Google Custom Search

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Second Amendment News Roundup for 6/27/07

Washington, DC (TLS). Here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:

The Buckeye Firearms Association has yet another example of a gun in a gun-free zone:

In case you missed it, The Liberty Sphere posted late yesterday evening the information on Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold, as provided by the Buckeye Firearms Assoc.:

Snow Flakes in Hell has an interesting take on the assertion by CNN criminal profiler Pat Brown that gun ownership is a 'red flag' to any woman that a guy she is dating is probably a violent psychopath:

Armed and Safe blogs that the easiest and best way to pass gun control legislation is to ignore facts and logic:

Armed and Safe also reports that a newspaper in Connecticut is pressuring municipalities and county governments to release the names, addresses, and phone numbers of anyone who APPLIES FOR a permit for concealed carry! Read it here:

Alphecca weighs in on the shamelessness of the Sandusky Register:

Alphecca also shows that when the tables are turned, the mainstream media suddenly turns against the 'freedom of information act' they hide behind:

The Bitch Girls report that when ordinary citizens begin taking an interest in pending legislation, and holding their representatives in Washington accountable, the politicians can turn nasty:

Traction Control has the list of turncoat pro-amnesty Republicans, as well as a few Dems that claim they are against amnesty but whose votes show otherwise:

Cap'n Bob and the Damsel has the demographics of citizens who oppose the immigration compromise bill, as well as info on a new website dedicated to the security our borders:

Captain's Quarters has information on an underhanded scheme to slide in an amendment to the immigration bill that further benefits illegal aliens:

The Volokh Conspiracy blogs on the latest ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the free speech rights of underage students:

A Keyboard and a .45 has some great info on preparing to take a new shooter to the range:

Say Uncle has a link to a neat looking 'stealth rifle case':

1 comment:

Brent said...

In regards to the Volokh Conspiracy article on the Supreme Court free speech ruling, I agree with the Supreme Court ruling, however, I do take exception with some of the Volokh Conspiracy comment.

The issue I have is that this case is not a 1st Amendment issue. The 1st amendment prohibits "Congress".. from "abridging the freedom of speech." The 1st Amendment, does not apply to state or local governments.

This is unlike other Bill of Rights Amendments, in my opinion, which do not specifically apply only to Congress. An example would be the 2nd Amendment which states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", and it does not specifically apply this only to Congress. Many commentaries and judicial decisions at the time our country was founded did find that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government(and this would imply that the other Bill of Right amendments did as well).

One of the reasons this distinction is important is because many anti-gunners like to talk about how the 1st Amendment is not absolute and how exceptions are permissable and compare this to the 2nd Amendment and how exceptions to this right are permissable as well.

The 14th Amendment, passed after the abolition of slavery, did, however state that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It also stated that "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

So now, in addition to the Constitution protecting the right to keep and bear arms, it also gave the federal government authority to pass laws to ensure states did not infringe on this right. It also prevents states from infringing on other "privilages and immunities" of citizens and gives Congress legislative power to enforce these rights as well.

So, since this Supreme Court case is not a 1st Amendment issue, the big question is do high school students have the right to advocate illegal or immoral behavior without punishment? If so, does that mean they have the same right of "free expression" without their parents punishing them as well? My answer is no. It is the job of parents to raise their children and instill morals and values in their children. Since schools are controlled at the local level by school boards, and usually by parents themselves, it should be the job of school boards, not the Supreme Court to regulate the proper behavior of students. Even better would be to privatize schools so that government in general is not involved at all in this process.