking of either small or large game on Sunday.

 

The Keystone State is one of only 11 that currently prohibit Sunday hunting.

LOGIC: 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment

By JRoss

Critics of the 2nd Amendment conclude that since the Founders couldn't have anticipated multi-shot weapons (in the time of single shot firearms) the 2nd Amendment should be null and void. Accepting that logic one would conclude that the 1st Amendment (the right of free speech) should be null and void with the invention of the telephone, fax, and any other form of multiple/electronic speech.

Why Americans Needs Guns

By Soulstealer - 6/6/2014

After the [atrocity|evil] that occurred in Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, the 2nd amendment and gun control debates flamed up anew. People were [scared|terrified]. Gun control activists [pounced on|used] the tragedy as a platform to further their views against gun ownership. Gun owners responded by saying that had the teachers and staff been armed or had there been an armed guard, people would not have died. I’m sure you’ve heard a lot about why guns are evil and why people shouldn’t be allowed to carry them. Here, I give you five reasons why I support the 2nd amendment and why we actually need more guns.

• To uphold the2nd amendment
What is our second amendment about? According to our nation’s Founders, it is being able “to keep and bear arms” without this right being “infringed”. According to them, this is “necessary to the security of a free state”. Our 2nd amendment gun rights simply mean that our Founders knew that we, the people, are our own first line of defense against any person, group, or force trying to take our property, liberty, or life. Owning a gun doesn’t mean that you intend to cause harm to another. A gun, like any other tool you own (cellphone, hammer, can opener, etc.), is simply something you keep for the event that you will need it. Guns aren’t inherently evil. The source of evil is the person who intends to use his or her gun to inflict harm.

• To protect the innocent and the defenseless
I support the 2nd amendment because I believe in protecting those who can’t protect themselves. I support the 2nd amendment because I know that by educating myself on gun use and gun safety, I can contribute to “the security of a free state”. There are many different and contrasting explanations for our 2nd amendment rights, but this much I know is true: I would sleep better knowing that I have a shotgun I can use in the event that an armed criminal breaks into my family’s house in the middle of the night.

• To defend ourselves from crime
[Whenever|Any time] gun control advocates start [spewing hate about|criticizing] the idea of using guns for self-defense, I start thinking about Switzerland. Switzerland has a very low rate of gun-related violence. There, the government hands out guns to households so they can better protect themselves. Meanwhile, countries with [stringent|strict] gun rules likethe UK have high crime rates.

• To [tone down|reduce] the paranoia
People are scared because so many criminals and psychopaths are able to [procure|get hold of] guns illegally. The solution to this is to allow honest, responsible people to own and use guns legally.
With all the [heated talk|debate] about the 2nd amendment and gun control, people seem to have forgotten one [crucialimportant] thing. In America, we have a choice. We can choose to protect ourselves or we can choose not to. If you choose not to arm yourself, that’s fine. But if your neighbor chooses to protect himself in the event that he finds himself in a violent situation, let him. You may not think that the world is a dangerous and unpredictable place, but many still do.

The Militia Myth: Understanding the Language of the 2nd Amendment

 

By John Engle - 6/5/2014

 

The issues surrounding the right to bear arms are many and varied. Most often the debate centers around the lethality of modern firearms, especially “assault weapons” that can fire rapidly with large magazines. Yet one element of the debate frequently referenced obliquely in the mainstream media concerns the actual intent and function of the Second Amendment. Some progressive groups have been endeavoring to turn the originalist position against itself, so to speak. Their arguments are often baffling to those unprepared for them, but they are easily beaten with a little preparation.

US Senator Flubs Basic American History

By NRA-ILA - 6/6/2014

 

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), sponsor of the Brady Bill and the “assault weapon” and “large” magazine ban when he was in the House of Representatives, probably shouldn’t be the go-to guy for historical arguments against the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Washington Times reports that Schumer said on Tuesday Thomas Jefferson was the architect of the Bill of Rights. As the Times notes, Jefferson was overseas serving as minister to France during the Constitutional convention and the congressional debate over the Bill of Rights.

Schumer can perhaps console himself that both Jefferson and a pivotal author and champion of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, had a lot in common.

(Sen. Schumer, take notes.) Jefferson and Madison were both from Virginia. Both later became president of the United States. And both supported the right to arms.

But there are some important differences, too. For example, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Madison, on the other hand, argued for ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist, commonly referred to as The Federalist Papers.

In The Federalist, Number 46, for example, Madison said that under the Constitution, the people would retain the right to keep and bear arms for defense against tyranny.

For that matter, Alexander Hamilton, from Schumer’s home state, also endorsed an armed citizenry for the same reason in The Federalist, Number 29.

But, we digress.

Since his election to the Senate, Schumer has spent a considerable amount of time trying to enact gun control, in contravention of the work of men like Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton. In particular, Schumer proposed to expand the Undetectable Firearms Act, expand the federal “armor piercing ammunition” law, impose “assault weapon” and “large” magazine bans, and expand background checks.

Instead, he might want to spend a little more time with a history book.