August 2018
« Jul    
PAYPAL Donations

< If you don’t stand behind our troops, why don’t you stand in front of them.

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

Proud to be an American.

Salute a Veteran!

Please consider a monthly donation; Click on the PayPal Button to contribute with PayPal

Donating by PayPal is Safe and Convenient

Send Checks to: The Highlands Tea Party 4196 Smoke signal Sebring, FL 33872

All donations are greatly appreciated, Thank You & God Bless

Donations are not tax-deductible.

My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy! ~Thomas Jefferson P>

General information

Archive for the ‘5 – 2nd Amendment’ Category


It’s Settled: Government Rules That AR-15s Are Not Weapons of War

JULY 25, 2018 AT 5:14AM

The newest argument against the AR-15 and other rifles of its type — now that the whole “do you really need a gun like that” spiel seems to have failed — is that they’re “weapons of war.”   The first known use of this construction, according to The Daily Caller, came from Connecticut Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal back on Feb. 21. It’s been used all the time since — from CNN segments to the debate over gun-grabbing legislation in Florida (which, unsurprisingly, was still too tame for the Democrats). It’s fast becoming the go-to argument for banning certain rifles.
So, what does the federal government have to say about this? Well, it’s not exactly agreeing with the Democrats. In fact, it completely disagrees.
According to Breitbart, in a settlement with Defense Distributed — a group run by Texas libertarian Cody Wilson that shared 3D printed models of weapons online — the government agreed that weapons below .50 caliber aren’t “military equipment.” The legal saga began a few years ago, according to USA Today, when the Justice Department and State Department tried to force Wilson to stop sharing his plans online.
TRENDING: Closer Look at Ocasio-Cortez Donations Should Make Her Supporters Furious
In 2015, the Second Amendment Foundation filed a suit against the Department of Justice on Wilson’s behalf. Earlier this month, they reached a settlement.
“The government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue,” a news release from the SAF stated.“The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint.”But there was a great deal more, particularly when it came to the government defining what “military equipment entails.”

Is this decision good for gun rights?

“The phrase ‘Military Equipment’ means (1) Drums and other magazines for firearms to 50 caliber (12.7 mm) inclusive with a capacity greater than 50 rounds, regardless of the jurisdiction of the firearm, and specially designed parts and components therefor; (2) Parts and components specifically designed for conversion of a semi-automatic firearm to a fully automatic firearm; (3) Accessories or attachments specifically designed to automatically stabilize aim (other than gun rests) or for automatic targeting, and specifically designed parts and components therefor.”
The AR-15 is none of these, obviously. It isn’t fully automatic, it (definitionally) doesn’t turn a weapon into a fully automatic firearm, it certainly isn’t .50 caliber.  In other words, it’s not a “weapon of war.” Far from it.   As for the lawsuit in toto, SAF executive vice president Alan Gottlieb told Breitbart it was a success.
“Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby. For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called ‘weapons of war,’ and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort,” Gottlieb stated.

RELATED: Victory: 2nd Amendment Nails Huge Win in 9th Circuit

“The federal government now saying semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber are not inherently military means that they are admitting that rifles like the AR-15 are civilian in nature. This makes perfect sense, as they existed years before the military adopted the fully automatic version,” he added.”
“Under this settlement, the government will draft and pursue regulatory amendments that eliminate (International Traffic in Arms Regulation) control over the technical information at the center of this case. They will transfer export jurisdiction to the Commerce Department, which does not impose prior restraint on public speech. That will allow Defense Distributed and SAF to publish information about 3D technology.”
In other words, the government didn’t have a case against 3D printing or AR-15-esque rifles as “weapons of war.”
This settlement is a lot more devastating to the left’s anti-gun agenda than they’d probably like to admit.
Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

The U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense – 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals

JULY 24, 2018 / 11:56 AM / UPDATED 6 HOURS AGO

U.S. appeals court upholds right to carry gun in public

(Reuters) – A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense, rejecting a claim by Hawaii officials that the right only applies to guns kept at home.   The ruling by a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, makes the San Francisco-based court the sixth U.S. circuit court to interpret the Second Amendment this way and could set the issue on a path toward the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not taken up a major gun rights case since 2010.
The extent of the right to gun ownership is one of the most hotly contested debates in the United States, where mass shootings have become almost commonplace.In a split two-to-three decision on Tuesday, the panel found Hawaii infringed on the rights of plaintiff George Young when it twice denied him a permit to carry a gun outside.
“We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in Tuesday’s ruling. “But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”   The 9th Circuit had ruled in 2016 that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to carry concealed firearms in public in Peruta v. County of San Diego.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on that decision last year.
President Donald Trump, a vocal gun rights supporter, is seeking to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat and make the court more conservative, raising the prospect that it may take up more cases in coming years.   Alan Beck, a lawyer for the plaintiff in Tuesday’s ruling, said he believed the question about openly carrying firearms would eventually end up before the Supreme Court.
“I think the Supreme Court is receptive to this,” Beck said in a phone interview.  Attorneys for the state of Hawaii were not immediately available for comment.   Judge Richard Clifton dissented from Tuesday’s ruling, saying the Second Amendment does not preclude the sort of licensing rules used in Hawaii and elsewhere.
Laws on openly carrying firearms vary widely by state and type of gun. The most restrictive are California, which falls under the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction, Florida, Illinois and the District of Columbia, which generally prohibit people from openly carrying any sort of firearm, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a nonprofit policy organization that favors greater gun control.
Hawaii is one of 15 states that requires a license or permit to openly carry a handgun, according to the center’s data.
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep guns at home for self-defense.  The Second Amendment was adopted in 1789 and 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.”

Reporting by Jonathan Allen and Diana Kruzman in New York; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Tom Brown

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

SAF – National Rifle Association filed lawsuit against City of Seattle & Mayor Jenny Durkan over “Safe Storage” Law.

Second Amendment Foundation


BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association today filed a lawsuit against the City of Seattle and Mayor Jenny Durkan over adoption of a so-called “safe storage” requirement, alleging that it violates Washington State’s 35-year-old preemption statute, and is therefore unenforceable.
Also named as defendants are the Seattle Police Department and Chief Carmen Best.
State law prohibits cities, towns and counties or other municipalities from adopting gun regulations that exceed state authority. The state legislature has sole authority to adopt gun laws including, but not limited to, registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge and transportation of firearms.
“The City of Seattle has been trying to erode state preemption almost from the moment it was passed back in 1985,” recalled SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “When the city tried to ban guns from city parks facilities under former mayors Greg Nickels and Mike McGinn, SAF and NRA joined forces with other organizations to stop it, under the state preemption statute. We should not have to repeatedly remind Seattle that they are still part of Washington State and must obey the law.”
Joining SAF and NRA in the lawsuit are two Seattle residents, Omar Abdul Alim and Michael Thyng. They are both firearm owners.
 “Seattle seems to think it should be treated differently than any other local government when it comes to firearm regulation,” Gottlieb observed. “State preemption was adopted more than three decades ago to assure uniformity of gun laws from Ilwaco to the Idaho border. Seattle simply can’t break the law to adopt an ordinance as a political statement.
“We’re delighted to once again be working with the NRA to protect Washington state law and the rights of gun owners who live in the state’s largest city,” Gottlieb concluded.

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.


This is telling it like it is – What the Hell Happened to the Majority in this country!!!

“I Am the Majority” Mark Robinson addresses Greensboro …


Private Citizen Mark Johnson addresses the Greensboro City Council on their plan to
ban gun show use of the city owned Coliseum. A fine witness for gun rights supporters!

John Nelson -
Bob Gilmore
Dick Fankhauser