Archive for the ‘The 2nd Amendment Issues’ Category

Advocacy Groups Call On Obama To Boost Funding For Anti-Gun Violence Initiatives
February 22, 2014 2:04 PM

NEW YORK(CBSNewYork) — Victims of gun violence and advocacy groups in New York City want President Obama to add more federal funding for anti-gun violence initiatives.
play

Advocacy Groups Call On Obama To Boost Funding For Anti-Gun Violence Initiatives
1010 WINS’ Roger Stern Reports

00:00

The organizations joined U.S. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) on the steps of City Hall on Saturday morning.
play

Advocacy Groups Call On Obama To Boost Funding For Anti-Gun Violence Initiatives
WCBS 880’s Jim Smith Reports

00:00

They said that more money is needed to research policy that could reduce gun violence.

“Good policies are based on good data and we need good data for prevention,” Maloney said.

Maloney urged President Obama to include $10-million in the upcoming budget to research gun violence and how to stop it. She called gun violence an epidemic.

“It kills on average 31,000 Americans a year, wounding over 80,000 every year,” she said.

Maloney said that it is up to congress to get past the NRA’s lobbying efforts which she said has prevented research for 17 years.

The study would be spearheaded by the Centers for Disease Control.

Source: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/02/22/advocacy-groups-call-on-obama-to-boost-funding-for-anti-gun-violence-initiatives/

Advertisements

School Teaches Students it’s Constitutional for Cops to Confiscate Guns During Traffic Stops
And yet another example of the slow and steady erosion of the Second Amendment and Constitution via public school.

We’ve included a video from 1995 of then U.S. Attorney Eric Holder talking about how they intend to slowly brainwash children into being anti gun.

consttraffic

South Carolina parents were furious this week after seeing questions regarding the Constitution – in particular the Second Amendment – as taught in their daughter’s 8th grade history class.  The daughter’s teacher had given the class a pop quiz regarding the Constitution.  Question 10 asked, “Mr. Jones’ gun was confiscated at a police traffic stop, even though he had the proper permit and license of ownership of the gun. Is this Constitutional?”  The student originally answered “no,” but the teacher told daughter to change her answer to “yes.” See picture below.

This is not a unique event.  Just this week, another report emerged in Texas of an Advanced Placement (AP) textbook presenting a modified version of the Second Amendment.  The textbook’s wording indicated that only police and military were allowed to have guns with the wording “The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.”

AP textbooks and exams are created by the College Board, an organization which has participated in the implementation of Common Core, the already-invasive and controversial set of education “standards” organized for the Federal Government and pushed on states with financial incentives and a lack of transparency.  People have already found disturbing lessons in the program, such as teaching children to argue on an emotional level to manipulate people into accepting social change.

This educational push for the modification of the Second Amendment comes at the time of an intense and multifaceted, nationwide battle over gun rights.  This battle, prompted by the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Connecticut, has been fought in both the legislative and cultural spheres.  Attorney General Eric Holder, however, was the first to indicate it should be brought into the educational sphere when he said people should be “brainwashed” about guns.

Source: http://ammoheads.com/school-teaches-students-constitutional-cops-confiscate-guns/

The brain of a liberal is an incredibly deep chasm of nothingness. In this article the liberal author cherry picks his references and then claims to have debunked the historical reality of the 2nd Amendment for the last 200 years. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with gun ownership. Really!

____________________________________________________________________________________

The Second Amendment Has Nothing to Do with Gun Ownership

by Navy Vet TerpFollow

Email
299 Comments / 299 New

The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, “The Right to Bear Arms,” Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.

In 2008, this fraud was furthered by Mr. Scalia, joined by his fellow ideologues Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy. Yet five zealots in black robes cannot change the historical record. Writing something down on paper or pushing the send button to the internet doesn’t make it so. Scalia and gang, in ganging together to pen District of Columbia v. Heller, cannot change history, anymore than a Truther diary about how the 9-11 hijackers were Republican ideologues giving their lives for Bush and Cheney, makes such idiocy so.

In its 2002 decision Silveira v. Lockyer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals provided a very detailed, extensive, and well researched examination of the historical record surrounding the adoption of the Second Amendment. Although Silveira v. Lockyer would overturned by Messrs. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy in 2008, the 9th Circuit’s outstanding research surpasses both Scalia’s NRA talking points that passes for a Supreme Court decision, as well as Justice Stevens’ far more persuasive dissent. This diary provides a summary of the Ninth Circuit’s research that led to that court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of the states to form militias, and was not intended to allow anyone and everyone without restriction to buy whatever guns may be on the market. I hope, in a future diary, to analyze Scalia’s Heller opinion and illustrate why Scalia is wrong and a hypocrite to claim that he is governed by original intent.

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.

What did “militia” mean to the framers? Article 6 of the Articles of Confederation had required that:

every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

And the original Constitution, written just two years before the enactment of the Second Amendment (the Bill of Rights was passed by Congress in 1789, but not ratified until 1791) also provided for a “militia”:

The Congress shall have the power . . .
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.

Article I, sec. 8, clauses 15 and 16, and Article II, sec. 2, clause 1. Article 6 of the Articles of Confederation, and these three clauses of the Constitution, refer to state militias. The Constitution provides that the Congress may call the state militias into the service of the United States for the stated reasons, and when called into federal service the President becomes their Commander in Chief. The Constitution also provides for the federal government to organize, arm and discipline the state militias, with the states reserving the right to appoint officers and retaining responsibility for training according to federal standards. As will be seen in a few paragraphs below, it was this 16th clause of Article 1, section 8 that would between 1787 and 1789 create controversy, threaten the Constitution’s ratification, and lead to the adoption of the Second Amendment.

As an aside, and further bolstering the understanding of the time that “militia” meant a well-regulated state army, the first half of the Fifth Amendment, enacted simultaneously with the Second Amendment, provides:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger . . .

Again, the exemption of militia members called into federal service in time of war or public danger obviously applies to a state militia, a “well regulated” state militia, and not to a mob with guns.

Turning to the latter clause of the Second Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,” the language enuciates a right “to keep and bear arms,” not to “possess and own arms.” Nineteenth Century state courts construed “bear arms” as having a purely military function. From the Tennessee Supreme Court:

A man in pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms.

Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 (1840). From the Texas Supreme Court:

The word ‘arms’ in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense.

English v. State, 35 Tex. 473 (1872). And from the West Virginia supeme court:

In regard to the kind of arms referred to in the [Second] Amendment, it must be held to refer to the weapons of warfare to be used by the militia.

State v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367 (1891).

Turning to the historical context of the Second Amendment’s adoption and to the debates preceding its adoption, as SCOTUS observed back in 1939 in United States v. Miller (a unanimous decision authored by the ultra-conservative James Clark McReynolds), when the Second Amendment was adopted:

The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia.

Or, as Alexander Hamilton observed in Federalist Paper no. 29: “Standing armies are dangerous to liberty.” The minutes to the Constitutional Convention reveal that the delegates spent much time discussing the proper balance to be maintained between a national army and the state militias. James Madison told the Convention: “As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good Militia.” The above quoted lines from Articles I and II of the Constitution reflect the compromise the delegates worked out; however, the anti-Federalists who opposed ratification of the Constitution attacked the authority of the Congress to arm the militias. In Federalist Paper 46, Madison countered:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government. Still it would not be going too far to say that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of suboridinate governments to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Six of the original 13 states, when ratifying the Constitution, proposed amendments which would become the Bill of Rights. Four of these six ratifying conventions – those of New York, Virginia, Rhode Island and North Carolina – proposed amendments whose language closely mirrored what would become the Second Amendment. But the debates at the ratifying conventions in these four states make it clear that the delegates wanted to guarantee the right of the states to have militias, despite the constitutional empowerment to the Congress to arm the militias.

For example, at the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason spoke out against Virginia’s ratification of the Constitution without amendment, and Article I section 8 clause 16 was one of the provisions of the Constitution that, to George Mason, mandated the Constitution’s rejection:

The militia may be here destroyed by . . . rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia, and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them. . . Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army.

But we need not give [the federal government] power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use. . . . I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. I consider and fear the natural propensity of rulers to oppress the people. I wish only to prevent them from doing evil. By these amendments I would give necessary powers, but no unnecessary power. If the clause stands as it is now, it will take from the state legislatures what Divine Providence has given to every individual – the means of self-defense. Unless it be moderated in some degree, it will ruin us.

In contrast to the votes of the ratifying conventions of Virginia, New York, Rhode Island and North Carolina, the delegates at the New Hampshire ratifying convention did vote for an amendment that would have provided a personal right to possess arms: “Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.” While the proposed amendments of Virginia, New York Rhode Island and North Carolina, are very similar to what became the Second Amendment, the New Hampshire proposal is very different in both form and substance. In no other state did a proposal to establish an individual right to possess arms pass, although such proposals were made, and voted down, at the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts ratifying conventions.

The 13 conventions that had ratified the Constitution had proposed countless amendments – Virginia alone had proposed 40, so James Madison was given the task of weeding them out, whittling them down to a mere twelve. These twelve amendments were duly debated in the First Congress – they would become the ten Bill of Rights, with the eleventh proposed amendment not adopted until 1992. The actual amendment that Madison proposed to the First Congress read:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

In regard to the Second Amendment, not a single Congressman or Senator is recorded as saying that it would establish an individual’s right to possess a weapon. While ambassador to Great Britain, John Adams, in 1787, had authored A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States, in which he wrote that a general availability of arms would “demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man – it is a dissolution of government.” In the First Congress, no one contradicted the Vice President’s words. Rather, most of the debate surrounding the Second Amendment centered on Madison’s conscientious objector provision, a provision that makes sense only if it is understood that the amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain militias and not any individual right to possess firearms. Congressman Eldridge Gerry (later Vice President to President Madison) spoke out against Madison’s conscientious objector language, because he feared that it would result in Congress, and not the state legislatures, defining what a concienscious objector is, and thereby introduce a slippery slope that would ultimately abolish the states’ authority over their own militias. Although both the House and the Senate passed versions of the amendment with the conscientious objector language, this language was stripped out to satisfy the concerns of Gerry and others raising this objection.

In summary, the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the states to form and maintain state militias, free of the potential federal incursion created by Article I, section 8, clause 16 of the Constitution. Hopefully, we will one day get an intellectually honest majority on the Supreme Court that will reverse the judicial activism that the five right wing ideologues on SCOTUS forced on the American people in Heller, Citizens United, and the majority’s dangerous restriction on the interstate commerce clause in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sibelius (otherwise known as the “Obamacare” decision).
Originally posted to Navy Vet Terp on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 02:42 PM PST.
Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/25/1171716/-The-Second-Amendment-Has-Nothing-to-Do-with-Gun-Ownership#

H/T Citizens Militia of Mississippi

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Having failed in an earlier effort to bar federal agents from enforcing gun regulations in Missouri, conservative lawmakers are trying a new tack this year: banding together with other like-minded states to defy certain federal laws at the same time.

Supporters believe it will be more difficult for the federal government to shrug off such statutes if more states act together.

Missouri’s latest proposal, introduced this past week, would attempt to nullify certain federal gun control regulations from being enforced in the state and subject law enforcement officers to criminal and civil penalties for carrying out such policies.

Pro Gun Lawmakers Eye State by State Strategy to Nullify Federal Gun Control Statutes

The state’s Republican-led Legislature came one vote shy of overriding Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of such a measure last year. This year’s bill adds a new twist, delaying the effective date for several years to allow time for other states to join the cause.

“We continue to see the federal government overreach their rightful bounds, and if we can create a situation where we have some unity among states, then I think it puts us in a better position to make that argument,” said Republican Sen. Brian Nieves, who is sponsoring the legislation.

Missouri’s efforts came after President Barack Obama called for expanded federal background checks and a ban on assault weapons following deadly mass shootings at a Colorado theater and a Connecticut elementary school.

Courts have consistently ruled that states cannot nullify federal laws, but that hasn’t stopped states from trying or ignoring them anyway. Last year, a federal appeals court struck down a 2009 Montana law that sought to prohibit federal regulation of guns that were manufactured in the state and remained within its borders.

A similar Kansas law that makes it a felony for a federal agent to attempt to enforce laws on guns made and owned in Kansas earned a rebuke from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Peverill Squire, a political science professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia and expert on state legislatures, said Missouri’s nullification plans would probably meet a similar fate in court, but that states could hope to send an indirect message to Congress by pushing such proposals.

Republican leaders in Missouri and elsewhere say bringing other states along in the effort might lead to a different outcome.

“This can’t be just a Missouri effort. There has to be a groundswell of support by the people — by other states as well — in order for us ultimately to be successful,” said Republican Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey.

There’s a pattern for states to follow when rebuffing federal laws. Although possessing and distributing marijuana remains a federal crime, about 20 states now have laws that allow people to use marijuana for medical purposes, and the federal government has declined to challenge new laws in Colorado and Washington allowing recreational use of marijuana.

“The idea is that if you’re standing alone against a federal law, then you’re not as likely to have success than if you’re standing with other states,” said Arkansas Republican Rep. Bob Ballinger, who sponsored an unsuccessful attempt to prevent enforcement of federal gun control laws in his state.

Under the Missouri legislation, federal law enforcement officers could face misdemeanor charges punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine for attempting to enforce federal laws considered to be “infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.”

The bill cites no specific federal law, but the measure refers to taxes and fees, specifically levied against firearms, as well as tracking policies that have a “chilling effect” on gun ownership.

The provisions would take effect in January 2017 — or sooner, if at least four other states pass similar measures before then.

When the Legislature opened on Wednesday, Senate GOP leaders said passing a gun rights bill was a top priority for the legislative session. Like last year’s bill, the new version would also reduce the age requirement for concealed carry permits from 21 to 19 and prohibit municipalities from passing ordinances to limit openly carrying a firearm.

Many Missouri Democrats are likely to oppose the measure again this year as an unconstitutional waste of the Legislature’s time.

“The state will never trump federal laws,” said Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, a St. Louis Democrat. “It is again another right wing Republican attempt to go Second Amendment crazy.”

source http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/12/pro-gun-lawmakers-eye-state-by-state-strategy-to-nullify-federal-gun-control-statutes/

7 Round Magazine Limit is Rejected by Federal Judge but NY SAFE Act is Otherwise Upheld

December 31, 2013 by Jonathan S. · Leave a Comment

Federal judge rejects SAFE act’s 7 round limit but upholds assault weapon ban
Follow Guns ‘n’ Freedom on Twitter and stay informed!

Ever since the unconstitutional SAFE Act was passed in NY there has been a massive movement to see this law overturned. One of the most controversial parts of the law is the limitation of gun magazines to only 7 rounds.

A federal judge in Buffalo NY has now rejected the 7 round limitation but has upheld parts of the law which banned the in-state sales of “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines.

Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny seemed to understand the arbitrary nature of limiting a magazine round to 7 rounds but still did not fully comprehend the hypocrisy of banning other “high capacity” magazines either or rifles deemed as “assault rifles” just because they look a certain way.

According to WIVB.com,
– See more at: http://gunsnfreedom.com/7-round-magazine-limit-is-rejected-by-federal-judge-but-ny-safe-act-is-otherwise-upheld/#sthash.RmO8Y4Cp.dpuf

The president has repeatedly tried to ensure gun owners that he fully supports their right to own guns, but he can’t run from two things which contradict these reassurances: his record and his comments.

In a book called At the Brink, author John R Lott Jr. discussed several conversations he had with the president regarding guns. Lott recalled a specific conversation he had with then-professor Barack Obama while he was at the University of Chicago. As CBS News reported,

“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns,” Obama told Lott one day at the University of Chicago Law School.

Lott explains that he first met Obama shortly after completing his research on concealed handgun laws and crime.

“He did not come across as a moderate who wanted to bring people together,” Lott writes.

After he introduced himself to Obama, Lott suggested that they have lunch one day to discuss their views on guns. According to Lott, Obama “grimaced and turned away.” That was the way many conversations with Obama ended, Lott says.

The chapter documents the actions that Obama has taken on guns, citing the following:

In 1996, Obama supported a ban on handguns
In 1998, he supported a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns
In 2004, he advocated banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park, which would have shut down nearly all gun stores

In his summation of the president’s views on guns Lott made this statement,

“Barack Obama is the most anti-gun president ever. That claim is based not on my own interactions with him back in the 1990′s but on his own public record over many years.”

So the next time you hear the president tout his excellent record in showing his support for 2nd amendment values remember his record and also remember this infamous quote: “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Period.” He might just say the same thing about your guns.
– See more at: http://gunsnfreedom.com/obama-i-dont-believe-people-should-be-able-to-own-guns/#sthash.QYfXhB4X.dpuf

Obama Harassing Veterans With Letters Post Gun Executive Order

Posted on January 4, 2014 by BC

Just one day after we were warned by Nazi occupation survivor Kitty Werthmann to, “Keep Your Guns & Buy More Guns” the Obama administration starts bullying our veterans over guns.

obama un gun grabThe warnings in the letters are eerily similar to the those issued to Austria by the Third Reich not that long ago.

(Attorney Michael Connelly) Red Flag News:

How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.

What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?

That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.

The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.

ht/ Fire Andrea Mitchell!

Source: http://im41.com/archives/44338

Hundreds Carry Loaded Firearms at the ‘Come and Take It’ Rally in Temple, TX (VIDEO)

6/06/13 | by  94 6904

Protesters gather in Temple, Texas for the “Come and Take It” rally. (Photo credit: KWTX)

Protesters gather in Temple, Texas for the “Come and Take It” rally. (Photo credit: KWTX)

Over 200 men, women and children, most carrying rifles and shotguns, gathered in Temple, Texas over the weekend in an effort to show their support for Second Amendment rights and to demonstrate that an armed society is indeed a polite society.

local news station reported that the “Come and Take It” rally, which was organized by Don’t Comply, was part of a response generated after Army Master Sgt. CJ Grisham was arrested in March for “rudely displaying” his AR-15. While it is legal to open carry long arms in Texas, apparently a concerned citizen called when she saw the man carrying the weapon while on a Boy Scout hike with his son in the rural community.

Grisham’s disarmament and subsequent arrest, which many say was unlawful, has sparked support for both him and Second Amendment rights and caused outrage by residents of Texas, which has historically been viewed as a pro-gun state.

A woman’s right to choose. (Photo credit: KWTX)

A woman’s right to choose. (Photo credit: KWTX)

Event organizer and co-owner of Don’t Comply, Murdoch Pizgatti told a local ABC affiliate, “I’ve seen the stop and frisk videos in New York and heard about things like that but this was stop and frisk, it was disarm, handcuffed, it was the arrest and it was right down the road here in Texas. You know that shouldn’t happen here, that is way too close to home. That was my line in the sand and I knew it had been crossed at that moment so I got up and did something.”

Johnny Price, instructor for Big Iron conceal carry classes, participated in the rally and expressed concern over the way Grisham’s firearm was handled during the March ordeal. He explained that while citizens should be understanding of the officer’s situation and his responsibility to ensure safety for all of those involved and should comply when asked to do something in a polite and respectful manner, according to Texas Government Code Section 411.207, law enforcement has the obligation to return lawful firearms to the individual once that person is deemed to not be a threat.

A peaceful protest with armed citizens. (Photo credit: KWTX)

A peaceful protest with armed citizens. (Photo credit: KWTX)

In addition, Price voiced concern about infringement on Second Amendment rights. “That’s part of America. That’s part of my rights as a human to be able to survive and protect my family from all who would try to take those rights from me and freedoms,” he said.

Another participant in the rally, who wanted to only be identified as Brent, said, “I fear that if we go too long without reminding the public we have that right, then the law will be lost, and our right will be lost.” The father of two also used the rally as a learning experience for his children. “I want to spend time with them and have them always remember that I went with dad to a rally where we are supporting our rights,” he said.

Another protestor, Josh Toles, noted that there’s power in numbers, saying, “There’s a lot of stuff that’s going on and people think it’s out of our control but it’s not. We are the people. That’s why the constitution was written for us.”

Molon Labe Momma (Photo credit: KWTX)

Molon Labe Momma (Photo credit: KWTX)

The peaceful protest, which included music and food, also consisted of a march from the event site to the Temple Police Department. The entire event unfolded without incident. Some officers from the Temple Police Department even assisted with the rally by providing road blocks, helping the participants to safely exercise their rights to a peaceful protest.

Grisham, who was also in attendance, states that their message was a simple one. “Not only is one man with a rifle or a weapon not any cause for alarm, but hundreds of people with weapons are no cause for alarm. The reality is, and the message that I think got through quite well to the Temple Police Department, is that an armed society is a polite society and that a person with a gun isn’t someone that you need to fear,” he said.

Source: http://www.guns.com/2013/06/06/hundreds-carry-loaded-firearms-at-the-come-and-take-it-rally-in-temple-tx-video/

Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalism, Oath Keeper and Patriot.

Alexandria Lainez

If schools have the right to override the Second Amendment what is to keep them from attacking the First Amendment as well as others?

North Florida Coed Wins Second Amendment Victory

Second Amendment: A Florida appeals court rules that colleges can’t ban students from having guns on campus for self-protection, bringing us one step closer to the day schools are predator-free, not-gun-free zones.

Read more at http://brittius.com/2013/12/14/another-win-for-the-2nd-amendment/

Judge says waiting period ‘burdens’ 2nd Amendment
BY Bob Unruh

A federal judge in California has ruled in a Second Amendment case that a state-imposed waiting period to take possession of a firearm is a burden on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The ruling came in a challenge brought by the Second Amendment Foundation to the state’s mandatory 10-day waiting period to obtain firearms. The case, Silvester v. Harris, continues.

It was Senior Judge Anthony Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California who said in an 11-page decision that California Attorney General Kamala Harris “argues that the WPL (Waiting Period Law) is a minor burden on the Second Amendment, [but] plaintiffs are correct that this is a tacit acknowledgement that a protected Second Amendment right is burdened.”

He wrote: “The court concludes that the WPL burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”
Alan Gottlieb, SAF executive vice president, said the statement is important.

“Judge Ishii’s comparison of the waiting period to a prior restraint is significant,” Gottlieb said. “He further stated that Harris, in her motion to dismiss the case, had not shown that the waiting period law is effective in reducing gun-related violent crime, or in keeping guns out of the wrong hands where the government has already issued that purchaser a License To Carry or a Certificate Of Eligibility.”

Also in the argument was Calguns, the state firearms advocacy organization. Chairman Gene Hoffman said it is “refreshing to see lower federal courts taking the burden of intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny seriously.”

“California has such a byzantine scheme of gun control that it can’t justify making people who already own firearms registered with the State of California wait 10 days to buy a new gun after they complete a background check,” Hoffman said. “We look forward to bringing some common sense back to how the law-abiding buy and sell registered guns in California.”

The judge also noted that there “has been no showing that the Second Amendment, as historically understood, did not apply for a period of time between the purchase/attempted purchase of a firearm and possession of the firearm.” . . .

Read more at http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2013/12/judge-says-waiting-period-burdens-2nd.html