Get the straight-up, unadulterated information you need to win the Second Amendment Fight! We have unalienable, inherent Natural Rights to armed self-defense, to have arms to prevent government tyranny, and ensure our great nation stays free. Government doesn’t grant these rights, because they existed before any government was ever formed; they are recognized and legally protected in the Second Amendment in our nation’s founding documents – the Constitution and Bill of Rights.Education Defeats Propaganda - Viper Nora - 475x30

 

Federal Court rules prohibition of interstate handgun sales unconstitutional

Federal Court rules prohibition of interstate handgun sales unconstitutional

A Federal judge ruled the prohibition of interstate handgun sales is unconstitutional. At issue in the case, Mance v. Holder, is a federal requirement under the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA) that prohibits interstate handgun transfers to citizens who are not residents of the state in which the transaction occurs. Rifles and shotguns may be legally transferred to non-state residents, but not handguns. The plaintiffs argued that the federal interstate handgun ban makes no sense in the advent of the National Instant Check System (NICS), a federal background check system administered by the FBI that is required under the 1993 Brady Bill, which amended the 1968 GCA. The plaintiffs argued the federal interstate handgun ban places an undue burden on a citizen’s right to exercise the Second Amendment and sued the government (U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is the defendant in the case). U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division agreed with the plaintiffs; the court found the federal interstate handgun ban violates both the Second Amendment and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The decision could have far-reaching ramifications. Background These are the facts of the case: the plaintiffs, the Hansons, a husband and wife who reside in Washington, D.C., wished to buy two handguns from Mance, a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer while in Texas. They were legally able to possess the firearms, and the sale would have been perfectly legal in both Texas and D.C.. The sale requires a background check through the NICS system at the point of sale – Texas in this case. However,... read more
The Second Amendment Right Extends Outside The Home, Pt 2

The Second Amendment Right Extends Outside The Home, Pt 2

The Second Amendment right extends outside the home. In part one, we examined five lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment as laid out by the supreme Court in the landmark case, D.C. v Heller. Here in part two we take a look at further evidence that demonstrates the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends outside of the home. In part one, we saw that the Court ruled the D.C. handgun ban violated one of many lawful purposes – plural – of the Second Amendment, “such as self-defense within the home” (emphasis added). We see further the Court lists at least five lawful purposes – hunting, militia duty, repelling a foreign invader, suppressing insurrection, and resisting tyranny – that involve or require activity outside of the home. We can conclude from this that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted to simply keeping a gun in the home. Here in part two, we expand upon the core lawful purpose, which the Court specified in Heller is self-defense: “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” (p.56). If one gets anything from the Heller decision, this must be it. The Court reiterated this finding in McDonald v Chicago in 2010, stating: “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (Syllabus, p.1). Self-defense can – and often does – involve a person outside of their home. Skeptics rely on reading into the Courts decision a limitation that the... read more
Banning Detachable Magazines, Pt 2: Banning Would Violate The Second Amendment

Banning Detachable Magazines, Pt 2: Banning Would Violate The Second Amendment

Banning detachable magazines is all the rage among the anti-gun crowd. However, several recent Supreme Court cases clearly demonstrate that such a law would violate the Second Amendment. The Court has repeated ruled that weapons “in common use at the time” are protected for use by the Second Amendment. Firearms with detachable magazines have been “in common use” for over a century.

read more
Proposed Assault Weapons Ban would violate the Constitution

Proposed Assault Weapons Ban would violate the Constitution

Feinstein stated on CNN’s Pier’s Morgan Tonight that, “There’s no Second Amendment right to bear every type of weapon that you know of. These [assault weapons] are a certain class of weapons … I don’t believe the Second Amendment covers them.” Sen. Feinstein is wrong. She says she believes the Second Amendment wouldn’t protect the right of American’s to keep so-called “assault weapons,” however, Feinstein’s bill would face serious constitutional challenge. The government is empowered to restrict and regulate “dangerous and unusual weapons,” like fully automatic machine guns and bazooka’s (which it has since the 1934 National Firearms Act), but not weapons “in common use at the time.” This would include so-called “assault rifles. What the Second Amendment Says: 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.” Supreme Court Justice Scalia, writing the majority opinion in the landmark case, D.C. vs. Heller, goes into great detail about the historical precedent, legal history leading up to the writing of the Second Amendment (as well as providing legal comparison’s in the early state’s constitution’s, early American law and law pre- & post-Civil War), and the historical context for the words used in the Second Amendment. Let’s examine his review: Individual Right The Second Amendment is a personal right. Justice Scalia notes, “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right” (p.6) . He further says that it is a natural right to self-defense that is “clearly an individual... read more

Follow Us

Subscribe via Email

Recent

Top Articles

(Visited 526 times, 1 visits today)

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This