American Jews fight for the Second Amendment
I witnessed something sublime this week -- something a man could only really see here in this greatest of countries. I watched a United States federal court hearing where a small group of patriotic American orthodox Jews are fighting to regain their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Maryland Montgomery County Democrats just passed a law outlawing the right of Jews with concealed-carry permits to bear arms in their own synagogues. Rabbi Menashe Shapiro and members of Silver Spring Jewish Center are suing the Democrats for this shameful, anti-American, egregiously unconstitutional law...
Such a law has never before been seen in America. It basically states that even though a good American citizen may have a concealed-carry permit issued by Maryland, he is not allowed to bring a gun into a synagogue, church, or any other place of religious worship. He also cannot carry a gun in hundreds, if not thousands of spaces designated as 'sensitive' zones...
This is another prime example of how the core part of the new Democrat party relentlessly, passionately, and in a very organized and well-funded fashion attack the foundations of American life...
A good American man or woman may own and carry a gun (not necessarily visible) in public. That man or woman does not have to ask government for permission...
Governments like that of Democrat Maryland cannot try to do the opposite, make an end-run around the Constitution and slowly bleed the Second Amendment to death by a thousand cuts..
Related
Second Amendment: does, by Mike McDaniel, American Thinker, 5 September 2026:
In its next term, the Supreme Court will take up "assault weapon" bans. Such bans refer specifically to the AR-15 rifle family and similar semiautomatic rifles. Not only are they emotional rather than rational, but they're also an attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s Heller and Bruen decisions, which held, among other things, that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right and that controversies must be decided under the Strict Scrutiny standard, the highest standard of judicial review...
From “What Part of Common Use Don’t You Understand?” Mark W. Smith in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:
Because the "in common use" test looks to arms that are in common use today, that test automatically and necessarily protects existing technology, and addresses any contemporary societal concerns stemming from such modern technology. Lower courts are not free to disregard Heller's "in common use" test and instead substitute a "dangerousness" test of their own devising. Doing so is merely "interest balancing" in a different guise, which is prohibited by both Heller and Bruen in Second Amendment challenges to gun-control laws.
That argument against "assault weapons" is that they are so uniquely dangerous that public safety requires their banning. There is no such thing in firearm nomenclature as an "assault weapon." It is an invented term intended to dishonestly conflate classes of automatic weapons such as the military assault rifle with semiautomatic rifles that superficially resemble them. AR-15s outwardly resemble the military, select-fire M4, but there the similarity ends. AR-15s are among the most popular and commonly used guns in America, and fire an intermediate, not a "high-powered" cartridge...
Note: A civilian weapon goes "bang" every time you press the trigger. A military weapon can go "bang, bang, bang, bang..." until you stop pressing the trigger. In firearms terminology, the first is called "semi-automatic" and the latter is called "full-automatic". It is very difficult for civilians to own and operate full-automatic weapons.