Summary: Paul takes a moment to detail the idea behind his new book “Faith and the Patriot; a Belief worth Fighting for.” The Professor explains why faithful Christian patriots are good for every American, even those who do not believe. A Federal District Court has ruled again that the 2nd Amendment is a limited right, particularly because it address weapons and things that are dangerous. We have a Vagination report from Baltimore where the news media is attempting to reignite the violence. SOURCES: From www.ammoland.com (http://www.ammoland.com/2015/06/breaking-another-federal-circuit-court-unravels-second-amendment-gun-rights/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=177a8e3641-Monday_Morning_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-177a8e3641-7174757#axzz3f7dECwUF): "In yet another decision that thumbs it’s nose at the Supreme Court’s landmark D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago rulings, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held today that the Second Amendment does not protect gun rights outside of one’s home. The case, Bonidy v. United States Postal Service, challenged 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l), which prohibits the storage and carriage of firearms on USPS property. The district court decision found that the law was unconstitutional as applied to its prohibition on guns in parking lots, but not the ban on carry inside government buildings. Circuit Judge David M. Ebel–another Ronald Reagan appointee to decide against gun rights–was joined by Circuit Judge Gregory A. Phillips (appointed by Barack Obama) in the decision: We….conclude that the regulation is constitutional as to all USPS property at issue in this case, including the Avon Post Office parking lot, because the Second Amendment right to bear arms has not been extended to “government buildings.” Government buildings, in this context, includes the government owned parking lot connected to the U.S. Post Office. Alternatively, even if we were to conclude that the parking lot did not qualify as a “government building,” we would uphold this regulation as constitutional as applied to the parking lot under independent intermediate scrutiny. Ignoring McDonald’s command that the Second Amendment does not protect “second-class” rights, the Tenth Circuit held that “the risk inherent in firearms and other weapons distinguishes the Second Amendment right from other fundamental rights that have been held to be evaluated under a strict scrutiny test, such as the right to marry and the right to be free from viewpoint discrimination, which can be exercised without creating a direct risk to others.” Help us FIGHT President Obama’s push for more gun control! But the Supreme Court expressly rejected that argument in 2010 when it struck down the City of Chicago’s handgun ban. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, said: The right to keep and bear arms, however, is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. All of the constitutional provisions that impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes fall into the same category. See, e.g., Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 591, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006) (“The exclusionary rule generates `substantial social costs,’ United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 907, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large”); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 522, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972)(reflecting on the serious consequences of dismissal for a speedy trial violation, which means “a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free”);Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 517, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id., at 542, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (White, J., dissenting) (objecting that the Court’s rule “in some unknown number of cases . . . will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets . . . to repeat his crime”);Mapp, 367 U.S., at 659, 81 S.Ct. 1684.
