Former Supreme Court Justice: Second Amendment Must Be Changed

February 23, 2014
Meghan Foley
Source: Wall Street Cheat Sheet

 

Some of the issues that most divided the nation during the first five years of President Barack Obama’s presidency — the reform of the American health care system and gun control — are now on the docket of the United States’ highest court. Plus there are cases brought by for-profit companies — the craft store chain Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. — putting the spotlight on the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause, with the plaintiffs objecting to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that companies subject to the employer mandate must provide workers with policies covering contraception. The Second Amendment has also been placed in the limelight thanks to lawsuits that have been appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Second Amendment — added to the U.S. Constitution on December 15, 1791 — 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.” For more than a hundred years, the right to bear arms was a subject untouched by the Supreme Court, meaning there was no legal precedent to define the exact scope of the amendment. As John Paul Stevens, who sat on the bench of the Supreme Court from 1975 until his retirement in June 2010,  told Bloomberg Businessweek, “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.”

A Reconstruction-Era Supreme Court case — United States v. Cruikshank — said as much; in determining whether the group of white men who had killed more than sixty black people in what was known as the Colfax massacre had conspired to prevent the newly-freed men from exercising their right to bear arms, the Court found that the “[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.” Subsequent rulings also reaffirmed the idea that states have the authority to regulate the militia. And, in 1897, the Court ruled in Robertson v. Baldwin that laws regulating concealed weapons did not infringe upon the Second Amendment.

But gradually the question of gun ownership became a more pressing issue. However, it was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court began to change its stance. In 2008, the highest court made a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. By a five-to-four decision that saw Stevens on the losing end, the justices ruled that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for self-defense. The decision defined the Second Amendment use of the word “militia” as a group “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” and used American history as support. “The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.”

In 2010, by a second five-to-four vote, the Supreme Court extended their ruling to apply to states and local governments. Shock waves from both those rulings are still sending tremors through the legal system, making it hard to tell whether gun advocates will be able to use Heller to reverse other gun control regulations.
Comments made by Conservative Justice Warren Burger, who led the court from 1969 to 1986, serve to highlight how quickly the Supreme Court’s stance on gun control has changed. Discussing the National Rifle Association’s lobbying campaign opposing gun control laws in the name of Second Amendment rights, he said during a 1991 television interview that the amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat, fraud — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

To Stevens, known as the justice that transformed from a Midwestern conservative to strong proponent of the political left, the time could be ripe to clarify the meaning of the right to bear arms. In fact, with three cases related to gun control set to be argued before the Supreme Court, he believes the justices should consider changing the Second Amendment — not an uncontroversial idea. Stevens explored that idea in his forthcoming book: Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.

In both of the Supreme Court’s Heller rulings, Stevens dissented. He told Bloomberg that the authors of the constitution included the Second Amendment out of concerns that a national standing army could pose a threat to the sovereignty of the states, not to address homeowners’ fears about intruders. That disparity is his reasoning for the proposed change; the current interpretation of the right to bear arms does not align with the intentions of the country’s forefathers.

The former justice also explained the minute details of the Heller case. Most importantly, he told Bloomberg, the ruling does not prohibit federal, state, or local governments from restricting the ownership of large-capacity weapons like those used in mass shootings in Connecticut, Virginia, Colorado, and Arizona over the past few years. Furthermore, he claimed that Congress’s failure to pass gun control legislation is the fault of both elective politics and lobbying, according to Boomberg.

Regardless of whether the Heller decision was right or wrong, Stevens said that it ultimately pulled the issue of gun control out of the hands of elected politicians and placed it into the power of life-tenured federal judges.

Link: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics/former-supreme-court-justice-second-amendment-must-be-changed.html/?a=viewall.

 

Gun magazine supplier expands in Iowa college town

17 hours ago
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Source: Yahoo News

GRINNELL, Iowa (AP) — An Iowa college known for liberal activism is welcoming an unlikely neighbor: one of the nation's largest suppliers of high-capacity ammunition magazines and accessories for assault rifles and other guns.

With demand for gun products booming, Brownells Inc. is building a large distribution and retail center along Interstate 80 in Grinnell. The central Iowa city of 9,100 is home to Grinnell College, a selective liberal arts institution proud of its commitment to social justice.

Critics have attacked the company for profiting from accessories for military-style weapons, but the city and college are rolling out the welcome mat. It's an example of how left-leaning politics and gun rights can coexist cheerfully, particularly when economic benefit enters the equation.

"I think it is going to be fantastic for the community," said Juli Sanford, owner of Juli's Natural Foods, which sells organic food and supplements a block from the college. She said the project will bring jobs, income and visitors to Grinnell, located about 55 miles east of Des Moines.

But the development is galling to gun-control advocates, who have watched cities and states continue to compete for firearms-related businesses despite mass shootings they hoped would bring more criticism for the industry.

"Grinnell has been synonymous with high-quality education, with creative and even brilliant contributions to education," said Cheryl Thomas, a spokeswoman for Iowans for Gun Safety. "This is not a fit."

Billed as the world's largest supplier of gun accessories, Brownells is a family owned company that has long been based 20 miles south of Grinnell in Montezuma. The company's third-generation chairman, Pete Brownell, is a top donor and board member of the National Rifle Association, making him a lightning rod in the debate over gun rights and regulations even as he is popular locally.

His business has boomed in recent years. The privately held company does not release sales figures, but it has told customers that demand for ammunition, high-capacity magazines and other accessories is so strong that some customers wait months for orders as manufacturers race to catch up.

The gun industry has grown by 8.4 percent annually over the last five years, fueled largely by fears of new regulations following mass shootings, said Maksim Soshkin, an industry research analyst with IBISWorld. High-capacity magazines have become particularly hot products amid fears they will be banned, he said.

The expansion will allow Brownells to carry more products, ship them faster and promote its brand with a highly visible location. The company is expected to open its first retail store at the site within the next year, which will include an experiential center with interactive displays featuring products.

Local residents and government officials are backing the $16 million project, which will employ up to 200 workers.

A farm family sold dozens of acres of land to the company. The city and state have promised millions in tax breaks. A government program helped train workers on basic skills, such as filling orders and answering customer inquiries. An Iowa Department of Transportation grant helped build a road to the center, about three miles from the college.

Aside from the college, Grinnell looks like many rural Iowa towns. A John Deere dealership and a farmer's cooperative are among the first businesses to greet visitors. Other major employers include a large reinsurance company and a company that makes windows and doors.

Unemployment is low, but Grinnell officials have long hoped to add more development near the interstate and expand their tax base. The expansion has faced virtually no opposition, even at the 1,600-student college.

Students have been more focused on issues such as fighting poverty and hunger than on debating gun control, said Rabbi Rob Cabelli, an associate chaplain who helps run the Center for Religion, Spirituality and Social Justice.

Grinnell City Manager Russ Behrens said the lack of criticism is a testament to how Brownells runs its business. Residents describe the company as a model employer and its namesake family as civic-minded and professional. Pete Brownell's grandfather founded the company in 1939.

In a statement, Brownell said the cooperation between his company and Grinnell has "been exceptional as we prepare to become an even larger part of the community."

Brownell was elected to the NRA board in 2010 and was awarded the NRA's "Golden Ring of Freedom" this year, recognizing donations of more than $1 million to the group. He champions a hard line on the constitutional right to bear arms.

A report issued in September by the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit that advocates for more gun regulations, cited Brownell as an example of how the industry has turned the NRA into its marketing arm for military-style weapons.

"They are one of the major vendors of high-capacity magazines, which are the common thread that runs through mass shootings," said the group's executive director, Josh Sugarmann.

Iowans for Gun Safety plans to call on the company to voluntarily stop distributing magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. Brownell indicated he would reject that request.

Brownells' sales have surged after mass shootings. In the days after last year's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., the company said that it sold as many of one kind of high-capacity magazine in three days as it usually does in more than three years. Pete Brownell apologized for delays and problems in processing customer orders.

Following Sandy Hook, Cabelli wrote an opinion piece in the Des Moines Register calling for a new national debate about gun rights.

The proximity of the company and the college "does make for an interesting juxtaposition," he said.

 

This Gun Maker Should Send President Obama a Thank You Note

May 20, 2013
By Eric McWhinnie
Source:Wall St.Cheat Sheet


The nation’s second largest publicly-traded gun manufacturer may need to send a thank you note to President Obama.

For the 25th consecutive year, The Boston Globe unveiled its Globe 100 list on Sunday, ranking the best-performing public companies in Massachusetts. The Springfield-based Smith & Wesson (NASDAQ:SWHC) topped the list for the first time in history.

In a press release, the Boston Globe explains, “Smith & Wesson secured the number one spot by achieving revenue growth of more than 40 percent in 2012, significantly improving profit margins, and delivering an average return on equity of more than 55 percent. Company sales continued to surge after intense public debate on gun ownership, and White House efforts to introduce new gun control legislation. In March the company said that, despite increasing production, it was unable to meet market demand for its firearm products.”

Smith & Wesson’s accomplishment is even more impressive, considering the list is dominated by sectors such as technology, biotechnology, and telecommunications. To be considered for the rankings, a company must have corporate headquarters in Massachusetts, trade on the New York Stock Exchange, the Nasdaq, or the American Stock Exchange, have been a public company for all of 2012, and report revenue and profit for both 2011 and 2012.

The gun industry typically receives a boost when a Democrat holds the White House, but gun and ammo sales have surged to record highs as the tragedy in Newtown sparks more debate about gun control.

In January, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden rolled out a wide-ranging list of executive actions regarding gun control. Furthermore, Obama called on Congress to: ban military-style assault weapons, ban capacities of more than 10 rounds, require background checks on all gun sales, and create tougher penalties for those selling guns to people who are not legally allowed to have them.

After months of discussions and finger pointing, Congress did not answer Obama’s call. A bill aimed at expanding the system of background checks failed in the Senate. It received only 54 votes, six votes short of the 60 needed to advance. Although the bill had co-sponsorship from both political parties, five Democrats broke from party lines, and only four GOP senators voted in favor of the bill. The Senate also blocked a proposal to ban semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

A visibly angry Obama gave a speech shortly after the Senate’s decision. He said, “So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington. But this effort is not over. I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don’t give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities… but we can do more if Congress gets its act together.”

Many people are making purchases ahead of any major changes. In fact, Obama is considered by many to be the best gun salesman in history.

As ..., background checks for February, while down from January, were 29.1 percent higher from the same month in 2011.

According to an analysis of the gun industry by the Associated Press, the federal government has conducted roughly the same number of background checks for gun owners and prospective buyers under Obama’s first term, as it did under George W. Bush’s first six years of presidency. For the first time since 1993, the number of federally licensed retail gun dealers in the U.S. increased in 2010 and 2011, adding 1,167 more licensed dealers.

Other gun manufacturers are also seeing strong demand. Sturm, Ruger & Co. (NYSE:RGR) had to recently limit incoming orders from independent distributors to reduce the growth in its backlog, which hit 1.5 million orders at the end of 2012, or roughly nine months of production.

Link: 

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/this-gun-maker-should-send-president-obama-a-thank-you-note.html/?a=viewall

Colorado sheriffs sue to block new gun-control laws

4 hrs ago
By Keith Coffman | Reuters
Source: Yahoo News

DENVER (Reuters) - A group of Colorado county sheriffs, angry about two new state gun control lawspassed in the wake of last year's mass shootings in Connecticut and Colorado, filed a federal lawsuit on Friday seeking to block the laws from going into effect.

The two laws, passed by the state's Democratic-controlled legislature with scant Republican support, ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds and require background checks for all private gun sales and transfers.

All but 10 of the state's 64 county sheriffs signed on to the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Denver. In their complaint, the sheriffs allege the new laws, which go into effect July 1, severely restrict citizens' constitutional right to own and bear arms.

The sheriffs, who in Colorado are elected, also complained that they were operating under tight budgets and did not have the money or manpower to enforce the new laws.

"They (the sheriffs) cannot expend these resources to conduct investigations that would be necessary to monitor compliance," the lawsuit said.

The bills were introduced in response to a shooting spree that killed 12 people at a suburban Denver movie theater last July and the slaying of 20 children and six adults at an elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in December.

Connecticut and New York also have passed stricter gun laws in the wake of the shootings. The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. gun lobby, has announced plans to challenge the new gun control laws in all three states.

REASONABLE SAFETY MEASURES

Democratic state Senator Mary Hodge, who sponsored the magazine-limit bill, blasted the sheriffs and said the restrictions were reasonable public-safety measures.

"We can't just sit by and do nothing while first-graders and moviegoers are being mowed down in one fell swoop with weapons equipped with large-capacity magazines," Hodge said in a statement.

Joining the sheriffs in the lawsuit are a number of gun-rights organizations and a disabled gun owners group, who say that magazine limits would restrict their ability to defend themselves in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which bars discrimination against the disabled.

"Disabilities make it difficult to quickly change magazines under the stress of a home invasion," the lawsuit said.

Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat who signed the bills into law, is named as the defendant in the lawsuit. His office had no immediate comment.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, a Republican, said in a statement that his role "will be to get court rulings on the legality of various aspects of the legislation as expeditiously as possible."

"Colorado citizens, and law-abiding gun owners in particular, deserve such clarification," said Suthers, who did not publicly oppose the two bills when they were debated in the legislature.

Separately, a Colorado pro-gun group, the Basic Freedom Defense Fund, said it was circulating a petition to recall the president of the state Senate, Democrat John Morse, because of his support forgun control measures.

Morse, a former police officer, said he would likely face a recall election later this year as a result.

"If they are successful in removing the Senate president in Colorado, it will have a chilling effect on anyone who takes them on but if they fail they will be exposed for the paper tiger they should be," he said.

(Editing by Cynthia Johnston, Philip Barbara and Bill Trott)

The Firearms Statistics That Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want to See

12 hrs ago
By Jason Howerton | The Blaze
Source:Yahoo News

Credit: Getty Images

To accompany TheBlaze's coverage of the National Rifle Association's annual meeting in Houston, we figured it could be helpful to share some gun statistics pointed out to us by some of the NRA Convention attendees. Forget the talking points used by both sides in the gun control debate; we're going to be talking about verified statistics.

Gun control advocates be advised, these are not the statistics you are looking for.

According to data from the FBI's uniform crime reports, Californiahad the highest number of gun murders in 2011 with 1,220 -- which makes up 68 percent of all murders in the state that year and equates to 3.25 murders per 100,000 people.

The irony of such a grisly distinction is evident when you look at which state was named the state with the strongest gun control laws in 2011 by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. You guessed it -- it was California.

"What is very unusual is that California also has a program by which we can remove guns, recover guns from people who have a gun and then subsequently become prohibited or dangerous," Brady Campaign spokeswoman Amanda Wilcox said at the time.

It should be noted, though, that California is also one of the biggest states in the country, with a population of about about 37 million. Therefore, it might make sense that it would have a high number of murders but its murder rate is still high as gun control has had a seemingly inconsequential impact. In comparison, Texas has a population of about 25.6 million and saw 699 total gun murders in 2011 -- nearly half that of California -- and a firearms murder rate of 2.91 per 100,000.

In 2011, Utah, the state that the Brady Campaign determined had the least gun control, experienced just 26 gun murders and a firearms murder rate of 0.97. Utah has a population 2.8 million.

But if you look at the data another way -- murders per 100,000 people -- another gun control haven tops the list.

The FBI data also notes that Washington, D.C. had the highest murder rate per 100,000 people. The nation's capital saw 12 gun murders per 100,000 in 2011. DC also finished first in gun-related robberies per 100,000 people - with 242.56.

In 1976, the District of Columbia required all guns be registered, banned new handguns and required guns at home to be stored and dissembled or locked up. Unfortunately, the draconian measures -- which lasted more than three decades -- didn't had the desired effect.

Journalist and attorney Jeffrey Scott Shapiro explains the not-so-surprising result in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 15, 2013:

The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.

[...]

Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976.

Though it should be noted that the gun murders started decreasing in 1994.

Today, Washington, D.C. still has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. And yet again, the gun murder rate remains dramatically high, the highest in the United States in fact.

So, do the numbers indicate that gun control is the answer to gun violence? You decide.

LA Times Announces: White Men are Terrorists

March 13, 2013
Kurt Nimmo
Source:
Infowars.com

The establishment media wasted little time after the Southern Poverty Law Center sent a letter to the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security demanding the mailed fist of the state crack down on Americans expressing opposition to an increasingly tyrannical federal government.

“There are, in increasingly frightening numbers, cells of angry men in the United States preparing for combat with the U.S. government. They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal,” a Los Angeles Times op-ed claimed on March 8, a couple days after the SPLC letter went out warning of another Oklahoma City terrorist bombing.

MSNBC did its part on March 6 by ramping up the paranoia of another Oklahoma City bombing.

The rant published in the second-largest metropolitan newspaper in the country – following up on the heels of the grand lady of Mockingbird propaganda, the New York Times – doesn’t mince words:

“They’re not jihadists. They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists.”

Despite the ethnic diversity of the patriot movement, the LA Times engages in brazen racism and deliberately singles out white people. This feeds into the SPLC’s absurdist propaganda arguing folks actively resisting constitutional violations perpetuated by the federal government – from the trashing the Second Amendment to the Fourth and beyond – are intimately linked to a minuscule and entirely marginalized white supremacist movement. By raising a fantasy specter of Klansman armed with AR-15s gunning for black and Latino people, the SPLC and the establishment media are actively colluding in an attempt to demonize and eventually destroy an increasingly effective political opposition.

As we noted in our response to the SPLC letter, posted on the same day the LA Times op-ed piece appeared, it is “hardly surprising the SPLC has decided to exploit the growing and diverse movement opposed to a raft of recently proposed unconstitutional firearms laws and label the movement extremist and akin to domestic terrorism.”

Nothing petrifies urban liberals more than defenders of the Second Amendment, especially when they demonstrate with brandished firearms. “Patriot groups are motivated by a host of anti-government attitudes, but their primary focus is guns,” the Times argues. “They are convinced that the government is out to seize their weapons, even though most legislation is focused on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or restricting the types of weapons that can be sold.”

The LA Times sheepishly decries the fact government is unable to do much “to reverse this tide of belligerent ignorance” on the part of “like-minded Neanderthals” who shelter and encourage “the Timothy McVeighs of the world.”

Instead of a direct police state crack down and mass internment of white people in concentration camps, the editorial staff of the Los Angeles Times suggests a new COINTELPRO-like program designed to monitor Americans upset by continual government usurpations and attacks on the libertarian principles enshrined in the Constitution.

“These groups should be closely monitored, with resources adequate to the task, even if it means shifting some homeland security money from the hunt for foreign terrorists,” they write. As we noted, the groups and individuals singled out by the SPLC include Alex Jones, We Are Change, Oath Keepers, the Constitution Party, the Tyranny Response Team and thousands of other Americans.

Left unmentioned here is the obvious fact the real enemy of government all along has not been a largely fantastical al-Qaeda and a comical Saudi hooked up to a dialysis machine in an Afghan cave, but a considerable and growing domestic patriot movement determined to prevent the incremental move toward authoritarianism and tyranny.

In 2011, we pointed out the government’s attempt to reconstitute its elaborately fashioned Arab and Islamic terror meme into a “white al-Qaeda” threat. “Prior to the events in Norway [Anders Breivik's murderous terror attacks], the Department of Homeland Security released a propaganda videocharacterizing white middle class Americans as terrorists and members of white al-Qaeda, a term designed to conflate the image of the CIA-created Islamic terror group and ‘rightwing extremists’ in America,” we wrote.

The overriding absurdity of the LA Times editorial is the obvious fact that it is not merely white people who are determined to restore America’s constitutional heritage.

It is people of all ethnic persuasions.