Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman


Page 11234..1020..»

7th Circuit Court: Illegal Immigrants Have Second …

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on 7th Circuit Court: Illegal Immigrants Have Second …
Aug 292015
 

In a wordillegal immigrants have Second Amendment rights too.

The case was titled United States v. Meza-Rodriguez, and the decision was handed down on August 20.

The Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel reports that the decision was written by Judge Diane Wood for a panel that included Judges Frank Easterbrook and Joel Flaum.

As for the background to the case, Wood explained that Mariano Meza-Rodriguez, a citizen of Mexico, was arrested in August 2013 [and found to be] carrying a .22 caliber cartridge. Because he did not have documentation to show that he was in the United States lawfully, he was charged as being in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5), which forbids illegal immigrants from possessing firearms in the United States.

Meza-Rodriquez was indicted. He then challenged the indictment by claiming 922(g)(5) impermissibly infringed on his rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin rejected Meza-Rodriquezs claim, thereby upholding the indictment. He appealed the District Courts decision, thus bringing the case to the 7th Circuit.

In working through the case, Wood indicated that certain aspects of the language inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller (2008) support the view that all people, including non-U.S. citizens, whether or not they are authorized to be in the country, enjoy at least some rights under the Second Amendment.

She elaborated:

In a post-Heller world, where it is now clear that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is no second-class entitlement, we see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded.No language in the Amendment supports such a conclusion, nor, as we have said, does a broader consideration of the Bill of Rights.

Yet the 7th Circuit upheld the District Courts rulingwhich upheld Meza-Rodriguezs indictmenton the grounds that the Second Amendment does not preclude certain restrictions on the right to bear arms, including the one imposed by 922(g)(5).

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

More:
7th Circuit Court: Illegal Immigrants Have Second …

Court Rules Illegal Aliens Have Second Amendment Rights …

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Court Rules Illegal Aliens Have Second Amendment Rights …
Aug 272015
 

A recent decision by theU.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that says illegalalienswhat the left likes to call undocumented immigrantsenjoy a Second Amendment right to bear arms, even if their presence in this nation is criminal.

In the case of a Milwaukee man deported over a single .22 caliber cartridge, a federal appeals court ruled last week that even unlawful immigrants can be part of the public that enjoys a Second Amendment right to keep a gun for self defense.

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeas said even undocumented immigrants can be part of the people protected by the Bill of Rights, though it upheld the mans conviction on a specific law that prohibits most such persons from having guns.

It is now clear that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is no second-class entitlement, (and) we see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded, Judge Diane Wood wrote for a panel that included judges Richard Easterbrook and Joel Flaum.

No language in the Amendment supports such a conclusion, nor, as we have said, does a broader consideration of the Bill of Rights.

Because four other federal circuit courts have come to the opposite conclusion, legal commentators were quick to suggest the issue of whether undocumented immigrants have Second Amendment rights could now be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.

While rejecting the idea that undocumented immigrants could never have any rights under the Second Amendment, Wood noted that even for citizens, those rights are not unlimited. She found that a federal law tailored to keep guns out of the hands of undocumented immigrants like gun restrictions imposed on felons and those convicted of domestic violence was constitutional, and upheld the conviction on those grounds.

My basic, over-riding belief on the Second Amendment is that any case involving the right to keep and bear arms should be held to the legal standard of strict scrutiny, and that all law-abiding citizens and legal resident aliens should have the right to keep and bear arms.

This case, however, is stating that criminals who arent citizens nor legal resident aliens have Second Amendment rights and Im having a hard problem with that. Im apparently not alone, as the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Circuit court arent buying the argument, either. The split among the courts suggests that the basic issue will head to the U.S. Supreme court at some point.

Something that makes me even more leery about this case is that the progressives at Think Progress gleefully predict that if the Seventh Circuits views hold, they could use it to win even more rights for illegal aliens. In specific, theyre hoping these illegals will get expanded First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment protections if United States vs. Meza-Rodriguez holds. Put another way, theyre hoping this Second Amendment case will turn into an anchor baby that makes it more difficult to send criminal aliens back home.

Call me a butter if you want, but I dont think for a second that the Founding Fathers would support the concept of granting criminal invaders the same legal status as legal immigrants, legal resident aliens, and citizens. Lets hope that when this case makes it to the Supreme Court that the justices with the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth circuit courts.

Visit link:
Court Rules Illegal Aliens Have Second Amendment Rights …

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment …

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment …
Aug 132015
 

By John Paul Stevens April 11, 2014

Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents. Those killings, however, are only a fragment of the total harm caused by the misuse of firearms. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.

The adoption of rules that will lessen the number of those incidents should be a matter of primary concern to both federal and state legislators. Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce. It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used. Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that 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.

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated Militia.

When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans Second Amendment rights. Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

In recent years two profoundly important changes in the law have occurred. In 2008, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a civilians right to keep a handgun in his home for purposes of self-defense. And in 2010, by another vote of 5 to 4, the court decided in McDonald v. Chicago that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment limits the power of the city of Chicago to outlaw the possession of handguns by private citizens. I dissented in both of those cases and remain convinced that both decisions misinterpreted the law and were profoundly unwise. Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters elected representatives, not by federal judges.

In my dissent in the McDonald case, I pointed out that the courts decision was unique in the extent to which the court had exacted a heavy toll in terms of state sovereignty. . . . Even apart from the States long history of firearms regulation and its location at the core of their police powers, this is a quintessential area in which federalism ought to be allowed to flourish without this Courts meddling. Whether or not we can assert a plausible constitutional basis for intervening, there are powerful reasons why we should not do so.

Across the Nation, States and localities vary significantly in the patterns and problems of gun violence they face, as well as in the traditions and cultures of lawful gun use. . . . The city of Chicago, for example, faces a pressing challenge in combating criminal street gangs. Most rural areas do not.

Read more:
The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment …

Second Amendment March

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Second Amendment March
Aug 102015
 

Second Amendment March was founded in 2009 for the purpose of organizing a nationwide pro-Second Amendment Rally in Washington, D.C. The original event took place in 2010.Since that event we have focused on Michigan events, working in conjunction with Michigan’s largest gun rights organizations.

What:A peaceful gatheringto demonstrate the political strength of Michigan’s legal gun owners and Second Amendment advocates

When:Wednesday, April 29 2015 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Where:Lansing State Capitol lawn

The Details:

Michigan’s Second Amendment March will be held on Wednesday, April 29th at Michigan’s Capitol.The event will begin at 10:00 a.m. on the Capitol lawn. Unlike previous years, the actual march part of the event will be around the Capitol Building and it will be midway through the event. Legislature is in session that day. We’ll be showing them the political strength of Michigan’s legal gun owners. The march is being organized by Skip Coryell’s Second Amendment March and jointly promoted and funded by the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, Michigan Open Carry, and Michigan Gun Owners. Please visit our Facebook event page for the most updated information.

Go here to read the rest:
Second Amendment March

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? – The New Yorker

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? – The New Yorker
Jul 222015
 

Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: 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. The courts had found that the first part, the militia clause, trumped the second part, the bear arms clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear armsbut did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup dtat at the groups annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to poweras part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as a fraud.

But the N.R.A. kept pushingand theres a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace originalism, the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a living constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)

The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagans election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find clearand long lostproof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outr constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.

And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weaponslike tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

So the government cannot ban handguns, but it can ban other weaponslike, say, an assault rifleor so it appears. The full meaning of the courts Heller opinion is still up for grabs. But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressureas they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years. And if legislators, responding to their constituents, sense a mandate for new restrictions on guns, the courts will find a way to uphold them. The battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is.

Photograph by Mario Tama/Getty.

Sign up for the daily newsletter.Sign up for the daily newsletter: the best of The New Yorker every day.

Read more:
So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? – The New Yorker

Second Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia …

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Second Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia …
May 282015
 

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “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.” Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment’s intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . .” The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision inMcDonald v. City of Chicago(08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonaldchallenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through theincorporation doctrine.However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, andwhat level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Recent case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold

See constitutional amendment.

Read the original here:
Second Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia …

Brantley Gilbert Inks His Love For The Second Amendment …

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Brantley Gilbert Inks His Love For The Second Amendment …
May 132015
 

Model Erin Wasson attends “The Heimlich Maneuver” screening at Soho Grand Hotel in NYC on June 27, 2012 (Rob Kim/Getty photo)

Singer Rihanna attends the DKMS’ 5th Annual Gala: Linked Against Leukemia honoring Rihanna & Michael Clinton hosted by Katharina Harf at Cipriani Wall Street on April 28, 2011 in New York City. (Andrew H. Walker, Getty Images)

Rihanna attends the “Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty” Costume Institute Gala at The Metropolitan Museum of Art on May 2, 2011 in New York City. (Stephen Lovekin, Getty Images)

TV personality Kelly Osbourne (tattoo detail) attends the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center’s “An Evening” benefiting homeless youth services at Sunset Tower on January 23, 2012 in West Hollywood, California. (David Livingston, Getty Images)

TV personality Kelly Osbourne (tattoo detail) attends the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center’s “An Evening” benefiting homeless youth services at Sunset Tower on January 23, 2012 in West Hollywood, California. (David Livingston, Getty Images)

Singer Trisha Yearwood attends a Celebration of Paul Newman’s Dream to Benefit the SeriousFun Children’s Network at Avery Fisher Hall, Lincoln Center on April 2, 2012 in New York City. (Larry Busacca, Getty Images)

Trisha Yearwood performs onstage at the Songwriters Hall of Fame 42nd Annual Induction and Awards at The New York Marriott Marquis Hotel – Shubert Alley on June 16, 2011 in New York City. (Larry Busacca, Getty Images)

Actress Angelina Jolie arrives at the 18th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards at The Shrine Auditorium on January 29, 2012 in Los Angeles, California. (Jason Merritt, Getty Images)

Actress Angelina Jolie arrives at the 18th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards at The Shrine Auditorium on January 29, 2012 in Los Angeles, California. (Jason Merritt, Getty Images)

Actress Kyra Sedgwick arrives at the 18th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards at The Shrine Auditorium on January 29, 2012 in Los Angeles, California. (Jason Merritt, Getty Images)

Link:
Brantley Gilbert Inks His Love For The Second Amendment …

2nd Amendment advocates push to repeal switchblade, other …

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on 2nd Amendment advocates push to repeal switchblade, other …
May 122015
 

Shown here is a spring-assisted knife.(AP)

Once overshadowed by the hot-button gun rights debate, laws restricting knife sales and possession are the new “second front” in the battle to preserve Second Amendment rights.

The issue has gained more attention in recent years — most recently in Baltimore, where obscure knife laws have surfaced at the center of the Freddie Gray death case.Well before that case, though, the nonprofit advocacy group Knife Rights has been steadily working in state capitals across the country to roll back or repeal longstanding knife bans and restrictions.

And they’ve seen a string of successes.

Weve introduced the Second Amendment to a significant number of people who never considered it their amendment, said Doug Ritter, who founded Knife Rights in Arizona in 2009.

The group argues that possessing and carrying any kind of blade is, as with guns, a right enshrined in the Constitution.They’ve deployed that argument to, so far, help 10 states wipe most — if not all — knife restrictions from the books. It also has successfully advocated for so-called preemption laws in eight states, blocking local jurisdictions from circumventing state law with their own, stricter regulations.

Not all repeals are the same — some leave laws against switchblades like stilettos on the books. But others are comprehensive, like in Oklahoma and Maine, which just legalized switchblades, in March and April respectively.

Knife Rights first victory was in 2010, when it worked to get all switchblades, dirks and daggers legalized in New Hampshire. Bills in several other states are currently pending.

Theres no blood running in the streets, no state has come back and said we shouldnt have done this and tried to reinstate [laws], Ritter said.

Contrary to the image of gang members carrying butterfly knives to the local rumble, people carry knives for a multitude of reasons, and it is not to maim or kill, Ritter said. The reality is, millions of Americans use and own knives at home, work, and recreation. But every once in a while someone uses a knife as an arm, to protect the family.

Read the original post:
2nd Amendment advocates push to repeal switchblade, other …

Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Apr 142015
 

The Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for election to the office of President of the United States. Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951.

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

Historians point to George Washington’s decision not to seek a third term as evidence that the founders saw a two-term limit as a bulwark against a monarchy, although his Farewell Address suggests that he was not seeking re-election because of his age. Thomas Jefferson also contributed to the convention of a two-term limit when he wrote in 1807, “if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life.”[1] Jeffersons immediate successors, James Madison and James Monroe, adhered to the two-term principle as well. In a new political atmosphere several years later, Andrew Jackson continued the precedent.

Prior to Franklin D. Roosevelt, few Presidents attempted to serve for more than two terms. Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in 1880 after serving from 1869 to 1877, but narrowly lost his party’s nomination to James Garfield. Grover Cleveland tried to serve a third term (and second consecutive term) in 1896, but did not have enough support in the wake of the Panic of 1893. Cleveland lost support to the Silverites led by William Jennings Bryan, and declined to head the Gold Democrat ticket, though he did endorse the Gold Democrats. Theodore Roosevelt succeeded to the presidency upon William McKinley’s assassination and was himself elected in 1904 to a full term, serving from 1901 to 1909. He sought to be elected to a (non-consecutive) term in 1912 but lost to Woodrow Wilson. Wilson himself tried to get a third term in 1920,[citation needed] by deadlocking the convention. Wilson deliberately blocked the nomination of his Secretary of the Treasury and son-in-law, William Gibbs McAdoo. However, Wilson was too unpopular even within his own party at the time, and James M. Cox was nominated. In 1940, Franklin D. Roosevelt became the only president to be elected to a third term; supporters cited the war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent.

In the 1944 election, during World War II, Roosevelt won a fourth term but suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died in office the following year. Thus, Franklin Roosevelt was the only President to have served more than two terms. Near the end of the 1944 campaign, Republican nominee Thomas E. Dewey, the governor of New York, announced support of an amendment that would limit future presidents to two terms. According to Dewey, “Four terms, or sixteen years, is the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed.”[2]

The Republican-controlled 80th Congress approved a 22nd Amendment in March 1947;[3] it was signed by Speaker of the House Joseph W. Martin and acting President pro tempore of the Senate William F. Knowland.[4] Nearly four years later, in February 1951, enough states ratified the amendment for its adoption. While excluded from the amendment’s restrictions, then-President Harry S. Truman ultimately decided not to seek another term in 1952.[3]

The Congress proposed the Twenty-second Amendment on March 24, 1947.[5] The proposed amendment was adopted on February 27, 1951. The following states ratified the amendment:

Ratification was completed on February 27, 1951. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states:

In addition, the following states voted to reject the amendment:

Read more here:
Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Giveaway Winners for April 7 2015 – Video

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Giveaway Winners for April 7 2015 – Video
Apr 142015
 



Giveaway Winners for April 7 2015
Second Amendment Giveaways A brief film announcing the latest giveaway winners for our April 7 2015 giveaway. Prizes won during this giveaway: A United Cutlery M48 military tactical knife…

By: Second Amendment Giveaways

More:
Giveaway Winners for April 7 2015 – Video

2015 NRA Convention Interview with Michigan 2nd Amendment Supporters – Video

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on 2015 NRA Convention Interview with Michigan 2nd Amendment Supporters – Video
Apr 142015
 



2015 NRA Convention Interview with Michigan 2nd Amendment Supporters
NRA Convention Interview outside of the Allen Jackson concert in Nashville, Tennessee. Chris and Marty Welch are from michigan and are firm supporters of the Second Amendment. They attend…

By: Itsa Nunyabiz

The rest is here:
2015 NRA Convention Interview with Michigan 2nd Amendment Supporters – Video

PASTOR SAYS BLACKS NEED TO GET GUNS AND FIGHT BACK – Video

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on PASTOR SAYS BLACKS NEED TO GET GUNS AND FIGHT BACK – Video
Apr 142015
 



PASTOR SAYS BLACKS NEED TO GET GUNS AND FIGHT BACK
A Christian Pastor in the wake of the murder of Walter Scott, says that nonviolence does not work in today society, and that black people need to use their second amendment right of getting…

By: The Jedi

More here:
PASTOR SAYS BLACKS NEED TO GET GUNS AND FIGHT BACK – Video

More than 70,000 people attended event

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on More than 70,000 people attended event
Apr 132015
 

NASHVILLE (CNN) –

A pack of 2016 Republicans made their pitch for president Friday before the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in Nashville, blasting the Obama administration for what they described as an erosion of freedom while punctuating their remarks with sharp enthusiasm for Second Amendment rights.

The contenders also used the principles behind gun rights to fire off criticism of President Barack Obama’s handling of national security, further signaling the influential role that foreign policy is expected to have in the presidential election.

More than 70,000 people descended upon Music City to attend the convention, but tickets to see the candidates speak in a five-hour long forum was limited to about 5,000 people.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas was the only declared candidate on stage Friday. Other potential contenders included former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

1. Candidates show off gun credentials

As tradition at the annual NRA gathering, the speakers tried to establish their own longstanding history with guns in different ways. Santorum held up his concealed carry card before the audience and boasted that his wife requested ammunition for an upcoming birthday.

Walker talked about bow-hunting, while Huckabee perused the firearm vendor hall and later listed on stage the guns he grew up with, including his first BB gun at the age of five. “I still have the same gun in mint condition,” he said.

Perry screened a video showing off his shooting skills (the same video was also shown at the 2013 NRA convention). The former governor also crowed about the gun manufacturers he recruited to Texas from other states.

For Bush, the NRA meeting was a chance to tout his record, including his A+ rating from the NRA, before a conservative crowd that’s largely skeptical of him due to his more moderate positions on immigration and Common Core.

Read more here:
More than 70,000 people attended event

Six takeaways from the NRA convention

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Six takeaways from the NRA convention
Apr 132015
 

A pack of 2016 Republicans made their pitch for president Friday before the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in Nashville, blasting the Obama administration for what they described as an erosion of freedom while punctuating their remarks with sharp enthusiasm for Second Amendment rights.

The contenders also used the principles behind gun rights to fire off criticism of President Barack Obama’s handling of national security, further signaling the influential role that foreign policy is expected to have in the presidential election.

More than 70,000 people descended upon Music City to attend the convention, but tickets to see the candidates speak in a five-hour long forum was limited to about 5,000 people.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas was the only declared candidate on stage Friday. Other potential contenders included former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

1. Candidates show off gun credentials

As tradition at the annual NRA gathering, the speakers tried to establish their own longstanding history with guns in different ways. Santorum held up his concealed carry card before the audience and boasted that his wife requested ammunition for an upcoming birthday.

Walker talked about bow-hunting, while Huckabee perused the firearm vendor hall and later listed on stage the guns he grew up with, including his first BB gun at the age of five. “I still have the same gun in mint condition,” he said.

Perry screened a video showing off his shooting skills (the same video was also shown at the 2013 NRA convention). The former governor also crowed about the gun manufacturers he recruited to Texas from other states.

For Bush, the NRA meeting was a chance to tout his record, including his A+ rating from the NRA, before a conservative crowd that’s largely skeptical of him due to his more moderate positions on immigration and Common Core.

Bush proclaimed to the audience that he’s “been with you in trenches” as an “NRA life member since 1986.” He also listed the gun rights measures he enacted or maintained as former governor, and defended the stand your ground laws in Florida that became a hot topic following the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

More:
Six takeaways from the NRA convention

The Death of the Second Amendment – Video

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on The Death of the Second Amendment – Video
Apr 122015
 



The Death of the Second Amendment
Much easier to arrest law abiding citizens then criminals. Tough NJ Gun Laws Seen Entrapping Legal Gun Owners New Jersey's strict gun laws are leading to the arrest and in some cases incarceration …

By: Dave Flang

Originally posted here:
The Death of the Second Amendment – Video

1st & 2nd Amendment Attack Caught On Camera Cop Kicks Down Second Amendment Sign – Video

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on 1st & 2nd Amendment Attack Caught On Camera Cop Kicks Down Second Amendment Sign – Video
Apr 122015
 



1st 2nd Amendment Attack Caught On Camera Cop Kicks Down Second Amendment Sign
Please click subscribe button if you want more video. Thanks For Watching, Sharing Subscribe https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuiuLVgKgh3roWS…

By: News Tube

Excerpt from:
1st & 2nd Amendment Attack Caught On Camera Cop Kicks Down Second Amendment Sign – Video

Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense – Video

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense – Video
Apr 122015
 



Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld talks about the NRA show, his guns and the Second Amendment.

By: GunsAmerica

Read more:
Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense – Video

Ben Carson Speaks on Second Amendment at NRA Leadership Forum – Video

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Ben Carson Speaks on Second Amendment at NRA Leadership Forum – Video
Apr 122015
 



Ben Carson Speaks on Second Amendment at NRA Leadership Forum
Ben Carson addresses the 144th annual NRA Annual Leadership Meeting. The potential GOP presidential candidate used his time to clarify his stance on the Second Amendment. “For the record let…

By: Lord Rothschild

Read more here:
Ben Carson Speaks on Second Amendment at NRA Leadership Forum – Video

GUN RIGHTS UNDER FIRE Illegal police grabs of legal firearms rising nationwide

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on GUN RIGHTS UNDER FIRE Illegal police grabs of legal firearms rising nationwide
Apr 122015
 

Attorney Chuck Michel represented Michael Roberts after his firearms were seized.

Cherished family heirlooms were among the 21 firearms Michael Roberts surrendered to the Torrance Police Department in 2010, after his doctor filed a restraining order against him.

The court order was the result of a dispute Roberts had with a member of the doctors staff and, after Roberts pleaded no contest, the matter was resolved. Yet, even though he filed the proper Law Enforcement Gun Release paperwork on four separate occasions, obtained clearance from the California Department of Justice and had two court orders commanding the return of his guns, police refused to hand them over.

With the backing of the National Rifle Association and California Rifle and Pistol Association, Roberts filed a federal lawsuit in May 2014, over the $15,500 worth of firearms. In the end he got the money, but not the guns. The police had had them destroyed.

Second Amendment lawyers say his case is not rare.

NRA and CRPA constantly get calls from law abiding people having problems getting their guns back, said Chuck Michel of Long Beach based Michel & Associates, who represented Roberts in the case. The state Department of Justice wrongly tells police not to give guns back unless the person can document ownership of the gun and it is registered in the state DOJs database. But the law doesnt require this.

Gun owners cant comply anyway, Michel said, because police themselves routinely fail to enter the firearms into the DOJs database, and most people dont have receipts for the guns they own.

While Americans have the constitutional rights to keep and bear arms and protect their property from governments unlawful seizure it is not just in California where guns are seized and destroyed illegally, attorneys charge.

“This kind of below-the-radar bureaucratic gun confiscation is a growing Second Amendment and property rights violation problem, particularly in strict gun control states like California, New Jersey and Massachusetts, said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. People can’t afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to get back a $500 firearm.”

The Second Amendment Foundations most recent case involves Rick Bailey, a 56-year-old Navy veteran from Glendale, Ariz., whose entire collection of 28 firearms valued at $25,000 was seized by authorities because of an ongoing dispute with a neighbor.

More:
GUN RIGHTS UNDER FIRE Illegal police grabs of legal firearms rising nationwide




Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism