Second Amendment Sports sued for $2.5 million over alleged failure to pay minimum and overtime wages – KGET 17

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KGET) Second Amendment Sports is being sued for $2.5 million for allegedly failing to pay minimum and overtime wages as well as not allowing rest or meal breaks as provided for under state law.

The gun shop that operated in Bakersfield until its sale in December had the financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, recklessly, and/or intentionally failed to do so, according to the lawsuit. It says the shop violated state Labor Code by not allowing a meal break of at least 30 minutes for a work period in excess of five hours, or a 10-minute rest break for every four hours worked.

Additionally, the lawsuit says Second Amendment Sports didnt pay compensation owed to employees who resigned, and provided inaccurate wage statements.

Employers in the state of California violate employment and labor laws every day, says the suit filed on behalf of former employees by the Lex Opus firm in Santa Ana. Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation.

Former employees are fearful of bringing actions because they believe their former employers may damage their future endeavors through negative references and/or other means. The nature of this action allows for the protection of current and former employees rights without fear for retaliation or damage.

The suit seeks a trial by jury and at least $2.5 million in damages.

Attorneys with Belden Blaine Raytis, LLP, representing Second Amendment Sports, could not immediately be reached for comment.

The next hearing in the suit, filed nearly a year ago, is scheduled Feb. 17.

Link:

Second Amendment Sports sued for $2.5 million over alleged failure to pay minimum and overtime wages - KGET 17

Letter: The Second Amendment allows for reasonable gun control – Deseret News

Webster defines regulate as such: to control, direct or govern according to a rule, principle or system.

The Second Amendment states, 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. I assume well-regulated authorizes the governments ability to wisely determine the best way to control and direct said right.

On April 3, 2018, in a fit of rage, Nasim Aghdam used a handgun to shoot innocent victims at the YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California. Compare that to the massive carnage inflicted by numerous shooters, also consumed in fits of rage, who brandished military- style assault weapons to gun down their prey.

Although injured, no one was killed by Aghdam. Compare that to the dozens instantly annihilated by those using military, high-capacity-style weapons.

Dont be misled by the National Rifle Association. The Second Amendment allows for regulating the possession of high-powered weapons originally intended for use in times of war. Additional regulation wouldnt be anything new. For example, machine guns and short-barreled shotguns are already prohibited.

Raymond Hult

Bountiful

View post:

Letter: The Second Amendment allows for reasonable gun control - Deseret News

Letter to the Editor: We must resist any attempt to weaken 2nd Amendment – williamsonherald.com

To the editor,

In recent times, gun regulations have been spoken of quite frequently.

I see the point of gun regulation proponents quite frequently, and I empathize with their stories. However much I understand, I disagree with their idea. In my opinion, the most important thing in America is our right to bear arms.

Some people say that the Second Amendment was created exclusively to uphold militias. They argue that the police force is this militia. When you break it down, that is a foolish understanding of the amendment.

The Bill of Rights was established to give rights to the people and to limit the government. The question is would it really make sense for the government to give itself the right to have guns. Ultimately that makes no sense.

So, we have now established that the Second Amendment is established for the people to bear arms. Once we get to this point, many people say that it is only for hunting and self-defense. Once again, upon further examination, this can be concluded as false.

The Second Amendment was established swiftly after the American Revolution. The thought of a revolution was fresh on everyones mind. It is entirely reasonable then that they would plant the tools for independence should the event arise again.

So, it can be clearly stated that our right to bear arms in the U.S. has been infringed far past its extended existence. My end point is that we should not stand for gun control any longer.

There is a saying that says give them an inch and they will take a mile. This applies especially to the government. We must not give them an inch, or they will take a mile.

Therefore, we must resist so that we may have a more-free future.

Duncan Lamb

Franklin

Go here to read the rest:

Letter to the Editor: We must resist any attempt to weaken 2nd Amendment - williamsonherald.com

Vernon County residents weigh in on Second Amendment resolution; Board to vote Feb. 2 – La Crosse Tribune

Anne Orso of rural Viola said she was adamantly against the resolution. Its divisive; please focus on issues that unite the community.

Supervisor Mary Henry, who represents District 17, said most of the correspondence she received was opposing the proposed referendum. Henry said she strongly opposed the referendum, and the Board needs to spend time bringing the community together.

Dodie Whitaker of Viroqua said that as a woman of color, she and her friends and family see the area as a safe haven. Whitaker said shes a pacifist, but she supports the right of gun owners to have guns. She said she opposed the resolution for safety reasons, adding that she would like to see efforts focused on mental health and economic issues.

Paul Buhr of rural Viroqua also opposed the resolution. I see no reason to further divide us with this un-Constitutional measure, he said.

Cori Wilson of Ontario said she supported the proposed county resolution. She said she owns a gun and respects and appreciates the gun laws as they are currently written. Wilson said she encouraged people to look at H.R.127 thats now before Congress. She said the resolution is restrictive. Im surprised no one is concerned about restrictions to our rights.

Jared Lasky of rural Westby also spoke in favor of the resolution, saying the right to bear arms is not a suggestion but a directive.

Excerpt from:

Vernon County residents weigh in on Second Amendment resolution; Board to vote Feb. 2 - La Crosse Tribune

Letter to the editor: Second Amendment preservation resolution is unecessary – La Crosse Tribune

On Monday, Feb. 1 there will be a public hearing, on Tuesday, Feb. 2 the Vernon County Board of Supervisors will vote on a resolution masquerading as something allegedly designed to preserve the Second Amendment of the United States.

This partisan resolution will preserve nothing. The Second Amendment like all the others is well protected by the U.S. Constitution. To make any change to a Constitutional Amendment requires a vote to pass by a minimum of three-quarters of the 50 states.

The Second Amendment is not in danger of being nullified or modified. No evidence has been presented to show the Second Amendment to be in danger.

The Second Amendment consists of just one comprehensive, concise sentence that needs no expansion or modification by Vernon County nor anyone else. There is nothing in the resolution that is new other than semantics intended to provide a solution for a problem that does not exist.

Rather than predicting future problems why not work on solving Vernon County's real problems and concerns rather than inventing one.

If this passes we can be assured that it will become precedent for more of the same in the future. We in Vernon County do not need this resolution. Represent the citizens of the county not some partisan idealism.

The rest is here:

Letter to the editor: Second Amendment preservation resolution is unecessary - La Crosse Tribune

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott reveals emergency items – The Texas Tribune

Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday unveiled a legislative agenda centered on the states recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and a series of more politically charged issues such as police funding and "election integrity."

In his biennial State of the State speech, Abbott declared Texas is brimming with promise as it emerges from the pandemic and seeks to return to economic dominance. He pledged hard-working Texans are at the forefront of our agenda this legislative session as we build a healthier, safer, freer and more prosperous state.

Abbott designated five emergency items, or items that the Legislature can vote on within the first 60 day of the session, which began Jan. 12. Those items were expanding broadband internet access, punishing local governments that defund the police as he defines it, changing the bail system, ensuring what he described as election integrity and providing civil liability protections for businesses that were open during the pandemic.

Abbott also asked lawmakers to pass laws that would strengthen civics education in Texas classrooms, further restrict abortion and make Texas a Second Amendment sanctuary state. On issues stemming from the pandemic, Abbott called for legislation to permanently expand telemedicine and to prevent any government entity from shutting down religious activities in Texas.

Abbott gave the address from Visionary Fiber Technologies in Lockhart, eschewing the traditional setting of a joint legislative session inside the House chamber as lawmakers continue to worry about gathering en masse during the pandemic.

Democrats pushed back on Abbotts speech by accusing him of giving an overly rosy view of the states coronavirus response. Calling Abbott the worst Governor in modern Texas history, the state Democratic Party chairman, Gilberto Hinojosa, said in a statement that Abbott buries his head in the sand and pretends like nothing is happening.

See the article here:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott reveals emergency items - The Texas Tribune

Election Lawyer Calls On Trump Supporters To Stock Up On ‘Second Amendment Supplies’ – HuffPost

The fringe right-wing lawyer who filed the court challenge toDonald Trumps election loss in Georgia has called on the presidents supporters to stock up on Second Amendment supplies presumably firearms and ammunition to prepare for what he apparently envisions as an apocalyptic future.

Our leader is Donald Trump, not Biden, attorney Lin Wood tweeted Sunday.

Make sure you have PLENTY of water, food, flashlights & batteries, candles, radio, 2nd Amendment supplies, & a plan to meet with leaders of your communities, he urged. He included a photo of Trump with the caption: Im still your president.

A reporter for the right-wing Newsmax site piped up in a tweet that when Lin Wood tells people to prep, I listen.

Wood has called on Trump to declare martial law in a bid to wrest the White House from the electorate. The lawyers theory is that Americans working with Venezuela, China, Serbia, Canada, Venezuela, Cuba, the CIA, billionaire philanthropist George Soros, the Clinton Foundation, and state and local officials from both parties rigged the presidential election.

Wood has filed several lawsuits challenging Joe Bidens win, including one in his home state of Georgia, which was touted by Trump before it went down to defeat.

Wood said at a press conference earlier this month that Trump called to tell the attorney he knows he won this election. The president said, Lin, I didnt lose it. I won it, Wood recounted.

Several Twitter followers mocked Woods call to stock up for an armageddon, with one checking on vodka storesand another urging people to getmarshmallows for smores.

Others heard a call to arms. One wondered when the FBI would show up at Woods door to question him about instigating violence,

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Follow this link:

Election Lawyer Calls On Trump Supporters To Stock Up On 'Second Amendment Supplies' - HuffPost

Buckeye Firearms Association Wants Answers In Casey Goodson Jr. Shooting – WOSU

A column published by one of Ohio's most powerful gun rights organizations says Second Amendment supporters should demand answers about the shooting death of a Black man in Columbus.

Franklin County Sheriff's deputy Jason Meade shot and killed 23-year-old Casey Goodson Jr.on December 4, claiming he was waving a handgun. Goodson's family says he was holding a bag of sandwiches and unlocking the door of his home. Law enforcement says Meade never mistook a sandwich for a gun.

While hundreds of people have rallied in downtown Columbus demanding answers, Chad Baus with the Buckeye Firearms Association believes gun owners should be seeking those answers as well.

I am encouraging Second Amendment rights people to join in the call that we get all the facts and we get a fair and impartial investigation in this thing, because Casey deserves that as much as any other concealed handgun licensed holder, he says.

Goodson did possess an up-to-date concealed carry license. Sean Walton, a lawyer representing Goodson's family, said Goodson eagerly educated his family about gun safety and laws.

Baus says that people who advocate for gun rights can be hesitant to weigh in on police-involved shootings.

Were very pro-law enforcement. We realize that the law enforcement officers are trying to keep us safe thats why they exist, he says. So oftentimes the Second Amendment community seems really hesitant to speak into these situations too soon, because we dont have all the information.

Baus says the shooting brings to light questions surrounding the right to legally carry a gun and a person's skin color.

There are many people who are concerned about even being able to exercise their Second Amendment right because of the color of their skin and because of their fears about how that interaction could go if they have to interact with law enforcement, he says.

Baus notes this is not the first time a Black man, licensed to carry a gun, has died at the hands of law enforcement. He thinks its an issue the entire community needs to address.

We are one big family, we always like to talk about that, so lets be a big family and lets talk about [the fact] that part of our family is suffering, he says.

Read the original:

Buckeye Firearms Association Wants Answers In Casey Goodson Jr. Shooting - WOSU

The Fifth Day of Christmas, Brought to You by Bloomberg and Beto-Backed Texas Lawmakers – NRA ILA

NRA-ILA is counting down the legislativelumps of coal that anti-Second Amendment lawmakers in Texas are leaving in gun owners' stockings this year.

The 2021 Texas legislative session is less than a month away.Please support NRA-ILA as we work withgun ownersto STANDYOUR GROUND on your Second Amendmentrights at theCapitol in Austinnext year!

Next up:House Bill 238 by Rep. TerryMeza (D-Irving), which repeals thestate firearms preemption law, allowingcities and counties to regulate gunsand ammunition in any manner they see fit.

Municipalities like Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Houston, and San Antonio could be free to enactgun bans, magazine limits, licensing and registration schemes, andprohibitions on carrying firearmson your person or in your car.Only five states -- CT, HI, MA, NJ & NY, allbastions of gun control -- have no preemption protection.Preemption ensures uniformity in state gun laws so that honestcitizens aren't subject toconfusing and conflicting localrestrictions or denied their Second Amendment rights based on where they live, work or travel.

The importance of preemption was highlighted back in March during the early stages of COVID-19, as city and county officials adopted emergency ordersclosing most businesses, including gun stores.Attorney General Ken Paxon ruled inOpinion No. KP-0296that these local orders could notregulate or restrict the sale of firearms, and he relied heavily on Texas'firearms preemption statute in his opinion.

NRA-ILA has worked nearlyevery legislativesession to improve Texas' firearms preemption law and furtherprotect your rights.Wewilloppose any attempt to repeal or weaken it in the 2021 legislative session.

Here is the original post:

The Fifth Day of Christmas, Brought to You by Bloomberg and Beto-Backed Texas Lawmakers - NRA ILA

QuickLogic Announces the Amendment and Extension of Credit Facility – PRNewswire

SAN JOSE, Calif., Dec. 16, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --QuickLogic Corporation (NASDAQ: QUIK) ("QuickLogic" or the "Company"), a developer of ultra-low power multi-core voice enabled SoCs, embedded FPGA IP, and Endpoint AI solutions, today announced that, effective December 11, 2020, it entered into a second amendment (the "Second Amendment") to its amended and restated credit facility, dated as of December 21, 2018 (as amended, the "Credit Agreement") to extend the maturity date and decrease the interest rate.

The Second Amendment extends the maturity date from September 28, 2021 to September 28, 2022. The previous interest rate was the greater of (i) 0.50% above the Prime Rate or (ii) 5.50%. The Second Amendment reduces the interest to be equal to 0.50% above the Prime Rate.

"We are pleased to extend our credit facility at a reduced rate and appreciate the continued support of Heritage Bank of Commerce to allow us to focus on operating the business. The maturity extension and interest rate improvement are expected to provide both an immediate benefit while supporting our long-term growth objectives as we focus on achieving profitability before the end of 2021," said Chief Financial Officer Sue Cheung.

Additional details on the terms of the amendment are available in the 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2020.

About QuickLogic

QuickLogic is a fabless semiconductor company that develops low power, multi-core semiconductor platforms and Intellectual Property (IP) for Artificial Intelligence (AI), voice and sensor processing. The solutions include an embedded FPGA IP (eFPGA) for hardware acceleration and pre-processing, and heterogeneous multi-core SoCs that integrate eFPGA with other processors and peripherals. The Analytics Toolkit from the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, SensiML Corporation, completes the end-to-end solution with accurate sensor algorithms using AI technology. The full range of platforms, software tools and eFPGA IP enables the practical and efficient adoption of AI, voice and sensor processing across the multitude of mobile, wearable, hearable, consumer, industrial, edge and endpoint IoT applications. For more information, visitwww.quicklogic.com andhttps://www.quicklogic.com/blog/.

QuickLogic uses its website (www.quicklogic.com), the company blog(https://www.quicklogic.com/blog/), corporate Twitter account (@QuickLogic_Corp), Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/QuickLogic), and LinkedIn page (https://www.linkedin.com/company/13512/) as channels of distribution of information about its products, its planned financial and other announcements, its attendance at upcoming investor and industry conferences, and other matters. Such information may be deemed material information, and QuickLogic may use these channels to comply with its disclosure obligations under Regulation FD. Therefore, investors should monitor the Company's website and its social media accounts in addition to following the Company's press releases, SEC filings, public conference calls, and webcasts.

Forward Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include, without limitation, expectations regarding our future business, and actual results may differ due to a variety of factors including: delays in the market acceptance of the Company's new products; the ability to convert design opportunities into customer revenue; our ability to replace revenue from end-of-life products; the level and timing of customer design activity; the market acceptance of our customers' products; the risk that new orders may not result in future revenue; our ability to introduce and produce new products based on advanced wafer technology on a timely basis; our ability to adequately market the low power, competitive pricing and short time-to-market of our new products; intense competition by competitors; our ability to hire and retain qualified personnel; our ability to capitalize on synergies with our newly acquired subsidiary SensiML Corporation; changes in product demand or supply; general economic conditions; political events, international trade disputes, natural disasters and other business interruptions that could disrupt supply or delivery of, or demand for, the Company's products; the unpredictable and ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; and changes in tax rates and exposure to additional tax liabilities. These and other potential factors and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results contemplated or implied are described in more detail in the Company's public reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), including the risks discussed in the "Risk Factors" section in the Company's Annual Reports on Form10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form10-Q and in the Company's prior press releases, which are available on the Company's Investor Relations website athttp://ir.quicklogic.com/, and on the SEC website atwww.sec.gov. In addition, please note that the date of this press release is December 16, 2020, and any forward-looking statements contained herein are based on assumptions that we believe to be reasonable as of this date. We undertake no obligation to update these statements as a result of new information or future events.

QuickLogic and the QuickLogic logo are registered trademarks of QuickLogic Corporation. All other brands or trademarks are the property of their respective holders and should be treated as such.

CODE: QUIK-E

SOURCE QuickLogic Corporation

Home

Original post:

QuickLogic Announces the Amendment and Extension of Credit Facility - PRNewswire

NRA Takes Concealed Carry Case to the Supreme Court – NRA ILA

FAIRFAX, Va.- The National Rifle Associations Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has partnered with the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) today to ask the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to New Yorks restrictive process for issuing concealed carry licenses.

"As long as New York continues denying law-abiding gun owners their Second Amendment rights, the NRA will continue fighting to protect and expand those rights," said Jason Ouimet, executive director of NRA-ILA.

The case, NYSRPA v. Corlett, challenges New York's requirement for applicants to demonstrate "proper cause" to carry a firearm. While New York routinely employs this arbitrary standard to deny carry permits, the NRA argues that this right should be available to "all 'the people'" instead of a "subset of the people that can distinguish themselves from their fellow Americans by showing proper cause.

The NRA is the leader in Americas right-to-carry movement having pioneered the effort on legislative and legal fronts since the 1980s. Today, due to its efforts, more than 40 states have what the NRA describes as "shall-issue" laws where states are required to give residents who apply and satisfy prerequisites their requested permits. The NRA is also the national leader in the "constitutional carry" movement where law-abiding residents in 16 states do not require a permit to carry a firearm. This is the second lawsuit the NRA and NYSRPA have brought to the High Court in as many years. The move is just the latest in NRAs decades-long fight to protect and expand Americans right to carry.

Eventually, these anti-freedom activists will understand that our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fundamental, and it doesnt vanish when we leave our homes. Until then, we will continue these battles wherever they arise," concluded Ouimet.

See original here:

NRA Takes Concealed Carry Case to the Supreme Court - NRA ILA

St. Louis Prosecutor Removed From Case Involving Gun-Brandishing Couple – NPR

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner is the city's first Black Circuit Court attorney. On Thursday a circuit judge disqualified her and her staff from prosecuting the case against Mark McCloskey. Christian Gooden/St. Louis Post-Dispatch/Tribune News Service via Getty Images hide caption

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner is the city's first Black Circuit Court attorney. On Thursday a circuit judge disqualified her and her staff from prosecuting the case against Mark McCloskey.

The St. Louis prosecutor spearheading the case against Mark McCloskey, one half of the husband-and-wife team accused of menacing Black Lives Matter protesters with weapons, has been removed from the case.

Circuit Judge Thomas Clark II on Thursday dismissed Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner and her entire staff, saying campaign fundraising emails Gardner sent to constituents that alluded to Mark and Patricia McCloskey's case "raise the appearance of impropriety and jeopardize the defendant's right to a fair trial," The Associated Press reported.

The ruling means Gardner can no longer oversee McCloskey's prosecution. Instead, a special prosecutor will have to be selected to take over. The decision does not apply to McCloskey's wife, Patricia, who is scheduled to appear before a different judge on Jan. 15.

The couple's defense attorneys filed the motion to disqualify Gardner in July, arguing it was an unprecedented move for a prosecutor to discuss a case in campaign materials, NBC affiliate KSDK reported. Court documents note the materials were sent out as early as three days before Gardner had filed any criminal charges against his clients.

Attorney Joel Schwartz wrote, "The July 17th email drew a direct line from the incident, which had not yet resulted in criminal charges, to Ms. Gardner's political antagonists and from there to a call for donations to further her re-election efforts."

The McCloskeys, who are white, became a polarizing couple over the summer when they brandished firearms at a crowd of marching protesters; Mark McCloskey waved around an AR-15 rifle while Patricia kept her finger on the trigger of a handgun as a few hundred protesters marched toward the home of St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson.

The couple insist they believed the protesters, who they say had torn down a fence to enter the gated community, would have burned down their mansion if the two hadn't "stood their ground."

They were indicted in October on charges of unlawful use of a weapon and tampering with evidence. Both have pleaded not guilty.

The confrontation was captured on video and has drawn ire from Black Lives Matter supporters and praise from Second Amendment activists. It has also stoked the heated debate over the rights and protections of protesters.

Gardner, who is St. Louis' first Black Circuit Court attorney, says the emails referenced the McCloskey case in an effort to defend herself from backlash from conservative politicians and media.

"Kim needs your help to fight back!" one campaign email read, according to the AP. She added that she was under "national scrutiny from our divisive President, the Republican establishment of Missouri, and the right-wing media, including Fox News."

But KSDK notes that in his 22-page ruling Thursday, Clark wrote: "Ms. Gardner has every right to rebut criticism, but it appears unnecessary to stigmatize defendant or even mention him in campaign solicitations, especially when she purports to be responding to others.

"In fact, the case law and Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit it," Clark added.

Go here to read the rest:

St. Louis Prosecutor Removed From Case Involving Gun-Brandishing Couple - NPR

Hanks announces advisory council and committees – Post Register

(BOISE) On Thursday, Dec. 3, new State Representative Karey Hanks (R-St.Anthony) and 103 other Idaho legislators took their oath of office at the organizational session of the Sixty-sixth Idaho Legislature in the Boise Capitol. (One legislator was ill and unable to attend.)

I am thankful to return as a representative and serve the people of District 35, and the people of Idaho, Hanks said. I felt that awesome, humble feeling as we were sworn to uphold the Idaho and U. S. Constitutions. It is such an honor and responsibility to serve our constituents well.

Hanks will serve on State Affairs, Agriculture, and Commerce and Human Resources committees representing Fremont, Jefferson, Butte and Clark counties.

I look forward to serving on my three assigned committees, she said. Agriculture is my first choice, where I have some experience and knowledge. The State Affairs committee handles second amendment bills, as well as pro-life and other statewide issues. The Commerce committee addresses unions, wages and retirement issues.

Additionally, Hanks has assembled a Legislative Advisory Council to assist in determining or qualifying the benefits and/or consequences to proposed legislation.

This advisory council includes: Greg Bitter (motorsports), Brad Orme (retail petroleum sales/hotel), Sandy Edwards (commercial trucking/farming), Dr. Jason West (medical), Chip Schwarze (commerce), Shane Berger (banking), Collette Rinehart (marketing consultant), Kenneth J. Babcock (insurance), Dr. Drostan Orme (dental), and Dan Babcock (heavy-duty towing/auto body).

I have received very positive responses to my invitation to our district business people, as well as a few others in our region, to advise me in their areas of expertise, Hanks said. This will be of benefit to myself and those I serve, in casting the most informed votes possible.

She anticipates expanding this council with additional community and business leaders. The 2021 Legislative session begins Jan. 11 in Boise, including an address from Governor Brad Little.

Read more from the original source:

Hanks announces advisory council and committees - Post Register

Justice Barretts Vote Could Tilt the Supreme Court on Gun Rights – The New York Times

WASHINGTON Justice Amy Coney Barrett is just starting to make her mark at the Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, her vote flipped the courts approach to restrictions on attendance at religious services during the coronavirus pandemic. While Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was alive, the court had allowed such limits, in California and Nevada, by 5 to 4 votes. After Justice Barrett succeeded her, she joined the courts four most conservative justices to strike down restrictions in New York.

Those same four justices are now on high alert for a promising case in which to expand Second Amendment rights, having written repeatedly and emphatically about the courts failure to take gun rights seriously. Justice Barrett seems poised to supply the fifth vote they need.

A Second Amendment case decided last week by the federal appeals court in Philadelphia is a promising candidate for Supreme Court review, not least because it presents an issue on which Justice Barrett has already taken a stand.

It concerns Lisa M. Folajtar, who would like to buy a gun. But she is a felon, having pleaded guilty to tax evasion, which means under federal law she may not possess firearms.

She sued, arguing that the law violated her Second Amendment rights. A divided three-judge panel of appeals court rejected her challenge, saying that committing a serious crime has consequences. It can lead to losing the right to vote, to serve on a jury or to have a gun.

The ruling adopted the position of the Trump Justice Department. The right to keep and bear arms is analogous to other civic rights that have historically been subject to forfeiture by individuals convicted of crimes, including the right to vote, the right to serve on a jury and the right to hold public office, lawyers for Attorney General William P. Barr told the appeals court.

In dissent, Judge Stephanos Bibas, a former law professor appointed to the court by President Trump (and the author of a scathing decision on Friday rejecting the presidents challenge to the election results in Pennsylvania), wrote that the framers of the Constitution would not have allowed lawmakers to bar felons convicted of nonviolent crimes from owning guns.

Lisa Folajtar asks us to treat her as an equal member of society, he wrote. Though her tax-fraud conviction affects some of her privileges, it does not change her right to keep and bear arms.

Judge Bibas wrote that his analysis had drawn heavily from a dissent last year in a similar case concerning a man convicted of mail fraud.

That dissent was written by Justice Barrett when she was a judge on the federal appeals court in Chicago. The law forbidding people with felony convictions from owning guns, she wrote, should not apply when the crimes in question were nonviolent.

History does not support the proposition that felons lose their Second Amendment rights solely because of their status as felons, she wrote. But it does support the proposition that the state can take the right to bear arms away from a category of people that it deems dangerous.

Voting and jury service are different, she wrote, because those are rights that depend on civic virtue.

The Supreme Court has not issued a major Second Amendment decision since a pair of rulings, in 2008 and 2010, established an individual right for law-abiding citizens to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. Beyond that, the justices have said almost nothing about the scope of the right, and lower courts have sustained many kinds of gun control laws.

Before Justice Barretts arrival, the courts four most conservative justices had repeatedly written that the court should return to the subject of the Second Amendment

In 2017, for instance, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, wrote that they had detected a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous, Justice Thomas wrote. But the framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense.

In June, however, the court turned down some 10 appeals in Second Amendment cases. Since it takes only four votes to grant review, there is good reason to think that the courts conservative wing was unsure it could secure Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.s vote.

Justice Barretts arrival changes the calculus. Should Ms. Folajtar appeal to the Supreme Court, it is a good bet that Justice Barrett will find her arguments persuasive.

Still, the 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, would seem to create a hurdle for Ms. Folajtar. The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, included an important limiting passage, the price of Justice Anthony M. Kennedys crucial fifth vote.

Nothing in our opinion, Justice Scalia wrote, should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.

Last year, the court agreed to hear a challenge to a New York City gun-control ordinance. But it ended up dismissing the case in April, after the city repealed the ordinance.

Dissenting from that ruling, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. noted that the Heller decision recognized that history supported the constitutionality of some laws limiting the right to possess a firearm, including ones prohibiting possession by felons and other dangerous individuals.

That last phrase, which did not appear in the earlier decision, may be significant. In shifting the focus to dangerousness, it seemed to open the door to the position taken by Justice Barrett.

More:

Justice Barretts Vote Could Tilt the Supreme Court on Gun Rights - The New York Times

Defending the 2nd Amendment | The Herald-News – The Herald-News

Manuel Ramirez asks, How can a person travel from one state into another with a fully loaded assault rifle claim he was defending himself?

Ive a question or two for you, too, Manuel: How can you call an AR-15 an assault rifle when it is not one? Or do looks mean more to you than facts?

You say that the Second Amendment doesnt say anything about shooting your gun in the air or shooting your neighbor. Are you sure you want to go there? Nowhere in the Constitution does it even hint at abortion or homosexuality being protected.

You suggest that The government should raise the age limit to those individuals who insist on owning a weapon to, say, 35 years old. Interesting comment, when one realizes that those who argued the Constitution, and then wrote it and the Amendments, including the Second, had other opinions.

Richard Henry Lee, for instance: A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. Back then, men would have included those equal in age to Kyle Rittenhouse.

How about Tench Coxe? Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? He also said this: Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.

I could go on all day with examples, but Id rather point out what you didnt: the police, whose job is to do precisely what Kyle was attempting to do (and more), were ordered to stand down by those in authority, which allowed free reign to rioters/looters/arsonists hiding behind our First Amendment right to peacefully protest. Had that not happened, both in Kenosha and other cities around the country, we would never have even heard of Kyle.

John Babush

Big Rock

See the article here:

Defending the 2nd Amendment | The Herald-News - The Herald-News

Should you be allowed to carry a handgun in New Jersey? (Opinion) – New Jersey 101.5 FM Radio

Should we be allowed to carry a handgun in New Jersey? The NRA is suing to find out. The lawsuit brought on by the National Rifle Associations' institute for legislative action has partnered with The Association of New Jersey's rifle and pistol clubs tochallenge New Jersey's restrictive concealed carry laws.

According to the article;

"New Jerseys may-issue statute also requires that people justify their need to carry. And even though the Supreme Court said that self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment, the desire to defend yourself is insufficient justification under New Jersey law. This makes it all but impossible for law-abiding gun owners to receive a permit, which is required to lawfully carry a handgun in New Jersey."

Times are changing. Violent crime is up in New Jersey, Trenton has beaten its own record for homicides. We see peaceful protests turn violent across the country. We hear of cities and states wanting to defund the police. New Jersey Democrats say they would never do that, but people say a lot of things they would never do, that is until they were done.

What would be so wrong with people being able to carry a gun in New Jersey? Right now, only the bad guys and very few people who clear a lot of obstacles can do it. As for the responsible gun owners, they need a really good reason, and protecting your loved ones and property simply doesn't qualify.

Now I'm not saying that everyone in New Jersey should carry a gun. What I am saying is that responsible gun owners should have the option. That's assuming the irresponsible gun owners who don't obey the law already have one if they so choose.

Would you feel safer in a bank if you saw people carrying guns if someone were to pull a gun and try to rob it? Changes are most of said people are trained in gun use. Perhaps if a possible robber saw those same people the robbery would be averted. The same could be said for any type of shootings.

If people were allowed to carry handguns in New Jersey you might see more people taking an interest in learning how to use them. Education as we all know is the best weapon.

Once upon a time we never would have thought of the idea of being able to carry a handgun in New Jersey. then again, once upon a time we never would have thought about the idea of legalized marijuana, but here we are.

Would I carry a gun if it were legal? Probably not, but it would be nice to know that I have that option to protect my family. Would you?

The post above reflects the thoughts and observations of New Jersey 101.5 talk show host Steve Trevelise. Any opinions expressed are Steve's own.Steve Trevelise is on New Jersey 101.5 Monday-Thursday from 7pm-11pm. Follow him on Twitter@realstevetrev.

See original here:

Should you be allowed to carry a handgun in New Jersey? (Opinion) - New Jersey 101.5 FM Radio

The Court, Coronavirus and the Constitution – The Wall Street Journal

Dec. 2, 2020 4:33 pm ET

Regarding your editorial Fireworks Over Religious Liberty (Nov. 27): The governor of New York and mayor of New York City continue to engage in a pattern of promulgating unconstitutional orders, then withdrawing them when the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case. It worked for Mayor Bill de Blasio on gun control in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York but not for Gov. Andrew Cuomo in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. So much for that legal gamesmanship with vital constitutional issues.

Unfortunately for Gov. Cuomo in the diocese case, the makeup of the Supreme Court changed and he now has to dine on the proverbial crow despite his dismissive attitude about the courts decision. Attempting to render the central issue in the case moot by withdrawing the offensive action will no longer be tolerated when a strong constitutional insult is involved. From the main unsigned opinion to the concurring opinions, the majority has made clear it will no longer tolerate the offensive attempt to dodge the crucial constitutional issue. The temporary injunction handed down by the Supreme Court was very important and clips Gov. Cuomos ability to promulgate offensive orders unreasonably restrictive of religious rights. All states take notice. Also, Justice Brett Kavanaugh has recently given notice that the Second Amendment issues may soon be revisited.

Christopher R. Wood

Chester, N.J.

More here:

The Court, Coronavirus and the Constitution - The Wall Street Journal

A More Extreme Gun Rights Movement Is Emerging in the NRA’s Wake – Mother Jones

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

On a frigid Martin Luther King Jr. Day earlier this year, Philip Van Cleave brought out the big guns to Richmond. As he stood on the steps of the Virginia State Capitol, Van Cleavea 68-year-old balding and mustachioed software programmerdelivered a stern warning to the Democrats who had recently gained control of the state government: Were here today to remind Governor [Ralph] Northam and the general assembly that the last election was not a referendum on gun control. In front of him, an ocean of pro-gun protesters whooped in solidarity. Nearly all were armed, many gripping AR-15-style rifles or other assault weapons. A good number were decked out in paramilitary outfits and tactical gear. Confederate and Gadsden flags waved high and wide.

It was a scene that once would have been credited to the National Rifle Associationthe nations oldest gun rights group, which, over the past several decades, has inflamed and radicalized a broad coalition of conservative gun owners through alarmist messaging, especially during the Obama administration, and cemented itself as a formidable political force. But the NRA has since dwindled in power, and the rally was the work of Van Cleaves Virginia Citizens Defense League, a no-compromise, far-right gun rights group that he once boasted was proud to have been labeled an extremist organization.

Over the past 19 years, VCDLs Lobby Day protests in Richmondan annual event on MLK Day when special interest groups, predominantly ones with conservative ties, advocate to the General Assemblywere relatively mild affairs, with about 600 to 800 attendees. But this year it attracted more than 20,000, and the days leading up to the protest put the state on edge. The FBI arrested members of the neo-Nazi group the Base, who had allegedly stockpiled firearms and ammunition, discussed plans to recruit members at the rally to help kickstart a race war, and talked about committing acts of violence against people of color. Northam declared a state of emergency to ban weapons on the grounds of the state capitol building, but the crowd was so large that most armed attendees couldnt even fit in the area, instead spilling into the side streets of downtown Richmond. Alex Jones, the notorious conspiracy theorist and Infowars founder, drove around the streets in an armored vehicle screaming through a bullhorn, If they try to take our firearms, 1776 will commence again!

The rally was a bellwether: the sudden downfall of the nations most powerful gun group and the rise of more radical pro-gun organizations and militias seeking to take its place. Since 2016, the NRA has seen a steady decline in its ranks. Meanwhile, theres been a boon in membership for more extreme groups like the VCDL and the Second Amendment Foundation, which recently filed a number of lawsuits challenging state gun control laws, and the National Association for Gun Rights, which paints itself as a more conservative alternative to the NRA.

Theres no doubt a void to be filled by the NRA, but its unclear what groups will dominate. Weve got 100 million gun owners in this country, says Joshua Powell, the NRA directors former chief of staff. Whether its the NRA or some other group, somebodys going to have to fill those shoes. Powell was fired from the NRA last year amid allegations of sexual harassment, and hes since published a memoir detailing the behind-the-scenes corruption within the organization. It is important to have an institution that represents Second Amendment supporters, gun owners, Powell adds. This is part and parcel to the fabric of our country. The Second Amendment is not going anywhere. Van Cleave is also confident that there will be a group, or a splintered coalition of smaller groups, to step into the NRAs shoes. Theres not going to be a void there, he says. Somebodys going to fill that.

The NRAs downward spiral started with its greatest accomplishment: spending $54 million to help elect Donald Trump in 2016. But the first signs of financial trouble emerged the following year, which the NRA ended with a $1.1 million shortfall thanks to shrinking member revenue, probably because it no longer had Barack Obama as a liberal boogeyman to fundraise off of, as well as an increase in spending. The next year, 2018, saw an increase in revenue from membership dues, but the nonprofit again spent more money than it brought in, digging an even deeper hole of $10.8 million in the red, as its debts piled up.

The dam broke for the NRA in 2019 when, just before its annual meeting and convention in Indianapolis, the New Yorker and the Trace published a bombshell report detailing allegations of self-dealing among its top vendors, gratuitous spending, sweetheart deals, and other financial improprieties among the groups leadershipchiefly its executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, who has led the organization since 1991. At the meeting, then-NRA President Oliver North unsuccessfully tried to oust LaPierre and demanded his resignation.

LaPierre survived the uprising, as a majority of the NRAs 76-member board backed him unanimously and North resigned. But the damage was done. An anonymous source leaked financial documents that exposed years of corruption, including a damning letter that North penned. In a court filing from later last year Norths lawyers said that LaPierre demonstrating his total dictatorial control over the NRAstopped all of Norths inquiries and prevented others at the NRA from looking into the concerns that North raised.

Days after Norths attempted coup against LaPierre, New York Attorney General Letitia James opened an investigation into the NRAs tax-exempt status.After spending a year investigating, in August her office filed a massive lawsuit against the NRA, accusing it of widespread corruption and seeking to dissolve the organization in its entirety. The NRAs influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets, James said in statement announcing the lawsuit. The NRA is fraught with fraud and abuse, which is whywe seek to dissolve the NRA, because no organization is above the law. The lawsuit has since been tied up in a number of challenges by the NRAs legal team. After years of denying allegations of financial misconduct, the NRA finally admitted in its most recent tax filing that the organization only recently became aware of a significant diversion of its assets between LaPierre and five former executives.

The NRA has always been notoriously cagey about its membership numbers, but its tax returns and other financial documents offer a glimpse into the dire situation. An audited financial statementshows that revenue from member dues dropped from $170 million in 2018 to $113 million last yeara 34 percent decline marking the lowest annual membership revenue figure that the NRA has posted since 2012, which is especially troubling considering that the cost of membership dues has sharply increased in that timeat least twice in the last four years alone. (The NRA did not respond for a request for clarification on membership numbers and the decline in revenue from member dues.) That drop in revenue, along with the millions of dollars it has tied up to fight the New York attorney generals lawsuit and other litigation, meant a far smaller war chest for the 2020 election. This time around, the NRA spent only $24 million on federal electionsless than half of what it did in 2016 and barely more than the combined $22.1 million spent by two of the nations largest gun reform organizations, Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords. Meanwhile, the Gun Owners of America spent $900,000 in the 2020 election cycle, 14 times more than in 2016.

Thats a huge decrease in political spending, Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor and gun policy expert at UCLAs School of Law, says of the NRAs involvement in the 2020 election. Especially at a time when the gun control side is becoming more active, more engaged, putting more money into elections, and doing better get-out-the-vote mobilization efforts than ever before. All the while, more and more NRA members became disappointed and disillusioned with the organization. Theyve certainly lost members over this, says Van Cleave, who claims that his groups membership more than quadrupled in the six weeks following its 2020 Lobby Day rally, growing from about 8,000 to more than 35,000. Many of the new members of his group, he says, had quit the NRA. I see a lot of disappointment, he adds. The way a lot of the money is being used. Thats the concern.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League came into existence in 1994, just as congressional Democrats pushed through a pair of gun safety billsincluding a decade-long ban on assault weaponsthat sparked the modern gun control debate. Paul Moog formed the group to fight gun safety legislation not on a national level, but locally in Virginia. Originally called the Northern Virginia Citizens Defense League, the groups first order of business was to pressure state lawmakers to change the states concealed carry laws from its may issue legal statusmeaning that the state may issue a concealed carry permit only to people who can prove they have a good reasonto shall issue, granting anyone eligible to own a firearm to also obtain a concealed carry permit.

Building on the early success, Moog soon dropped the Northern from VCDLs title and set his sights on ensuring that the whole state was as gun-friendly as it could possibly be. To do so, the group established a playbook of lobbying lawmakersmuch like the NRAcoupled with public protests meant to intimidate any push for tightening Virginias gun laws. In 1998, VCDL members protested a Northern Virginia churchs gift-for-guns program, which encouraged people to surrender their unwanted firearms in exchange for gift certificates to local businesses. In 2002, the group led a boycott against the Valley View Mall in Roanoke over its ban of firearms in the mall. And in 2004, after a slew of gun control bills failed to make it out of the states general assembly, the VCDL encourage firearm owners to turn up at restaurants and shopping centers with their sidearm strapped to their hip in celebrationin turn intimidating some clientele.

In 2001, Van Cleave became the groups president and, one year later, members staged their first Lobby Day protest. Under his leadership, the VCDL has expanded its national profile, showing an eagerness to go on national news programs to defend his extremist views on the Second Amendmentespecially in the wake of mass shootings. After the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012, Van Cleave gleefully defended the semiautomatic military-style rifle used by the shooter, Adam Lanza, to the Washington Post. Guns are fun, and some of them are much more cool than others, he said. Its just like we have television sets that look cool, and others are much more boxy. He has also criticized the NRA for not going far enough in their comments calling for armed guards in schools. If you have got a permit, if youre carrying everywhere else you goa school is no different, Van Cleave told WWBT, Richmonds NBC affiliate.

But Van Cleaves most notable brush with public notoriety is also his most embarrassing. In 2018, he was duped by notorious prankster Sacha Baron Cohen for his Showtime series Who Is America? in a segment where he films a faux-PSA for a gun-training program for kids, KinderGuardians. Despite the embarrassment (which he attempted to distance himself from by claiming he knew he was being set up but went along in an attempt to protect other gun advocates from similar ploys), Van Cleave and the VCDL have managed to greatly broaden their coalition within Virginia, acting as both a blueprint for local grassroots gun rights groups in other states and as fodder for national ones seeking to capitalize on the NRAs decline.

Since the Lobby Day rally, a number of militias have formed throughout Virginia, something that Van Cleave says the VCDL wasnt involved in organizing but welcomes. But his group has been busy this year: the VCDL fought Northams actions to slow the spread of the coronavirus, including a successful legal effort in April to overturn part of the governors executive order that classified shooting ranges among the businesses forced to close as the state went into lockdown. The VCDL has also been heavily involved in the growing number of towns and municipalities in the state declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuariesand vowing not to enforce any new gun control laws passed at the state and county level. Through VCDLs email alert system, which Van Cleave says has tens of thousands of subscribers, they are able to send an SOS to its members whenever gun control legislation is on the table anywhere in the state, mobilizing members to voice opposition to any such measures in public comment forums. We dont let these localities take our basic civil rights and do with them what they please, Van Cleave told a local Virginia newspaper in July. When it comes to guns, thats when the rules go out the windowwere not going to let them get away with it.

Several groups have already ramped up their operations over the past year, such as Gun Owners of America, a national group that former Texas Rep. Ron Paul once called the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington. Van Cleave says the VCDL has been working quite a bit with Gun Owners of America on both state and national issues. I think whats going to happen is as the NRA ends up being pretty crippled for a while, there are other organizations that are going to step forward, he says. Theres not going to be a void there, somebodys going to fill that.

As the coronavirus sent much of the country into lockdown this spring, more new armed groups emerged in protest. Members of the Michigan Liberty Militia stormed the states capitol building in protest of the tyranny that Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was imposing with her strict stay-at-home orders. As unrest in the wake of George Floyds murder spread across the country, so too did armed militia groups, from Portland to Wisconsin, Texas, and Virginia, where authorities claim that the antigovernment extremist group known as the boogaloo boyswhose rise this year started at the Lobby Day rally in Richmondstoked violent confrontations between police and Black Lives Matter protesters. In mid-October, the FBI announced that members of an extremist militia group had plotted to kidnap Gov. Whitmer, as well as take over the states capitol building, where they would hold televised executions of public officials. The group also discussed taking Northam, Virginias Democratic governor, according to the FBI. But Van Cleave dismisses any connection between VCDLs Lobby Day protest and the rise of violence from extremist militia groups, calling it overblown lies from the media. Im very skeptical of a lot of that, he says.

Still, as groups vie to fill the NRAs void, extremist gun violence is increasing in ever more concerning ways. Two armed men from Virginia were arrested outside of the Philadelphia Convention Center on November 5 after police received a tip about plans to raid a truckload of fake ballots. One of the men, Joshua Macias, co-founded the group Vets for Trump and had attended VCDLs Lobby Day rally in January, according to a review of his Twitter account. In a video taken during the rally, Macias can be seen, with a bullhorn in hand, firing up a crowd of hundreds on a downtown Richmond side street: There are veterans out herewho made an oath to defend this constitution against foreign and domestic enemies!

In the aftermath of the election, as Trump refused to concede and peddled conspiracy theories about election fraud, thousands of his supportersincluding violent extremist groups like the Proud Boysmarched in DC to protest the results. Though DC law forbids carrying firearms in most public places, includingat public demonstrations, the Oath Keepers, an extremist militia group, posted a note on its website to supporters saying that our men will be standing by, awaiting the Presidents orders to call us up as the militia, which would override D.C.s ridiculous anti-gun laws. At least four people were arrested on gun charges at the rally.

Not all gun owners are flocking to these far-right groups. Other gun groups like the Socialist Rifle Association and the National African American Gun Association have also seen membership increase, though theirs is much smaller than their ultra-right counterparts. And in October, Giffords, the gun safety group co-founded by former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords (D), launched a new national firearms group for gun owners that it hopes can take the NRAs mantle while also pushing for gun control measures.

It would be convenient to link the rise of extremist gun groups this year to the NRAs downfall: At a time when gun control groups are more impactful than theyve ever beenspending millions of dollars to successfully boost political candidates running on a gun control platformtheir biggest foe is down and out, leaving gun owners across the country feeling powerless. But Winkler doesnt think the narrative tracks. He explains that the rise in militia activity and armed protesters this year seems to be the natural growth of something that started about 10 to 12 years ago with the tea party movement when guns became a symbol of protest. I dont think the vast majority of people who bring guns to a protest are planning on starting a firefight, he says. Theyre not planning on starting a war. Theyre doing it symbolically for protest. Still, Winkler worries that it can go awry, especially given the spate of right-wing violence from extremist militias at protests over the summer. Theyre suddenly shifting to self-defense, he says, the moment they see someone or something happening that they feel threatened by.

Van Cleave sees his groups Lobby Day protest and continued advocacy for gun rights not so much as a protest, but as a battle. Thats especially true in a Joe BidenKamala Harris administration, which Van Cleave says has basically declared war on the Second Amendment. His group was planning another massive Lobby Day protest next month, but that went awry when gun control groups got permits for the space where VCDL typically holds its event. In retaliation, VCDL sent a message to members with plans for a caravan rally similar to the Trump rallies that took place across the country before the election. VCDL is going to do thatbut on steroids! the email stated. Beyond Lobby Day, Van Cleave hints at other events and strategies to fight any gun control laws that the new administration may try to pass, whether through litigation or on the streets. Our job is to protect that [Second Amendment] right by whatever means is necessary.

Read the rest here:

A More Extreme Gun Rights Movement Is Emerging in the NRA's Wake - Mother Jones

What Pro-Second Amendment Moves Are Possible With A Pro-Second Amendment Senate? – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Take Action Time to Act

Georgia/United States -(AmmoLand.com)-Lately, we have noted what the stakes for the Georgia runoff elections include, both on the legislative front and in terms of secondary issues. Much of this has focused on various adverse actions or consequences of anti-Second Amendment extremism that they would be preventing. But there is also good stuff that a Senate controlled by Second Amendment supporters could do, even if Biden is president.

One of the duties of Congress is to carry out oversight of the various executive agencies. This is in conjunction with the power of the purse which the Constitution has invested in the legislative branch. Oversight, when properly wielded does more than just shine the light on malfeasance or the failure to act it can actually be one of those things that can shift the political landscape.

For instance, an oversight hearing for our favorite agency to hate, BATF, could spend a lot of time on the non-prosecution of crimes covered under 18 USC 922. Properly done, such a hearing, focusing, say on the violent crime in cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimorecould reap huge benefits.

Lori Lightfoot has often liked to blame other states for Chicagos violent crime, often because they are far more respectful of our Second Amendment rights. She and other big city mayors even try playing the race card when they are called out. But the fact is, running the guns to Chicago from out of state for use in criminal acts is itself a federal felony, and can net serious jail time. Oversight hearings could be very useful in highlighting the cynical division Lightfoot and others are using.

Another option is to propose pro-Second Amendment legislation and to use the hearings to make the case to the American people. We have covered a number of pro-Second Amendment legislation in the past, including a privacy enhancement for gun owners from Senator Kelly Loeffler, legislation that would mark an effective resolution of the situation with AR pistols by Senator-elect Roger Marshall, and legislation that would restrict corporate gun control.

The fact is, by being able to hold hearings on legislation, elected officials can help make the case for these bills, but also again, highlight abuses as well. Its one thing for a gun control law to be passed by elected officials. We know gun control laws usually dont solve the problem, they punish innocent people for crimes and acts of madness they didnt commit, and those that might be effective are never enforced. But you can vote elected officials out. On the other hand, what recourse is there when big corporations like Bank of America deny services based on the support of the Second Amendment, or for companies who seek to help Americans exercise their rights?

The fact is, controlling the power of the purse also means that the Senate can, in some ways, affect policy. Want to encourage local governments to work with BATF to enforce certain gun laws? Some conditions on grants would be a way to do that. Want to keep financial regulations from being misused to target gun makers? A little rider in some of those massive appropriations bills can accomplish that.

Is it the best way to accomplish the goals? No, at best the funding controls are stopgaps. But stopgaps still buy time, time to elect pro-Second Amendment officials and to improve the situation down the road.

The fact is, a pro-Second Amendment Senate can still take positive steps to protect our rights, even if Joe Biden ends up in the Oval Office. To ensure that pro-Second Amendment Senators can to protect our rights in that unfortunate situation, Second Amendment supporters need to back Loeffler and Perdue, then also support the National Rifle Associations Political Victory Fund and their Institute for Legislative Action, in order to be ready for 2022 and 2024.

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.

View original post here:

What Pro-Second Amendment Moves Are Possible With A Pro-Second Amendment Senate? - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Activists on both sides of gun issue wait for action from Biden administration – News 5 Cleveland

CLEVELAND Back in March of this year, hours before the COVID-19 pandemic changed the way political campaigns work, then-candidate Joe Biden stopped in Ohio.

First, he stopped in Columbus and met with members of two gun control advocacy groups, Everytown Survivor Network and Moms Demand Action, according to Rebecca Gorski a volunteer with the latter group.

Gorski was waiting for Biden's second scheduled stop that day, but in the hours between the end of Biden's stop in the state capital and his stop in Northeast Ohio, the seriousness of the pandemic set in, and the event was canceled.

Democratic contender Sen. Bernie Sanders was also scheduled to stop in Cleveland, but his trip to Northeast Ohio was also canceled. This was March 10, a week before the March 17 Ohio primary.

For the next seven months, traditional campaign conversations were often eschewed for speeches about COVID-19, the economy and recovery.

Despite the new style of campaign, which for Biden meant months of videos and small group discussions instead of large political rallies, Gorski said the issue of firearms in the United States wasn't forgotten.

"I think candidates were speaking about it more than ever before, and I think that it's important to voters," she said.

Gorski was active in the 2020 election for Moms Demand Action in the Cleveland area. The political action group was started in 2012 by Shannon Watts in the months following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Sandy Hook, Connecticut.

"So we must address these issues at the federal level," Gorski said. "And we're lucky to have guns as champions like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and the White House."

Now, President-Elect Joe Biden and Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris support the Democrat party platform.

Part of the platform includes enacting universal background checks, closing the "Charleston Loophole," ending the manufacture of assault weapons and passing legislation for safe home storage.

"Which is it's a good idea to have good home storage requirements," said Second Amendment activist and radio host Amanda Suffecool. She said the problem begins "when you add the word mandate and then you add the word under penalty of law."

Where Gorski sees promise in the Biden-Harris agenda, Suffecool sees a breach of freedom.

"When you talk to the liberal gun club, they're like, 'Yeah, that's the platform that's not real.' Well, if it's not real, why is it saying this is the direction we want to go?" Suffecool said.

Suffecool advocates for more education when it comes to gun ownership and usage. That is not in the current platform. She doesn't think the platform is going in the right direction.

These two women don't agree on much when it comes to gun issues, but they both say the pandemic hasn't dulled the conversation about guns in America.

That conversation is seen in action at the Parma Armory.

Owner Rob Eurle said at the beginning of the year he was preparing for a rush on guns depending on the outcome of the election.

But it was the start of the pandemic and the lockdown in the spring that really brought gun sales up.

"I think it's maybe across the nation that the Second Amendment is just getting more awareness now," he said. "And you could see through this spike that we saw when the beginning of COVID that we were over like 300% and sales of both firearms and retail."

Eurle agrees there needs to be more education for potential and current gun owners.

With a change in administration, Eurle is preparing for a change in regulations.

"We don't know what restrictions we might see, or less restrictions, we might say," Eurle said. "We don't know. It's a mystery, especially with a changing every day."

He said even if background check regulations change under the new administration, he doesn't expect any change in sales.

Go here to read the rest:

Activists on both sides of gun issue wait for action from Biden administration - News 5 Cleveland