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

Abstract

Modern debates about the meaning of the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was apparently never even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted. Early discussions took the basic meaning of the amendment for granted and focused instead on whether it added anything significant to the original Constitution. The debate later shifted because of changes in the Constitution and in constitutional law and because legislatures began to regulate firearms in ways undreamed of in our early history.

The Founding generation mistrusted standing armies. Many Americans believed, on the basis of English history and their colonial experience, that governments of large nations are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. One way to reduce that danger would be to permit the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or similar emergencies, the government might be restricted to using a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received a bit of part-time, unpaid military training.

Using a militia as an alternative to standing armies had deep roots in English history and possessed considerable appeal, but it also presented some serious problems. Alexander Hamilton, for example, thought the militia system could never provide a satisfactory substitute for a national army. Even those who treasured the militia recognized that it was fragile, and the cause of this fragility was just what made Hamilton disparage it: Citizens were always going to resist undergoing unpaid military training, and governments were always going to want more professionaland therefore more efficient and tractableforces.

This led to a dilemma at the Constitutional Convention. Experience during the Revolutionary War had demonstrated convincingly that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense, and the onset of war is not always followed by a pause during which an army can be raised and trained. The convention therefore decided to give the federal government almost unfettered authority to establish armies, including peacetime standing armies. But that decision created a threat to liberty, especially in light of the fact that the proposed Constitution also forbade the states from keeping troops without the consent of Congress.

One solution might have been to require Congress to establish and maintain a well-disciplined militia. Such a militia would have had to comprise a large percentage of the population in order to prevent it from becoming a federal army under another name, like our modern National Guard. This might have deprived the federal government of the excuse that it needed peacetime standing armies and might have established a meaningful counterweight to any rogue army that the federal government might create. That possibility was never taken seriously, and for good reason. How could a constitution define a well-regulated or well-disciplined militia with the requisite precision and detail and with the necessary regard for unforeseeable changes in the nations circumstances? It would almost certainly have been impossible.

Another approach might have been to forbid Congress from interfering with the states control of their militias. This might have been possible, but it would have been self-defeating. Fragmented control of the militias would inevitably have resulted in an absence of uniformity in training, equipment, and command, and no really effective national fighting force could have been created.

Thus, the convention faced a choice between entrenching a multiplicity of militias controlled by the individual states, which would likely have been too weak and divided to protect the nation, or authorizing a unified militia under federal control, which almost by definition could not have been expected to prevent federal tyranny. The conundrum could not be solved, and the convention did not purport to solve it. Instead, the Constitution presumes that a militia will exist, but it gives Congress almost unfettered authority to regulate that militia, just as it gives the federal government almost unfettered authority to maintain an army.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that federal control of the militia would take away from the states their principal means of defense against federal oppression and usurpation and that European history demonstrated how serious the danger was.

James Madison, for one, responded that such fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the new federal government was to be structured differently from European governments. But he also pointed out another decisive difference between Europes situation and ours: The American people were armed and would therefore be almost impossible to subdue through military force, even if one assumed that the federal government would try to use an army to do so. In Federalist No. 46, he wrote:

Read more from the original source:
The Second Amendment and the Inalienable Right to Self-Defense

US taxpayers would need to pay an average of $1,259 more a year to make up the federal and state taxes lost to corporations and individuals sheltering money in overseas tax havens, according to a report. "Tax haven abusers benefit…

Go here to see the original:
Havens leave US taxpayers $1,259 tab each – report

AMHERST, Ohio – The dancing tax lady for Liberty Tax Service in Amherst is all smiles. Karen Seymore always wanted to be a mascot and her dream were fulfilled this year.

Her granddaughter lent her some music and all day long she has been dancing and waving to customers.

Seymore says that ” When they honk it lets me know I am doing my job” As she does the “Liberty Two Step” as she calls it, “Taxes don’t stop you have to keep moving.” says Seymore.

As for the people that wait to the last minute the owner of Liberty Tax Service hears all the excuses. “I am to busy, I can’t find it, I forgot and any other excuse you can think of.” says Margo Manees.

Manees also says tax time is ” Intimidating and most people really don’t know how to do taxes and they panic a little bit.”

Paul Holrbook usually has taxes done earlier than the fifteenth but this year he says ” He didn’t want to fill them out and it got a little hectic.”

If you haven’t filed your federal tax return you have until midnight of the fifteenth or you must file an extension.

Link:
Liberty Tax Service dancing to the deadline

U.S. taxpayers would need to pay an average of $1,259 more a year to make up the federal and state taxes lost to corporations and individuals sheltering money in overseas tax havens, according to a report.

“Tax haven abusers benefit from America’s markets, public infrastructure, educated workforce, security and rule of law – all supported in one way or another by tax dollars – but they avoid paying for these benefits,” U.S. Public Interest Research Group said in the report released today, the deadline for filing 2013 taxes.

“Instead, ordinary taxpayers end up picking up the tab, either in the form of higher taxes, cuts to public spending priorities, or increases to the federal debt,” it said.

In total, the U.S. loses $150 billion in federal revenue and another $34 billion in state revenue annually because of money parked in tax havens, the Boston-based consumer advocacy group concluded.

That’s almost 5 percent of total federal revenue. The U.S. is projected to raise $3.032 trillion this year, up from $2.775 trillion for fiscal year 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

U.S. PIRG released the report as it tries to increase pressure on lawmakers to change how companies pay taxes on income credited to foreign subsidiaries.

Offshore Accumulations

The largest U.S.-based companies have accumulated $1.95 trillion outside the U.S., up 11.8 percent from a year earlier, according to securities filings from 307 corporations reviewed by Bloomberg News.

Together, they added $206 billion to their stockpiles of offshore profits last year, leaving earnings in low-tax countries until Congress gives them a reason not to. Three multinational firms — Microsoft Corp., Apple Inc. and International Business Machines Corp. — added $37.5 billion, or 18.2 percent of the total increase.

Prospects have dimmed for a revision of the U.S. tax code this year that would have addressed offshore havens.

View post:
Tax havens leave US filers with $1,259 tab each

U.S. taxpayers would need to pay an average of $1,259 more a year to make up the federal and state taxes lost to corporations and individuals sheltering money in overseas tax havens, according to a report.

Tax haven abusers benefit from Americas markets, public infrastructure, educated workforce, security and rule of law – all supported in one way or another by tax dollars – but they avoid paying for these benefits, U.S. Public Interest Research Group said in the report released today, the deadline for filing 2013 taxes.

Instead, ordinary taxpayers end up picking up the tab, either in the form of higher taxes, cuts to public spending priorities, or increases to the federal debt, it said.

In total, the U.S. loses $150 billion in federal revenue and another $34 billion in state revenue annually because of money parked in tax havens, the Boston-based consumer advocacy group concluded.

Thats almost 5 percent of total federal revenue. The U.S. is projected to raise $3.032 trillion this year, up from $2.775 trillion for fiscal year 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

U.S. PIRG released the report as it tries to increase pressure on lawmakers to change how companies pay taxes on income credited to foreign subsidiaries.

The largest U.S.-based companies have accumulated $1.95 trillion outside the U.S., up 11.8 percent from a year earlier, according to securities filings from 307 corporations reviewed by Bloomberg News.

Together, they added $206 billion to their stockpiles of offshore profits last year, leaving earnings in low-tax countries until Congress gives them a reason not to. Three multinational firms — Microsoft Corp., Apple Inc. and International Business Machines Corp. — added $37.5 billion, or 18.2 percent of the total increase.

Prospects have dimmed for a revision of the U.S. tax code this year that would have addressed offshore havens.

President Barack Obama, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican, and Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, support lowering the corporate rate and making significant changes to the taxation of foreign income.

Original post:
Tax Havens Leave U.S. Filers Thousand-Dollar Tab: Report

U.S. taxpayers would need to pay an average of $1,259 more a year to make up the federal and state taxes lost to corporations and individuals sheltering money in overseas tax havens, according to a report.

Tax haven abusers benefit from Americas markets, public infrastructure, educated workforce, security and rule of law all supported in one way or another by tax dollars but they avoid paying for these benefits, U.S. Public Interest Research Group said in the report released Tuesday, the deadline for filing 2013 taxes.

Instead, ordinary taxpayers end up picking up the tab, either in the form of higher taxes, cuts to public spending priorities, or increases to the federal debt, it said.

In total, the U.S. loses $150 billion in federal revenue and another $34 billion in state revenue annually because of money parked in tax havens, the Boston-based consumer advocacy group concluded.

Thats almost 5 percent of total federal revenue. The U.S. is projected to raise $3.032 trillion this year, up from $2.775 trillion for fiscal year 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

U.S. PIRG released the report as it tries to increase pressure on lawmakers to change how companies pay taxes on income credited to foreign subsidiaries.

The largest U.S.-based companies have accumulated $1.95 trillion outside the U.S., up 11.8 percent from a year earlier, according to securities filings from 307 corporations reviewed by Bloomberg News.

Together, they added $206 billion to their stockpiles of offshore profits last year, leaving earnings in low-tax countries until Congress gives them a reason not to. Three multinational firms Microsoft Corp., Apple Inc. and International Business Machines Corp. added $37.5 billion, or 18.2 percent of the total increase.

Prospects have dimmed for a revision of the U.S. tax code this year that would have addressed offshore havens.

President Obama, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican, and Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, support lowering the corporate rate and making significant changes to the taxation of foreign income.

Read the rest here:
Tax haven abuse costs U.S. filers billions

Liberty Bell Bank, of Marlton, said it plans to sell up to $5 million worth of shares for $1 each to help it meet capital requirements under an agreement reached in November with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Kenneth R. Lehman, an investor who specializes in community banks and already is Liberty Bell’s largest shareholder, with a 16.95 percent stake, has agreed to buy up to 2.9 million shares. The amount he buys depends on how many of 2.1 million shares offered to the public are sold, the bank said.

The agreement with Lehman, who plans to join Liberty Bell’s board, allows him to identify up to $9 million in problem assets that the bank would have to deal with on an accelerated basis, the bank said.

Liberty Bell, which had $110 million in loans and $147 million in deposits at the end of last year, has lost a total of $6.4 million over last two years.

The planned stock offering must be approved by the New Jersey Division of Banking and Insurance.

More:
Liberty Bell Bank to raise $5 million

Economy For Utah, it arrives April 17; April 21 for rest of nation.

“Tax Freedom Day” when a typical worker will have earned enough to pay his tax bill for the year if he spent money on nothing else is falling three days later this year both in Utah and the nation.

In Utah, it will be on April 17 after falling on April 13 in 2013, according to a study by the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan tax research organization based in Washington, D.C.

However, that is still earlier than average.

The national Tax Freedom day is on April 21, 111 days into the year. Last year, it was on April 18.

“Tax Freedom Day is three days later than last year due mainly to the countrys continued slow economic recovery,” the Tax Foundation said.

Twenty-six states have earlier Tax Freedom Days than Utah this year.

The earliest, or best, among the states is in Louisiana on March 30. The latest, or worst, is in Connecticut and New Jersey on May 9.

For states surrounding Utah, Tax Freedom Day is on April 8 in New Mexico; April 11 in Idaho and Arizona; April 15 in Nevada; April 17 (like Utah) in Wyoming; and April 22 in Colorado.

The foundation says it now takes the nations workers 33 days to pay their federal income tax bill; 27 days to pay Social Security taxes; two days for federal excise taxes; eight days for federal corporate taxes; and four days for other federal taxes.

See the original post:
Tax Freedom Day will come 3 days later this year



Nathaniel Erskine-Smith: Beaches-East York Federal Liberal Nomination
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith is running for the federal Liberal nomination in his home riding, Beaches-East York. He was born and raised in the riding, now practi…

By: Vote Nate

Go here to read the rest:
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith: Beaches-East York Federal Liberal Nomination – Video

Second Amendment,amendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, that provided a constitutional check on congressional power under Article I Section 8 to organize, arm, and discipline the federal militia. The Second Amendment 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. Referred to in modern times as an individuals right to carry and use arms for self-defense, the Second Amendment was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, according to College of William and Mary law professor and future U.S. District Court judge St. George Tucker in 1803 in his great work Blackstones Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as the true palladium of liberty. In addition to checking federal power, the Second Amendment also provided state governments with what Luther Martin (1744/481826) described as the last coup de grace that would enable the states to thwart and oppose the general government. Last, it enshrined the ancient Florentine and Roman … (200 of 1,463 words)

See the original post:
Second Amendment (United States Constitution …



Illuminati Symbols for Capital City Safe and Sound Centenial Celibration of Federal Reserv
Thank you for looking at my video breakdown on Illuminati symbols in the safe and sound music video. There are multiple messages imbedded in this video with .

By: illuminatisymbolss

Read the original here:
Illuminati Symbols for Capital City Safe and Sound Centenial Celibration of Federal Reserv – Video

LAUDERDALE BY THE SEA, Fla. (AP) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says it has replenished 5.1 miles of beaches in South Florida eroded by Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

Sandy didn’t make landfall in Florida, but the storm contributed to ocean swells that sent water crashing over beaches into roadways.

Officials say the sand replacement increases storm protection in Broward County between the Hillsboro Inlet and Lauderdale by the Sea. The project also helps restore shorebird and sea turtle habitat.

Starting in November, crews trucked 126,700 cubic yards of sand from a mine in Moore Haven. The project was completely funded under the federal Flood Control and Coastal Emergency program.

The corps is replenishing 38.5 miles of eroded beaches in Florida as part of the federal program.

See original here:
South Florida beaches eroded by Sandy replenished



Illuminati Symbols for Capital City Safe and Sound Centenial Celibration of Federal Reserve
Thank you for looking at my video breakdown on Illuminati symbols in the safe and sound music video. There are multiple messages imbedded in this video with …

By: bnjmnfelix

Originally posted here:
Illuminati Symbols for Capital City Safe and Sound Centenial Celibration of Federal Reserve – Video



Sen. Moran Speaks about the FCC Scrapping a Media Survey After First Amendment Concerns Were Raised
On Monday, Feb. 24, 2014, U.S. Senator Jerry Moran spoke on the U.S. Senate Floor about the victory for the First Amendment on Friday when the Federal Commun…

By: SenatorJerryMoran

More here:
Sen. Moran Speaks about the FCC Scrapping a Media Survey After First Amendment Concerns Were Raised – Video

One thing is certain about Comcasts proposed $45 billion merger with Time Warner Cable: It doesnt pass the smell test. Comcast claims that the combination of the two largest cable companies will somehow enhance, rather than diminish, competition and lead to greater consumer satisfaction. Dont worry, Godzilla will play nice on the playground.

The resulting company would have at least 30 million cable customers, slightly less than 30 percent of the TV market and 38 percent of the nations high-speed Internet customers. It would have virtual monopoly cable control over news and public service programming in cities including Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New York City and the District. It would be able to exact price concessions from content providers, forcing some out of business, limiting innovation and variety. With net neutrality rules now under assault, it would be positioned to charge discriminatory rates for high-speed Internet access or to discriminate against Netflix and other companies seeking to stream online entertainment over its cable. And Comcast would be in the position to decide what gets priority access and what viewers across much of the nation wont see.

Comcast is just digesting its previous mega-merger, the takeover of NBC Universal that should have been blocked by the Federal Communications Commission. That left Comcast controlling an empire that includes NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, USA Network, Telemundo and other networks.

Here, the merger doesnt just affect the marketplace of cable; it threatens the marketplace of ideas. The protection of free speech under our Constitution depends on citizens having access to many ideas, many sources, many ways of getting ideas and information. Letting mega-corporations consolidate control of key parts of the media infrastructure directly threatens that access.

In addition, consumers surely would get fleeced if the merger goes through. The United States already suffers from worse Internet service, speed and affordability than other developed countries.

As Craig Aaron, president of the consumer advocacy group Free Press, summarized: No one woke up this morning wishing their cable company was bigger. This deal would be the cable guy on steroids pumped up, unstoppable and grasping for your wallet.

Comcast is infamous for its lousy customer service. It ranks down with BP, AIG and Bank of America among the 10 least reputable companies in the United States, according to Harris Interactives annual Reputation Quotient survey. In the American Consumer Satisfaction Index, Comcast had the fourth-worst rating in the country.

On its face, this is a preposterous merger. Former FCC commissioner Mike Copps is precisely right when he says of the takeover: This is so over the top that it ought to be dead on arrival at the FCC.

And Comcast is a poster child for Washingtons corrupting revolving door. One of its lead lobbyists officially the senior vice president for government affairs of its subsidiary NBC Universal is Meredith Attwell Baker. Appointed by Obama to hold a Republican seat on the FCC, she voted to approve Comcasts takeover of NBC and then joined the newly merged company a mere four months later, after serving only two years of her five-year term.

The door revolves the other way, too. William Baer, who recently became head of the Justice Departments Antitrust Division, represented General Electric and NBC Universal in their deal with Comcast. Maureen Ohlhausen, one of four sitting commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission, which is charged with enforcing antitrust laws, provided legal counsel to Comcast before assuming her post.

The rest is here:
Comcast bid for Time Warner threatens free speech

The liveliest (and oldest) former member of the U.S. Supreme Court is at it again. John Paul Stevens, 93, served on the highest court in the land for an impressive 35 years, from 1975 until his retirement in June 2010. Known for his bow ties, brilliant legal mind, and striking transformation from Midwest Republican conservative to hero of the political left, Stevens remains an intellectual force to reckon with. In his latest book, the forthcoming Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, he offers a half-dozen stimulating ideas for altering, and he would say improving, our foundational legal document. Today, lets consider his most controversial proposal: changing the Second Amendment. Stevens is not going to win any friends at the National Rifle Association, because his undisguised agenda is to make it easier to regulate the sale and ownership of firearms.

With exquisitely awkward 18th century syntax, the Second Amendment states:

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 a couple of centuries, you might be surprised to learn, the Supreme Court didnt say exactly what the Second Amendment means. As far as Stevens can tell, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by the 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. He recalls a colorful remark on the topic by the late Warren Burger, who served as chief justice from 1969 to 1986. Responding to the NRAs lobbying campaign opposing gun control laws in the name of Second Amendment rights, Burger, a lifelong conservative, remarked during a television interview in 1991 that the amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraudI repeat, fraudon the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

Strong stuff. Times change, though, and so do constitutional interpretations. In 2008, Stevens was on the losing end of a 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark ruling in which the high court, in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, for the first time declared that the Second Amendment protects a civilians right to keep a handgun in his home for self-defense. In 2010, by another 5-4 vote, the justices extended Heller to apply to state and local governments.

Stevens dissented with characteristic eloquence in both cases. But he lost, and in the process, the conservative majority struck down laws in Washington, D.C., and Chicago that effectively banned civilian ownership of handguns. Those decisions are rippling through the legal system, and it will take some years before its clear whether gun rights advocates will succeed in using Heller to knock down other regulations, short of across-the-board bans.

Reflecting on these developments, Stevens makes several important points: Heller did not by its own terms preclude federal, state, or local governments from restricting the ownership of the sorts of large-capacity weapons used in mass shootings in Connecticut, Virginia, Colorado, and Arizona in recent years. That Congress failed to act is a function of elective politics and lobbying, not constitutional law. Stevens also observes that whether one thinks Heller was right or wrong, the decision had the effect of shifting the ultimate power to determine the validity of gun control laws from elected politicians to life-tenured federal judges.

Since Stevens believes that the authors of the Second Amendment were primarily concerned about the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the statesas opposed to homeowners anxiety about violent felonshe thinks the best way to fix the situation is to amend the Second Amendment. Hed do that by adding five words as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.

To support the change, he argues: Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.

Here is the original post:
Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend the Second Amendment?

(Ieva Geneviciene)

A decade ago, fed-up lawmakers in Montana decided it was time to try to fix what had turned into a broken taxation system.

For years, corporations wereand still areshifting profits to offshore tax havens, starving Montana and other states of millions in revenues. So the Big Sky state introduced a simple fix: make corporations report profits going to known tax havens and then tax a share of it, relying on the same formula the state uses to calculate how totax businesses with operations throughout the nation.In 2010, alone, Montanas solution to the problem raked in $7.2 million in cash.

Last summer, Oregon became the only other state to join it, but there are others who stand to gain millions through making similar changes, according to a new report. Some 21 other states already require corporations report profits generated in and out of the state, according to the report produced by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a pro-consumer group countering bigbanks, insurers, manufacturers and other special interests.If those states had been taxing profits diverted to offshore havens in 2012, they could have generated another billion dollars in revenue, the group estimates.

With Congress often gridlocked, states should take action to reduce the impact of offshore tax havens on state budgets, the reports authors argue.

Estimates of the federal impact vary, but a report last year from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service cited a range of $10 billion to $90 billion in lost revenues annually. Yet, despite broad support for taxing corporate overseas profits and high-profile stories on the practice,the federal government has yet to do much about the problem. Enter the states.

There are three simple steps for states to reclaim revenue lost to tax havens, US PIRG argues. (Note, technically they list four, but one is just addition.)

Oregon became the second state to address the waters edge problem in July and its legislative analysts predict $18 million in extra revenues this year alone.Another 21 states already require reporting of income from foreign subsidiaries, according to the report:

Read the original post:
How states can reclaim $1 billion from offshore tax havens

Posted Wed, February 5th, 2014 8:12 pm by Lyle Denniston

The next chance for the Supreme Court to take up the most important unanswered issue about the Second Amendment whether gun rights exist outside the home will come later this month, according to scheduling shown Wednesday on the Courts electronic docket.

The Justices at their private Conference on February 21 will be examining two cases filed by the National Rifle Association, raising basic questions about the power of Congress and state and local governments to pass gun control laws. In different ways, each of those petitions seeks to draw the Courts attention to the lingering issue of gun rights in public places. The cases are NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (13-137) and NRA v. McCraw (13-390).

So far, the Court has answered two fundamental questions about the Second Amendment: in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, it ruled that the amendment protects a personal right to have a gun, at least for self-defense inside ones home, and in 2010, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, it ruled that the amendment applies so as to restrict gun control laws at the state and local levels, as well as at the federal level.

Since then, the Court has repeatedly turned down new cases seeking to broaden the personal right to have a gun, with most of those dealing with pleas to extend the right to public settings. The Court, as usual, has given no explanation for remaining on the sidelines in those cases.

Both of the new cases deal with laws a federal law in 13-137, a Texas law in 13-390 that restrict access to handguns for minors. In separate rulings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld both laws at issue, and in the process raised serious doubts about whether the Second Amendment even applies to gun rights claims of minors. But the two NRA petitionstake different approaches to the issue of gun rights in public places.

The petition in the federal case is a sweeping claim that lower federal courts have been engaging in massive resistance to the Courts landmark decisions on Second Amendment rights. As one example of that resistance, the petition contends that lower courts are stubbornly resisting efforts to view the personal right to have a gun as something so importantthat itmust extend outside the home as well as within.

The petition makes that pointin urging the Court to make it clear to lower courts that its 2008 decision recognized a fundamental right, one that can be curbed only for the most compelling government reasons.The government has countered that the beyond-the-home questionis not even at issue in that case, because the federal law involvedis a narrowly focused issue on minors desireto buy guns from licensed federal dealers.

The petition in the state case, however, is a straightforwardplea to extend the Second Amendment beyond the home, because it involves a state law that bars almost all minors from carrying a handgun in public. Texas requires a license to carry a gun in public, but minors are not eligible to get such a license. The petition in that case said that the Supreme Court in 2008 settled that the right to keep arms applies within the home, so now, it argued,it is time for the Court to decide whether the right to bear arms means the right to carry them when one leaves home.

The Court has been holding both of the NRA cases until each was ready for consideration. The Court apparently has alsobeen holding another case,to examine it along with the NRA cases. That is the petition in Lane v. Holder(12-1401), which is a test of whether gun fanciers have a right to sue to challenge federal gun laws that restrict their option of buying guns from dealers in a different state. That case, too, is now set for the February 21 Conference, according to the docket.

Follow this link:
Gun rights cases on the schedule



Federal Freedom Building day Troy record do Food I at series 68 Freedom LA LA w/ Federal at deal Day
Label GMOs lecture at World Food Freedom Day, at LA Federal Building w/ Troy Casey My Jeffrey Smith interview: subscribe for Holistic Health: Its our Right T…

By: Healt Healt

See the original post here:
Federal Freedom Building day Troy record do Food I at series 68 Freedom LA LA w/ Federal at deal Day – Video



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
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