# data[].attributes.body
"Let's exercise some democracy..."-Vogue

# data[].attributes.body
This me in my NJROTC uniform

# data[].attributes.body
As a Young African American MAN. Im a Moderate Republic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 2016 U.S. presidential election is shaping up to be one of the most divisive contests in recent memory. To better understand where you land on the political spectrum, take our updated Political Party Quiz, developed by Pew Research Center in collaboration with the PBS NewsHour.

Questions gauge political values and an individual's stance on policies and range from government spending to gay marriage. Your score shows your likelihood of being Republican or Democrat and is based on a Pew March 2016 political survey.

Nationally, the race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is getting closer; an average of polls show Clinton's post-convention bounce is over. Lisa Desjardins examines both candidates' polling strengths and Carroll Doherty of the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post's Dan Balz join Judy Woodruff for a breakdown of the electorate and how the candidates can drive home their messages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Where do you fit? The 2016 Political Party Quiz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 2016 U.S. presidential election is shaping up to be one of the most divisive contests in recent memory. To better understand where you fit in, take our updated Political Party Quiz, developed by the Pew Research Center and the PBS NewsHour.

# data[].attributes.headline
Amount of money spent on the 2 Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
Amount of money spent on the 2 Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In North Carolina, the NRA spent $6.2 million on the incumbent Republican Sen. Richard Burr, the most it has ever invested in a down-ballot race. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

BY: MIKE SPIES AND ASHLEY BALCERZAK
OpenSecrets Blog and The Trace partnered on this story; it was published by both outlets.
The National Rifle Association took a historic gamble in 2016, and it paid off in a huge way.

The gun rights group placed multimillion-dollar bets on Donald Trump and six Republican Senate candidates locked in highly competitive races. It poured $50.2 million, or 96 percent of its total outside spending, into these races, and lost only one -- an open seat in Nevada, vacated by the Democratic Minority Leader, Harry Reid. That race cost the NRA roughly $2.5 million.

The NRA's big night came as a tidal wave of white voters without college degrees voted overwhelmingly for Trump, leading to one of the biggest election-night upsets in memory. The reasons why this demographic turned out in such high numbers for the GOP nominee will be parsed for years, and it is not at all clear how much of a factor his embrace of the NRA's hardline position on gun rights played into the outcome.

But the NRA's investment, which was more than any other outside group, paid for a slew of ads that directly targeted the same voters who propelled Trump to victory. The organization's radio and television spots sought to cast Hillary Clinton and the Democratic rivals of its preferred Senate candidates as an existential threat to the Second Amendment, and national security. It is a message that resonates in the gun belt, a swath of primarily Southern and Midwestern states where Trump achieved some of his most consequential victories.

In October alone, according to the Center for Public Integrity, roughly one out of every 20 television ads in Pennsylvania was sponsored by the NRA. That same month, the group paid for one in nine ads in North Carolina, and one of every eight in Ohio. The ads imply that Clinton and Democrats would leave law-and-order abiding citizens defenseless. In one spot, a woman is alone in bed when a burglar breaks into her home. The narrator intones, "Don't let Hillary leave you protected with nothing but a phone."

Trump won all three states, and the NRA's preferred Senate candidates also swept to victory.

The NRA's largest 2016 outlay was the $30.3 million it spent in support of Trump.

In North Carolina, the group spent $6.2 million on the incumbent Republican Senator Richard Burr, the most it has ever invested in a down-ballot race. Burr won by about six percentage points. Elsewhere, the NRA helped elect Senators Marco Rubio in Florida; Roy Blunt in Missouri; Todd Young in Indiana; and Rob Portman in Ohio. It spent between $2 million and $3.2 million on each of those races.

The numbers account for independent expenditures--unrestricted money spent on ads and other media, independent of official campaigns.

The 2016 election results represent a continuation of the NRA's impressive success rate when making substantial investments in closely-contested races. Over the three prior election cycles, the group disbursed $1 million dollars or more toward 14 congressional races, and achieved its desired outcome 11 times. To help Republicans win back the Senate in 2014, it spent $20.6 million dollars on five key races in the upper chamber, and in each of them, its preferred candidate won.

This election cycle, the NRA spent more than $52 million--a number that will rise as final campaign finance figures are tallied -- to carry on its effort to increase Republican control of government, a mission that has ramped up since the Citizen's United decision in 2010, when the Supreme Court removed caps on independent expenditures. The sum is by far the greatest in the organization's history, smashing its previous record, of $31.7 million, set in 2014.

In federal elections, the NRA typically ranks among heavyweight outside spending groups. For the second cycle in a row, it has earned a place in the top ten. But 2016 was a unique year for the organization, owing to the fact that many super PACs, like Karl Rove's American Crossroads GPS, which spent roughly $115 million to elect Mitt Romney in 2012, declined to back Trump. The NRA stepped in to fill the void, putting at least $30.3 million on the line to help elect the real estate mogul, more than any other outside group -- including the leading Trump super PAC, which spent $20.3 million.

By comparison, the gun rights group deployed about $12.5 million to help Romney in 2012.

The close relationship between the NRA and Donald Trump began in May, when the organization endorsed the candidate earlier than it had ever endorsed a Republican presidential contender. Trump appeared before thousands of people at the NRA convention in Louisville, Kentucky, where he gleefully accepted the organization's official support.

"The Second Amendment is under threat like never before," Trump told the crowd. "Crooked Hillary is the most anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment candidate ever to run for office."

In July, the NRA's top lobbyist, Chris Cox, was given a prime speaking slot at the Republican National Convention. He reminded attendees that the next president would fill a Supreme Court vacancy, and the new Justice could directly affect gun rights.

"A Hillary Clinton Supreme Court means your right to own a firearm is gone," he said.

Before Election Day, polls suggested that the Senate, under Republican control since 2014, was up for grabs. Now in the position of defending the upper chamber, the NRA focused the majority of its resources on six toss-up seats, hoping to keep or flip them Republican.

The House, under Republican control before the election, was not expected to change hands, and so it was not a priority for the NRA. All told, it sprinkled roughly $1 million over 48 races. The group made two substantial investments in Republican incumbent candidates -- just under $215,000 in Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania, and about $175,000 in Bruce Poliquin of Maine. Both candidates won.
[Graphics: Francesca Mirabile for The Trace. Photo: Lionel Hahn/ABACAPRESS.com]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The NRA Placed Big Bets On The 2016 Election, And Won Almost All of Them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In North Carolina, the NRA spent $6.2 million on the incumbent Republican Sen. Richard Burr, the most it has ever invested in a down-ballot race. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong) BY: MIKE SPIES AND ASHLEY BALCERZAK OpenSecrets Blog and The Trace partnered on this story; it was published by both outlets.

# data[].attributes.body
He wants more Gun control so he made a funny skit on how easy it is to obtain a gun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Watch Billy Eichner Get Serious About Gun Control With Keegan-Michael Key

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you already didn't think Billy Eichner was a national treasure, let his latest political skit finally convince you.

# data[].attributes.body
Video is telling us what should we do about guns. And if putting more restrictions would lower gun crime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Should We Do About Guns? | 5 Minute Video

# data[].attributes.body
Theses Prop is that the government can take your high capacity magazines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2000, California banned the sale of firearm magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. Residents who already possessed such magazines were "grandfathered" in. Or at least that was the promise.

Recently, Californians approved Proposition 63, which would have required all grandfathered owners to surrender those magazines by July 1, 2017, or face up to a year in prison. Civil-rights groups challenged the confiscation in federal courts. With less than a day to spare, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California blocked the measure from going into effect. In his thoughtful opinion, he meticulously deconstructs every strawman erected by gun-control advocates, who can show no evidence that limiting magazine sizes will improve public safety. No doubt this decision will be appealed, but the higher courts should take note: Judge Benitez provided a clinic on how to scrutinize laws that restrict Second Amendments rights.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right is not limited to guns; it extends also to the ammunition and magazines that make the gun operable. California's law directly infringes on that right, by prohibiting law-abiding firearm owners from using their magazine of choice for self-defense. Following Heller, lower courts have held that the government can ban certain types of arms only if it demonstrates that doing so will reasonably protect public safety. Unfortunately, in the past, most judges simply rubber-stamp whatever evidence the state provides to justify gun-control measures, whether or not it fits with public safety.

Not Judge Benitez. He refused to defer to the attorney general's "incomplete studies from unreliable sources" about a "homogenous mass of horrible crimes in jurisdictions near and far for which large capacity magazines were not the cause." With the precision of a scalpel, the court systemically sliced apart the government's unpersuasive efforts to justify the ban. For example, the attorney general had relied on a survey of shootings published by Mother Jones, a progressive magazine. Judge Benitez dismissed the publication, which "has rarely been mentioned by any court as reliable evidence." Moreover, he added, "it is fair to say that the magazine survey lacks some of the earmarks of a scientifically designed and unbiased collection of data."

What about the government's citation of a survey issued by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns? Judge Benitez noted that this group, founded by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, "is apparently not a pro-gun rights organization." That is an understatement. More significantly, the court concluded, the survey of 92 mass shootings - 82 of which were outside California - "does not demonstrate that the ban on possession of magazines holding any more than 10 rounds" would reasonably help the state to achieve its public-safety goals. Of the ten shootings in California, eight were not known to involve high-capacity magazines, and two involved magazines that were probably illegal. For example, the Santa Monica shooter used high-capacity magazines that were likely shipped from outside California. "Criminalizing possession of magazines holding any more than 10 rounds," the court reasoned, "likely would not have provided additional protection from gun violence for citizens or police officers or prevented the crime." More important, even though millions of high-capacity magazine are owned nationwide, the mayors' survey could identify only six mass-shooting incidents between 2009 and 2013 that employed them.

The government's expert witnesses fared no better. The court dismissed their evidence as little more than "anecdotal accounts, collected by biased entities, on which educated surmises and tautological observations are framed." One professor said the ban on high-capacity magazines "seems prudent," based only on what Judge Benitez labelled "a complete absence of reliable studies done on formal data sets." Another professor justified the ban on large magazines by citing the need to force "mass shooters to pause and reload ammunition." That argument, supported by zero data, is belied by common experience. The court noted that during mass shootings in Alexandria, Va., and Fort Hood, Texas, mass shooters were able to reload several times without difficulty; they were stopped only when confronted by another shooter. In any event, why stop at ten rounds? For example, New York sought to limit magazine sizes to seven rounds, because the average defensive gun use involves on average two rounds. Judge Benitez asked, somewhat rhetorically, why not then limit magazines to three rounds?

The Supreme Court has recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. That right extends to the ammunition and magazines that make guns operable.

In other contexts, courts are perfectly comfortable second-guessing the government's need to promote public safety - even concerning the rights of aliens outside the United States and in delicate matters of foreign affairs. For example, in recent litigation over the travel ban, federal courts have dismissed the executive branch's goal of protecting national security as a fraud. But with the Second Amendment, courts have regrettably treated the right to keep and bear arms as a second-class right and consistently accepted the government's interests as articles of blind faith.

Not so in Judge Benitez's courtroom. He explained that "the phrase 'gun violence' may not be invoked as a talismanic incantation to justify any exercise of state power." In any case, the measures in question would not deter crime. "Criminals intent on violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons," Benitez observed. Or, as Justice Stephen Breyer noted last year in an opinion striking down Texas's abortion laws, "determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations." (Of course, the right to keep and bear arms is framed in the Constitution; a right to privacy is not.) Criminals bent on breaking the law will break the law. Confiscation measures like Proposition 63 punish law-abiding citizens, limit their ability to defend themselves, and have at best a negligible impact on public safety.

On the same day that Judge Benitez issued his important decision, another federal judge in Sacramento reached the opposite result, allowing the confiscation measure to go into effect. The California attorney general will no doubt seek an emergency stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to nullify Judge Benitez's decision. Second Amendment rights, alas, have not fared well in that court. Because of the urgency of this case, sooner or later an emergency petition may wind up on the desk of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who supervises appeals from California. Justice Kennedy joined the Heller decision in 2008 and two years later joined the follow-up case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. But since 2010, the Court has not heard arguments in any Second Amendment case.

Regrettably, last week the Supreme Court turned away another case from California that concerned the right to carry outside the home. Only Justice Clarence Thomas and his newest colleague, Justice Neil Gorsuch, disagreed: "The Court's decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right," Thomas wrote. Over the last seven years, the justices have hesitated to expand gun rights beyond allowing law-abiding citizens to keep a firearm in the home. Proposition 63 is radically different from previous appeals: It attempts to take away what law-abiding citizens already have. Perhaps now that the fear of confiscation has come to fruition, five justices will intervene and ensure that Americans are not punished for exercising their constitutional rights.

READ MORE:
It's Still a Mad, Mad California
California's Medicaid-Spending Crisis
California's Calexit Craziness

- Josh Blackman is a constitutional-law professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and the author of Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, and Executive Power.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Federal Judge Halts California's Confiscation of High-Capacity Magazines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2000, California banned the sale of firearm magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. Residents who already possessed such magazines were "grandfathered" in. Or at least that was the promise. Recently, Californians approved Proposition 63, which would have required all grandfathered owners to surrender those magazines by July 1, 2017, or face up to a year in prison.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you read the 2008 Supreme Court decision that gives all Americans the right to own guns? Probably not. I hadn't, until the other day, when I was stunned to find that the decision is hardly the blanket protection for gun ownership that the National Rifle Association and adamant gun rights people claim. Nor is it the sweeping defeat that those who want gun control lament. Reading it, in fact, offers some real hope that a reasonable middle ground may be possible as America gropes in these polarized times for a solution to gun violence that protects the rights of gun owners and public safety.

There is no question that District of Columbia v. Heller was precisely the sort of judicial activism the conservative justices of the Supreme Court promised not to do. In a 5 to 4 decision those justices ruled that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for personal self-defense, despite the amendment's opening language - "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, " - which pretty clearly says that gun ownership was specifically preserved by the founding fathers in the interest of the common defense against a tyrannical government (remember, this was the issue on their minds back then). Gun rights advocates cheered. Gun control advocates cried foul.

But even though the 5-4 majority ruling makes an intellectual end run around the language of the Second Amendment to get to their ruling, they very clearly state that society (government, convened to collectively protect us from what we can't protect ourselves from as individuals) has the right to, and legitimate interest in controlling gun ownership, in several specific ways.

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...". It is "...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

" Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' "
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent "...to consider... prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons."

That language refers to many of the gun control ideas being discussed now. Prohibitions on carrying 'dangerous and unusual weapons' certainly might apply to assault rifles. Ammunition clips that hold 100 bullets...30...even 10, are hardly 'usual', certainly not for self-defense, or hunting.

"..conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." might include requiring that everybody who wants to own a gun has to get a permit, and have a background check, conditions and qualifications that already pertain to purchases through gun stores, but not through private gun shows.

"...laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." That certainly seems to challenge the NRA's idea that more guns in schools is a good idea.

And perhaps most striking, the majority ruling in Heller specifically leaves open the question of whether the public has a right to carry "concealed weapons", a bedrock claim of gun rights advocates.

Despite these critical qualifications, gun rights advocates say they are protected by the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, yet selectively ignore the many ways the court allows for some forms of gun control. And despite the way the court enshrines gun ownership as a personal right, gun control advocates criticize the ruling, yet selectively fail to acknowledge or try to take political advantage of the ways it gives them the legal ammunition to accomplish much of what they want. Why is that?

First, of course, because few of us have read the ruling. We take our news in bits and bites from the media, and rarely dig any further. (I hadn't read the ruling until just the other day.) In fact, many of us don't really read or watch or listen to the news at all. We get our information from advocates, or friends, or social connections, sources who generally share and thus only reinforce our ideologies and basic values.

Those values are what the fight over gun control is really about, of course. It's not about weapons or self defense or even the specific right to own a firearm. It is a surrogate for the battle being waged in the United States over the basic way society should be organized and operate. The most adamant most closed-minded gun rights advocates want guns less to protect themselves against physical danger and more to fight back against the threat of a society they feel is taking away their ability to control their own lives. You can hear that message laced through the recent Alex Jones interview by Piers Morgan.

As I wrote just after the Newtown shooting,

"People with these concerns have been identified by research into the Theory of Cultural Cognition as Individualists, people who prefer a society that grants the individual more freedom and independence and leaves them more personally in control of their individual choices and values. Contrast that with the sort of society preferred by Communitarians, who feel most comfortable, and safest, in a 'We're all in it together' world of shared control and communal power, a society that that sacrifices some individual freedoms in the name of the greater common good. These deeply conflicting worldviews drive the central conflict in the fight over gun control."

Those deep underlying tribal affiliations are important to us social animals, since we depend on our tribes for our health and safety. Being a member of the tribe in good standing feels safe. Disagreeing with the tribe risks social rejection, which feels scary. So when a Supreme Court ruling supports an Individualist sort of society, Individualists celebrate, and selectively reject or ignore how the ruling also supports Communitarian goals. Communitarian gun control people do the same sort of selective perception, criticizing the ruling because it threatens their sort of society, and failing to acknowledging the parts that support them, because doing so would weaken their attack on the ruling's support of Individualist goals.

There is actually a ray of hope in all this. There's legal support in the Heller ruling for both sides. More than that, the ruling protects some of the underlying tribal imperatives of both Individualists and Communitarians. That allows each tribe to give some ground but maintain the vital self-identities that truly motivate this conflict. If more people were aware of the details of Heller, the ruling may provide grounds for some compromise in this battle, and undermine the credibility and impact of the people at the extremes (mostly the virulently closed-minded 'take no prisoners' gun rights folks, I have to say) who think their values matter more than playing by America's basic rules.

So may I humbly ask that you do society a small favor? No matter what side you're on, if you care about the gun violence issue, please send this blog around to anyone else you know who cares. Send it to your government representatives. By doing so, perhaps we can all see if this ray of hope for some compromise on gun violence, which more and more Americans want in the wake of the slaughter of those kids in Newtown, is more than just one person's naïve optimism that we can still find ways, on even the most contentious issues, to work together.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you read the 2008 Supreme Court decision that gives all Americans the right to own guns? Probably not. I hadn't, until the other day, when I was stunned to find that the decision is hardly the blanket protection for gun ownership that the National Rifle Association and adamant gun ...

# data[].attributes.body
This PDF is about the ban on handguns in the district of Columbia. And how this ban violates the second amendment by limiting the choices of guns people

# data[].attributes.body
This website tells you whats the second amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
He is a United States House of Representatives Majority Whip who wants more gun control.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scalise on Vegas shooting, his view of the Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On 'The Story,' the House Majority Whip reflects on being targeted for being Republican, divisiveness and hate speech, his goals moving forward.

# data[].attributes.body
The right to be able to carry arms in public.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a California law that places strict limits on carrying guns in public.

As is their custom, the justices gave no reasons for deciding not to hear the case. The court has turned away numerous Second Amendment cases in recent years, to the frustration of gun-rights groups and some conservative justices.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented. The court's refusal to hear the case, Justice Thomas wrote, "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."

"For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force," Justice Thomas wrote, "the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a state denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it."

The court has seldom addressed the scope of Second Amendment rights. In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

Since then, the court has said little about what other laws may violate the Second Amendment. In the lower courts, few challenges to gun control laws since the Heller decision have succeeded.

But legal experts say it is only a matter of time before the court confronts the question of whether and how the Second Amendment applies outside the home.

The case, Peruta v. California, No. 16-894, concerned a state law that essentially bans carrying guns openly in public and allows carrying concealed weapons only if applicants can demonstrate good cause. The challengers, several individuals and gun-rights groups, sued San Diego and Yolo Counties, saying that officials there interpreted good cause so narrowly as to make it impossible to carry guns in public for self-defense.

San Diego, for instance, defined good cause to require proof that the applicant was "in harm's way," adding that "simply fearing for one's personal safety alone is not considered good cause."

In a 7-to-4 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said there was no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon.

"Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment - whatever the scope of that protection may be - simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public," Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority.

The court did not decide whether the Second Amendment allows leeway for states to ban carrying guns in public.

"There may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public," Judge Fletcher wrote. "The Supreme Court has not answered that question, and we do not answer it here."

The Supreme Court also turned down a second case on gun rights, this one about the constitutionality of a law prohibiting people convicted of serious crimes from owning guns. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor noted that they would have granted review, but they gave no reasons.

The case concerned a federal law that prohibits possessing a gun after a conviction of "a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." The law has an exception for "any state offense classified by the laws of the state as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less."

In separate cases, two Pennsylvania men said the law was unconstitutional as applied to them.

They were convicted of minor and nonviolent crimes decades ago, they said, and received no jail time. Though the laws under which they were convicted allowed for the theoretical possibility of sentences longer than two years, they argued, they should not have been stripped of a constitutional right for that reason.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled in their favor.

In urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, Sessions v. Binderup, No. 16-847, the Justice Department said the appeals court had "opened the courthouse doors to an untold number of future challenges by other individuals based on their own particular offenses, histories and personal circumstances."

"The decision below," the government's brief said, "threatens public safety and poses serious problems of judicial administration because it requires judges to make ad hoc assessments of the risks of allowing convicted felons to possess firearms - a high-stakes task that Congress has already determined cannot be performed with sufficient reliability, and one for which the judiciary is particularly ill suited."

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A13 of the New York edition with the headline: Supreme Court Rejects Another Case on Guns. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Turns Down Case on Carrying Guns in Public

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a California law that places strict limits on carrying guns in public. As is their custom, the justices gave no reasons for deciding not to hear the case.

# data[].attributes.body
Steve Scalise supports it because he want their to be more control.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, who is still recovering from being shot at a congressional baseball practice in June, said Sunday night's mass shooting at a country music festival in Las Vegas has only solidified his support for the Second Amendment.

In an interview aired Tuesday night on Fox News, Martha MacCallum asked the Louisiana Republican whether the Las Vegas attack or his own personal experience changed his views on gun rights.

"I think it's fortified it, because first of all you've got to recognize that when there is a tragedy like this, the first thing we should be thinking about is praying for the people who were injured and doing whatever we can to help them, to help law enforcement," Mr. Scalise said.

"We shouldn't first be thinking of promoting our political agenda. And I think we see too much of that, where people say OK, now you have to have gun control," he said. Well, first of all, look at some of those bills. Those bills wouldn't have done anything to stop this. I mean, the gunmen actually cleared background checks."

In June, Mr. Scalise was playing in a congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, when a leftist gunman, specifically targeting Republican Congress members, opened fire from behind the third-base dugout, wounding Mr. Scalise and three others.

In Las Vegas, a gunman opened fire from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, killing 59 people and injuring more than 500 others who were attending the Route 91 Harvest music festival across the street. Police later recovered 47 guns from the shooter's hotel room.

Sunday's attack, now considered the deadliest mass shooting in recent U.S. history, has renewed calls from many Democrats urging stricter gun control.

Mr. Scalise argued Tuesday that Americans use guns "every single day" to protect themselves against criminals, but that story hardly ever gets told.

"To promote some kind of gun control, I think, is the wrong way to approach this," he said. "And frankly, what I experienced was when there was a shooter, luckily we had Capitol Police with their own guns. Every single day in America, regular citizens that have a passionate belief in the Second Amendment, that have their own guns, use guns every single day to protect themselves against criminals, and those stories never get told or hardly ever get told.

"People use guns way more to defend themselves from criminals, than criminals using guns to hurt people," he added.

Click to Read More

Click to Hide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Steve Scalise: Las Vegas shooting 'fortified' my support for the Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, who is still recovering from being shot at a congressional baseball practice in June, said Sunday night's mass shooting at a country music festival in Las Vegas has only solidified his support for the Second Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
This shows how we over exaggerate  about guns. We only care about guns only when something bad happens