The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted review in the first Second Amendment case in almost a decade, a case supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA), and perhaps signaling what to expect from the new membership of the Supreme Court. New York law forbids residents from owning any handguns without a permit, and that permit allows the holder to possess guns only in their home or en route to or from one of seven shooting ranges in the city. A gun owner cannot transport a firearm outside the home for any other purpose, even if it is unloaded and locked in a case in the trunk of a car. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and several of its members sued in federal court, arguing that this statute is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, but that 2008 case involved only a law-abiding citizen seeking to have a handgun in his privately owned home for self-defense. The Court further held in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right, and thus extends to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment, but again that 2010 involved a law-abiding citizen seeking to keep a handgun in the home. That is essentially all the Supreme Court has done with the Second Amendment thus far. The Court has repeatedly turned down petitions for review (called a petition for a writ of certiorari) in several major cases over the subsequent nine years. Some experts speculated that Justice Anthony Kennedy – who was the fifth and thus decisive vote in Heller and McDonald – was reluctant to take any additional steps on gun rights. Without his vote, neither side of the gun debate could move the needle in either direction. Some legal strategists wondered if Justice Brett Kavanaugh – who has a judicial recording supporting gun rights – now sitting in Kennedy’s seat would break the paralysis over Second Amendment jurisprudence. It appears the answer might be “yes.” Lead counsel in the case is former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, who also was one of the lawyers who argued in both Heller and McDonald. Clement is one of the most accomplished Supreme Court advocates in American history, having argued over 90 cases before the justices. Clement argues that New York’s statute violates the Second Amendment, the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to interstate travel. The NRA is centrally involved in the case. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association is the NRA’s official state affiliate in the Empire State. This instantly becomes one of the most significant cases of the year at the Supreme Court. Oral arguments should be held in late April, with a decision by the end of June. The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Associaiton v. New York, No. 18-280 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
California lawmakers are pushing numerous gun control measures including an expansion of confiscatory orders and limits on the number of firearms residents can buy each month. Many of the lawmakers are claiming school shootings in Florida and Texas as the impetus for more gun control on law-abiding Californians. The Mercury News reports that Assemblyman Rob Bonita (D-18) is pushing controls to bar 18-20-year olds from buying firearms. A companion bill, sponsored by State Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-25), passed the Senate earlier this week. Portantino’s bill also puts a one-gun-a-month purchase limit in place for Californians. State Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-9) is pushing for an expansion of the state’s Gun Violence Restraining Orders. Whereas the orders currently authorize the confiscation of firearms, Skinner would also have them authorize the confiscation of gun parts. And Assemblyman Mike Gipson (D-64) wants to close the “Ghost Gun Loophole” by regulating any parts that a prohibited person could use to build a gun at home. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is working with legislators to secure these various new controls. Brady Campaign legislative advocate Amanda Wilsox said, “Everything is certainly moving forward. Together, all these bills make a difference.” California already has an “assault weapons” ban, universal background checks, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases, a requirement that residents obtain a firearm safety certificate from the state before buying a gun, Gun Violence Restraining Orders, a “good cause” requirement for concealed carry permit issuance, a ban on campus carry, a prohibition against allowing teachers to be armed to shoot back, and various ammunition controls.
And that’s just for starters… If you want to own a firearm, ya might wanna think about NOT living in the fascist People’s Republic of California. Unreal…
Larry Lopata and some friends were sitting around the campfire on a hunting trip when they came up with an idea for a new firearms product: an adjustable-length trigger, so people with different sized hands can comfortably share the same gun. The four business partners put $150,000 into development until last December when they were ready to seek more funds from investors. Crowdfunding sites such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo would have been perfect, but they prohibit users from raising money for weapons projects. So Lopata created his own, gun-friendly crowdfunding site, GunDynamics.com, which launched last month. While much of corporate America has turned its back on firearms-related business following mass shootings such as the Feb. 14 massacre at a high school in Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 people, pro-gun entrepreneurs are creating their own start-ups to fill the void. “Parkland really brought out this open warfare against the gun community,” Lopata said. Others who make their living in the firearms world have felt unwelcome on sites such as YouTube and PayPal and are also constructing online businesses to cater to gun-lovers. Some are promoting their self-reliance at the National Rifle Association annual meeting in Dallas this weekend. Since launching on April 19, Lopata has raised $6,720 for his project, which is seeking $50,000 to fund an initial production run of 5,000 triggers. The only other product on GunDyanmics.com, a device to reduce “muzzle climb,” when a gun barrel rises upon recoil, has won pledges of $7,850 toward a goal of $100,000. One prospective entrepreneur wants to develop the assault rifle of the future for the U.S. military, while another wants to create a new concealed-carry vest for women, Lopata said. Kickstarter and Indiegogo declined to comment beyond referring to their published policies, which prohibit crowd-funding projects involving weapons, replica weapons and weapon accessories. After the Parkland massacre, a number of major U.S. companies sought to disassociate themselves from the firearms industry. While the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government, private businesses are free to turn away from guns, and many have. Bank of America Corp said it would no longer lend to companies that make military-style firearms for civilians. Dick’s Sporting Goods said it would stop selling assault-style rifles, and WalMart Inc, L.L. Bean and Kroger Co’s Fred Meyer stores raised the minimum age for firearms purchases to 21 from 18. Other companies pulled out of marketing deals that offered incentives to NRA members, including insurer MetLife Inc , Delta Air Lines and United Airlines, and the three rental car brands owned by Enterprise Holdings Inc. Tim Harmsen, star of the Military Arms Channel on YouTube and a celebrity at the NRA meeting, said he saw the backlash coming and prepared by creating his own “YouTube” for guns, called Full30.com – a reference to a full 30-round magazine. Full30 has taken on content providers that have been kicked off YouTube, which prohibits the sale of firearms or the provision of instructions on how to make guns or accessories such as high-capacity magazines or silencers.
For more, click on the text above…
As Will Riley watched students stage this year’s walkouts for gun control, he grew frustrated with the message that his generation was somehow united against the Second Amendment. “I’m seeing people saying, ‘We need to do something, we’ve got to enact some kind of legislation because this is for the kids.’ Well, I’m also the kids, and I don’t like that,” Mr. Riley told the Washington Times. “And there are other people like me. The other kids haven’t spoken yet.” The 18-year-old senior from Carlsbad High School in Carlsbad, New Mexico, decided to do something about it by launching Stand for the Second, a May 2 school walkout designed to give a voice to “the other kids,” namely those who support the Second Amendment. “We’re getting generalized. Our generation’s being defined,” said Mr. Riley, whose website is StandfortheSecond.com. “And I think we have an obligation to define ourselves.” Stand for the Second comes as the first national student walkout aimed at supporting gun rights in the aftermath of the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which touched off a wave of campus gun-control activism. Mr. Riley is encouraging students to stage 16-minute walkouts on campus after coordinating with local police and working with school administrators to make sure the protests don’t conflict with testing. So far, walkouts are being planned by students in about 300 schools from 42 states, based on the online map operated by Tea Party Patriots, which is helping Mr. Riley with organization.
South Carolina debated seceding from the Union more than 150 years ago, one of the opening salvos of the Civil War. Now, the topic has come up again, amid a national debate over firearms and gun rights. A trio of state House Republicans on Thursday quietly introduced a bill that would allow lawmakers to debate seceding from the U.S. “if the federal government confiscates legally purchased firearms in this State.” Rep. Mike Pitts, the measure’s chief sponsor, acknowledged Friday in an interview with The Associated Press that the bill has no chance of passage this year but pledged to continue to raise the issue based on what he described as a defense of the Bill of Rights. “Without a Bill of Rights, our nation is not what it is,” Pitts said. “I see a lot of stuff where people even talk about totally repealing the Second Amendment, which separates us from the entire rest of the world.” Pitts, an ardent supporter of gun rights, said he had been mulling such a proposal for a while and felt it was necessary to bring the bill forward. He said he wasn’t spurred by recent comments by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who recently wrote in an op-ed that a repeal of the Second Amendment “would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.” South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union before the Civil War…
Whenever a gun tragedy happens in the United States, it seems like there are two sides: One that argues against Second Amendment protections, and one that argues for them. It seems simple enough, but what’s missing is this: The Second Amendment is the argument. It’s alarming how often people forget this. Whenever there’s violence, the Left starts to demand that the government get the guns off our streets, that it do so now, that it should have done it sooner to keep the people safe. In response, the Right often argues for the benefits of #2A, throwing out statistics such as the fact that gun violence has actually been dropping even though more people have been purchasing firearms, or philosophical arguments such as the idea that people looking to murder masses of people will find a weapon and a way regardless of what the laws are. My personal views may happen to fall into the second camp, but here’s the thing: Regardless of what your personal views are, it’s still true that our Constitution prohibits the kinds of things that the first group wants. If people on the left ever do talk about the Second Amendment, it’s often only to say that it’s “obsolete.” This is, of course, factually untrue: According to the Constitution, the Second Amendment is not obsolete until and unless two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of states agree that it is, or through the constitutional-convention method as detailed in Article V. Again, this isn’t even my argument; it’s the Constitution’s — and, like it or not, that’s important. Unfortunately, however, it’s very common to see the requirements of our Constitution being completely disregarded — even by our elected officials. For example: In New York City, it’s basically impossible to get a gun license unless you’re a police officer or security guard, and you have to pay upwards of $400 in fees just to submit an application that will certainly be rejected. Does that sound like a violation of my constitutional “right to keep and bear arms” to you? Yes; yes it does — and that should bother you, regardless of whether you personally happen to favor these kinds of rules or not. You may be someone who believes that it would be safer to eliminate guns from the hands of the public, and that’s fine — but you still need to view your activism through the lens of constitutional process. You need to be lobbying legislators to amend the Constitution, rather than lobbying officials to create laws that disregard it. Why? Because the Constitution always matters. If you want to say that it shouldn’t always matter, or that should matter except on this issue, then really, what you’re saying is that it never truly does — because you yourself have already stated that exceptions are okay. Either the document has integrity or it doesn’t. Either it has the power to protect our freedoms or it doesn’t — and to me, that seems like an easy choice.
Actually, there is NO choice. The U.S. Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights (i.e. the first ten Amendments to the Constitution) is the rule-book. It is the supreme law of these United States. And those First Ten Amendments, or “Bill of Rights” have a certain heightened deference by the courts, as they were penned by those same founders who inked our Constitution. So, millennial author Katherine “Kat” Timpf IS correct in saying that the Second Amendment “is the argument.” But, even that assessment comes up a little short. The fact of that matter is that the Second Amendment is law. Period. And, (God forbid) until that God-given right is legally removed, it is the law of the land; a law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court time and time again for over two centuries.
Lawmakers on Tuesday debated the merits of a Republican-backed bill that would make it easier for individuals to buy gun silencers. Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., introduced the measure in the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act, the Hill reported. The provision calls for a less extensive and instant background check. Duncan’s bill is reportedly dubbed the Hearing Protection Act. The debate was reportedly delayed after the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., in June in a park in Arlington, Va. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., reportedly said it seems that sportsmen “have to choose between damaging their hearing and being able to hunt, shoot, target practice.” Democrats said the bill is dangerous, and would make it more difficult to determine where shots are being fired in an active-shooter situation. “We should not make it easier for anyone to obtain these weapons of war,” Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., said, according to the report.
What a moron.. I’ve been in war, and I was never issued a suppressor! This bill is eminently reasonable, and we support it 100%. Despite what you may see on tv, suppressors are rarely used in criminal activity. And, unless you live in the people’s republic of fascist California, you can readily get these things already. This just makes the process easier, and less bureaucratic. That’s all. Anyway, to read the rest of this article, click on the text above.