Source: http://uarf.us/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=13
Timestamp: 2018-12-16 12:19:06
Document Index: 86436483

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 18', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 18', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 15']

Unalienable Rights Foundation: Gun Rights
Posted by editor on Thursday, February 27 @ 23:51:44 MST (3181 reads)
Jefferson on Arms for Self Defense
We often hear arguments about the intent of the founders as to the wording and meaning of the wording of the second amendment to the US Constitution and the Constitution itself. Most of those arguments are silent on where any authority may be found to support the assertions made in those arguments.
Thomas Jefferson was a principal in the drafting of the Constitution and he penned in his own hand where he found the basis of law that was to be used to govern the United States as did John James Otis, John Adams and many other ‘Founding Fathers’.
Jefferson and these other Founding Fathers clearly and precisely expressed their headings in their drafting, work and/or support for the Constitution. The works of Sir Edward Coke, Sir Thomas Littleton and Sir William Blackstone [Jefferson’s 1812 letter to Judge John Tyler] directed those headings.
[ Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the First - Chapter the First : Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals / Commentaries on the Laws of England / Blackstone, William, Sir, 1723-1780 4 v. : 2 geneal. tables ;27 cm. (4to) / First Edition Oxford : Printed at the Clarendon Press, 1765-1769]
5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W.&M. st. 2, c.2, [ United Kingdom (England)/UK Bill of Rights 1688] and it is indeed a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
Posted by david on Thursday, February 28 @ 12:51:22 MST (2658 reads)
Roberts Court faces major takings challenge with huge potential liability for go
Would a ban on assault weapons violate the Fifth Amendment's takings clause?
No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. U.S. Constitution U.S. Con. 5th Amd. (1791).
Some members of Congress would like to know, according to one legal scholar [UARF] who has been asked .
The gun-related question is not before the U.S. Supreme Court, at least not yet.
But the scope of the takings clause is this term in three cases, the most potentially significant of which comes up for argument on January 15.
Posted by david on Thursday, January 03 @ 07:49:29 MST (2320 reads)
UARF provided key evidence that allowed Moore to Walk Free & Exercise 2nd Amd. R
The Unalienable Rights Foundation provides key evidence that allows Dan Moore to Walk Free and Continue to Exercise his Second Amendment Rights
Judge James S. Mathews did not agree. After hearing from six witnesses called by the city attorney's office, he dismissed the charges, ruling that Waterside is a public facility, said the Unalienable Rights Foundation [UARF] General Counsel Stephen Merrill, a Norfolk attorney who represented Moore.
Merrill introduced forensic accounting evidence obtained by UARF's Associate General Counsel, and President, David Lindsey, a Forensic Accountqant, through the Freedom of Information Act from the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority and the City of Norfolk that from the time Waterside opened, "not one dollar in private money has been lost in managing the facility," Merrill said. "Clearly, it's a public facility."
During his direct examination testimony by Merrill and cross examination testimony by Norfolk Deputy City Attorney Andrew Fox, Lindsey introduced evidence from the witness chair to the Court that showed that individuals in Norfolk's [1] City Attorney's office, [2] Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and [3] Police Department appeared to have uttered false documents , either a class 6, 5, or 4 felony under Virginia law.
UARF's Merrill, who is based in Ghent, was more understanding. "It's shocking for people in a city like Norfolk to see people open-carry," he said. "Even though it's been the law for a long time, it hasn't been practiced here until recently.
For full unedited article
Posted by DAVID on Thursday, October 18 @ 04:03:29 MST (2374 reads)
The Future of the Right to Keep
The Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group and The Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies
For more upcoming events: Click here
In 2008, for the first time in our history, the Supreme Court invoked the Second Amendment to strike down a gun control law, holding that the federal government may not prohibit law abiding citizens from keeping a handgun in the home for self defense. In 2010, the Court held that state and local governments are also prohibited from banning handguns in the home. Major victories for individual liberty, those decisions were also very narrow. Can we expect future decisions to recognize a wide range of rights to keep and bear arms? Or will the Court's recent decisions turn out to be mostly symbolic, with little effect on legislative discretion to regulate access to firearms? Please join us for a discussion of opposing views about what the courts are likely to do and what they should do.
Mr. Alan Gura, Gura & Possessky, P.L.L.C.
Mr. Dennis Henigan, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Prof. Alan B. Morrison, The George Washington University Law School
Dr. Roger Pilon, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute, Moderator
Please RSVP by Wednesday, January 19, as seating is limited.
Posted by david on Monday, January 10 @ 09:20:36 MST (1629 reads)
Concealed carry and fingerprinting VA
§ 15.2-915.3. Requiring fingerprinting for concealed handgun permit. —
Notwithstanding § 15.2-915, a county or city may by ordinance require any applicant for a concealed handgun permit to submit to fingerprinting for the purpose of obtaining the applicant's state or national criminal history record; however, such ordinance shall not require fingerprinting for the renewal of an existing permit pursuant to subsection I of § 18.2-308. (2004, c. 462; 2006, c. 886; 2007, c. 272.)
Virginia Code § 15.2-915.3
Posted by MultumInParvo on Tuesday, December 14 @ 10:43:19 MST (1672 reads)
VA Regulation of transportation of a loaded rifle or shotgun
§ 15.2-915.2. Regulation of transportation of a loaded rifle or shotgun. — The governing body of any county or city may by ordinance make it unlawful for any person to transport, possess or carry a loaded shotgun or loaded rifle in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway within such locality. Any violation of such ordinance shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $100. Conservation police officers, sheriffs and all other law-enforcement officers shall enforce the provisions of this section. No ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall be enforceable unless the governing body adopting such ordinance so notifies the Director of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries by registered mail prior to May 1 of the year in which such ordinance is to take effect.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to duly authorized law-enforcement officers or military personnel in the performance of their lawful duties, nor to any person who reasonably believes that a loaded rifle or shotgun is necessary for his personal safety in the course of his employment or business. (1976, c. 506, § 18.2-287.1; 1977, c. 377; 1989, c. 50; 2004, c. 462.)
Virginia Code § 15.2-915.2
Posted by MultumInParvo on Tuesday, December 14 @ 10:37:16 MST (1795 reads)
VA Limitations on authority of localities to bring lawsuits on guns or ammo
Limitations on authority of localities to bring lawsuits on guns or amo
§ 15.2-915.1. Limitations on authority of localities to bring lawsuits. — No locality shall have the authority to bring suit against a firearms or ammunition marketer, manufacturer, distributor, dealer, seller, or trade association for damages, abatement, injunctive relief or any other remedy resulting from or relating to the lawful design, marketing, manufacture, distribution, sale, or transfer of firearms or ammunition to the public. The right to bring any such action is hereby reserved exclusively to the Commonwealth. Any action brought by the Commonwealth pursuant to this section shall be brought by the Attorney General on behalf of the Commonwealth.
The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply equally to any state governmental entity, including a department, agency, or authority. (2000, c. 674.)
Virginia Code § 15.2-915.1
Posted by MultumInParvo on Tuesday, December 14 @ 10:28:55 MST (1790 reads)
Virginia ~ Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmen
§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies. —
C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs to any person, group, or entity that prevails in an action challenging (i) an ordinance, resolution, or motion as being in conflict with this section or (ii) an administrative action taken in bad faith as being in conflict with this section. (1987, c. 629, § 15.1-29.15; 1988, c. 392; 1997, cc. 550, 587; 2002, c. 484; 2003, c. 943; 2004, cc. 837, 923; 2009, cc. 735, 772.)
Virginia Code § 15.2-915
Posted by MultumInParvo on Tuesday, December 14 @ 10:11:07 MST (1745 reads)
Andrew F. Traver is a bad choice to head up the BATFE!
President Obama has nominated an anti-gun Chicago BATFE agent to head up the BATFE!
We don't want someone who doesn't believe in the right to keep and bear arms to be beating the 2nd Amendment into bureaucratic dust.
Andrew F. Traver is a bad choice, so let's tell our Senators that we don't want Traver to fill the position.
Gun Owners of America has already set up a campaign to fight the nomination. There is history on the issue and a prewritten email for you to send which goes automatically to Senators Warner and Webb:
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=20074511&PROCESS=Take+Action
When you carry a gun, you don't do so because you are looking for a fight, but because you are looking to be left alone. The gun at your side means that you cannot be forced, only persuaded. You don't carry it because you are afraid, but because it enables you to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Posted by david on Tuesday, December 07 @ 10:44:47 MST (1355 reads)
· Gun Confiscation (The Termite Approach)- Call your Senator T O D A Y !!!
· Common Sense Gun Law in Utah
· Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law
· Waterside -because of the City's financial interest in the mall, the mall is con
· DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER Second Amendment Reborn
· Gun Rights to Face Supreme Court's EYE