OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) The self-proclaimed Second Amendment auditor arrested for allegedly bringing an AR-style rifle into a metro restaurant has bonded out of jail.

Timothy Harper

Timothy Harper bonded out of the Oklahoma County Jail at 7:43 p.m. on Friday, according to a jail official.

Harpers jail exit came hours after Oklahoma County Judge Ray Elliott refused to lower Harpers $100,000 bond. However, the judge did lift the requirement that it be a cash bond.

The judge also added stipulations to the bond, including that if Harper bonds out, he wear an ankle monitor and surrender his weapons.

Harper was arrested for allegedly bringing an AR-style rifle into a Twin Peaks restaurant the day after the new permitless carry law went into effect this month.

The police who arrested him said the law prohibiting rifles in businesses that serve alcohol didnt change.

Harpers attorney argued that the $100,000 bond wasnt appropriate for a crime that carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a $1.000 fine, and that it isnt necessary to ensure hell show up in court for future hearings.

See more here:

Self-proclaimed Second Amendment auditor bonds out of jail after judge refuses bond reduction - KFOR Oklahoma City

Original intent is a term often quoted in Supreme Court rulings. It means what was actually intended at the time that the Constitution was written. The best way to make this determination posthumously is to examine the historical records of society and technology at the time they were written.

In 1787, when the Constitution was written, the majority of the American landmass was under control of Native Americans, slavery was flourishing and the prevailing weapon was the flintlock rifle. Much of the frontier was lawless, and there were frequent clashes between the natives and the people moving onto their lands. According to historical records, there were frequent groups of armed men used to hunt down runaway slaves.

Under these circumstances, it was entirely understandable that there were constitutional protections for militias and gun ownership since the government clearly had a policy of driving the Native Americans from their ancestral lands, the frontier was often lawless and slaves often either rebelled against brutal conditions or attempted an escape to the north or even Canada. Hence the Second Amendment was written and ratified securing the right to hunt down runaway slaves and to force Native Americans from their lands.

In actual practice, the military had the responsibility for driving Native Americans from their lands, and thus the main use of private armed militias was enforcing slavery. These things are well documented in the historical record.

Fast forward to the present, and these conditions have no relevance. Flintlocks have long since been replaced by weapons with lethality far beyond anything imaginable by the writers of the Constitution. Native Americans have long since been driven from their ancestral lands and confined to reservations. Even though the movies have glamorized the posses of cowboys, by far the greatest use of the militia component of the Second Amendment was for the capture of runaway slaves. Slavery has long since been eliminated, and militias have long since been replaced by city, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Yet the Second Amendment still stands as the law of the land in clear violation of the original intent doctrine. Not only is it still the law of the land, but it also has been expanded to allow private ownership of weapons of war that have unleashed mayhem within our cities.

Can anyone claim that this was what our founding fathers anticipated?

If a challenge to the Second Amendment were to be taken to the Supreme Court, the outcome would depend upon whether the justices were to own up to the reality that exists today or vote to stick with the president and Senate that put them onto the court. Often the Supreme Court justices bend to their political base rather than the original intent that they claim.

Read the original:

Original intent and the Second Amendment - Post Register

FLORENCE COUNTY, Wisc. (WLUC) - Florence County is the first county in Wisconsin to become a Second Amendment Sanctuary County. The Florence County Board of Supervisors passed their resolution Tuesday night.

Florence County has made history.

"We are the first county in Wisconsin to be a second Amendment Sanctuary County which I think is huge, said Mark Kerznar, a Florence County Citizen.

This is push-back to the red-flag legislation supported by the governor and several lawmakers. The red flag law gives power to the sheriff to confiscate a person's weapons if they're deemed dangerous.

By being a Second Amendment Sanctuary County, the citizens would follow the laws that are deemed constitutional, given and set by the county.

"You can tell tonight we had a full county board room, which usually is not the case, so there is a lot of support here, said Florence County Sheriff, Dan Miller.

The resolution, which has a number of reasons why Florence County decided to become a Second Amendment Sanctuary County, was passed by the board unanimously.

Florence County's Board Chair, Jeanette Bomberg said she has heard no opposition to the resolution from members of Florence County.

"What this means is we listen to our residents and we feel very strongly in the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment, she said.

This resolution will now be sent to the state capitol."This is what we should do is send a message to Madison, and it's going to be out to the other counties in the state of Wisconsin and you know they can do the same thing if they want, said Sheriff Miller.

The full resolution is in the related documents section.

Originally posted here:

Florence County becomes first Second Amendment Sanctuary County in Wisconsin - UpperMichigansSource.com

On a busy Tuesday, three county commissioners courts met and passed resolutions declaring themselves to be Second Amendment sanctuaries.

All passed the measure unanimously.

With the approval of resolutions in Kaufman, Stephens, and Palo Pinto, the number of such sanctuaries in Texas grows to a total of eleven.

The expanding list signals frustration with the increased discussion about stricter firearm regulations and gun control measures, including red flag laws, expanded background checks, and firearm confiscation.

Prior to Tuesday, Edwards, Hudspeth, Presidio, Mitchell, Hood, Parker, Smith, and Ellis counties had passed the pro-Second Amendment resolutions.

Get started today for free and become the most informed Texan you know after your first month, it's just $9.00.

In the resolutions, all counties have said that they will support the county sheriff and will not enforce any unconstitutional firearm restrictions.

As in many of the previous cases, all three sheriffs in the most recent counties to become sanctuaries voiced their support for the measure.

I dont actually get to sign resolutions, said Sheriff Will Holt of Stephens County, but I do want yall the court to know and (to put it) on record with the media and with the folks here that I support this resolution 100 percent.

Sheriff Brett McGuire of Palo Pinto County noted on a social media post how many people have expressed concerns about what certain politicians have spouted off hoping that they could get a sound-bite on the 5 oclock news.

Quite frankly, most of these politicians probably dont know the difference between an AR-15 and a leaf blower (and most of them have never used either one of them), said McGuire. Truth be told, the Sheriffs of Texas are some of your biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment and the remaining rights afforded to you under the Constitution. You see, we have to be. And none of us would have taken this job if we werent.

The practical consequences of the Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions whether potential unconstitutional firearm restrictions will be protected against if current restrictions are left untouched has been questioned.

Regardless of how effective the resolutions might be in the future, those enacting them and those calling for them see the resolutions as a commitment to their belief in and defense of the constitutionally protected right for an individual to keep and bear arms.

A free bi-weekly commentary on current events by Konni Burton.

See the original post:

Kaufman, Palo Pinto, and Stephens Counties Become Second Amendment Sanctuaries - The Texan

Manhattan: Re Warrens Rx, and ours (editorial, Nov. 7): A universal, state-funded health care plan would benefit every New Yorker. Surely the residents of the richest state in the richest nation on Earth can afford the right to health care that residents of every other advanced country already enjoy. As a board member of the Campaign for New York Health, I know that many studies conducted by us and others have shown that the taxes to fund New York Health Act would, in fact, be substantially less than what private insurance premiums, co-pays, and deductibles now cost us, and they would be fairer, based on ability to pay. We should demand that our Legislature take this opportunity to do something wonderful for the residents of this state and make universal, comprehensive, affordable health care available to all of us. Leonard Rodberg, research director, NY Metro Chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program

Read more:

Readers sound off on New York Health Act, the Second Amendment and the Mets - New York Daily News

WASHINGTON Democrats pulled off an upset win to take back Kentuckys governorship earlier this month. So Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin tore a page out the Republicans playbook by insinuating voter fraud, refusing to concede, and claiming a number of irregularities cost him the election.

Call it the sore loser strategy, one that has become commonplace in the Trump era. Trump has long promoted conspiracy theories and made sweeping and baseless claims about voter fraud, which raises a question for 2020: What if President Trump loses and refuses to concede?

Experts fear at minimum it would further damage voters trust in democracy and at worst lead to a constitutional crisis.

There are reasons to be concerned, said Ned Foley, a constitutional law professor at the Ohio State University who specializes in the history of American contested elections. Trump has talked about voter fraud in a way thats not really reality based. That creates a reasonable fear that he might want to reject numerical results that are objectively [correct].

Trump has hinted before that hed reject any election loss.

In 2016, he repeatedly claimed a rigged election was being stolen from him, asked his supporters to monitor urban voting booths and suggested that the Second Amendment people take matters into their own hands if Hillary Clinton won the election. During the final debate, he refused to say hed accept the results if he lost. I will keep you in suspense, Trump said.

READ: Trump gave Democrats their made-for-TV moment on impeachment

Even in victory, Trump obsessively and falsely insisted that hed carried the popular vote as well if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally. He even set up a bogus, taxpayer-funded voter fraud commission to back up his claim. That commission turned up nothing and quietly disbanded after more than a year of controversy.

That didnt stop Trump.

In 2018, he claimed electoral corruption when GOP Senate nominee Martha McSally fell behind in Arizona after leading on election night and election fraud when now-Sen. Rick Scotts (R-Fla.) lead shrank as late votes were counted. Last August, Trump claimed he should have won New Hampshire in 2016 if thousands and thousands of people coming in from locations unknown hadnt shown up to vote.

In recent weeks hes called the House impeachment investigation a coup, accused his opponents of treason, and tweeted a comment made on Fox News by a controversial pastor that his removal from office would cause a Civil War like fracture.

Experts are worried about where Trump is headed. Duke University Professor Peter Feaver, a former member of the National Security Council under President George W. Bush, is concerned enough that hes organized a Nov. 25 conference to discuss best practices for administrations to simultaneously campaign to win reelection and prepare to hand over power in case you lose. Former Obama White House Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough and former Bush 43 White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten are the featured speakers.

Feaver said Trumps rhetoric is at the very least deeply irresponsible, and warned that foreign actors who seek to damage America will look to amplify any claims of fraud, as Russia did in 2016. His worst-case scenario is a genuine constitutional crisis where a states results are in dispute, either because of foreign interference or because one partys nominee simply refuses to concede and seeks to work outside the constitution to hold power.

READ: Trump Tried to Intimidate Marie Yovanovitch as She Testified About His Intimidation

Were not there yet and were not particularly close to it, but were at a stage where its reasonable to just say calm down, folks. This kind of rhetoric leads in a bad direction, Feaver warned.

Bevin, for his part, threatened to fight on, but he ended up quietly conceding after more than a week when a statewide recanvass of ballots showed almost no changes in the vote count. But rather than congratulating his opponent, he instead left with a parting shot, casting doubt on the democratic process.

If the people lose confidence in their ability to actually know that the vote they cast is the one that was tabulated for the person they intended it to be for we lose something in America, he said.

Trump, mysteriously, didnt go to war for Bevin the way he has for other allies. He declined to boost Bevins claims of fraud and instead argued without evidence that his last-minute campaign rally for the governor helped Bevin close a 19-point gap in the polls (no such deficit ever existed in public polling).

That may be because Bevin, as governor, cant help him directly the way that senators can. He also wasnt particularly close to Bevin, and his aversion to losers may have turned him off from helping more Trumps team notably left Bevin off their list of honorary reelection co-chairmen when they included almost every other Kentucky elected official. Or maybe he was just too busy worrying about impeachment.

But other conservative activists stepped up. A wealthy conservative Bevin ally funded robocalls in the state asking voters to report suspicious activity and suspected voter fraud. Judicial Watch President Tom Fittons tweet that Kentucky has weak voter id and dirty election rolls got more than 10,000 retweets. Right-wing Twitter activists and bots amplified an obvious fake account that claimed to have destroyed GOP ballots in the state.

Bevin conceded only after his party refused to stand with him. Republicans have a super-majority in both chambers of the state house and could have stepped in to overturn the election, but they didnt. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who Bevin ran against in 2014, said Bevin should concede if the recanvass didnt go his way.

But Bevin is widely disliked within his own party. Trump, meanwhile, has a firm grip on the Republican base in 2019.

The presidents margins in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan were all less than one percentage point when he won in 2016, and recent polls show tight contests there once again. Arizona, another potential tipping-point state, is notoriously slow at counting votes because of its reliance on mail-in ballots. It often takes days or even weeks to know whos won in close elections there.

The worst-case scenario would be a real constitutional crisis where a key states results are legitimately in question. Floridas 2000 election results are the closest modern analogy, but things could get even worse than that. If both sides dig in a state with split political control, there could be two different, competing certified election results one signed by the secretary of state and another backed by the state legislature.

The last time that happened was in the 1876 presidential election, which ended in controversy and a deal with the devil where Republican Rutherford B. Hayes traded away reconstruction for the White House. If a similar thing happens where a state submits two competing vote certificates, Congress determines which one they accept and if the Senate stays in GOP control and the House in Democrats hands, its unclear how theyd solve anything.

The kind of thing that happened in 2018 in Arizona could spin out of control and take a dispute all the way to Congress. If the Senate went one way and the House goes the other way it could get very ugly, said Foley.

If Trump has clearly lost and refuses to concede, its less likely that his whole party would rally around him to try to upend the election results. Bevin isnt the only recent case where this happened Alabama Republican Roy Moore and Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams are two other recent examples (though Abrams had much more legitimate complaints than the others).

But any claim from Trump that the election is rigged could prove unusually dangerous even if his party doesnt go along. Theres been an uptick in white supremacist violence in recent years and a spike around 2018 elections with the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and the mail bombs a Trump supporter sent to a bevy of Democrats and media outlets.

If its close, where Trump refuses to accept results... the [white supremacist] movement will be riled up and the possibility for violence will be high, said Heidi Bierich, an expert in white supremacist violence at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Cover: Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, right, looks out at the crowd as President Donald Trump watches during a campaign rally in Lexington, Ky., Monday, Nov. 4, 2019. (AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley)

Read more:

The Nightmare Scenario: Trump Loses in 2020 and Refuses to Concede - Broadly

2nd Amendment Rally

Washington D.C. -(Ammoland.com)- On November 2nd at 1:00 PM, gun owners will descend on the lawn of the U.S. for the 2nd Amendment rally.

Gun rights advocates and gun celebrities will take the stage for speeches on the importance of the Second Amendment. This gathering isn't a protest. It is a chance for like-minded people to come together for fellowship and a chance to show those holding political office that gun owners do care about fighting against bad gun laws. We will get active in the political realm.

No one gun rights organization is putting on the one of a kind rally that is taking place on the Capitol lawn. It is an authentic grassroots movement, and people from all over the country are coming to take part in it. AmmoLand will be on-site, covering the speakers and events.

Maj Toure is taking a break from his campaign for Philadelphia City Council to talk about the importance of gun rights. Toure has a gift for electrifying crowds with his pointed improvised speeches. In Richmond, over the summer, Toure's Bacon's Rebellion speech inspired the group like no other speaker I have ever seen before.

Other speakers include Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America. He will be speaking on the attack on the Second Amendment, and what gun owners can do to protect their rights. Pratt is the Executive Vice President of GOA and a lifelong gun-rights advocate.

YouTube stars will be speaking and meeting other gun owners. Eric Blandford of the YouTube channel Iraqveteran8888 will be giving a speech on why he sees the Second Amendment as critical for Americans. He will tell the crowd of his love for the country and why he paid his own way to speak at the rally.

The former Police officer and head of the D.C. Project Dianna Muller will also be up on stage speaking. Muller made waves when she told Congress in no uncertain terms that she will not comply with any unconstitutional laws dealing with modern sporting rifles. In the days since her testimony, her words of I will not comply became a rallying cry for gun rights activists around the country.

Another speaker will be Kevin Dixie of N.O.C. Firearms training. He will bring his unique perspective on gun ownership and the rights of gun owners. Kevin will not throw out talking points. His insight is unique to him.

That point is what I believe this rally will show. We all have different perspectives, and as Americans, we are born with the right to have those views. Without the Second Amendment, we can't safeguard our other rights.

We might not agree on everything. For transparency, I disagree with some of the speakers on issues like background checks and obeying laws I think violates my rights, but that is a part of being in a big tent group. You don't have to agree with everyone.

I had a chance to hold two live streams with some of the speakers of the rally. In the first stream Rob Pincus, Eric Blandford, Dianna Muller, and Maj Toure joined me. I hosted Jeff Knox, Cheryl Todd, Riley Bowman, and Chris Cheng on the second live stream. I was able to dig into the reasons for the rally and get my questions answered.

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at http://www.crumpy.com.

See more here:

Chatting With The Speakers Of The 2nd Amendment Rally - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Photo courtesy of Ruger.

When was the last time you went plinking? You know, shooting for fun in the woods, on the farm or at a range, probably with a .22 LR? Its what got most of us started in shooting and led to a lifetime of enjoyment with firearms. I started shooting with a friends Remington Nylon 66 in Apache Black and chrome, a .22 LR rifle I still lust after. Not long afterward, I was introduced to wing shooting with a .410-Bore shotgun and soon had my own .22 LR rifle, a Winchester 69A bolt-action.

Although you can shoot paper targets, its more fun to shoot other targets when plinking, especially if the target moves or breaks. Way back when, city dumps were left uncovered and afforded an amazing variety of targets for a dedicated plinker. Tin cans, glass bottles and the occasional rat could be hunted and shot in the dump. These days, dumps are covered, shooting isnt allowed and we dont approve of shooting glass anywhere. However, aluminum cans, plastic water bottles and similar objects can be set out and used as targets. Clay birds make good targets, because they break and are biodegradable. Should you wish to spend a little money, there are a huge variety of small-bore steel targets, as well as plastic and rubber targets that can withstand a lot of hits.

Plinking is a terrific family activity and can be used as an opportunity to teach firearms safety, gun handling and marksmanship. Once the basics are mastered, a variety of targets and informal competition can be used to maintain interest and keep everyone entertained. Shooting is fun, and a family plinking session should always be structured as a fun and enjoyable activity. Theres a lot of personal responsibility involved in handling firearms safely, followed by cleaning up and leaving no trash after the shooting session.

I encourage you to introduce some folks to shooting by taking them plinking. Taking a young boy or girl shooting is a fun and rewarding experience for everyone involved, but dont forget to include adults, too. You probably know some people who have never been introduced to shooting and would appreciate an invitation. One of the best things we can do to preserve our sport and strengthen the Second Amendment is getting more people involved in shooting, and plinking is a terrific way to do it.

Go here to read the rest:

Go Plinking. The Second Amendment Depends On It. - Shooting Illustrated

Why Don't People and Vogue Celebrate the Second Amendment? iStock-1145895496

United States/United Kingdom -(AmmoLand.com)-When we talk about the need for the NRA to get involved in cultural engagement in order to establish a pro-Second Amendment culture, some might question the need. After all, Hollywoods bias is well known, its arguably baked into the planning many Second Amendment supporters have. But this will matter a lot even if correction, especially if the Supreme Court case on New York City gun regulations ends up with a favorable ruling.

Why? Think of it this way: In America, while the Constitution protects our God-given rights, the people still rule. The First Amendment not only protects the right of Second Amendment supporters to defend our freedoms, it also protects the right of anti-Second Amendment extremists to encourage the American people to throw out pro-Second Amendment elected officials and replace them with anti-Second Amendment extremists. And we need not kid ourselves: Anti-Second Amendment extremists have been running an incredibly effective long game against our right to keep and bear arms, one that is a full-spectrum fight that includes wielding pop culture against us.

One way is through those magazines you often see in the supermarket, either in the checkout aisle, or where others are stored. Two that blatantly snubbed women who support the Second Amendment in issues celebrating women who made a difference are People and the British edition of Vogue, the latter guest-edited by Meghan Markle.

But in those two magazines, we saw three anti-Second Amendment presidential candidates, a prime minister who inflicted an injustice on thousands of people in her country (when people are wrongly punished via having their legally-owned property confiscated over a shooting they did not carry out, an injustice has taken place), and a major media mogul who supported the extreme anti-Second Amendment group March 4 Our Lives. Excluded? Women who support our right to keep and bear arms.

No talk of Dana Loesch, who has defended the Second Amendment despite becoming a target for vicious slurs and worse. What about Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who turned into an activist for our rights after her parents died in a mass shooting? There are countless other women who gave stood for the Second Amendment and have a great deal of accomplishment to their names, including former NRA President Marion Hammer, former NRA-ILA Executive Director Tanya Metaksa, and even NRA board members like Susan Howard or Sandra Froman (another former NRA President). People and Vogue dont even mention them.

You may wonder why we should care about a magazine from the supermarket checkout aisle, or a publication devoted to fashion. Well, when they are leveraged to attack our rights, we need to care. Worse, these magazines have wide circulation. Between its English and Spanish versions, People reaches almost four million people a week. The American edition of Vogue reaches about 1.2 million. American Rifleman comes in at 1.85 million, or less than half that of People. Vogue has a larger circulation than either American Hunter (929,000) or Americas First Freedom (roughly 630,000).

People, incidentally, will also get mentioned in other news outlets and it sits in the waiting rooms of doctors offices so the four million figure is probably low. Vogue also will crop up in those waiting rooms. American Rifleman? Not so much these days.

Finally, who reads those magazines? Well, much of that readership comes from the suburbs. One admitted success that anti-Second Amendment extremists like Michael Bloomberg have achieved is that they are doing well among suburban women the proverbial soccer moms precisely because they have them so scared of their kids school being the location of the next mass shooting that they dont consider the facts.

Plus, look at who often turns up as the subjects of those magazines Hollywoods A-list. Say what you will, but the writers are good storytellers, and while the actors and actresses are often against our rights, we should not dismiss their ability to help along a narrative that makes Second Amendment supporters resisting the injustices like those that Beto ORourke wishes to inflict on us as the villains.

People and Vogue will be two of the venues used to spread that narrative. The NRA and other pro-Second Amendment groups are going to need to adjust to this new type of threat, and that will require changes. It will be very important for Second Amendment supporters to be mindful of how their approach in defense of our freedoms comes across, and to use the right techniques to convince our fellow Americans that the narrative that anti-Second Amendment extremists are presenting is phonier than a red carpet smile, instead of reinforcing the phony narrative.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

See more here:

Why Don't People and Vogue Celebrate the Second Amendment? - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Staff Reports

MondayOct21,2019at2:26PM

The Second Amendment contains some of the Constitutions most debated language, creating a cultural and political divide in this country: 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.

Hendersonville native and legal expert Robert Orr will present a history of the 2nd Amendment on Nov. 9, 1 p.m. in the Kaplan Auditorium at the Henderson County Library.

Orr will address important court decisions interpreting and applying the Amendment as well as some of the broader issues of firearms regulation and gun violence that have sparked a divisive debate among pro-gun advocates and gun safety groups.

Orr was licensed as an attorney in North Carolina in 1975 and practiced law in Asheville for eleven years prior to serving on the N.C. Court of Appeals and as an Associate Justice on the N.C. Supreme Court. He won four statewide elections over the course of his judicial career, retiring in 2004.

Since then, Orr has served as the founding Executive Director of the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law; taught as an adjunct professor at UNC School of Law; and since 2010 has returned to the private practice of law. Orr currently divides his time between Raleigh and his mountain home in Yancey County. Hes married with four grown children and four grandchildren.

A short question and answer session will follow Orrs talk.

The event is sponsored by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America - Hendersonville Group, which describes itself as a nonpartisan organization that supports the 2nd Amendment, but believes common-sense firearm safety legislation can help decrease gun violence.

Original post:

Former NC Justice Orr to speak on 2nd Amendment - BlueRidgeNow.com

By Vikram D. Amar and Alan E. Brownstein

This artwork refers to the political conversations about guns.

This artwork refers to the political conversations about guns.

Photo: Donna Grethen / Tribune Content Agency

This artwork refers to the political conversations about guns.

This artwork refers to the political conversations about guns.

Opinion: What the gun lobby gets wrong about the Second Amendment

The Supreme Court will hear a gun control case in December that could significantly limit the ability of state and local governments to regulate guns for public safety reasons.

The case involves a New York City regulation on transporting handguns that was repealed in July. Although that original rule is no longer in effect, for now the court has not determined the matter to be moot, so the case will move forward.

In this dispute and others, opposition to gun regulations is often grounded on the premise that once an individual interest is identified as a fundamental right, that interest prevails over all countervailing public concerns.

That premise is profoundly mistaken. And, importantly, it is inconsistent with the way that constitutional doctrine has developed with other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Second Amendment rights should be treated no more favorably, despite the political rhetoric of gun rights supporters who claim that any firearm regulation is an unconstitutional infringement on their rights.

Of course, a constitutional right does carry with it a strong presumption against government interference with that particular activity, even though the exercise of the right involves a societal cost. We protect freedom of religion, for example, even though we know that some religious practices like pulling children out of school after the eighth grade might be considered problematic or harmful.

But there is a critical difference between assigning a high value to a constitutional right when balancing it against social concerns, and arguing that the right necessarily overrides the publics ability to regulate that activity in ways that may be needed to protect the community.

The doctrine surrounding freedom of speech is instructive. No one doubts that speech rights are taken seriously in America. Yet the right to free speech is not absolute and can be regulated in numerous circumstances. Courts subject government regulations that affect speech to different standards of review that balance the publics interest against the individuals liberty. Among factors considered are the kind of speech involved and the location and manner of the restriction.

For example, a ban on rallies on public streets in residential neighborhoods after 9 p.m. would likely be upheld even though it burdens speech, so long as the law did not discriminate based on the message rally speakers expressed.

So too with protections for personal privacy under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. That amendment doesnt bar all searches and seizures, but instead requires that such intrusions be reasonable, a concept that inherently involves some kind of balancing of interests. Hence, we all must endure airport security screening searches because they are a reasonable means to protect air travel safety.

The individual right to bear arms for self-defense, as announced by the Supreme Court in 2008, is likewise not unlimited. Even though the court in that case struck down a flat ban on possession of handguns that might be used for self-defense in peoples homes, it observed that states could for historical and public-policy safety reasons prohibit people with felony convictions or people with mental illness from possessing guns, demonstrating that the very scope of the Second Amendments protection takes account of countervailing public objectives.

For instance, some states require that gun owners keep their firearms locked up if there are children living in the home, even though gun owners might prefer easier access to firearms for self-defense.

Or consider the contours of self-defense itself. A Second Amendment right to keep guns for self-defense does not eliminate the need for society to think about how guns should be responsibly employed, even in self-defense situations. If someone uses a gun purportedly for self-defense purposes and kills another person, the Second Amendment does not preclude an evaluation of whether the alleged threat was sufficient to justify the use of deadly force or whether the killing involved excessive force because reasonable nonlethal alternatives were available for the shooter to defend himself.

The national debate now has focused on proposed regulations such as background checks and assault weapons bans. Whether specific measures would be permissible under the Constitution depends on their particulars, but the big point is that particulars matter.

In evaluating gun control regulations, its legitimate to take into account the social harms and risks arising from individuals keeping, bearing and using firearms.

Constitutional analysis of the Second Amendment, as with other fundamental rights, requires some kind of balancing of interests, which includes considering the states need to promote public safety.

Vikram D. Amar is dean and professor of law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Alan E. Brownstein is professor of law at the UC Davis School of Law.

See the original post here:

Opinion: What the gun lobby gets wrong about the Second Amendment - Middletown Press

JEFFERSON COUNTY, Tenn. Jefferson and Sevier Counties are now considered "gun sanctuaries." They join Monroe, Blount and Loudon Counties who previously passed similar resolutions.

Both counties passed the Second Amendment gun sanctuary resolutions Monday night at their county commission meetings. This comes after the Town of Dandridge passed a similar resolution earlier in October.

Commissioners in Jefferson County said it was important to them and members of the community to show support for the Second Amendment.

Stewart Harris, who spoke to 10News from WETS-FM in Johnson City before his weekly radio show, is a constitutional law professor at LMU Duncan School of Law. He said becoming a sanctuary city or county is more of a political statement than a constitutional statement.

He said states, counties and even towns making the move to become gun sanctuaries has picked up traction in the last couple of years.

RELATED: Blount County is now a Second Amendment sanctuary county

"They will decide they are concerned about gun control laws being imposed by some other jurisdiction," Harris said.

Harris explained the Second Amendment and right to bear arms only kicks in when the government tries to restrict your gun rights.

"In a state like Tennessee, it's very unlikely that will happen, but we're really not talking about a constitutional issue, we're talking about a political decision from the people of these counties," Harris noted.

It's more like insurance.

For instance, One of the sponsors of the sanctuary resolution in Jefferson County, Todd Kesterson,said in a statement:

"We are seeing how many politicians on the Federal level are working toward gun confiscation in efforts to skew or change how the 2A reads. We feel like our freedoms are under attack and wanted to join several of our surrounding counties in letting the State and Federal Governments know that we disagree with these efforts."

The resolution states the county will not provide resources toward any actions or mandates that infringe on the people's right to bear arms. But, Harris said the cities or counties cannot get in the way of federal law.

RELATED: Polk Co. leaders vote in favor of making their county a 'gun sanctuary'

"If there is a conflict between state and national laws, then national laws win every time," Harris explained.

Jefferson County Sheriff Jeff Coffey said this new resolution won't change the way they enforce the laws and things like the federal bump stock ban still apply.

RELATED: Measure fails to make Greene County a 'Second Amendment sanctuary'

Read the original post:

Jefferson and Sevier Counties added to the list of Tennessee 'gun sanctuaries' - WBIR.com

There is currently a leftist jihad against Christian values, Conservatives, gun owners and Trumpsters. Beto ORourkes recent attack on owners of certain rifles chimes right in.

Mass shootings were almost nonexistent when I was a kid, and some high-schoolers would occasionally bring a gun to show their buddies. What happened?

Christian values that once helped moderate our evil ways are constantly scorned by Hollywood, the left, the ACLU and Democrats who now hold atheists in high esteem.

NFL quarterback Drew Brees was recently vilified for telling kids to bring their Bibles to school on Oct 3. The left has sown bad seeds for decades, and now the harvest is coming in.

Statistics show about one person a day is killed in America with a rifle, while 29 are killed daily by drunken driving. No one is attacking the sale of alcohol. Eight teens a day are killed by wrecks while on a cell phone, but phones are OK. Sixty percent of gun deaths are self-inflicted. About 129 Americans a day die from opioids. However, thats a non-violent crime. More than 2,000 unborn Americans are slaughtered daily, and Dems approve.

Democrats want to ban certain rifles, and then it will be pistols. Will bad guys give theirs up? Revolvers and slide actions would be next. Obviously their goal is erasing the Second Amendment. Listening to the Dems in their debates is like an echo chamber of insanity. So, borrowing a line from early American patriots: Dont tread on me!

JIM EHMEN

Paxton

Excerpt from:

Letter to the Editor | Second Amendment is under attack - Champaign/Urbana News-Gazette

Ask a U.S. citizen what the Second Amendment stands for. Some respond this amendment protects an individuals right to carry a gun. Like a shooter who misses the target, they are confused as to the amendments scope and intent.

Historically, the Second Amendment safeguards the citizens right through the states efforts to recruit armed militias that defend our nation. In 1939, Robert H. Jackson, who served as President Franklin Delano Roosevelts solicitor general, maintained the Second Amendment is restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security. Robert Bork, President Ronald Reagans nominee for the Supreme Court in 1989, then agreed, saying this amendment works to guarantee the right of states to form militia, not for individuals to bear arms. On target, Bork later missed the mark as to what the Second Amendment allows.

Granted, its stilted expression blurs the amendments meaning. It 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.

Constitutional framers were wary of growing a federal government that usurped the rights of states to defend themselves. Consequently, the federal army remained small. When President Thomas Jefferson left office in 1809, federal troops numbered a little more than 12,000. Most patrolled the western frontier, consisting of territories east of the Mississippi River, which included the Ohio River Valley. There Native Americans fought encroaching white pioneers. Federal troops protected white settlers who headed West through the Cumberland Water Gap.

Whena foreign adversary attacked the U.S., colonials assumed states had the rightto raise volunteer militias to defend the nation. States fiercely protectedtheir rights to draft, fund and provide leaders for local militias.

Statesexpressed slight, if any, concern about the federal government infringing oncitizens by denying them the right to carry a gun. The colonial U.S. was an agriculturaleconomy. Farmers hunted game to supplement harvested crops. Children 10 yearsand older fired muskets to kill deer while their parents worked the land. ThomasJefferson shared the cultural assumption that the U.S. would prosper with10-year-olds trained to fire muskets.

Historian Garry Wills pointed out that the Second Amendment had everything to do with the common defense and nothing to do with hunting: One does not bear arms against a rabbit.

Since the 1970s, the National Rifle Association has turned the Second Amendments meaning on its head. It cleverly treats the opening to the amendment about arming militias as a preface to its alleged main punchline: every citizen has the right to carry a gun.

The NRAs grammatical hatchet separates the amendments two clauses. The second clause is wrongly elevated about alleged gun rights, casting aside state militias right to bear arms.

When the NRA kept its national headquarters in Washington D.C. instead of moving to Colorado Springs in the late 1970s, it placed a motto on its headquarters doors, making muddy the Second Amendments original meaning. The NRA separated the second clause from the first in its motto posted on the door: The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.

Historian Jill Lepore traces the NRAs slippery slide to reshape the Second Amendment. In 1982, Utahs Republican Senator Orin Hatch headed the Judiciary Committee that passed a report: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Hatchs committee spun a convoluted constitutional argument thats off-target. What the Subcommittee [Hatch chaired] on the Constitution uncovered was clear and long lost proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for the protection of himself, the family, and his freedoms, scoffs historian Lepore, who rejects this faulty historical reading.

Many conservative citizens accept this unconventional interpretation of an alleged older, long-lost interpretation of the constitutions original meaning regarding their gun rights. Evangelicals tend to oppose restrictions on gun ownership, reported NBC News on September 4, 2019, and prefer having guns in the hands of good guys, schoolteachers, security guards and law-abiding citizens.

The NRA stacked the deck with handpicked pundits to support their false claim. Of twenty-seven law review articles published between 1970 and 1989 that were favorable to the NRAs interpretation of the Second Amendment, reports historian Lepore, at least 19 were written by authors employed or represented by the NRA or other gun groups.

The NRA violates the Second Amendments original intent: the right of states to arm their militias.

The Rev. Dr. Jack R. Van Ens is a Presbyterian minister who heads the nonprofit, tax-exempt Creative Growth Ministries (www.thelivinghistory.com), which enhances Christian worship through dynamic storytelling and dramatic presentations aimed to make Gods history come alive.

Excerpt from:

Van Ens: Hit the Second Amendment's bull's-eye - Vail Daily News

Tiverton voted to recall Town Council President Robert Coulter and Town Council Vice President Justin Katz in the special recall election on October 10. Nearly 1,600 voters voted yes to the recall with only 80 votes cast in favor of Coulter and Katz. Katz blamed the defeat on on the statewide machine of political action committees, including the teachers union, that sent out numerous mailers and others who put bunches of political talk and lies, on social media to get people out to vote.

The Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence (RICAGV) is encouraged by the recall results. Coulter and Katz led the introduction last spring of a resolution declaring Tiverton a second amendment sanctuary town. With a room packed with out-of-town folks and residents, the resolution was defeated 4-3, only to be revised and brought back at a later date for passage. The resolution directed law enforcement to enforce gun laws with discretion. The councilors also made it known that they were using their elected positions to send a message to the State House regarding their views on gun legislation.

Second amendment sanctuary resolutions are dangerous because they advance the false narrative that the Second Amendment is at risk, making law-abiding gun owners feel threatened and contributing to the sort of hysteria that leads many to vehemently oppose any measure at all that regulates gun possession, no matter the weapon or the threat to public safety.

I am satisfied that these councilors were recalled. The introduction and passage of this resolution was the last straw for many who had watched them push their political agenda outside the conventions of town governance. It sowed division in a town already divided, said RICAGV supporter and Tiverton resident, Maureen Morrow. Furthermore, it contained incendiary and false language about seized weapons stating the town would not use taxpayer dollars to store weapons. No present or proposed law in Rhode Island calls for seizing weapons.

RICAGV looks forward to seeing who will go on to replace Coulter and Katz in the General election scheduled next month.

See more here:

RICAGV: Tiverton voters recall town councilors who championed 'second amendment sanctuary' resolution - Uprise RI

Some argue that the Second Amendment does not make firearm ownership a right when, really, its not about that. The true heart of the Second Amendment is protection of the natural rights of the people. It ensures the right of self-preservation and acts as a means to secure that right.

This right of self-preservation was described by John Locke in his 1690 Second Treatise on Government, from which the Framers drew heavily. In his treatise, Locke argues that this fundamental right of self-preservation allows the people to live freely without interference from any person or anything, including government.

Its important to understand this point. Many of the Framers were students of Lockes philosophical thinking and other philosophers of the time. It is ingrained into the very fabric of the Bill of Rights.

This thinking even influenced Alexander Hamilton when he wrote Federalist No. 28 that If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.

The Second Amendment is not a right bestowed by the government to the people. Quite the opposite. It secures the peoples natural right of self-preservation from any person and anything that might wish to rob the people of their liberty or other natural rights, including their government.

To think that we, free men and women, must ask the permission of our government for the right of self-preservation is simply ludicrous.

Read the original post:

Opinion/Letter: 2nd Amendment confirms existing right - The Daily Progress

A story shared by Breitbart News over the weekend should serve as a warning to Americans; our right to keep and bear arms must be preserved at all costs. These kinds of stories seem to be all over Europe and especially Great Britain. Britain, sadly, may already be lost forever, largely due to the ignorance of their leadership.

The story of a horrific attack by 20 armed thugs left one young man with a nearly severed hand and another with ax wounds to his chest that left him with a collapsed lung. The only weapon the victims had was a chainsaw. British law prohibits citizens from being armed. Similar gangs of thugs have also been linked to rapes in Britain.

Though the story does not say this specifically, one can conclude that the attackers are most likely Muslim. They were not charged with a hate crime, despite calling the victims 'white bastards'. Put the shoe on the other foot and a hate crime charge would have been filed. The level of cowardice in all of this is mind boggling.

Attacks like this are less likely in the United States because you and I have a constitutionally protected right to be sufficiently armed. There are only a few limitations placed on us when it comes to possessing a firearm and fairly strict rules already in place to govern when and how we can exercise deadly force.

Your Second Amendment rights are more about restraining and limiting government than anything else. But that right extends to self protection and defense. This story serves to show why we must, at all costs, resist any attempts by any political faction in this country to curtail our gun rights. Otherwise, we run the risk of seeing this kind of horror played out in cities all across America.

Originally posted here:

UK Terror Serves as a Warning to United States: Protect The 2nd Amendment! - Newstalk1290

UPON HEARING the news that President Trump bowed to pressure from congressional Republicans and reversed his decision to hold next years G-7 summit at the Trump National Doral Miami, my immediate response was, Ah, what might have been.

No, Im not wistful about the missed opportunity for taxpayers to throw a lifeline to Trumps struggling resort. Rather, Im a bit misty-eyed about what the last three years might have looked like if Republicans had shown this kind of spine all along.

There is an interesting consensus among the fiercely pro-Trump and anti-Trump forces on the right. For simplicity, lets call them Never Trumpers and Always Trumpers. Among the Never Trumper Republicans, its a given that Trump is not only unfit for the job but unteachable. No amount of on-the-job training will help.

For the Always Trumpers, the Trump they got was the Trump they wanted all along. Theyre like the person who deliberately set the bull loose in the china shop. They look upon the shattered vases and listen to the caterwauling of the shop owners and grin at a mission accomplished.

In other words, both camps agree that Trump cant change. They only quarrel over whether that is a good thing or bad.

Obviously, I am much closer to the Never Trumper position on this. As Ive written many times, I believe character is destiny, and waiting for Trump to act presidential is like waiting for bears to stop using our woodlands as toilets. Still, I dont think that means Republicans should take a hands-off approach.

Most of the Always Trumpers who dominate Fox prime time and conservative talk radio voted for Trump not because they liked him but because they disliked Hillary Clinton more (though dont expect them to admit that). And even though most conservatives wont say this to pollsters, in private conversations they will generally acknowledge that Trump is often his own worst enemy.

Most conservatives try to focus on Trumps results rather than on the President himself. Republicans like his judicial appointments, tax cuts, deregulation. And his support for culture-war priorities like the Second Amendment and abortion have also kept conservatives on board. They simply tune out the price the party and the country has paid for these wins.

But theres a part of the equation that has been forgotten. Thanks in part to the polarized climate, the near-banishment of critical voices from pro-Trump media outlets and the psychological need to defend the leader of their side, conservatives forget that many of these wins are the result of Trumps hand having been forced in a political transaction.

Until Trump launched his hostile takeover of the GOP, he was pro-choice, pro-gun control and utterly unconcerned about fidelity to the Constitution.

He became pro-life and pro-Second Amendment because that was the price of widespread conservative support.

He agreed to outsource his judicial appointments to the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation precisely because no one trusted his judgment.

Once elected, however, Trump used his ability to influence his core supporters who have outsize power in primaries to punish GOP critics.

By taking the scalps of politicians such as former GOP Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Trump also took the spines of countless others.

As a result, the Republicans lost control of the House in 2018 and may be on the cusp of losing the Senate and the presidency in 2020.

In a self-pitying tweet over the weekend, the President said he reversed his decision on Doral because the Hostile Media & their Democrat Partners went CRAZY!

This is a dangerous admission. Trumps popularity with Republicans is sustained by the fact he drives the Democrats and media CRAZY! His supporters dont want to hear about him caving to the demands of liberals. But admitting the truth would have been worse; too many Republican legislators couldnt or wouldnt defend his indefensible decision, and they let the President know hed gone too far. Normal Presidents feel constrained by the political needs of their party, and it turns out even Trump isnt immune to pressure from his team.

Of course, he feels more constrained by GOP congressional support now that hes staring down the barrel of impeachment.

But if Trump had cared more about reciprocating the loyalty he so often demands from the party, he might not be looking at impeachment in the first place.

And if the GOP had worked harder at constraining Trump from the beginning, they might not be looking at the implosion of their party.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.

Visit link:

Jonah Goldberg: GOP pressure on Trump was long overdue - The Union Leader

ROCHESTER, Minn. (KTTC) On Tuesday, the jury for the Alexander Weiss case couldnt reach a verdict, forcing Judge Joseph Chase to declare a second mistrial, turning this into a complicated process.

KTTC talked to Meshbesher and Spence Law Partner, Zach Bauer, a legal expert, independent from the case, to talk about what this means and what could be coming next.

He says in his experience, it would be rare and uncommon to see a case tried more than three times, but the future of the case is now in the hands of the prosecutor, whether they want to go through a third trial.

Theres really no limits to the amount of times it can be retried, said Zach Bauer.

He continued by saying mistrials happen about one in every 12 or 15 jury trials, especially when youre dealing with high level felony offenses.

For the defendant, a mistrial basically means you kind of go back to square one, continued Bauer.

With a jury, they must be unanimous in their decision to either convict or acquit, which means how the jury is split, could help decide whether they go for another retrial.

Often times there will be feedback that both the defense attorney may get, as well as the prosecutor may get, on whether or not that jury was split 10-2 to convict or 6-6, and that that may sometimes lead to decisions being made by the state as to whether or not they truly believe that they could get another outcome if they tried again, explained Bauer.

While the jurys split is not known at this time, Bauer says it isnt a surprise a case like this would have a hard time reaching a unanimous decision.

When you have cases that involve things like self-defense, like firearms and second amendment rights, racial issues as well. Those are all different things that 12 of us in a vacuum sometimes cant agree upon, let alone in a situation where youve got a person standing trial that they could face prison time on, said Bauer.

According to Weiss defense attorney, the maximum time he could be facing is 15 years in prison.

Sometimes Im assuming they would get input from the victims family on what their wishes may be, but they have the sound discretion to make the decision of whether theyre going to go ahead and re-try a case, or whether they decide they dont believe that even if the evidence came in perfectly, based upon their first two experiences, that that would likely change the outcome, explained Bauer.

With a third trial potentially on the horizon, that means another group of jurors would have to be found, something Bauer says shouldnt be too much of a problem given Rochesters size.

It may be more difficult to find a fair and impartial jury moving forward, with the amount of media attention this case has gotten, but typically youre able to find 12 or 13 people that either dont know enough about the case or on the alternative can set aside the feelings they do know about the case and deliberate thoughtfully and truthfully, said Bauer.

From the mistrial declaration, the prosecution will have about 30 days to decide whether or not to go through with a third trial.

READ MORE:UPDATE: Judge declares mistrial in Alexander Weiss second-degree murder retrial

Read more:

Alexander Weiss case reaching rare territory with potential for a third trial - KTTC

Gun violence is a hot button issue in cities around the country and Tacoma is no exception. Grappling with an uptick in gun violence this year, Tacoma city officials began looking for new policy solutions. Enter Ryan Mello. The council member has proposed a tax that would add $25 per retail firearm and $0.05 per cartridge of ammunition. I spoke with Mello yesterday by phone to discuss the policy roots of his proposal as well as the fierce opposition its faced from the NRA.

The first reading and public comment period for the ordinance took place last night at a city council meeting. There will be another council meeting and public comment period next week, likely followed by a council vote. If passed, the ordinance would take effect on January 1st, 2020.

Michael Goldberg: Can you go into greater detail about what type of programming your proposed firearms and ammunition tax (ORD28624) will help fund?

Ryan Mello: Anything from free trigger locks for individuals so they have the tools to keep their gun safe when at home, more funding for the YWCA, legal services for protection orders for women fleeing domestic violence, community liaison positions to build relationships with community members which is proven to reduce violence in communities or Boys & Girls Club programing, especially for at-risk youth to provide alternatives in neighborhoods to joining gangs.

MG: Id like to hear your response to a popular criticism leveled by those who might oppose this tax and similar gun control measures around the country. The criticism is that it does not address certain social factors, like family turmoil, that may exacerbate gun violence. Can you identify the role this proposal would play alongside other policies as it relates to reducing gun violence?

RM: I dont put all gun owners in the same bucket, the NRA and some of their chief allies for decades now have been absolutely opposed to anything, the most reasonable things, which is incredibly frustrating to policymakers and those of us who want to see some advancement of common sense gun reform. So yeah there are critics out there, and I think there are some reasonable ones and I think there are some critics that go hell no to anything because anything is a slippery slope to infringing on my second amendment rights, which is incredibly frustrating to a policymaker that is trying to take seriously this community challenge that our cities are facing.

About parenting and home life, I think thats part of what contributes[to gun violence]. I dont think thats nearly the preponderance of what contributes to gun violence in our community. I think its important that we remember that gun violence is a uniquely American problem, and I think we often forget about that when were having these conversations about American public policy and local government public policy related to gun violence. No other modern democracy has this problem, yet other modern democracies have similar rates of single parent homes or parents who are both working long hours, or folks with mental health issues. The thing that is different is the prevalence of guns in our cities in America. So I dont think you can identify cause and effect there when you look at the dataif youre a single parent trying to make ends meet working long hours, its all the more important to have community based programs so that your children have something productive to do thats low cost.

MG: What do you want Tacoma residents, particularly those who own guns to understand about this tax?

RM: What I would hope to convey is that I have full appreciation that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible. This is not meant to be punitive to responsible gun owners. This is a way that is legal, deemed by the state supreme court, for cities to generate revenue for a super serious and clear problem. And theres a direct nexus to it. For example, we tax and add fees to hunters and fishermen so that we can create more boating access land and conserve ground for hunters. Americans tend to like direct nexus of taxation, it seems to me. Car tabs for street repairs, so on and so forth. To me, this is a direct nexus of a product that very demonstrably has negative economic and social consequences for our community, and the consequences need to be mitigated with public resources.

MG: Should this tax be successful, can you talk about the idea of Tacoma being seen as a harbinger for similar cities across the country with a similar socioeconomic standing?

RM: I suspect at the heart of your question, youre alluding to the reason behind the NRA and their chief allies ferocious and vehement opposition to this proposal in Tacoma. It has been vehement and ferocious. We are getting emails from folks all over the state and perhaps the country. This is not an easy issue to talk about, but I think a very necessary topic to be discussed at the local level even though we are preempted in large part by federal and state law. We are very much preempted from doing much of anything to really get at gun violence, except for taxation to fund proven prevention programs. I think when you show Tacoma can do something progressive like this, this is why the NRA is really amped up. Because they know that if you can do it in Tacoma, then you can do it in Bellingham and Olympia and Vancouver and Everett. They do see it as a harbinger, they do see it as a slippery slope and to that I would very respectfully say, I hope its true.

MG: I think a lot of people wonder what it looks like when the NRA zeroes on a community. I know you said you received a lot of incandescent messages but can you explain the general feeling in the air knowing that the NRA has it sights set on the activity of your council, and the city of Tacoma as a whole.

RM: As a consumer of the communication generated and inspired by the NRA, I think its meant to intimidate chiefly. A lot of folks arent putting their physical addresses down which, in my experience, usually indicates theyre not a constituent. So its really a statewide action theyve inspired. They belittle a lot, I think they make claims that are largely baseless like what happened in Seattle was a failure, and, by what standard was it a failure? In Seattle, theyre using the resources to fund public health research at Harborview Medical Center to study gun violence from a public health perspective because the federal government has defunded studies looking at gun violence from a public health perspective, so I dont know why thats a failure.

MG: Anything else youd like to add?

RM: I would like to underline that [the tax] is estimated to generate about $40,000 in revenue, which, yeah, its not that much revenue, but the federal government and the state government have really tied our hands on this issue and taken away so many of the right policy levers for us with preemption. I think we must do something, anything, to prevent gun violence and if this funds one program, one outreach worker, if it saves one life, its worth it. All the political pain is worth it. This is not a politically popular thing to take on. But i think its serious and important, and I dont think well be able to live with ourselves if we cant say that we have done absolutely everything we can in local government. Part of the purpose here is to show that Tacoma can do it, which I really hope gives courage to other communities to stand up to the NRA. Collectively, those resources will make a much bigger impact and hopefully scale up to state government. This is the theory of incrementalism, this is how public policy is often advanced in this super polarized world.

Read this article:

Q&A: Tacoma City Council Member Ryan Mello talks about his proposal for a firearms and ammunition tax and his ongoing battle with the NRA - Washington...