The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Monthly Archives: June 2017
State universities advance free speech | Opinion | morganton.com – Morganton News Herald
Posted: June 30, 2017 at 5:01 pm
RALEIGH A couple of months ago, I wrote a column that outlined emerging threats to freedom of speech on college campuses and noted with alarm that few of North Carolinas public or private universities had taken the necessary steps to ensure even a basic level of protection for students, faculty, and visiting speakers.
I am pleased to report that the situation has improved significantly since I wrote that earlier piece. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) assesses the rules and procedures that protect, or fail to protect, free speech on campus. Just a few months ago, only one of the campuses in the University of North Carolina system Chapel Hill was given a green light in FIREs rating system. Most received yellow lights, while four campuses got red lights for failing to provide meaningful protections.
Several UNC campuses contacted FIRE to find out what they needed to do to address the problem, and then took action to remove their intrusive speech codes. As of late June, only one institution in the system, the School of the Arts in Winston-Salem, still has a red-light designation.
Five campuses UNC-Chapel Hill, UNC-Greensboro, UNC-Charlotte, North Carolina Central, and East Carolina now have green lights. Thats fantastic! The other 10 universities are rated yellow, which in a couple of cases is still an improvement.
Among private campuses in North Carolina, the free-speech leader is Duke University, with a green light. On the other end of the spectrum, Wake Forest University and Davidson College are blinking red. While First Amendment protections of freedom of speech, press, and assembly dont apply to private campuses, they should champion such practices as forming the core element of a truly liberal education.
North Carolina now leads the nation in the number of higher education institutions receiving FIREs top rating. North Carolinians who treasure free expression should be proud of this progress even as we continue to press other institutions to follow suit.
Why pay so much attention to this issue? Unless you are a professor, a student, or a family member of either, you may not see free speech on campus as critical. But its related to a broader phenomenon that youve surely noticed and that may be affecting you more directly the decline of civil, constructive dialogue across political difference.
To recognize the right of some else to express a controversial point of view is not necessarily to endorse that view. To place a high value on the free exchange of ideas is not necessarily to place a high value on all of the ideas being exchanged, or to place a high level of trust or confidence in the individuals expressing those ideas.
There are at least two core arguments for freedom of speech. One is that we all have inherent rights as human beings to say (and do) whatever we please as long as we dont violate the equal rights of others to say (and do) the same. The other, more consequentialist, argument is that if we allow and foster an unencumbered exchange of views, the marketplace of ideas will sort itself out over time and provide us with better answers to important questions than we could ever get by constraining the debate.
The first argument only applies to government policy. That is, in a free society no politician or bureaucrat has the legitimate power to suppress the views of others through such means as fines or imprisonment. If you come on my property and start yelling at me about Medicaid expansion or whatnot, I can have you ejected. But if you stand on your own property and yell at me, or use private means to communicate your views through spoken or printed word, my only recourses are to answer or ignore you.
The consequentialist argument, however, applies even in non-governmental settings such as private universities where the search for truth is integral to their missions. However messy or uncomfortable it may be in some circumstances, free speech is better than the alternative.
John Hood is chairman of the John Locke Foundation and appears on the talk show NC SPIN. You can follow him @JohnHoodNC.
Read this article:
State universities advance free speech | Opinion | morganton.com - Morganton News Herald
Posted in Freedom of Speech
Comments Off on State universities advance free speech | Opinion | morganton.com – Morganton News Herald
Defense spending increased ‘significantly’ among NATO allies – DefenseNews.com
Posted: at 4:57 pm
BRUSSELSDefense spending has increased significantly among NATO allies, a meeting of defense ministers from the Western alliance was told Thursday in Brussels. The meeting heard that, across European allies and Canada, there was a 4.3 percent real increase in defense spending, equivalent to about $12 billion. This means that over the last three years, NATO members spent almost $46 billion more on defense.
This is a significant increase, which means that we are moving in the right direction when it comes to burden-sharing and defense spending,"NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said.We are making major progress. This will be the third consecutive year of accelerating defense investment across European allies and Canada.
Cyber defense
It was also confirmed at the meeting that a cyberattack, such as thoserecentlyobserved, can trigger Article 5NATOs mutual defense clauseof the North Atlantic treaty in the same way as a conventional military assault. It is believed the latest attack was designed to cause chaos rather than extort money. Ukrainian officials have pointed at Russia, which is fighting an undeclared war with Ukraine in the east of the country and has been blamed for previous cyberattacks on Kiev.
Anti-ISIS efforts
He also noted that NATOs presence in the Black Sea region is developing, adding: Earlier this week, the headquarters of our Multinational Brigade South East in Romania was activated as a NATO military body. The brigade is conducting exercises and U.K. jets are currently patrolling the regions skies.
See the rest here:
Defense spending increased 'significantly' among NATO allies - DefenseNews.com
Posted in NATO
Comments Off on Defense spending increased ‘significantly’ among NATO allies – DefenseNews.com
NATO 2.0 – Europe and America’s first line of defense against Russia and terror – Fox News
Posted: at 4:57 pm
With the seeming unraveling of the European Union the worry across the continent is whether NATO can survive and whether this post World War II organization linked to the EU is prepared to deal with the challenges of the 21st century. There is little doubt the NATO alliance faces security challenges more complex and demanding than at any time since the end of the Cold War.
Russia has flexed its military muscle in Crimea, the eastern Ukraine and Syria. It has tried to intimidate the Baltic states with the aggressive use of cyber-attacks and disinformation and has modernized its military hardware consistent with its hostile nature.
NATO has added to its defense portfolio with a clear anti-terror program against ISIS, al Qaeda and Boko Haram modifying its traditional mission.
And in a gesture to President Trump, it vowed to live up to the Defense Investment Pledge of spending 2 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
NATO 2.0 is a combination of the old and the new, missions that have recently converged. Since 2014 NATO has conducted the most elaborate reinforcement of its collective defense since the end of the Cold War. This includes: forward presence in the eastern part of the alliances; rapid reinforcement capability; the strengthening of nuclear deterrence and cyber defenses and creating a Joint Intelligence and Security Division.
Are these steps sufficient to deter possible Russian aggression and terrorist threats? The only way to tell is by enemy inaction. For example, cyber-attacks are becoming more frequent and sophisticated than in the past. They have reached a threshold where they can become as harmful as a conventional attack. Recent cyber incidents, including the WannaCry and Petya attacks, indicate the increasing threat posed by malicious state and nonstate actors. According to the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) there are more than 30 sovereign states that have offensive cyber operation programs. Furthermore, these capabilities are increasingly in the hands of criminal and other nonstate actors.
Ensuring the security of Allies is not only about deterrence and defense in Europe. It is also about what happens beyond European borders. NATO has had extensive experience in projecting force through operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan. It is also involved in dealing with the continental migrant crisis. In fact, the steep decline in illegal migration between 2015 and 2016 is due to NATOs presence in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas in a program called Operation Sea Guardian. NATO claims to have formal partnership with over 40 countries and a range of international organizations.
Despite cavalier statements made during the campaign season, NATO is as important today as when it was created in 1948. However, any organization with a seven-decade history requires reexamination. NATOs mission should be carefully assessed along with troop deployments. The financial commitment of members should be reasserted.
Since the U.S. doesnt have resources or the inclination to be the worlds policeman to cite an unfortunate clich it can enhance its influence through multilateral organizations like NATO. In fact, NATO could serve as a model for fledging organizations in other parts of the world. In President Trumps Riyadh speech he made reference to an Arab NATO in the Middle East. Clearly this would probably not include Article 5, the proposition that an attack on one is an attack on all, but in most other respects the NATO architecture would be duplicated.
As I see it, NATO as the bulwark of defense for democratic institutions is critical. Europeans may believe they are capable of an independent force, but this view is misguided. Europe needs NATO as its first line of defense and the U.S. needs NATO to hold back the tide of terrorism.
Dr. Herb London is president of the London Center for Policy Research and is co-author with Jed Babbin of "The BDS War Against Israel."
See the original post here:
NATO 2.0 - Europe and America's first line of defense against Russia and terror - Fox News
Posted in NATO
Comments Off on NATO 2.0 – Europe and America’s first line of defense against Russia and terror – Fox News
The NSA’s Inadvertent Role in the Major Cyberattack on Ukraine – Slate Magazine
Posted: at 4:57 pm
Should the NSA stop hacking computers out of concern that bad guys could steal its tools and use them for their own nefarious purposes?
Wikimedia Commons
Theres a moment in Dr. Strangelove, Stanley Kubricks dark Cold War comic masterpiece, when President Merkin Muffley (played by Peter Sellers) learns that an insane general has exploited a loophole in the militarys command-control system and launched a nuclear attack on Russia. Muffley turns angrily to Air Force Gen. Buck Turgidson (played by George C. Scott) and says, When you instituted the human reliability tests, you assured me there was no possibility of such a thing ever occurring. Turgidson gulps and replies, I dont think its quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.
The National Security Agency currently finds itself in a similar situation.
One of the NSAs beyondtop secret hacking tools has been stolen. And while the ensuing damage falls far short of an unauthorized nuclear strike, the thieves have wreaked cybermayhem around the world.
The mayhem was committed by a group called the Shadow Brokers, which in April announced that it had acquired the NSA tool (known as Eternal Blue) and published its exploit code online for any and all hackers to copy.* In May, some entitywidely believed to be North Koreansused the the exploit code to develop some malware, which became known as WannaCry, and launched a massive ransomware attack, which shut down 200,000 computers, including those of many hospitals and other critical facilities.
Then on June 27 came this latest attack, which was launched by the Shadow Brokers themselves. This struck some security analysts as odd, for two reasons. First, the Shadow Brokers are believed to be members ofor criminal hackers affiliated witha Russian intelligence agency, and Russians tend not to hack for mere cash. Second, the attack was slipshod: The ransoms were to be paid to a single email address, which security experts shut down in short order. If the Russians had decided to indulge in this mischief for money, it was a shock that they did it so poorly.
Now, however, several cybersecurity analysts are convinced that the ransomware was a brief ploy to distract attention from a devastating cyberattack on the infrastructure of Ukraine, through a prominent but vulnerable financial server.
Jake Williams, founder of Rendition InfoSec LLC (and a former NSA analyst), told me on Thursday, two days after the attack, The ransomware was a cover for disrupting Ukraine; we have very high confidence of that. This disruptive attack shut down computers running Ukrainian banks, metro systems, and government ministries. The virus then spread to factories, ports, and other facilities in 60 countriesthough Williams says its unclear whether this rippling effect was deliberate. (Because computers are connected to overlapping networks, malware sometimes infects systems far beyond a hackers intended targets.)
By the way, the attack left the ransomware victims, marginal as they were, completely screwed. Once the email address was disconnected, those who wanted to pay ransom had no place to send their bitcoins. Their computers remain frozen. Unless they had back-up drives, their files and data are irretrievable.
Its not yet clear how the Shadow Brokers obtained the hacking tool. One cybersecurity specialist involved in the probe told me that, at first, he and others figured that the theft had to be an inside job, committed by a second Snowden, but the forensics showed otherwise. One possibility, he now speculates, is that an unnamed NSA contractor, who was arrested last year for taking home files, either passed them onto the Russians or was hacked by the Russians himself. The other possibility is that the Russians hacked into classified NSA files. Its a toss-up which theory is more disturbing; the upshot of both is, it could happen again.
So should the NSA stop hacking computers out of concern that bad guys could steal its tools and use them for their own nefarious purposes? This remedy is probably unreasonable. After all, spy agencies spy, and the NSA spies by intercepting communications, including digital communications, and some of that involves hacking. In other words, the cyber equivalent of Gen. Turgidson would have a point if he told an angry superior its unfair to condemn a whole program for a single slip-up.
It may be time to view surfing the internet on computers as similar to the way we view driving cars on the highway.
Besides, the NSA doesnt do very many hacks of the sort that the Shadow Brokers stolehacks that involve zero-day exploits, the discovery and use of vulnerabilities (in software, hardware, servers, networks, and so forth) that no one has previously discovered. Zero-day exploits were once the crown jewels of the NSAs signals-intelligence shops. But theyre harder to come by now. Software companies continually test their products for security gaps and patch them right away. Hundreds of firms, many created by former intelligence analysts, specialize in finding zero-day vulnerabilities in commercial productsthen alerting the companies for handsome fees. Often, by the time the NSA develops an exploit for a zero-day vulnerability, someone in the private sector has also found it and already developed a patch.
More and more, in recent years, the NSA chooses to tell companies about a problem and even help them fix it. This trend accelerated in December 2013, when a five-member commission, appointed by President Obama in the wake of the Snowden revelations, wrote a 300-page report proposing 46 reforms for U.S. intelligence agencies. One proposal was to bar the government from doing anything to subvert, undermine, weaken, or make vulnerable generally available commercial software. Specifically, if NSA analysts found a zero-day exploit, they should be required to patch the hole at once, except in rare instances when the government could briefly authorize the exploit for high-priority intelligence collection, though, even then, only after approval not by the NSA directorwho, in the past, made such decisionsbut rather in a senior interagency review involving all appropriate departments.
Obama approved this recommendation, and as a result his White House cybersecurity chief, Michael Daniel, drafted a list of questions that this senior review panel must ask before letting the NSA exploit, rather than patch, the zero-day discovery. The questions: Would this vulnerability, if left unpatched, pose risks to our own societys infrastructure? If adversaries or crime groups knew about the vulnerability, how much harm could they inflict? How badly do we need the intelligence that the exploit would provide? Are there other ways to get this intelligence? Could we exploit the vulnerability for just a short period of time, then disclose and patch it?
A 2016 article in Bloomberg News reported that, due in part to this new review process, the NSA keepsand exploits for offensive purposesonly about two of the roughly 100 zero-day vulnerabilities it finds in the course of a year.
The vulnerability exploited in the May ransomware attack was one of those zero-days that the NSA kept for a while. (It is not known for how long or what adversaries it allowed us to hack.) The vulnerability was in a Microsoft operating system. In March, the government notified Microsoft of the security gap. Microsoft quickly devised a patch and alerted users to install the software upgrade. Some users did; others didnt. The North Koreans were able to hack into the systems of those who didnt. Thats how the vast majority of hacks happenthrough carelessness.
It may be time to view surfing the internet on computers as similar to the way we view driving cars on the highway. Both are necessary for modern life, and both advance freedoms, but they also carry responsibilities and can do great harm if misused. It would be excessive to require the equivalent of drivers licenses to go online; a government that can take away such licenses for poor digital hygiene could also take them away for impertinent political speech. But its not outrageous to impose regulations on product liability, holding vendors responsible for malware-infected devices, just as car companies are for malfunctioning brakes. Its not outrageous to force government agencies and companies engaged in critical infrastructure (transportation, energy, finance, and so forth) to meet minimal cybersecurity standards or to hit them with heavy fines if they dont. Its not outrageous to require companies to program their computers or software to shut down if users dont change or randomize their passwords or if they dont install software upgrades after a certain amount of time. Or if this goes too far, the government could require companies to program their computers or software to emit a loud noise or flash a bright light on the screen until the users take these precautionsin much the same way that drivers hear ding-ding-ding until they fasten their seatbelts.
Some of these ideas have been kicking around for decades, a few at high levels of government, but theyve been crushed by lobbyists and sometimes by senior economic advisers who warned that regulations would impede technical progress and harm the competitive status of American industries. Resistance came easy because many of these measures were expensive and the dangers they were meant to prevent seemed theoretical. They are no longer theoretical. The cyberattack scenarios laid out in government reports decades ago, dismissed by many as alarmist and science fiction, are now the stuff of front-page news stories.
Cyberthreats will never disappear; cybervulnerabilities will never be solved. They are embedded in the technology, as its developed in the 50 years since the invention of the internet. But the problems can be managed and mitigated. Either we take serious steps now, through a mix of regulations and market-driven incentivesor we wait until a cybercatastrophe, after which far more brutal solutions will be slammed down our throats at far greater cost by every measure.
*Correction, June 30, 2017: This article originally misstated that the NSA tool stolen by the Shadow Brokers was called WannaCry. It was called Eternal Blue, and its code was used to create WannaCry. (Return.)
Go here to read the rest:
The NSA's Inadvertent Role in the Major Cyberattack on Ukraine - Slate Magazine
Posted in NSA
Comments Off on The NSA’s Inadvertent Role in the Major Cyberattack on Ukraine – Slate Magazine
Recode Daily: Trump’s ‘travel ban’ goes into effect, and can the NSA control the cyber weapons it creates? – Recode
Posted: at 4:57 pm
A pared-down version of President Trumps travel ban took effect Thursday night, barring immigrants and refugees from six majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States unless they can prove a relationship with a U.S. citizen or entity; late adjustments to the administrations rules included fiancs but not grandparents and other extended family. In an emergency filing, the state of Hawaii asked a federal court to clarify the scope of the ban, saying the governments latest restrictions go further than the Supreme Court allowed. [Tony Romm / Recode]
This weeks international malware attack has raised concerns that the National Security Agency has rushed to create digital weapons that it cannot keep safe or disable. [The New York Times]
Airbnb is launching a new service for luxury vacation rentals at mega-homes, mansions and penthouses. Airbnb Lux will begin testing in some markets at the end of the year. [Bloomberg]
Meal-kit delivery company Blue Apron raised $300 million in its first day of trading on the New York Stock Exchange, opening at about $10 a share. The five-year-old New York City-based company slashed its IPO price amid questions about the long-term feasibility of its model. [Jason Del Rey / Recode]
Blue Apron CEO Matt Salzberg will join Bonobos CEO Andy Dunn and Williams-Sonoma CEO Laura Alber at Septembers Code Commerce event in New York City, where retail and commerce industry leaders will explore the convergence of digital and physical in the realm of buying and selling stuff. [Jason Del Rey / Recode]
No single device will have as much impact as the iPhone in the next 10 years. Heres a look at which products in the market today might have a comparable effect over the next decade. [Jan Dawson / Recode]
A former Binary Capital employee is suing Justin Caldbeck and the VC firm.
Ann Lai alleges defamation and other claims.
Facebooks internet-beaming drone completed its second test flight and landed perfectly.
Its first Aquila flight ended in a crash landing.
A new drone route is now open in Malawi.
Drones can soar over roads in the flood-prone region to help deliver supplies to remote areas.
This new movie about an Instagram stalker looks both hilarious and terrifying.
Remember: People can see your public social media posts.
Google is still mostly white and male.
Thats according to the latest diversity report.
Kids these days.
On the latest Too Embarassed to Ask, Kara Swisher and Lauren Goode talk with The Verges Casey Newton and Karas older son, Louie Swisher, about how teens are using (or not using) apps like Instagram, Snapchat, Musical.ly and more.
Nice day for a Crunchwrap Supreme wedding
This lucky couple won a glamorous, all-expenses-paid wedding at Taco Bells chic Las Vegas Cantina location, catered with Doubledillas, Gorditas and a hot-sauce-packet bouquet. They werent the first; the fast-food company is now offering anyone the chance to get married at the Vegas franchise for $600. [Eric Vilas-Boas / Thrillist]
Here is the original post:
Recode Daily: Trump's 'travel ban' goes into effect, and can the NSA control the cyber weapons it creates? - Recode
Posted in NSA
Comments Off on Recode Daily: Trump’s ‘travel ban’ goes into effect, and can the NSA control the cyber weapons it creates? – Recode
Turkey’s Directorate of Security rejects NSA role in capture of Reina attacker – Daily Sabah
Posted: at 4:57 pm
Turkey's General Directorate of Security on Friday refuted the claims that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) helped Turkey capture the gunman who carried out the deadly New Year's nightclub attack in Istanbul.
The statement released by the directorate said that the news report suggesting that NSA determined the location of Abdulkadir Masharipov and shared the information with Turkey does not reflect the truth.
"There has been no information shared by a country or foreign institutions in relation to the location of the person who carried out the attack. The identification and capture of the attacker were carried out by the intelligence branch of General Directorate of Security and affiliated branches," the statement said.
Masharipov, an Uzbek citizen, was captured by police in Istanbul after a two-week manhunt following the attack, claimed by Daesh, that killed 39 people, primarily party-goers from Turkey and Middle Eastern countries.
Masharipov confessed to the shooting and told his interrogators that he had received orders from Raqqa, the de facto capital of Daesh in Syria.
He faces charges of membership in a terror group, attempted murder of 79 people injured in the attack and violating Turkey's firearms law. These charges can carry a maximum total of 2,397 years in prison.
Read the original post:
Turkey's Directorate of Security rejects NSA role in capture of Reina attacker - Daily Sabah
Posted in NSA
Comments Off on Turkey’s Directorate of Security rejects NSA role in capture of Reina attacker – Daily Sabah
Analysis: Second Amendment Rights Come with Controversy – Story – OzarksFirst.com
Posted: at 4:56 pm
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. -- Many cherish their right to keep and bear arms.
But, Second Amendment rights are not without controversy.
The Second Amendment ruffles lots of political feathers.
Here's what the amendment says:
"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."
Having just fought off the strongest military power in the world to gain independence, the founders were acutely aware that the ability of the people to access arms to keep government in check was vital.
But those today who argue for increased restrictions on gun ownership point to the amendment's use of the term "militia," and say that this refers to the modern day National Guard, not all citizens.
Gun proponents push back by saying that militias at the time of the Constitution's ratification included all able-bodied males over the age of 16, who could be pressed into defense of their land and rights.
For years, the Supreme Court refused to rule that the Second Amendment was incorporated-meaning that it applied to all the states. This is why states have historically had a patchwork of different rules for gun ownership and use.
But the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. The City of Chicago in 2010 that the Second Amendment was incorporated, and gun rights advocates were delighted since this seemed to mean that gun restrictions would be ruled unconstitutional.
But this ruling did little to quell the Second Amendment controversy since the amendment itself contains the term "well regulated." Regulation implies some set of rules or standards, and even if one believes that the people are the militia in this amendment - not the National Guard- it is hard to imagine that the government doesn't have an interest in regulating arms to some extent. Even the term "arms" raises questions. Does this mean simply guns, or can we add bazookas and drones to the list? After all, people can own both.
Even the court's most conservative justice of the 20th century, Antonin Scalia, seemed to agree with some regulations of arms, at least broadly defined. This is an issue that will likely never be settled, but it's important to know the constitutional basis for all the controversy.
(Brian Calfano)
Continued here:
Analysis: Second Amendment Rights Come with Controversy - Story - OzarksFirst.com
Posted in Second Amendment
Comments Off on Analysis: Second Amendment Rights Come with Controversy – Story – OzarksFirst.com
Supreme Court Turns Down Case on Carrying Guns in Public – New York Times
Posted: at 4:56 pm
The court has seldom addressed the scope of Second Amendment rights. In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep guns at home for self-defense.
Since then, the court has said little about what other laws may violate the Second Amendment. In the lower courts, few challenges to gun control laws since the Heller decision have succeeded.
But legal experts say it is only a matter of time before the court confronts the question of whether and how the Second Amendment applies outside the home.
The case, Peruta v. California, No. 16-894, concerned a state law that essentially bans carrying guns openly in public and allows carrying concealed weapons only if applicants can demonstrate good cause. The challengers, several individuals and gun-rights groups, sued San Diego and Yolo Counties, saying that officials there interpreted good cause so narrowly as to make it impossible to carry guns in public for self-defense.
San Diego, for instance, defined good cause to require proof that the applicant was in harms way, adding that simply fearing for ones personal safety alone is not considered good cause.
In a 7-to-4 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said there was no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon.
Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment whatever the scope of that protection may be simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public, Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority.
The court did not decide whether the Second Amendment allows leeway for states to ban carrying guns in public.
There may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, Judge Fletcher wrote. The Supreme Court has not answered that question, and we do not answer it here.
The Supreme Court also turned down a second case on gun rights, this one about the constitutionality of a law prohibiting people convicted of serious crimes from owning guns. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor noted that they would have granted review, but they gave no reasons.
The case concerned a federal law that prohibits possessing a gun after a conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. The law has an exception for any state offense classified by the laws of the state as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.
In separate cases, two Pennsylvania men said the law was unconstitutional as applied to them.
They were convicted of minor and nonviolent crimes decades ago, they said, and received no jail time. Though the laws under which they were convicted allowed for the theoretical possibility of sentences longer than two years, they argued, they should not have been stripped of a constitutional right for that reason.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled in their favor.
In urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, Sessions v. Binderup, No. 16-847, the Justice Department said the appeals court had opened the courthouse doors to an untold number of future challenges by other individuals based on their own particular offenses, histories and personal circumstances.
The decision below, the governments brief said, threatens public safety and poses serious problems of judicial administration because it requires judges to make ad hoc assessments of the risks of allowing convicted felons to possess firearms a high-stakes task that Congress has already determined cannot be performed with sufficient reliability, and one for which the judiciary is particularly ill suited.
Follow Adam Liptak on Twitter @adamliptak.
Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter.
A version of this article appears in print on June 27, 2017, on Page A13 of the New York edition with the headline: Supreme Court Rejects Another Case on Guns.
See the original post here:
Supreme Court Turns Down Case on Carrying Guns in Public - New York Times
Posted in Second Amendment
Comments Off on Supreme Court Turns Down Case on Carrying Guns in Public – New York Times
Is the Second Amendment Only for the Elite? – ConservativeHQ
Posted: at 4:56 pm
On Monday, the Supreme Court failed to grant certiorari to an important Second Amendment case.
The case, Peruta v California, has been closely watched by gun rights and gun control advocates, law enforcement and legal experts nationwide, and many had predicted that while the Supreme Court has been unwilling to take on other concealed weapons cases this one could be the vehicle to decide how far the Second Amendment extends beyond the home reported Kristina Davis of the San Diego Union Tribune.
Edward Peruta and other gun owners who were denied concealed-carry permits by the San Diego County California sheriff filed a petition asking the high court to consider hearing their case, which they lost on appeal at the Far Left 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Edward Perutas journey to the Supreme Court began back in 2009. Bob Adelmann reports that Perutas application for a concealed weapons permit was turned down by the San Diego Sheriff because the law stated he had to show good cause why he needed such a permit. Strict interpretations of that law impelled Peruta, with the help of numerous public-interest law firms and pro-gun groups, to sue. His case wended its way through the courts, winding up on the docket of the 9th Circuit of Appeals. A panel of three judges ruled in Perutas favor, but a full appeals court hearing reversed, saying:
the protection of the Second Amendment whatever the scope of that protection may be simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.
Peruta and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation filed a brief with the Supreme Court seeking the courts opinion in the case, claiming that the California law could lead to a prohibition on carrying a gun outside the home for any reason.
Our friends at Gun Owners of America filed an amicus brief that challenged Californias restrictive good cause requirement for concealed carry licenses. Read GOA's brief here.
Through its Monday decision not to accept the case the Supreme Court let stand the 9th Circuit of Appeals decision.
Adelmann notes it takes four Supreme Court justices to consider a lower courts ruling, and, despite the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the bench, just one other justice could be found to vote to take the case.
Gorsuch concurred in Justice Clarence Thomas eloquent dissent that criticized the majority for its continuing reticence to rule on important Second Amendment issues.
Thomas dissent should be required reading for everyone concerned about how constitutional rights are abrogated through denial. Wrote Thomas:
At issue in this case is whether that guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Neither party disputes that the issue is one of national importance, or that the courts of appeals have already weighed in extensively. I would therefore [have granted] the petition for a writ of certiorari.
California generally prohibits the average citizen from carrying a firearm in public spaces, either openly or concealed. With a few limited exceptions, the State prohibits open carry altogether. It proscribes concealed carry unless a resident obtains a license by showing good cause, among other criteria.
In the county where petitioners reside [San Diego], the sheriff has interpreted good cause to require an applicant to show that he has a particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense. The sheriffs policy specifies that concern for ones personal safety does not alone satisfy this requirement.
Instead, an applicant must show a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and cause him to be placed in harms way. [A] typical citizen fearing for his personal safety by definition cannot distinguish himself from the mainstream. As a result, ordinary, law-abiding, responsible citizens, [as quoted from the Supreme Courts decision in District of Columbia v. Heller], may not obtain a permit for concealed carry of a firearm in public spaces.
Consequently, with Californias injunction against open carry, and San Diegos injunction against concealed carry, citizens are, wrote Thomas, unable to bear firearms in public in any manner. He added, I find it extremely improbable that the Framers [of the Constitution] understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.
Thomas came close to putting his finger on why the present majority doesnt want to take cases like Peruta says Adelmann: fear of giving Second Amendment supporters a clear victory that anti-gun members of the court want to avoid.
Thomas noted that the 9th Circuit focused only on the specific term good cause and left out consideration of the much broader, much more important, and to the majority, much more dangerous, proposition: The approach taken by the [9th Circuit Court] is indefensible, and the [present] petition raises important questions that this Court should address. Had the Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result. (emphasis ours)
However, what makes Justice Thomas dissent so compelling is his unprecedented attack on the hypocrisy of the anti-gun elite on the Court:
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 But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it
Justice Thomas is right the Framers of the Constitution did not reserve the right of self-defense to those elite members of society whose position or wealth provides them with armed guards. When the courts fail to enforce the promises of the Constitution, then it is up to the legislature to act. We urge Congress to take up and pass a national concealed carry bill.
The rest is here:
Is the Second Amendment Only for the Elite? - ConservativeHQ
Posted in Second Amendment
Comments Off on Is the Second Amendment Only for the Elite? – ConservativeHQ
Yes, It’s Legal to Record Cops. It’s In the First Amendment – Newsweek
Posted: at 4:55 pm
This article first appeared on the Cato Institute site.
The New York Police Departments Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) reported that over a three-year period NYPD officers threatened, blocked, and otherwise tried to prevent individuals from recording them in public in the performance of their duties.
Almost 100 of the 346 allegations made between 2014 and 2016 were substantiated by the board, not counting the many cases that may not have been reported.
Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox
To be fair, there are many thousands of contacts between police and individuals that happen in New York City. Although there is no way to know how many of those interactions are recorded, its fair to assume that many of them have been as cell-phone recording capabilities have become ubiquitous.
However, there is clearly a segment of officersperhaps very small, but nevertheless realwho feel that they may violate the First Amendment rights of people who record them.
To alleviate this, the CCRB suggested that a new entry should be included in the Patrol Manual to reassert the publics right to record police interactions. That insertion is fine, but more could and should be done because it is extremely unlikely that every officer who disrupted lawful, public recording was ignorant of the right to do so. Any officer who already knew the law was committing misconduct.
Police keep guard outside of Trump Tower on May 10, 2017 in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty
Police officers should be held accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, New York State law prohibits the Department or the CCRB from releasing the names of officers who have complaints lodged against them, whether or not they are sustained, or what the outcomes of any disciplinary actions taken were short of termination.
As I testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2015:
According to an investigation of New York Citys Civilian Complaint Review Board records, about 40 percent of the 35,000 NYPD officers have never received a civilian complaint, but roughly 1,000 officers have more than 10 complaints on file. One officer has over 50 complaints but retains his position.
Institutionally, the NYPD knows these 1,000 officers are repeat offenders several times over. Multiple complaints against a single officer over a period of months or years implies the officer must, at times, operate too close to the line of impropriety.
Those 1,000 officers represent fewer than three percent of NYPD officers but can damage the reputation of the rest of the department. Clearly, some portion of these 1,000 officers are abusing their authority, and the NYPD is unwilling or unable to remove these officers from duty.
And because the public cant know their names and records, we cannot measure how effectively the NYPD addressed these incidents with any given officer. (internal citations omitted)
The lack of transparency is not limited to New York, by any means, but the NYPDs institutional dedication to data collection at least gives us a glimpse of what is going on.
Getting the right to record in the Patrol Manual is a good start, but the State of New York should repeal the anonymity granted to misbehaving officers. Such laws punish the best officers by making them indistinguishable from those who intentionallyand sometimes repeatedlyviolate the rights of the people they are supposed to serve.
Jonathan Blanks is a Research Associate in Catos Project on Criminal Justice and Managing Editor of PoliceMisconduct.net.
Blanks writes: For a robust First Amendment analysis of the right to record, read this opinion by 2014 B. Kenneth Simon Lecturer Judge Diane Sykes . You can read my 2015 USCCR testimony on police transparency and the use of force here . Finally, you can check out the 2014 panel we hosted on recording the police here.
Here is the original post:
Yes, It's Legal to Record Cops. It's In the First Amendment - Newsweek
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Yes, It’s Legal to Record Cops. It’s In the First Amendment – Newsweek