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

UPLAND – Although it is now illegal to openly carry unloaded handguns in California, two open-carry advocates are fighting the city over a confrontation with Upland police officers.

Christopher Hacopian of Ontario and Scott Gibb of Adelanto filed a complaint last year in federal court in Los Angeles, accusing two officers of violating their First, Second and Fourth Amendment rights. They are also accusing the officers of battery.

Lawyers from the city and for the advocates have been in discussions about the complaint.

Video and audio recordings of the incident show Hacopian and Gibb being detained, ordered to put their hands up and get on their knees. The men were then handcuffed and searched without consent. Both men were eventually let go.

“My guys immediately complied,” said Jonathan Birdt, an attorney representing Hacopian and Gibb.

“If they had checked the weapons and uncuffed them, the situation would have been over. You never would have heard another thing, but they didn't. They kept them in handcuffs for 15 minutes and berated them.”

Hacopian and Gibb were both openly carrying unloaded handguns – which was legal at the time – in July at the Colonies Crossroads shopping center. They were passing out pamphlets on the Second Amendment when Officer Maurice Duran and Sgt. Barry Belt approached them to check if their weapons were unloaded.

“These guys are zealous advocates that were passing out

fliers on the Second Amendment. It's a controversial issue, and these officers were idiots,” Birdt said.

Carrying an unloaded handgun in plain sight was legal until January, when a bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown made open carry of handguns illegal.

It is still legal to openly carry unloaded rifles and shotguns.

The City Council discussed the lawsuit in closed session during a meeting earlier this month. There was no reportable action.

Birdt said he had offered to settle for $100,000, which the city turned down. If the case goes to trial, he said he will ask for up to $250,000 in damages.

“The complaint in this case taken directly from what happened on the video. Whether the plaintiffs acted improperly or not or one of them ran his mouth, he complied with every order he was given,” Birdt said.

“The police did not have the power and do not have the power to just have a temper tantrum and cuff somebody for 10 minutes because they feel like it. It's an abuse of power.”

City Manager Stephen Dunn said he believes the advocates could have been looking for a loophole in the system.

“Unfortunately, our officers fell into that loophole and now it's looking like it could potentially cost the city some money,” he said.

Duran and Belt were responding to a call made by a jewelry store employee stating there were two men with guns near the store.

The jewelry store had been robbed in the past, Dunn said.

“Of course, they were very nervous so they called for service and police responded and I think they reacted like I think you would expect them to react if they saw people with sidearms, only to find out in a sense it was a set-up.”

When officers go out on calls reporting men with guns, their approach is different than if they know the men are just openly carrying, Capt. Ken Bonson said.

“I think the best we can do is we train our officers on how to handle the open-carry people when they know that's what they're dealing with and train our officers how to handle these more high-risk situations of possible robbery suspects, man-with-a-gun type of things,” Bonson said. “What we hope for (from) this is that at the point where they become aware of this appearing to be an open carry situation that the officer de-escalates.”

Bonson said officers were re-trained on the open-carry law immediately after the incident in July.

“The training was a big part of it just reminding everybody that some of these `man-with- a-gun' calls we go on might be open-carry people,” Bonson said. “We need to be prepared to address that appropriately.”

Often, open-carry advocates inform the Police Department before they pass out fliers or hold a demonstration, but they are not required to do so.

“People involved in open carry know that there's always the potential for members of the public to get scared,” Bonson said. “If members of the public call the police, if we're notified ahead of time when we get that call, the officer knows and they're going there with that mindset.”

Reach Sandra via email, call her at 909-483-8555, or find her on Twitter @UplandNow .

Go here to see the original:
Open carry advocates battle Upland

By Joshua Green

Last fall, I wrote about a surprising trend: Gun sales have skyrocketed since Barack Obama became President. During that time, the stock of gunmaker Sturm Ruger has outperformed gold. Analysts aren’t quite sure what’s causing the trend. Many anticipated a boost in sales after Obama’s election from gun owners fearful that he might outlaw assault weapons—the so-called “fear trade.” But they expected a brief spike, no more. Instead, gun sales kept rising and have continued to rise even since last fall. Ruger, which was up 400 percent at the time, is now up more than 500 percent.

Despite the fact that Obama hasn’t made the slightest feint toward regulating guns, firearms enthusiasts have whipped themselves into a paranoid frenzy, convinced that this is all just part of some elaborate conspiracy. Don’t believe me? Here’s how Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Association, put it to the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) two weeks ago. “Lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term,” he said. “We see the President’s strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and—with no more elections to worry about—get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights, and excise it from the U.S. Constitution … When the sun goes down on election day, Barack Obama will have America’s gun owners to thank for his defeat.”

Note the twist: It’s no longer Obama’s election that poses a mortal danger to the liberty of Americans who want to assemble arsenals—it’s Obama’s re-election. I’m no financial analyst, but you’d have to imagine that that line of reasoning isn’t going to do anything to depress gun sales.

One thing I hadn’t appreciated when I wrote my original piece was the breadth of the trend; it’s not just gun sales, but ammunition. All those new firearms have brought the government a lot of revenue in the form of federal excise taxes. The website Ammo.net (what, you don’t have it bookmarked?) has an eye-popping graphic on just why Obama is, as they put it, the “greatest gun salesman in America.”

Green is senior national correspondent for Bloomberg Businessweek in Washington.

Originally posted here:
Barack Obama, "Greatest Gun Salesman in America"


17-02-2012 14:36 Cam Edwards talks to Emily Miller from The Washington Times – NRA News – February 16, 2012 – www.NRANews.com

Originally posted here:
Sneaky White House Budget Provisions Undermine the Second Amendment – Video

 

DES MOINES — A constitutional amendment protecting Iowans’ right to bear arms was approved by a House committee, but it wasn’t the one supporters hoped for.

Sponsor Rep. Matt Windschitl, R-Missouri Valley, offered House Joint Resolution 2005 — a constitutional amendment that must be approved by two session of the Legislature and Iowa voters — that would provide Iowans a fundamental right to “acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes.” It would prohibit mandatory licensing, registration and special taxation of firearms.

He told the House Public Safety Committee his amendment would be “precise in protecting” Iowans’ Second Amendment rights.

However, Rep. Rick Olson, D-Des Moines, offered an amendment that substituted the last 14 words of the Second Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Windschitl called it a dodge that wouldn’t fool backers of Second Amendment rights.

“What we’re trying to do is not uphold the U.S. Constitution (but) trying to get away from taking a politically tough vote,” he said about Olson’s amendment.

However, Public Safety Chairman Clel Baudler, R-Adair, argued that gun- rights supporters have used those words to win U.S. Supreme Court victories when they have challenged restrictive gun ordinances in Washington and Chicago.

“I cannot and will not vote against the U.S. Constitution,” Baudler said.

He was joined by two other Republican committee members, Reps. Dave Tjepkes of Gowrie and Gary Worthan of Storm Lake, in voting with Democrats to approve the amendment 11-10.

Windschitl promised to offer his wording when the bill, HJR 2005, comes to the House floor.

The Senate so far has shown little interest in taking up gun rights bills.

Read more from the original source:
House committee adopts 2nd Amendment language

To: LEGAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL EDITORS

BELLEVUE, Wash., Feb. 14, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The recent robbery of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer at a vacation home in the West Indies should hopefully cause the learned jurist to re-examine his core beliefs about the individual right to keep and bear arms at places other than their primary residence, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Breyer has voted with the minority twice in recent years against recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms, in both the Heller and McDonald cases. He was robbed last week, along with his wife and some guests, by an intruder wielding a machete, according to published reports. Justice Breyer was not harmed, but the robber got away with about $1,000 in cash.

“We're delighted that Justice Breyer was not hurt during this incident,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and hopefully this case will give him a new perspective on the right to bear arms for personal safety. Police cannot always be around when you need them, even if you're a Supreme Court justice. One does not leave his right of self-defense at the doorstep of his home when he travels.

“If this demonstrates anything to Justice Breyer,” he continued, “it is that crime does not happen just at someone's primary residence, and criminals do not make appointments, giving someone time to unlock and assemble and load a firearm. You must be able to protect yourself, even on vacation outside of your home state, at a moment's notice. That's not just a civil right, but a basic human right.

“When Justice Breyer dissented in the Heller case,” Gottlieb recalled, “he expressed concerns about keeping loaded firearms in the home for personal protection. Faced with a machete in the hands of a criminal, one wonders whether Breyer might have quietly wished he had a gun with which he could have defended himself, his wife and their guests. We hope this incident gives him new insight with which to temper his views.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

SOURCE Second Amendment Foundation

-0-

Read more from the original source:
Breyer's Robbery Illustrates Why RKBA So Important Everywhere

NASHVILLE, TN (WSMV) –

It's an issue that has the business community and Second Amendment advocates at odds. Should permit holders be allowed to bring their guns on their commute to work?

Gun advocates want to be able to keep their guns locked in their cars at their workplace parking lot, and they say this plan needs to happen now, or else lawmakers are breaking promises.

Chris Smith knows a thing or two about gun permit holders. After all, he provides the training in order for them to get the permit.

“We're talking about law-abiding citizens. They want to defend their life, and they go through the proper training,” said Smith, of Guns and Leather Inc.

Three years ago, state lawmakers made several changes to where permit holders would be allowed to bring their guns. But Second Amendment advocates say they haven't seen any movement on a plan to allow permit holders to keep their guns locked in their cars in their workplace parking lots.

“They want to feel safe while they are commuting, that they can have their firearms with them,” said John Harris, with the Tennessee Firearms Association.

Second Amendment advocates are furious and feel like House leaders have betrayed them.

“Frankly, it's a litmus test in do you really believe in the Constitution or are you more beholden to corporate money,” Harris said.

House leaders say they feel like they have done a lot to advance Second Amendment issues in the past few years, but they say there are other issues they must tackle.

“We have been focused on what we know what people of Tennessee want us to work on. Our economy needs to be looked at, and we want to make sure it's a job-friendly state,” said Rep. Debra Maggart, R-Hendersonville.

Gun owners like Smith can see both sides of the argument, but for them, in the end it is about a fundamental right.

“They went through the proper training. They are going to keep that firearm locked up in their vehicle. That's their property, and I think the property owners should respect that,” Smith said.

Senate leaders, including Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, have expressed a willingness to pass this bill this year.

However, it was delayed in a Senate committee late Tuesday afternoon.

Copyright WSMV 2012 (Meredith Corporation). All rights reserved.

Visit link:
Gun advocates want ability to bring guns to work parking lots

The NRA and other Second Amendment groups may have just found the best friend they could have ever hoped for – a new rock & roll band based out of New York named Madison Rising.

According to the band’s website, “Madison Rising (www.madisonrising.com) promotes the principles of liberty, independence, smaller government and personal responsibility.”

The band’s latest cause is to help bring awareness to the relentless attacks on one of the most cherished rights granted in the Constitution: The right to keep and bear arms. On January 30th, the band released a video for their single “Right To Bear.”

The song and video had already generated considerable controversy regarding the Second Amendment and the ongoing issues of open and concealed carry gun laws around the country. But the issue really came to the forefront last week when the band learned that a group called The National Gun Victim’s Action Council (NGAC) plans to lead a national boycott of Starbucks Coffee on Valentine’s Day, Feb. 14th, to try to force a change in the company’s “open carry” gun policy at hundreds of its retail locations.

Apparently, Starbucks having the audacity to follow the law by allowing guns to be carried by patrons in the states where it is legal to do so doesn’t sit well with everyone. According to Elliot Fineman, CEO of the NGAC, “Starbucks allowing guns to be carried in thousands of their stores significantly increases everyone’s risk of being a victim of gun violence.” Fineman further claims,  “Open and conceal-and-carry are among the reasons there are 12,000 gun homicides each year in theU.S.”

However, Christopher Schreiner, Madison Rising’s guitarist vehemently disagrees.  “Mr. Fineman needs to realize that his position on this issue is flawed, and affected by his obvious naiveté,” said Schreiner who, along with his band mates openly showed their support for Starbucks by posing in front of a mural from their recent video with Starbucks coffees held proudly in hand.

Notably however, Schreiner’s passion and interest in the gun-rights issue extend far beyond his membership in the NRA and the band’s recent music video.  Last year, Schreiner’s 31-year-old cousin was shot and killed on his way home from work by a 16 year old with an illegal handgun. Yet Schreiner clearly understands the difference between rights and responsibilities: “Certain people blame guns, but the perpetrator wasn’t a responsible gun owner or an NRA member. He was a delinquent.  Madison Rising is fighting for the rights of law abiding citizens, and those rights should not be infringed upon, compromised or lost as a result of the egregious actions of criminals.”

“There’s a reason it’s the second amendment,” continued Dave Bray, the band’s lead singer. “It’s not the ninth, it’s not the fourth; it’s the second. And at the end of the day, it’s the only thing protecting the first. We’re talking last line of defense. The authors of the constitution knew exactly what they were doing and these rights are just as important now as they were two centuries ago. It doesn’t matter how technologically advanced a society may become. Human nature never changes.”

The band’s Right To Bear video prominently features several high profile anti-gun politicians such as Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi, as well as key pro-gun advocates like NRA president David Keene. The band openly endorses national right to carry laws.

 

 

 

Excerpt from:
Patriotic Rock Band Stands With Starbucks Amidst Attack From Anti-Gun Lobby Group

Feb 132012

Second Amendment advocates hope to build on recent Iowa successes by ensuring rights

DES MOINES — Matt Windschitl turned a half-swivel in his chair and stuck his right hand out, palm up, stopping National Rifle Association lobbyist Chris Rager from walking out the door.

Windschitl, 28, a member of the House Republican leadership team from Missouri Valley, had just watched his “stand your ground” bill sail through a legislative committee.

“This,” Windschitl said as Rager shook his hand, “is just the start.”

The bill would allow Iowans to respond with deadly force if they feel threatened and would protect them from liability in some cases.

This session Windschitl also has proposed legislation that makes it a crime for local governments to ban firearms from public buildings, lifts the firearm prohibition on the State Fairgrounds and adds wording to the Iowa Constitution that makes it harder to place restrictions on firearm ownership, transportation and use.

Republicans hold a 60-40 majority in the House, but in the Senate, Democrats rule 26-24.

Key senators say that the firearms legislation being pushed now in the House won’t ever make it to a vote in committee in the Senate.

“Our position is we are not doing any of those bills. We don’t think they’re good policy,” said Sen. Robert Hogg, D-Cedar Rapids, vice chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Senate Democrats have a consistent, unrelenting focus on jobs, the economy, education and training, and that’s where we’re focused on, and we’re not going to get into a gun-rights sideshow.”

But legislation can be moved to the floor without going through the committee if a majority of senators votes to do so. That’s where Windschitl sees an opening.

Gun issues play reasonably well across party lines in Iowa. Take, for example, the “shall issue” bill that took discretion away from county sheriffs in issuing gun permits in 2010.

The House voted 81-16 and the Senate 44-4 in favor, and they both had Democratic majorities at the time.

Plus, it’s an election year. And because of census redistricting every legislator will have at least some new constituents to which they may want to show their pro-Second Amendment bona fides.

 

“We’ve had some conversations with some pro-Second Amendment Democrats,” Windschitl said. “The Judiciary Committee is one committee.”

The legislation that’s caught a lot of attention this session is the pre-emption bill that says the state has the sole authority to regulate firearms, so ordinances by cities, counties and school districts are illegal.

Critics say pre-emption is an overreach by the state. They say public safety and weapons bans are a local control issue, but proponents say a local ordinance doesn’t trump the Constitution.

“I agree with people’s rights to bear arms with certain restrictions to maintain the safety of our public,” said Iowa City Mayor Pro Tempore Susan Mims, who was in Des Moines last week for a presentation on the economic impact of the state’s largest cities.

Waterloo passed a ban on weapons in city buildings after concealed carry passed, Mayor Buck Clark said. He said there haven’t been any problems with weapons being brought places where they are banned, but, he noted, most people can’t get into the Capitol with a firearm.

Craig Robinson, editor of the influential Iowa Republican website, said moving this wide-reaching legislation in an election year is a shrewd political move.

“The gun lobby in Iowa is very strong,” he said. “There are a lot of Democrats, especially those in rural areas, who want to be seen as pro-gun.”

 

Chris Larimer, an associate professor of political science at the University of Northern Iowa, said the gun lobby might not be all it’s cracked up to be in the state.

“If you think about states with powerful gun lobbies, they tend to be those in which the electorate has a strong or has had a strong anti-government bent,” he wrote in an email.

“The political culture of Iowa, at least recently, has never really been anti-government.”

Windschitl, meanwhile, said he’ll continue to push greater access to firearms for law-abiding Iowans against people who are willing to accept less.

“People don’t understand why our founding fathers recognized that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right.

“There are people who are out there that believe the Second Amendment was written to protect our hunting rights or to have a militia,” he said.

“I believe our Second Amendment right was written to protect us from a tyrannical government, to give us the opportunity to protect ourselves and our homes.”

View post:
The politics of gunplay


05-02-2012 17:14

See the article here:
Second Amendment University – Video


30-01-2012 19:14 On October 16, 1991, George Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby’s Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, yelled “This is what Bell County has done to me!”, then opened fire on the restaurant’s patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89. About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide. During the shooting, he approached Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, a chiropractor, and her parents. Dr. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby’s Cafeteria that day, but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms. Both of Dr. Hupp’s parents were murdered that day.

Here is the original post:
Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp on The Second Amendment – Video


05-02-2012 13:50 TED NUGENTS VIEW ON THE SECOND AMENDENT. I THINK HE IS RIGHT ON TRACK……… WHAT DO YOU THINK ? THIS IS A MIRRORED VIDEO…………

Read the original here:
A VIEW ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT – Video

1. I’m familiar with the Second Amendment. 2. I like guns. I own several of them. 3. Some people who feel as I do on this topic give me the creeps, and some give me giggles.

Original post:
Cory Farley: No situation's so bad, gun can't make it worse

A gun-rights group has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal judge in Illinois ruled against allowing people to carry firearms on the street.

The Second Amendment Foundation announced Monday it's appealing the decision by federal district Judge Sue Myerscough.

Currently only Illinois and the District of Columbia prohibit the concealed carrying of weapons. Gun owners say that infringes on their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Myerscough ruled that the Second Amendment allows citizens to protect themselves with guns in their home but not on the street.

Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb says citizens “don't check our constitutional rights at the front door.”

A similar Illinois-based lawsuit backed by the National Rifle Association remains in federal court.

Read the original post:
Gun group appeals Ill. concealed-carry ruling

SPRINGFIELD — Gun rights supporters Monday appealed a federal judge’s decision to keep intact Illinois’ ban on carrying loaded guns in public.

In documents filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Springfield, attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation asked for a review of Judge Sue Myerscough’s ruling, in which she dismissed the organization’s challenge of the state’s one-of-a-kind ban on carrying concealed weapons.

In a 48-page decision issued Friday, Myerscough said the state’s law barring citizens from legally carrying concealed firearms doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution because the Supreme Court has recognized the right to bear arms only within a home, not outside.

“Plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment protects a general right to carry guns that includes a right to carry operable guns in public,” Myerscough wrote. “However, neither the United States Supreme Court nor any United States Court of Appeals has recognized such a right.

“Further, the Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home and has cautioned courts not to expand on its limited holding.”

Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation, said his group will take its fight to the nation’s high court in hopes of clarifying the law.

“The Second Amendment does not say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except outside your home or that it only applies inside your house. We don’t check our constitutional rights at the front door,” Gottlieb said in a release.

“We’re disappointed with the decision, and we are appealing,” said attorney David Jensen, who represented Michael Moore of Champaign in the case.

The Illinois Attorney General’s office, which represented the state in the case, did not immediately return messages.

Moore and others want state lawmakers or a court to bring the state in line with the rest of the nation when it comes to carrying weapons. His lawsuit is among at least two cases winding through the federal legal system.

Last year, a concealed carry proposal fell six votes short of moving out of the Illinois House. Supporters say they may ask for another vote on the issue this spring.

See original here:
Judge squelches bid to overturn Illinois gun law

SPRINGFIELD — A gun-rights group has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal judge in Illinois ruled against allowing people to carry firearms on the street.The Second Amendment Foundation announced Monday it’s appealing the decision by federal district Judge Sue Myerscough.Currently only Illinois and the District of Columbia prohibit the concealed carrying of weapons. Gun owners say …

See the original post:
Gun group appeals state concealed-carry ruling

Every presidential election year, certain hot-button issues come to the forefront. This year is no different with discussions of abortion, taxes and gun control.

Lawrence, KS – infoZine – A University of Kansas law professor has authored an article arguing that in the case of Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as represented in the Second Amendment, Congress is the body that will have the most impact, not the president or Supreme Court, as is often assumed.

Stephen McAllister, professor of law, authored “Individual Rights Under a System of Dual Sovereignty: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms” for the University of Kansas Law Review. In the article, he examines the relationship between state and federal constitutions. Forty-four states currently have language in their constitutions granting individuals some right to own firearms. The Supreme Court has also recently weighed in on the matter with its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 decision which holds that citizens have the right to own and possess typical firearms in federal enclaves. A couple of years later the Supreme Court followed up Heller by holding that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms also applies against state and local governments.

“It is an interesting question, to what degree does federal law determine what rights people have to carry guns?” McAllister said of the Supreme Court’s rulings and the reason he wrote the article. “It’s timely because the Supreme Court has finally said the Second Amendment does in fact mean something.”

From state to state, laws regarding gun ownership vary, but if any were to contradict federal law, the state laws would be superseded, or “pre-empted” by the Second Amendment. The argument of states’ rights does not win out.

“If a state law is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution always wins,” McAllister said. “In Heller, however, the Supreme Court went out of its way to make clear that a host of federal laws regulating firearms are valid.’”

After Heller, states generally can’t ban, but can regulate gun ownership, he said. Despite the Supreme Court’s stand, people focused on gun rights and restriction should focus more on Congress, McAllister argues. Federal legislation also trumps state legislation, and were Congress to pass any restrictions on gun ownership, states would be required to follow those restrictions.

Few federal lawmakers have chosen to focus on gun rights or restriction, but because the Supreme Court has set the level of constitutional protection relatively low, Congress has room to regulate gun ownership, when and if it chooses to do so, McAllister said. That sets the Second Amendment question apart from other often-controversial constitutional topics.

“It doesn’t often turn out this way because the Supreme Court has often set the bar fairly high to very high in cases of individual rights such as abortion and free speech,” he said.

In that regard, for example, should a state pass legislation outlawing abortion, it would be trumped by federal law, and will continue to be unless the decision in Roe v. Wade were overturned. The same is true of state laws that might attempt to punish protected speech, as occurred recently in the case of Snyder v. Phelps.

McAllister, who teaches both state and federal constitutional law classes, said it is interesting to examine how each state addresses the question of gun rights in its constitution. Some contain wording identical or nearly so to the Second Amendment regarding well-organized militias, while others are very specific in protecting the legal uses of firearms for recreation or home defense. As part of the article, McAllister compiled a table of the 44 state constitutions that address the issue and included the specific language from each. Like virtually all other controversial constitutional topics, the question of gun rights will continue to evolve, he said.

“I think short of banning typical weapons, states probably have the authority — in spite of the Second Amendment — to determine their own laws with respect to firearms, so long as those laws do not conflict with any federal statute regulating guns,” he said. “What people who are concerned about gun rights really need to focus on is Congress, not the Supreme Court. That’s where the ‘gun rights’ action will occur.”

Here is the original post:
Biggest Factor in Gun Rights, Congress, Not Courts

A majority of respondents endorse the “shall-issue” prerogative to deal with the question of concealed carry.

Read the rest here:
Americans Certify Second Amendment, Divided Over Gun Laws

A gun-rights group has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal judge in Illinois ruled against allowing people to carry firearms on the street.

The Second Amendment Foundation announced Monday it's appealing the decision by federal district Judge Sue Myerscough.

Currently only Illinois and the District of Columbia prohibit the concealed carrying of weapons. Gun owners say that infringes on their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Myerscough ruled Friday that the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to protect themselves with guns in their home but not on the street.

Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb says citizens “don't check our constitutional rights at the front door.”

A similar Illinois-based lawsuit backed by the National Rifle Association remains in federal court.

Read more here:
Gun group appeals Illinois concealed-carry ruling


16-12-2011 07:48 A libertarian’s view of the second amendment.

Read the original:
What is the second amendment? – Video


03-02-2012 08:28

See original here:
Second Amendment Paranoia – Video



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company Kids Furniture
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com