REUTERS/Jeff Mitchell JM
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess “weapons of war,” court documents showed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.
“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote, referring to the “military-style rifles” that were also used during mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado, San Bernardino, California, and Orlando, Florida.
These are “places whose names have become synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there,” he wrote, noting that the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case excluded coverage of assault weapons.
The United States has among the most permissive gun rights in the world. Because the U.S. Congress has long been a graveyard for gun control legislation, some states and localities have enacted their own measures.
In total, seven states and the District of Columbia have laws that ban semiautomatic rifles, several of which that have faced various court challenges as there is a longstanding legal debate over the scope of Second Amendment rights.
Four appeal courts have rejected Second Amendment challenges to bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, King wrote.
In 2015, U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake upheld Maryland’s law that bans the AR-15 and other military-style rifles and shotguns and limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds, but a smaller panel of circuit court judges reversed her ruling in 2016. The case could be eventually be heard by the Supreme Court.
The majority “has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms,” Judge William Traxler wrote in the dissent of the ruling released on Tuesday.
School shootings have become an all too common occurrence in our world. Whether the shooter is a student/s, a terrorist, or a criminal, the end result of devastation are the same.
Gun proponents have taken advantage of such tragedies to advocate for stricter gun control laws. Their reasoning is that if guns were more difficult to obtain then violence would decrease. These people should direct their attention to Chicago, with some of the strictest gun laws in the country and the highest crimes rates.
Banning guns takes them out of the hands of innocent citizens. Criminals, by definition, don’t follow the law so why would gun control laws stop them?
Gun advocates have long proposed that we should work harder to let law abiding gun owners possess firearms. That, in turn, will act as a deterrent to crime; either by discouraging criminals or giving bystanders the chance to stop crimes in progress.
Allowing teachers or administrators to carry guns in schools has been a particularly sensitive issue. The arguments have piled up on both sides of the fence and most schools have not bothered to wade through the controversy.
The state of Wyoming is taking the plunge now and the bill is moving quickly through their legislature. House Bill 194, if approved, will give each school district in Wyoming, the power to decide whether or not its employees with concealed carry permits can carry on campus. No district will be forced to permit its employees to carry.
The bill has already been passed by the House Education Committee, and will move on to the full House for a vote. If passed, it will advance to the Senate. Wyoming is a clear Republican state; in 2015, 60% of Wyoming adults identified as Republican or leaned Republican, while 28% identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, a 32-point gap. Given these demographics, it seems likely the bill will pass.
However there are some gaps in the bill and while it will probably pass as it is, Wyoming would be smart to clean it up now and avoid problems down the line. They would be setting a marvelous example for other states by doing this.
As State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jillian Balow said, she is in support of the bill and contrary to jokes made in recent days about guns in schools, “it’s a really serious matter.”
So let’s look at some of the problems. The bill does not provide specific training requirements. Several lawmakers, including some in favor of the bill, said that issue should be addressed. It is an extemely valid concern.
Training should be found, verified, and monitored by a representative of the school board. All teachers who want to carry on school grounds should be required to take the training initially and then have a refresher course every year. Even law enforcement is required to recertify their arms training each year.
Their training should also include safety around the students since that is and will continue to be a main concern. Opponents have already raised concerns that having guns around, which could potentially be accessed by children, decreases safety.
Which leads to another concern that besides accidents, students who want to commit violence could use guns carried by staff to carry out those acts. This again goes back to training. Staff who is trained on how to protect themselves from disarming will not be susceptible to this danger.
Wyoming faces challenges which are unique when compared to some other states. Many of their schools are isolated, far from the nearest law enforcement. This emphasizes the need for alternative plans if an incident were to occur. The long response time for police means having teachers who are armed could be vital.
Taft Love, a Laramie County School District 2 board member, said six of the board’s nine members support the bill, and noted, “We have elementary schools that are a long way from any officer.”
Gun lobbyists, lawmakers, and others truly believe that teachers who were armed could have cut short incidents such as Columbine or Sandy Hook. Police entering an active shooter situation at a school face many disadvantages and the combined chaos of their entrance, the shooting, and the children, can sometimes make the situation even worse.
Well trained individuals who know the school, the children, staff, and are already inside the building stand a much better chance of stopping the situation before more damage is done.
Wyoming is making history here and it is probable that other states are watching closely to see what happens. They have a chance to lead us into a new and controversial time with a steady hand that is governed by safe and intelligent decisions.
We can all agree that keeping our children safe is a top priority. We are getting ready to witness one way that can be done. Arguments aside, we should step into this with that goal in mind.
Facts have been presented showing that there is an amazing amount of truth in what the pro-Second Amendment movement has been saying in regards to gun-free zones in the Land of the Free. Everyone smarter than a post, or at least than Joe Biden, knew that gun-free zones were havens for those who wish to inflict the maximum amount of misery with no one shooting back at them. And guess what? We were all correct.
Ninety-eight percent–that is how much more often a mass shooting happens in a gun-free zone than in areas where people are allowed to protect themselves as they see fit. This study did not include gang violence, which not only is not motivated by the same outcome as mass shootings or acts of terror, but are usually targeted. Gangs often use illegal guns too, so for those two reasons, gangs do not equate into the number.
This information should be shown to everyone who has been trying so hard to make (what is now proven to be) targets out of everyone by removing guns from the public at every opportunity. This is why we are seeing states such as Florida move to allow guns in government buildings and airports.
After the truth was seen that taking guns away from travelers in Florida lead to a mass killing of them as they died defenseless at the airport, this may prove to be one of the most prudent moves that we have seen in terms of public safety and defense in years.
Kentucky, home of Senator Rand Paul, is looking at changing the rules to allow guns in schools there, which will go a long way in limiting the amount of damage that a shooter will do, if God forbid that should ever arise. There are very good reasons why the Second Amendment exists, and much of it has nothing to do with hunting or taking over the government, which is always heard.
The Second Amendment means that a small, frail person can walk down the street and not have to be unprotected nor open for attack. This is the basis of protecting one’s God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Flash mobs exist that see homes and stores overrun with tens, sometimes hundreds of looters, so people may feel the need to have more than ten bullets in a gun in order to be safe. That is the person’s right to do so, just as it is the right of a woman who gets off from work at three in the morning to greet any possible attacker with something more than pepper spray and a rape whistle.
By the way, someone let the left know that rape whistles don’t work so well in the age of central air, closed doors, and surround sound systems. They will never figure it out if we don’t tell them.
Let us imagine that a handful of responsible gun owners had a gun on hand during the most recent shooting at the Florida airport. Without a doubt, someone was likely going to lose their lives that day no matter what because, unlike what the media says about most gun owners, just because someone has a gun on them does not mean that they are planning to use it.
Any gun owner would have been just as busy checking bags, dodging cell phone walkers, and paying for overpriced coffee as anyone who did not have a gun. Therefore, when the madman opened fire, the shock factor was still going to kill at least someone, if not many “someones”.
However, from there on out, that is where the story would have most likely changed to a very large degree. Once the first victims had fallen and the running began, a responsible conceal and carry gun owner would have been on alert. If he or she had a clear shot, which is unlikely but possible, they would have taken it. Contrary to popular belief, gun classes do not teach to ever fire if the shot is not clear, such as would have been the case with the initial panicked running. Still, once people started hitting the ground in an effort to not be a target, things would have changed.
The gunman was reported to have stood over those who cowered on the ground as a defense and simply fired his weapon into the sea of bodies while looming over them. This means that there was quite likely a clear shot once this happened. If so, at least some of those that died on the floor could have been saved. Second of all, if one or two of the people on the ground had a gun (assuming that they had ducked or were playing dead), they could have really had a fighting chance.
If this sounds like a bit too much of a “wild west scenario” for many to be comfortable with, are we more comfortable with a “horror movie scenario”? Gunmen who want to kill people have a terrible track record when it comes to obeying gun laws, so this approach is clearly not working. If it did work, then we would not see a 98% higher number of these crimes in places where no one except the law breaker can kill someone. There is no reason why we can not trust the vast majority of our fellow citizens to have a gun when we already know that the vast minority of us (killers) will certainly not be worthy of the trust to pull back.
It was Robert Heilein who said most astutely that an armed society is a polite society, and there are jewels of logic to be mined within those words. If guns are taken away from the people, then in areas where criminals plan, life becomes the survival of the fittest. When guns were taken by China, Russia, and Germany, it lead directly to the worst genocides of the 20th century.
It is time to understand that instead of banning guns, we need to be teaching the value and respect FOR guns. Our very lives may depend upon it someday.
Dems Calling For Complete Gun Control Zone After Florida Airport Killing, Don’t Realize It Already Was
Unfortunately, we had a tragedy during the opening days of the New Year. On January 6, 2017, the nation saw a mass shooting in the Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International airport. A gunman went through baggage claim and opened fire, shooting 13 people and killing five of them.
The nation was quick to mourn, as the top political leaders sent their thoughts and prayers to the people that were affected. President-Elect Donald Trump tweeted out his sympathies, as did Senator Marco Rubio and House Speaker Paul Ryan and a number of other Senators.
Normally this would have been enough and the people of the nation would gladly accept this. However, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence decided to open their mouth and tweet at the President-Elect, as well as the other elected officials that they didn’t need their thoughts and prayers.
Again, they decided to say that they we need to have more gun control in the United States so that these tragedies could be avoided. Oh, and they really played it up this time. The Brady Campaign sent out tweets saying that thoughts and prayers are not the solution, and they were actually “tired of [his] thoughts and prayers” when referencing House Speaker Ryan.
Trump tweeted out, “Monitoring the terrible situation in Florida. Just spoke to Governor Scott. Thoughts and prayers for all. Stay safe!” There was nothing wrong with that, as it was just a tweet to remind the people of Florida that the future president is going to make sure they are okay.
That was too much for the Brady Campaign, as they sent back, “.@realDonaldTrump We don’t need #thoughtsandprayers – we need commitment to take action & pass life-saving gun laws,” as well as a link to Trump’s original tweet. They also did the same thing to the other Republicans that decided to speak out against the terrible tragedy.
The founder of Micheal Bloomberg-funded Moms Demand Action, Shannon Watts, carried out their message as well. She tweeted out, “If thoughts and prayers solved gun violence, America wouldn’t have the highest rate of gun violence of all developed nations.”
However, let’s focus on that last claim. The claim that America has “the highest rate of gun violence of all developed nations” is actually just part of a distraction. Think about this for a second: Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood airport is a gun-free zone. In other words, they have 100 percent gun control.
So they’re calling for more gun control in an area that already had 100% gun control? That literally doesn’t make any sense at all! If anything, they should be pushing for the opposite, as in less gun control. That would be the only thing that makes sense!
Consider what happened at the end of November on the campus of Ohio State University. It was there that a terrorist actually drove his car onto the sidewalk, hit a bunch of students, got OUT of the car, and attempted to stab the survivors. Do you know the reason why only 11 people were hurt and nobody except the terrorist died?
That was because a police officer, WITH A GUN, was present and shot the guy right away. However can you imagine what would have happened if he wasn’t there right away? There could have been countless deaths. That was why Ohio, much to the chagrin of the Brady Campaign, passed a conceal carry act that makes sure this situation will never happen again.
Or if that doesn’t work, consider this. The other locations that have had total gun control have been the areas that were locations for other mass shootings. Gee that total gun control really helped out didn’t it? For example, Sandy Hook Elementary, Umpqua Community College, Fort, Hood, the Lafayette and Aurora movie theaters, and the Orlando Pulse night club were all areas that had 100 percent gun control.
Add the airport to this list and you have a pretty good case for wanting to have gun control abolished. Seriously anyone that was armed could have stopped these people. The people that committed these heinous acts are CRIMINALS. They are not going to abide by the law and the people that are going to suffer the most are the law-abiding citizens.
It didn’t matter what occurred, such as that Ohio State attack. Liberals are going to ask for total gun control no matter what happens. Again, the only gun that was involved in the Ohio State attack was the one that killed the terrorist. So what were liberals yelling for? The total removal of guns. They really have no logic whatsoever.
Not to mention that cities that have the strictest gun laws often experience the most amount of crimes. That is because criminals don’t care about obeying the law. As a result, Chicago, which does have one of the strictest gun laws in the United States, saw a record wave of shootings over Christmas. Again, gun control really works doesn’t it?
Share this article to show that liberals are now asking for total gun control in areas that already have it. They don’t realize that gun control DOESN’T WORK. Name me a time when criminals obeyed the law. I’ll wait.
Lots of factors drive gun sales. A perceived increase in violence or terrorist attacks certainly play a large part in convincing people to buy firearms. But perhaps more than that is the threat to guns posed by political forces.
Hillary’s Clinton was the presumptive president. Most people assumed she and her gun control agenda would win the White House.
I don’t think that she would have actually “repealed the 2nd Amendment.” There’s little doubt that she’d be in favor of that however, while reserving the right for herself and her colleagues. She did speak very highly of Australia’s and England’s gun control measures.
But enforcing such swift, drastic measures is not typically how American politicians operate. They operate and have operated for many decades through gradualism. They’d rather use the media and education system to lie to the American people constantly until Americans by and large accept these lies as self-evident truth. Once most Americans have fallen for these lies, then politicians will have the consent of a majority of voters, and will push whatever legislation Americans are calling for.
The need for more gun control is one of the many lies that the media and political establishment have barraged Americans with. Americans become fearful from the false perception that mass shooting are on the rise, and that the only way to curb them is to enforce tougher and tougher gun control measures, making it more and more difficult for everyday Americans to buy weapons.
Any time a Democrat with a gun control agenda is rising to power, people always respond by stocking up on weaponry and ammunition. Last year set a record with the possibility of Hillary Clinton winning the White House. When that didn’t happen, gun sales dropped, and December actually saw fewer gun sales compared to the previous December. The Washington Examiner reported:
The numbers do not include many guns sold to or given to friends and family.
Sales hit record levels for some 19 months in a row as the number of terrorist attacks around the world and here at home increased, driving purchases by those seeking protection. The increase paralleled increases in those seeking a license to carry a concealed weapon.
Since the election, however, sales have slipped as fears about gun bans and ammo taxes and registration died with Clinton’s busted bid. December, for example, was the first month where sales did not match the previous December’s, when background checks reached 3.3 million.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com
(Breitbart) On January 3–the first day of the 115th Congress–Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC-8) introduced national concealed carry reciprocity legislation.
Hudson’s office published this summary of the legislation:
Rep. Hudson’s bill, which is supported by major pro-Second Amendment groups, would allow people with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit to conceal a handgun in any other state that allows concealed carry, as long as the permit holder follows the laws of that state. It also allows residents of Constitutional carry states the ability to carry in other states that recognize their own resident’s right to concealed carry.
Note: Hudson’s legislation not only establishes national reciprocity for concealed permit holders but also national reciprocity for residents who live in states that require no permit for concealed carry. In the former situation the concealed carry permit of any state would be valid in every state and the “identification document” in possession of a resident of a constitutional carry state would serve as a permit to carry without a license in other states…
Source: Matthew Bernstein
It’s been a little over a month since the country has decided that Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. In that time, Trump has been hard at work choosing the members of his cabinet carefully and working diligently to correct the problems we have seen these past eight years.
But it isn’t only the President-Elect that is hard at work. On Election Day it was confirmed that the Republicans would have control of the House and the Senate as well as the White House. In sports terms, it was a clean sweep by the GOP over the Democrats.
And since then there have been Congress members that have been at work trying to think of some new bills that are going to be voted on during the upcoming months. And one of the Republican members of Congress has announced his plans for the newest bill he wants to introduce.
North Carolina Republican Representative Richard Hudson has said that he is going to introduce legislation that would affect concealed carry members all over the country. And it isn’t the first time that he has tried to introduce something like this. Hudson tried to introduce a similar bill back in February of 2015.
But this new legislation is going to be known as the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. As you can probably imagine, it is going to directly affect those people that have a permit for a concealed carry permit. But since this is coming from a Republican, it isn’t going to take away your rights.
Essentially what the bill is going to do is allow a person with a concealed carry license from one state to actually carry a concealed handgun in any other state that allows their residents to concealed carry.
There are some basic restrictions, including not allowing someone to carry a gun if they are banned from possessing or even transporting a firearm under federal law. The bill also excludes carrying “a machine gun or destructive device,” and the person must follow “the restrictions of that state.”
Again those aren’t bad restrictions to have. They are pretty basic and necessary to ensure that nobody gets hurt. And they respect the rights of the Second Amendment, which is finally receiving the respect that it deserves, considering that it has been chewed up and spit out under eight years of Obama.
Hudson also talked about the legislation. “Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and I plan to introduce legislation in the first days of the 115th Congress to guarantee that. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense bill to provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits.”
He later added, “As a member of President-elect Trump’s Second Amendment Coalition, I look forward to working with the administration to advance policies that support and protect our right to keep and bear arms.” As stated before, the Democrats have been spitting on the Second Amendment for the past eight years, so this is a welcomed sight.
Hudson wasn’t the only member to try and introduce a bill like this before. Other members, like Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn, have introduced national concealed carry legislation in the past, but that was when Democrats held the majority in the upper chamber.
He also didn’t make any indication if there was any plan to re-introduce his legislation next year. But considering that the Republicans control the House, Senate, and the White House, it certainly has a great chance to be passed.
A source confirmed that Hudson’s office has been working on the bill for a while and “thinking about what we are going to do in the new year and we plan to introduce the bill from this Congress with the addition of constitutional carry in the first days of the 115th Congress.”
Trump was able to win the support of Second Amendment supporters, thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. He also promised during his campaign to push an expansion of gun rights under his administration. The NRA was naturally all for this.
Wayne LaPierre, the chief executive of the NRA, said in a video following the November 8 election, “This is our historic moment to go on offense and to defeat the forces that have aligned against our freedom once and for all. The individual right to carry a firearm in defense of our lives and our families does not and should not end at any state line.”
But the fight for gun control is going to be a long one. Democrats have already won victories that have tightened gun and ammunition restrictions in New York, Connecticut, Colorado, Nevada, California, and Washington state in recent years. And you can be sure that they are going to keep up the fight against guns.
But liberals have embarrassed themselves when it comes to gun control recently. A couple weeks ago, the Ohio State terrorist was out trying to kill people. And naturally the liberals tried to claim that he was using a gun to go and kill people. They were ADAMENT in their claims. There was a giant problem though. The terrorist used a car and a knife. He never touched a gun. It’s an embarrassment that is going to live on.
But they did have a serious threat against the Second Amendment before. Back before the election, Hillary Clinton made it a promise to sue all the firearm companies that had a gun involved in a crime. But the biggest problem with that is the fact that the gun manufacturers are not responsible for what their buyers do. It makes about as much sense as suing Ford for crashing your car.
Share this article with your friends and family to show that real legislation is coming to affect gun control laws in the country. Soon enough we will be able to have concealed carry in areas that we should have had it and not worry about breaking state laws. It’s common sense and it’s about time that it was enacted.