In 2008, Kamala Harris signed on to a District Attorneys' friend-of-the-court brief in D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court's leading Second Amendment case. Of course, she may have changed her views on the Second Amendment since then (perhaps in light of precedents such as Heller); and she may have different personal views than the ones she expressed as a D.A. (though note that she signed on to the brief as a signatory, and not just as a lawyer for the signatories). But this brief likely tells us something about her views on the Second Amendment.

[1.] To begin with, the brief urged the Court to reverse the decision below, and thus to reinstate D.C.'s handgun ban. Thus, Harris's view in that case was that the Second Amendment doesn't preclude total bans on handgun possession.

[2.] The brief also came at a time when the great majority of federal courts (including the Ninth Circuit, which covered Harris's jurisdiction, San Francisco) viewed the Second Amendment as not securing any meaningful individual right of members of the public to personally keep and bear arms. Rather, those courts viewed the Second Amendment as endorsing (to quote the then-existing Ninth Circuit precedent, which the brief itself later cited),

the "collective rights" model, [which] asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons.

Under this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as due process, equal protection, and the like.

And the brief supported that majority view among federal courts: Affirming the D.C. Circuit decision, which rejected the collective rights model and recognized an individual right to own guns,

could inadvertently call into question the well settled Second Amendment principles under which countless state and local criminal firearms laws have been upheld by courts nationwide.

Thus, Harris's view in that case was thus that the "collective rights" view of the Second Amendment was correct, since that was the "settled Second Amendment principle[]" in lower federal courts at the time.

[3.] Now the brief also said that "The District Attorneys do not focus on the reasons for the reversal [that it was urging], however, leaving these arguments to Petitioners and other amici." Nonetheless, it argued that,

For nearly seventy years, courts have consistently sustained criminal firearms laws against Second Amendment challenges by holding that, [among other things], (i) the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms, (ii) the Second Amendment does not apply to legislation passed by state or local governments, and (iii) the restrictions bear a reasonable relationship to protecting public safety and thus do not violate a personal constitutional right. The lower court's decision, however, creates a broad private right to possess any firearm that is a "lineal descendant" of a founding era weapon and that is in "common use" with a "military application" today.

The federal and state courts have upheld state and local firearms laws, as well as criminal convictions thereunder, against Second Amendment challenges on three primary grounds. In holding the D.C. laws at issue to be unconstitutional, the decision below undermines each of these grounds, which also could be cast into doubt by an affirmance in this case.

First, courts nationwide have upheld criminal gun laws on the basis that the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms. See, e.g., Scott v. Goethals, No. 3-04-CV-0855, 2004 WL 1857156, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2004) (affirming conviction under Texas Penal Code 46.02 for unlawfully carrying a handgun because Second Amendment does not provide a private right to keep and bear arms); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052,1087 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that California residents challenging constitutionality of California's Assault Weapons Control Act lacked standing because Second Amendment provides militia-related right to keep and bear arms); State v. Brecunier, 564 N.W.2d 365, 370 (Iowa 1997) (upholding firearm sentence enhancement because defendant "had no constitutional right to be armed while interfering with lawful police activity").

The lower court's sweeping reasoning undermines each of the principal reasons invoked by those courts that have upheld criminal firearms laws under the Second Amendment time and again. First, under the lower court's analysis, the Constitution protects a broad "individual" constitutional right, one that is not militia-related, to possess firearms.

This certainly seems to me like approval of the principle listed as (i) in the brief, which is the view that "the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms."

Now perhaps this passage could be read as simply describing what courts were doing, or as suggesting that the Supreme Court could either adopt principle (i) or perhaps some of the other principles instead. But it certainly sounds to me like an endorsement of the "only a militia-related right to bear arms" view, especially since that's the lower federal courts' "well settled Second Amendment principle[]" to which the brief had earlier alluded (see item 2 above).

Plus principle (ii) is an endorsement of the view (rejected by the Court two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago) that states and localities can institute whatever gun bans they want (even total gun bans) without violating the Second Amendment. And even if we focus on principle (iii), under which gun laws are constitutional if they "bear a reasonable relationship to protecting public safety," the brief was supporting a total handgun banif that is permissible on the theory that it "bear[s] a reasonable relationship to protecting public safety," then I would think a total ban on all guns would be, too.

The brief closed with a suggestion that "the Court exercise judicial restraint and explicitly limit its decision to the three discrete provisions of the D.C. Code on which it granted certiorari" (the handgun ban, a licensing requirement, and the requirement that guns be stored disassembled or bound with a trigger lock), because "This would avoid needless confusion and uncertainty about the continued viability and stare decisiseffect of this Court'sand other courts'prior Second Amendment jurisprudence."

This passage doesn't expressly urge the Court to adopt a particular line of reasoning. But, again, the first principle that the brief mentioned, and the one most clearly consistent with lower federal courts' "prior Second Amendment jurisprudence," was that the Second Amendment didn't secure an individual right that ordinary citizens could exercise in their daily lives. It sounds like that is at least one approach that the brief is endorsing.

So, to summarize:

An article by Cam Edwards (Bearing Arms) on Aug. 11 made a similar argument in concluding that"Kamala Harris Doesn't Think You Have the Right To Own a Gun" (to quote its original title), but an Agence-France Press "Fact Check" on Aug. 18labeled that claim "false." I find the "Fact Check" quite unpersuasive, at least as to the specific question of Harris's views on the right to own a gun.

AFP writes, "Rather than outright opposition to gun ownership, Harris has supportedlegislation aimed at increasing safety." It may well be that Harris wouldn't promote a statute banning guns outright. But her brief states that she thinks governments have the constitutional power to ban at least all handguns, and likely guns more generally.

AFP writes, "Nor has she called for the destruction of the Second Amendment, whichsays: '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.'" But she has endorsed, as I read it, the view that the Second Amendment doesn't protect a normal individual right to own guns, rather protecting only a "collective right" under which states can limit gun ownership to members of a state-designated "militia."

AFP goes on to say, "Legal scholars, however, say that although Harris supported the amicus brief, it is false to conclude from it that she believesas the article claims'you don't have the right to own a gun'":

"The brief in question is not about whether there is an individual right under the Second Amendment. It is about the crime-related consequences of invalidating the DC handgun law at issue in Heller," Aziz Huq, of the University of Chicago Law School, told AFP by email. Huq studies how constitutional design interacts with individual rights and liberties.

Adam Winkler, a specialist in gun policy at the UCLA School of Law, made a similar argument.

"This statement is false," he said of the article's claim.

"The brief she supported argued that DC's gun laws should be upheld but not because there was no right to own a gun," Winkler said in an email to AFP.

"Rather, the brief argued that the laws should be upheld because there is a tradition of gun restrictions, and DC's were reasonable regulations," said Winkler, the author of "Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America."

Again, for the reasons I gave above, I think Profs. Huq and Winkler are mistaken. The brief does seem to endorse the collective rights view of the Second Amendment, under which there really is no right to own a gun. And, again, at the very least the brief endorses the view that all handguns could be banned, consistently with the Second Amendment.

Finally, the brief turns to another scholar:

The amicus brief which Harris joined argued "that at least as far as the Second Amendment is concerned, it doesn't relate to private rights," said [Jake] Charles, of the Duke Center for Firearms Law.

But he added: "I'm not sure it's fair to claim that as her current position given that the Supreme Court decided in Heller that people do have that right, and I haven't seen her questioning the Heller decision."

Here, I agree that (1) the amicus brief does take the view that the Second Amendment doesn't protect any "private rights," and (2) we can't be certain that this remains her view today. But it is at least plausible that her views about the subject haven't changed, and that if she could participate in reshaping the Supreme Court, she would reshape it in favor of reversing the Heller decision, and moving the law back to a view under which "the Second Amendment doesn't relate to private rights."

View post:

Kamala Harris on the Second Amendment Reason.com - Reason

riends who own guns, and nearly three-quarters have fired a gun. The prevalence of gun violence and gun ownership has made gun controlamong the most hotly (and frequently)contested issues in the United States.

Advocates for gun control want tighter restrictions on the sale, possession, and use of firearms, while advocates of gun rights see ownership as an essential right protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The debate heats up each time a mass shootingdefined as a shooting involving the death or injury of four or more peopleoccurs, which now happens, on average, every day in the United States. Six of the 10 deadliest U.S. shootings have happened in the past decade.

Reform advocates point to evidence showingfewer people die from gun violence in states with strong gun laws. Case in point: Alaska has the highest gun death rate and some of the weakest gun laws, while Hawaii has the lowest gun death rate and some of the strongest gun laws.Advocates for reform have steadily gathered momentum:Some young survivors of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting, for example,have proposed a blueprint for comprehensive gun control. Everytown for Gun Safety, founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has spent millions of dollars to promote gun control through ballot initiatives and state elections and has challenged the clout of the National Rifle Association (NRA) at the federal level. From 2017 to 2019there was a rise in the amount of Americans who support stricter gun laws.

Meanwhile, well-organized and well-funded groupssuch as the NRA, along with more hardline groups such as Gun Owners of America, fight hard in WashingtonD.C.for lawmakers support. Gun advocates argue that more guns, not less, will help to prevent or stop shootingsand that stricter gun-control laws will only keep guns out of the hands of honest people.

As gun violence spread to protests and the presidential election looms, the debate over guns in the United States only amplifies. Here are 25 terms critical to understanding and participating in the conversation about the issue.

You may also like: How Americans feel about 30 major issues

Read the rest here:

25 terms you should know to understand the gun control debate - Daily Local News

The Supreme Court decision which opened the door to allow almost any American to own firearms specifically stated that the Second Amendment does not prohibit laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places.

In the District of Columbia vs. Heller in 2008, the court ruled 5-4 that citizens have the right to possess firearms even when not in a state militia, and people can use them for lawful purposes, which include self-defense in their homes, according to Britannica.com.

Using that backdrop, an armed caravan driving into the center of Portland to confront a group of protesters with whom they strongly disagree should have been disarmed by the police.

The court referred to schools and government buildings as examples of sensitive places but it is hard to imagine any place more sensitive than a protest line being openly challenged by a caravan of armed counter-protesters.

We have seen twice in less than a week that the presence of gun-toting vigilantes has resulted in unnecessary deaths during protests that were against unnecessary deaths.

Defending ones homes with lethal force is legal. Racing to a protest with ones personal armory is ridiculous, often dangerous and in no way defendable.

Police departments should bar firearms in any future similar situations.

Here is the original post:

Our view: Heller ruling could be used in 'sensitive' locations - Journal Inquirer

Black Lives Matter and others hold a peaceful protest in Carson City on Aug. 29, 2020.(Photo: JASON BEAN)

A firearm accidentally discharged towardthe end ofa Black Lives Matter protest Saturdayin Carson City could have had disastrous consequences, according to law enforcement.

The moral to this weekend is guns and demonstrations dont belong in the same place at the same time," Carson City Sheriff Ken Furlong said. "Unfortunately, there are no laws against it. People who are carrying weapons need to apply extra safety measures. Its their responsibility. Folks attending demonstrations should really think twice about carrying a weapon down there. We got very lucky.

Had the circumstances been different, people could have been hurt and it could have been a disaster.

In video footage shot by This is Reno reporter Don Dike Anukam, a gunshot can be heard going off at the Carson City capital complex. The gunshot goes off about an hour and a half into the video as Anukam is interviewing someone.

Anukam started streaming on Facebook Live just after 4 p.m., which places the gunshot at around 5:30 p.m.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Furlong said the protest started around 2 p.m., and that the gunshot happened after most protesters had left the area.

"The incident followed the end of the weekly demonstration that was otherwise peaceful," Furlong said in a prepared statement Tuesday.

After the gunshot, Anukam turns the camera toward Carson Street, where a man in a red shirt is shown on his knees next to a large firearm with his hands raised above his head. As law enforcement approach him, the man stands up and steps away from the gun.

In the video footage, the firearm is seized by law enforcement and the man is questioned for about 20 minutes. Anukam stops the man as he is walking away from law enforcement and asks him what happened.

The man identifies himself as Grant McBeth, 22, of Sparks, and says the discharge is accidental.

My rifle was this way, pointed upward with the sling on, he tells Anukam. I accidentally placed my hand where the trigger was.

News: The story behind the photo that came to define the Black Lives Matter protest in Minden

Before McBeth can describe what happened after, someone advises him to stop talking. While on camera, McBeth tells a woman that the discharge was an accident.

Furlong said the bullet came from a knockoff version of an AK-47 and that the bullet went straight into the air.

Everybody recognized from the onset this was not a shootingbut an accidental discharge, Furlong said. He did not intend the gun to go off.

Furlong added, "Its ridiculous that he had this weapon on fire and not on safe The onus is on the person carrying the weapon.

Nevada law allows citizens to open carry firearms without any sort of safety training, according to Sharon Oren, owner of Maccabee Arms Ltd. in Reno.

News: Someone wrote 'Black Lives Matter' in the Black Rock Desert. It's 4 miles wide.

Theoretically, you can just have one on you, he said. Now, responsible gun ownership is responsible gun ownership. If you own a firearm, be proficient with it. This is the type of person giving the Second Amendment and responsible gun owners a bad name.

To conceal carry a weapon in Nevada, gun owners must take an eight-hour class, he said.

Furlong said the case will go to the Carson City District Attorneys Office for review to see if McBeth should be charged.

We hope that everybody calms down from the weekend and this past weekends events dont become agitation sources, he said.

Amy Alonzo covers the outdoors, recreation and environment for Nevada and Lake Tahoe.Reach her at aalonzo@gannett.comor (775) 741-8588.Here's how you can support ongoing coverage and local journalism.

Read or Share this story: https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2020/09/01/carson-city-black-lives-matter-protest-gun-accidentally-discharged/3450766001/

Read more from the original source:

Carson City sheriff: Accidental firearm discharge at BLM protest 'could have been a disaster' - Reno Gazette-Journal

PENDLETON Pendleton Police Chief Stuart Roberts praised the proactive safety planning of organizers with the Black Lives Matter protest on Saturday, Aug. 29, as a key in keeping the event peaceful.

And aside from a few minor incidents between some protesters and counterprotesters, the planning paid off.

I think what really gave us an opportunity to prepare to the best of our ability was the willingness on the part of the BLM organizers to communicate, Roberts said on Aug. 31.

Roberts said he held five meetings with the protests organizers Briana Spencer, Nolan Bylenga and John Landreth in the days leading up to the event, and said they were communicative, engaged, and flexible in their planning.

Roberts said he also made contact with those associated with the counterprotest, which he noted as being more loosely organized.

In addition to 11 Pendleton police officers stationed at the event, Roberts said there were also two deputies from the Umatilla County Sheriffs Office, two officers from the Umatilla Tribal Police Department and 10 troopers from Oregon State Police providing assistance on Aug. 29.

While police had a number of operational and contingency plans in place ahead of time, according to Roberts, there was still the need to be fluid and reactive to unexpected events.

Probably the most significant thing that occurred that wasnt anticipated was when some of the Three Percenters decided to rush the back of the march and created a lot of conflict, he said.

As the protests planned speeches ended at Roy Raley Park on Southwest Court Avenue, those with the Black Lives Matter group took to the streets of Pendleton, while law enforcement officers helped block and secure the route from other traffic as planned.

However, some counterprotesters carrying flags and firearms, who were standing on the south side of Court Avenue quickly crossed the street and attempted to follow the march. That resulted in verbal jawing and minor pushing and shoving between some protesters and counterprotesters while Pendleton police, including Roberts himself, tried to keep the groups separated.

At one point, Roberts said a firearm from one of the counterprotesters fell to the ground, exemplifying the heightened safety risks brought on by those who introduced firearms to the event.

I get the whole Second Amendment piece of this, but why carry the firearm? Roberts said.

Though the counterprotest claimed to be there to voice support for police, Roberts said the actions and intentions of some in attendance were merely antagonistic.

When I challenged them verbally they wanted to debate with me their rights and said they were here to support the police, Roberts said of the counterprotesters who tried to trail the march. My position is youre not supporting me by creating more work for me or making my job more difficult.

As the march returned to Roy Raley Park and participants on both sides began dispersing shortly after 6 p.m., a small group of Black Lives Matter protesters remained on the north side of Court and traded obscenities, insults and offensive gestures with a group of counterprotesters who remained on the south side until groups left sometime after 10 p.m.

The fact that we have to stand there for multiple hours and endure that Im less than impressed, Roberts said. Its not representative of this community and, quite frankly, its offensive to a lot of people.

Along with trying to keep each group to their respective side of the street, Roberts said nearly every officer at the protest was on overtime pay.

Make no mistake, it was an expensive day for the city and state, Roberts said.

Roberts also provided a written statement to organizers that was read at the start of the event and supported protesters voicing their pain over the killings of George Floyd and other people of color, which he condemned as inexcusable, while urging protesters to hold officials accountable and seek change peacefully.

Rest assured, I applaud your unwillingness to accept the status quo, but I also challenge you to do everything within your power to affect the change you seek through peaceful dialogue and debate, not just presenting problems with no thoughtful solutions, Bylenga read from Roberts statement.

Roberts stressed his statements werent political or personal but were completely his own words and thoughts on the current protest movement.

I cant think of a more contemporary issue that requires leaders to lead than this activity thats going on currently across this nation involving civil unrest, Roberts said.

After the event, Bylenga, a local organizer and Democratic candidate for House District 58, praised the efforts of police to maintain safety between the groups.

Chief Roberts has done everything in his power to let everyone here exercise their rights, Bylenga said.

A Facebook message from one person associated with organizing the counterprotest indicated they couldnt be reached for comment by deadline on Aug. 29. A message from the East Oregonian to the person listed as the host of the protests Facebook event went unanswered.

More:

Pendleton police chief praises proactive planning of BLM organizers - East Oregonian

by Charles C.W. Cooke - Saturday, August 29, 2020

Defenders of the right to keep and bear arms might be forgiven for wondering whether the U.S. Supreme Courts copy of the United States Constitution is missing a few pages.

It has been twelve years since the Court affirmed in D.C. v. Heller that the right of the people to keep and bear arms actually means the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and ten years since the court affirmed in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal governmentand yet, as valuable as those decisions are, the last decade has made it clear that the U.S. Supreme Court is not especially interested in ensuring that they are enforced. In June, the justices continued this unfortunate trend by denying certiorari on no fewer than ten Second Amendment cases. For now, then, the right will remain a mere abstraction to the nations network of courts.

This matters, as it is difficult to think of another right that has been so willfully ignored and abused by our lower-court judges. In case after case, panels at the state and circuit levels have elected either to pretend that Heller and McDonald never happened at all, or, alternatively, to parse their language so carefully as to render those cases meaningless. Despite this insubordinationand it is just that: insubordinationthe Court has done nothing.

This abdication of responsibility has not sat well with all of the justices. Teaming up first with Justices Scalia and Alito, and then with Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Justice Clarence Thomas has taken to dissenting when the Court declines to take an important gun case. The Second Amendment, Thomas has complained, is a disfavored right in this Court, and its steadfast refusal to consider gun-related appeals stands in marked contrast to the Courts willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. Ultimately, Thomas has concluded, the Courts unwillingness to step in has had the effect of relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.

In and of itself, the Courts refusal to do its job is a big problem: A right delayed, we are told, is a right denied. But, as time rolls on, it is hard not to agree with Justice Thomas when he suggests that the continued refusal to hear Second Amendment cases only enables this kind of defiance. In law, as elsewhere, human beings respond to incentives, and at present, the incentives all line up in the wrong direction. Why did the Fourth and Seventh Circuits ignore the plain language of Heller in upholding bans on the most commonly owned rifles in America? Why has the Ninth Circuit allowed California to turn the right to carry into a privilege for the well-connected? Why do New Jerseys flagrantly illegal gun laws still exist? Because the judges who heard those cases knew that the chance of their work being reviewed and overturned by the Supreme Court was vanishingly small, and they acted accordingly.

For those of us who believe that the U.S. Constitution should be read and upheld as it is written, it has proven extremely frustrating that the U.S. Supreme Court seems willing to involve itself in all sorts of areas that are not mentioned anywhere in the document, but seems unwilling to protect a right that is explicitly mentioned in the text. That most of Americas progress in restoring the Second Amendment has come from the people themselves is a blessing indeed; the story of the last three decades has been the story of legislatures, at the behest of voters, changing their laws to minimize restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. But we have a Constitution so that the people who are left behind have somewhere to appeal. For now, at least, the Court seems to have shut its doors on them.

Read the original:

Parting Shot: The U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Give Us Our Freedom - America's 1st Freedom

First lady Melania Trump closes the second night of the Republican National Convention with an address on opportunity in America, but also division. Associated Press

The second night of the Republican National Convention painted a picture of a compassionate White House in action. But it also showed the blurring of long-standing traditions, and maybe laws, about not mixing politics and government.

President Donald Trump pardoned a man who robbed a Nevada bank and now runs a nonprofit. Trump conducted a small naturalization ceremony inside the White House. Mike Pompeo broke from previous secretaries of state by not only giving a convention address, but doing so from Jerusalem.

First lady Melania Trump wrapped up the night with a speech from the renovated Rose Garden, telling a largely unmasked audience seated on the lawn that her husbands administration has been relentless in its effort to find a vaccine or treatment for COVID-19.

"Donald will not rest until he has done all he can to take care of everyone impacted by this terrible pandemic," she said.

Before ending her address, she alluded to her husbands brash reputation. "Total honesty is what we as citizens deserve from our president," she said. "Whether you like it or not, you always know what he's thinking."

Her speech didnt leave much work for fact-checkers, but other remarks from the presidents adult children, a former impeachment lawyer and his economic adviser did.

Experts also hadplenty to sayabout top administration officials possibly violating the Hatch Act, a 1939 law that limits government officials from mixing political activities with their official duties.

Heres what we fact-checked from the RNCs second night.

Eric Trump, son of U.S. President Donald Trump, pre-records his address to the Republican National Convention at the Mellon Auditorium on August 25, 2020 in Washington, DC. 603791(Photo: Drew Angerer, Getty Images)

"Biden has pledged to defund the police and take away your cherished Second Amendment."

Both claims areFalse.

Biden has directlysaidhe does not support defunding the police. He said that abuse of power in police departments must stop and reforms are needed. But hes said police departments should be given the money they need to institute changes. Biden proposed an additional $300 million for community policing.

Bidensplan to end gun violencecalls for banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and for the regulation of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. His plan also calls for a buy back of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. But it does not say the Second Amendment should be revoked. "Its within our grasp to end our gun violence epidemic and respect the Second Amendment, which is limited," his plan says.

In a heated exchange with an auto worker in Detroit in March, Bidenrejectedthe idea that he supported taking guns away from people.

"Biden has pledged to stop border wall construction and give amnesty and health care to all illegal immigrants."

Some elements of this claim are true but need clarification.

Biden hassaid"there will not be another foot of wall constructed" if he is elected president. "I'm going to make sure that we have border protection, but it's going to be based on making sure that we use high-tech capacity to deal with it and at the ports of entry," Biden said during aninterviewaired Aug. 6.

Bidensayshe supports a path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million people living illegally in the country; they would have to have paid taxes and pass a background check. Some argue any path is a form of amnesty. Thecommon reference for amnestyin modern U.S. politics is the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, signed by President Ronald Reagan. The law paved the way for immigrants who were in the country illegally to become lawful permanent residents if they met certain requirements, including being in the country by Jan. 1, 1982.

Biden hassaidthat people should have access to health care, regardless of immigration status; he has not said it should be free. A task force comprised of appointees of Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.recommendedthat Biden extend Affordable Care Act coverage to immigrants illegally in the country who are protected from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. It recommended allowing additional immigrants illegally in the country to also buy health insurance, without financial assistance from the government.

"My father on the other hand, delivered the largest tax cuts in American history."

False.Several billssince 1980 were larger than the2017 tax bill, measured not only by contemporary dollars but also by inflation-adjusted dollars and as a percentage of gross domestic product, which is a measure of the size of the overall economy. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the recent tax bill is the fourth-largest since 1940. And as a percentage of GDP, it ranks seventh.Weve summarized the tax laws here.

"A corrupt Ukrainian oligarch put Hunter on the board of his gas company, even though he had no experience in Ukraine or in the energy sector. None. Yet he was paid millions to do nothing."

Bondi has a point that Hunter hadno experience in Ukraine or the energy sector.

Despite the lack of expertise, he joined the board of Burisma beginning in 2014 when his father as vice president was publicly representing U.S. policy on the country, which had become the center of a tug-of-war between Russia and the West.

Most of thecriticismwevefoundfocused on the conflict of interest Hunter Biden created by accepting the position. We foundno evidenceto suggest Joe Biden did anything wrong or inappropriate in his official capacity as vice president.

Hunter Bidens work attracted attention at the time. Theoligarch behind the firm, Mykola Zlochevsky, faced investigations for money laundering and tax evasion. (Zlochevsky and the company have denied the allegations.)

Staff at the State Department said they expressed concerns in 2015 when Hunter Biden started serving on the board of Burisma.

The details of what Hunter did have been mysterious.Reuters, using unnamed sources, reported that Hunter weighed in during scheduled meetings but did little of substance. The report suggests he was compensated for contributing his high-profile name.

Exactly how much Hunter Biden was paid remains unclear. As a director, Biden made up to $50,000 per month some months,according tothe New York Times. He left Burisma in spring 2019, around the time that the elder Biden announced his 2020 presidential run.

In 2019, the Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives launched animpeachment inquiryinto Trump for withholding aid to Ukraine while asking the government there to look into the Bidens activities.

Wefound no evidencethat Hunter Biden himself was investigated by Ukrainian or American authorities for his role as a board member of Burisma.

Read more of our fact-checking of Bondi's case against the Bidensin this story.

Tiffany Trump speaks during the Republican National Convention at the Mellon Auditorium in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2020.(Photo: Republican National Convention)

"And if you believe in expanding quality and affordable healthcare, only President Trump, my father, signed Right to Try into law, the favored nations clause, and other actions to lower drug prices and keep Americans from getting ripped off."

This is somewhat misleading. TheRight to Try lawthat Trump signed in 2018 law allows individuals who have life threatening conditions, have tried all approved treatment options and cannot participate in clinical trials to access unapproved treatments. It did not, however, lower drug prices.

Trump also signed anexecutive orderon July 24, that both hehas referenced as the "favored nations clause." But it has not been put into action. Nor has the text of this executive order been made public, so the details of how it would be executed are unclear. The idea of the "favored nations" proposal is that the U.S. would pay similar prices as European countries do for some Medicare Part B physician-administered drugs. This proposal has been strongly opposed by drugmakers andexperts told usthey were skeptical that it would actually be implemented.

While Trump has long talked about lowering drug prices as one of his top health care goals, he has made little progress in doing so, outside of issuing several executive orders that have yet to be enacted.

Says Joe Biden "voted for the Iraq War He supported war in Serbia, Syria, Libya."

This isMostly True.

Biden as a senator voted for resolutions that supported interventions in Iraq and Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

As vice president, Biden publicly followed the policies of the Obama administration, which included interventions in Syria and Libya. Bidens campaign pointed to 2016 reporting that said Biden within the White House argued against intervention in Libya.

President Donald Trump inherited "a stagnant economy" and then "rebuilt" it.

The idea that Trump inherited a weak economy from President Barack Obama and turned it into a strong one isFalse and that was before COVID-19 through the country back into a recession. In the big picture, Obama inherited the most severe recession in decades. Trump inherited a slow but steady recovery several years in the making.

For instance, for unemployment rates and median weeks of unemployment, the declines under Obama were at least as fast if not faster than they were under Trump, pre-coronavirus. That holds for several racial and ethnic groups as well as women. The pattern of monthly job gains was also similar under both Obama and Trump.

Inflation-adjusted wages fell for much of Obamas first term, but they began rising again during his second term. Their path under Trump has been rising on much the same trajectory.

The poverty rate and food stamp use declined under Trump, but those declines began during Obamas final years in office. The big declines in foreclosures, bankruptcies and bank failures occurred under Obama, with marginal advances under Trump. Even the stock market, which Trump often notes has risen to record highs on his watch, rose at roughly similar rates under both presidents.

Its important to remember that no president has total control over the factors affecting the economy.

The pandemic "was awful. Health and economic impacts were tragic. Hardship and heartbreak were everywhere. But presidential leadership came swiftly and effectively, with an extraordinary rescue for health and safety to successfully fight the coronavirus."

To hear chief White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow say it, the pandemic is in the rearview mirror. There are states, such as Texas and Florida, where a deadly surge has eased. Nationally, however, the death toll continues to climb.

Data from theCovid Tracking Projectshow deaths topping 170,000. And the recent rise in deaths is only slightly less compared with the early months of the pandemic.

TheInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluationat the University of Washington estimates that the number of deaths will exceed 300,000 by Dec. 1. That would be nearly double the deaths seen so far.

Kudlow offered an optimistic picture of the economic recovery and the growth to come, telling Americans to expect 20% growth in a "V-shaped recovery" in the second half of the year.

But much hinges on the course of the virus. Current trends show an ongoing threat to the prosperity Kudlow described.

"Margaret Sanger was a racist who believed in eugenics. Her goal when founding Planned Parenthood was to eradicate minorities."

This statementis misleading.Sanger has been routinely criticized for supporting eugenics the belief of improving the population by controlled breeding for desirable characteristics. But historians and scholars who have studied Sangers life say her opinions concerned public health, and were not specific to race.

The basic concept that humanity could be improved by selective breeding was firmly held belief for many in the years before World War II. Winston Churchill, Herbert Hoover, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells all supported the eugenics movement. The philosophy fell out of favor afterNazis adopted eugenicsto support exterminating non-Aryan races.

Still, Planned Parenthoodrecently announcedthat it would remove Sangers name from its Manhattan Health Center over her eugenics beliefs, and there issome disagreementabout her views and whether they should be reevaluated amid protests against systemic racism and a pandemic that has disproportionately affected minorities.

Sanger was a birth control activist, which means that she wanted women to be able to avoid unwanted pregnancies. The historical record shows she worked for women of all classes and races to have that choice.

Those who call Sanger a racist often cite her work on what was called the Negro Project, an effort that started in 1939 that brought birth control services (but not abortion) to Black communities in the south. Black leaders such as W.E.B. DuBois and Mary McLeod Bethune, founder of the National Council of Negro Women, were members of its advisory council.

Louis Jacobson, Amy Sherman, Samantha Putterman, Jon Greenberg, Miriam Valverde and Kaiser Health News reporter Victoria Knight contributed to this report. Photos by the Associated Press.

Read or Share this story: https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/26/rnc-2020-fact-check/3441820001/

Go here to see the original:

Republican National Convention 2020: Fact-checking the second night - Detroit Free Press