Daily Archives: June 18, 2020

Members of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly along with the borough mayor have embarked on a pointless effort to declare the borough a Sanctuary for the Second Amendment, an entirely unnecessary response to sensible and judicious gun-control efforts in Alaska and around the nation.

Ordinance 2020-29 is to be introduced at Tuesdays regular assembly meeting on June 16. It is sponsored by Mayor Charlie Pierce and Assembly Members Norm Blakely, of Soldotna, Jesse Bjorkman, of Nikiski, and Ken Carpenter, of Seward.

If adopted, it would declare the borough a Second Amendment Sanctuary, committing it to a policy of refusing to enforce state and federal legislation it deemed restrictive of Second Amendment rights. What exactly does that mean for a Second-Class borough with no police powers?

The national movement behind this ordinance stole the language of the Sanctuary City Movement that aimed to protect immigrants documented or not from abusive federal civil codes. Local governments are not required to spend local tax dollars to help federal authorities enforce civil law.

Ordinance 2020-29, however, would place the borough in the position of declining to enforce criminal law governing who can carry and under what conditions. Neither the borough nor its subset of cities has the authority to do that.

The pertinent therefor clause reads as follows:

That the assembly hereby expresses its intent to uphold the Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding citizens of the Kenai Peninsula Borough and that public funds, resources, employees, buildings or offices not be used to restrict Second Amendment rights or to aid or assist in the enforcement of the unnecessary and unconstitutional restriction of the rights under the Second Amendment of the citizens of the Kenai Peninsula Borough to keep and bear arms.

That certainly begs a huge question: Who gets to declare a law passed by the Alaska Legislature or the U.S. Congress unnecessary and unconstitutional? Cadres of so-called patriots who like to parade around armed to the teeth? I hope not. The Kenai Peninsula Borough? It lacks the power precisely because state laws supersede municipal ordinances.

Indeed, only Alaska Courts can declare a law unconstitutional.

Alaska law (Title 29) specifically declares the authority to regulate firearms is reserved to the state. The borough is constrained from enacting any law restricting firearms that are not identical to state law. That constraint also means the borough cannot decline to enforce laws merely because local elected officials or their constituents dont like them. For cities that have police powers, state gun laws represent an enforcement requirement that is not discretionary.

Though subject to federal jurisdiction, Alaskas gun laws are minimal and reasonable by any measure. As long as youre 21, Alaska requires no registration or permit to carry rifles, shotguns and handguns. They prohibit guns in or near schools, unless locked in the trunk of a car and the owners are of age. Firearms are banned from courthouses, day-care centers and shelters for victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse. Nor is one permitted to carry a weapon into a bar, or when drinking. Are the sponsors actually proposing that the borough be put in the position of declaring such reasonable statutes unconstitutional?

The Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. It needs no sanctuary. Those who believe it is so weak it requires the toothless protection of third- or fourth-level governments like boroughs, counties and cities misunderstand the Constitution, dont fathom the real meaning of the Second Amendment nor grasp the limitations placed upon it by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Declaring ones borough a Second Amendment Sanctuary may have rhythmical appeal to the paranoid ears of reactionaries, but the designation will have absolutely no power under state or federal law. The borough has far more important business to attend to. It cannot afford to enact an ordinance destined to lose a constitutional challenge.

Hal Spence is a former Homer News and Peninsula Clarion reporter now retired. He lives in Homer with his wife Lynn.

Link:
Voices of the Peninsula: The Second Amendment needs no sanctuary - Kenai Peninsula Online

U.S. President Donald Trump walks on the South Lawn of the White House upon his return to Washington, U.S., after a weekend in Bedminster, New Jersey, June 14, 2020.

Yuri Gripas | Reuters

President Donald Trumpraged Thursday against recent Supreme Court decisions, calling them "horrible & politically charged," and "shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives."

"We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!" the president wrote in a tweet shortly after the Supreme Court ruled against his administration in its effort to undo a program known as DACA.

The Obama-era programprotectshundredsofthousandsof young undocumented immigrants from deportation.

"Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn't like me?" Trump wrote in a second Twitter post.

The president earlier Thursday retweeted a news site that highlighted Judge Clarence Thomas' dissenting opinion in the DACA ruling.

The DACA opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the four liberal justices on the high court in the ruling that said the Trump administration acted in an"arbitrary and capricious" manner to terminate the program, formally known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Roberts was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush, a Republican. The chief justice has repeatedly irked his fellow conservatives by sometimes joining with liberal justices in rulings that were opposed by Republicans, most notably in decisions that protected the health-care law known as Obamacare.

On Monday the Supreme Court, in a ruling written by Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch, said that workers cannot be fired for being gay or transgender.

Trump at the time had said of that ruling that "some people were surprised" with the decision but "they've ruled, and we live with their decision."

"That's what it's all about. We live with the decision of the Supreme Court," the president said.

On the same day as the ruling in the gay and transgender cases was released, the high court refused to hear a challenge brought by the Trump administration to California's so-called sanctuary law, limiting the impact of the president's immigration agenda in that state.

Also on Monday, the Supreme Court likewise refused to consider hearing appeals on 10 Second Amendment-related cases that have been backed by activists who want to loosen gun regulations.

In contrast to Trump's vitriol over the Supreme Court, his predecessor in the White House, President Barack Obama, lauded the DACA decision on Twitter and used it as an opportunity to tout the Democratic presidential candidacy of his vice president, Joe Biden.

"Eight years ago this week, we protected young people who were raised as part of our American family from deportation," Obama wrote.

"Today, I'm happy for them, their families, and all of us. We may look different and come from everywhere, but what makes us American are our shared ideals," Obama wrote. "And now to stand up for those ideals, we have to move forward and elect @JoeBiden and a Democratic Congress that does its job, protects DREAMers, and finally creates a system that's truly worthy of this nation of immigrants once and for all."

Biden later weighed in himself, writing on Twitter: "The Supreme Court's ruling today is a victory made possible by the courage and resilience of hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients who bravely stood up and refused to be ignored. And as President, I will get to work immediately to make it permanent."

The rest is here:
Trump calls Supreme Court rulings 'shotgun blasts into the face' of Republicans, conservatives - CNBC

(The Center Square) A lawsuit against New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham over COVID-19 orders that shuttered firearm retailers has been dismissed after the restrictions were lifted.

The conservative-leaning Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) and Second Amendment rights groups sued the governor in federal court in April because the state's COVID-19order that closed some businesses included gun stores.

Lujan Grisham later revised the order to exclude licensed firearm retailers, allowing them to reopen with restrictions.

MSLF, the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and New Mexico Shooting Sports Association (NMSSA) joined in the federal lawsuit challenging the order. Gun owners were also named as plaintiffs in the case.

The lawsuit's backers argued that the closure of firearm retailers, ranges, and repair facilities violated the Second Amendment rights for many state residents. Federal law and New Mexico law almost entirely prohibit the sale of firearms except through authorized sellers at physical retail locations.

MSLF said Monday that it "agreed to voluntarily dismiss" the lawsuit since gun retailers in New Mexico have been allowed to reopen.

Gov. Grisham overstepped her constitutional limits when she attempted to restrict New Mexicans right to keep and bear arms, said Cody Wisniewski, the MSLF attorney representing gun shops and groups. While we celebrate our victory today, we are prepared to spring back into action should she attempt to reclose firearm retailers and infringe on the natural rights of New Mexicans again.

NRA members and law-abiding gun owners earned a victory today, NRA-ILA Director of Litigation Counsel Michael Jean said in a statement.

A statement from Lujan Grishams office after the revised order said that federally licensed firearm retailers may open by appointment only as needed conduct background checks and to allow individuals to take possession of firearms ordered online.

COVID-19 numbers across New Mexico have stabilized, according to data from the state Department of Health. There are at least 447 total deaths related to COVID-19 infection.

The rest is here:
Lawsuit against New Mexico governor dropped after firearm retailers allowed to reopen - The Center Square

People protesting police brutality were punched, shoved, and had their signs stolen out of their hands in a small Ohio town on Sunday after motorcycle gangs, counterprotesters, and other armed groups crashed a Black Lives Matter event, videos from the scene show.

What was initially slated to be a protest of about 20 to 25 people in Bethel, Ohio, ballooned to about 800 as more than 250 motorcycles blocked the area demonstrators had planned to take, police said. Video shows people clashing, often in screaming matches and then bikers and other counterprotesters turned to violence, one woman told BuzzFeed News.

On Monday, the Bethel Police Department said the event was "manageable" for its force of six officers for the most part, but after counterprotesters began to move toward the protest, there were 10 "incidents."

Protests against police brutality have erupted across the country in the past two weeks after George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis police custody and Breonna Taylor was shot and killed in by Louisville police.

Although most of the protests have taken place in the streets of the country's largest cities, small towns across the country have also seen demonstrations against police brutality.

In Bethel, a town of about 2,700 residents, a group of local residents formed a group called Bethel's Solidarity with Black Lives Demonstration, and contacted police on June 11 about their plans for Sunday's protest.

Police said the group promoted the event on Facebook and, soon, they were expecting about 100 people.

Other groups opposed to the event, however, began to organize counterprotests in return, according to a statement from the police department, including "motorcycle gangs, back the blue groups, and second amendment advocates."

"The Bethel Police Department had all six of its officers on duty and stationed around the demonstration area," the statement read.

Alicia Gee, a 36-year-old substitute teacher and an organizer of the protest, told the Cincinnati Enquirer she planned the event in solidarity with the Black community. The day before, she had been marking the street with chalk so the smaller group she expected could protest while social distancing.

On Sunday, however, she said she received a call just two hours before the event telling her a motorcycle gang was lining both sides of the street and people were armed.

"I was really scared because they were carrying guns and they were so aggressive," Andrew Dennis told the Cincinnati Enquirer. "They were grabbing me and grabbing my mom and they just seemed to have no respect for the law."

Videos posted by Dennis on Facebook show counterprotesters snatching signs from demonstrators on the street.

Other videos from the protest show men carrying rifles, wearing camouflage gear, and carrying US flags.

One man can be seen holding a handgun with one hand, a rifle with the other, while arguing with protesters.

In another video, a protester is seen being sucker-punched from behind by a man wearing a Confederate flag.

Two uniformed police offices can be seen just a short distance away when the man is punched.

"Sir, I just got punched in the back of the head," the protester tells one of the officers.

It's unclear what the officer initially tells the man in reply. The officer makes no effort to detain or move toward the man who threw the punch and, at one point, tells the protester, "We can take a report from you."

Officials with the Bethel Police Department did not immediately return BuzzFeed News requests for comment. When someone answered the phone for the department's officer-in-charge line, they said "Call 911" and hung up.

In their statement, police said the 10 incidents being investigated include the protester who was punched in the head.

In another video, a protester is surrounded by men in black leather vests on the way to the protest, who tell her, "Get outta here."

"There's a crowd of a thousand people going to be here in a minute," another man carrying an American flag tells her. "I would go. You're gonna get hurt. You're gonna get hurt. I would get in your car. I warned you."

The woman, 23-year-old Destiny Beckworth, told BuzzFeed News she grew up in Bethel and lives only a few minutes away. She drove to the protest with her 18-year-old sister but, after the confrontation, they decided to go home.

"That was pretty scary, and I usually don't get scared in those situations," she told BuzzFeed News. "I knew that if we got over [to the protest], it was going to be the same thing."

She said peaceful protesters first told her the event was becoming unsafe when she was looking for a place to park. When she was walking out of the car, she was immediately confronted by the men telling her to leave.

Her phone falls to the ground as the confrontation becomes physical, and when the video returns, the men are seen walking away, dropping her now-ripped sign to the ground.

After the man took her sign, she and her sister got back in the car and tried to drive way.

The two were again confronted by counterprotesters who saw the Black Lives Matter sign on her windshield.

"I was about to go and this lady saw the sign in front of my car," she said. "She starts waving other people to crowd my car."

A group of people banged on her car, kicked her door, broke her mirror and screamed at her and her sister before letting her drive away, which Beckworth also captured on video.

"My sister started having an anxiety attack because she's never been in something like this," she said.

Beckworth said she filed a police report about the man who took her sign.

"I never knew how bad it was," she said. "I was definitely taken by shock."

In the statement, the Bethel Police Department asked anyone that could identify suspects or victims in the incidents to contact them.

Jun. 16, 2020, at 14:24 PM

Correction: Destiny Beckworth's name was misspelled in a previous version of this post.

Here is the original post:
Bikers And Second Amendment Groups Crashed A Black Lives Matter Protest In A Small Town And Violence Broke Out - BuzzFeed News

Polk County voters will consider two county charter amendments and a business tax incentive program on the Nov. 3 ballot.

BARTOW Polk County voters will get another bite of the apple on two charter amendments and renewal of a measure granting tax breaks to new or expanding businesses in the county.

The Polk County Commission on Tuesday voted unanimously to put two previously rejected county charter amendments on the Nov. 3 general election ballot.

One amendment dealt with how often a citizens Charter Review Commission would meet, extending the period from every eight years to 12 years. The second amendment would abolish another citizens group, the Efficiency Commission, which is also scheduled to meet every eight years.

The Charter Commission last met in 2017 and recommended both amendments. Both failed in the 2018 general election.

Extending the interim charter review period to 12 years captured 50.6% of the vote, but it needed 60% to pass. A majority of voters, 53%, also approved abolishing the Efficiency Commission, also falling short of the 60% threshold.

The Efficiency Commission last met from 2013 into the following year and recommended abolishing itself by an 11-7 vote in its last meeting.

That commission recommended almost $10 million in supposed savings, The Ledger reported, but its unclear whether any savings approaching that were realized. It had cost $450,000 to operate.

County Manager Bill Beasley said Tuesday he didnt think the Efficiency Commission served a purpose.

"What Ive seen in the time Ive been here is that there were few efficiencies that surfaced that had any merit to pursue," said Beasley, a county employee since 2006. "The county is not perfect, but were pretty efficient."

Previous efficiency recommendations turned out to be things the county was pursing already, he said.

Commissioner George Lindsey has argued the charter, Polk governments fundamental document, does not need to be reviewed every eight years.

Past review bodies performed no more than "ministerial tweaking," he said.

Commissioners also unanimously approved putting the tax break measure on the ballot.

It asks voters to reauthorize an 8-year-old program that empowers the County Commission to give property tax abatements to new companies relocating to the county or to existing Polk businesses that expand their operations.

Polk voters approved the tax incentive program in the Nov. 6, 2012, election with a 10-year sunset provision.

Sean Malott, president and CEO of the Central Florida Development Council, Polks economic development agency, asked the commission to put renewal on this Novembers ballot to give supporters a second chance in 2022 if it fails.

Under the incentive program, new or existing companies can get an abatement on their county tax bill only for creating new, high-paying jobs, Malott said. It does not abate property taxes for schools and special tax districts.

Kevin Bouffard can be reached at kevin.bouffard@theledger.com or at 863-802-7591.

View post:
2 Polk charter amendments, tax break will be on Nov. 3 ballot - The Ledger

The NRA Foundation will be running their 2020 Fathers Day Online Auction, featuring 50 firearms, through June 22. The money raised through it will benefit a number of programs and is crucial in the fight this November, as freedom will be on the ballot.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, for example, has made no secret of his desire to lead a crusade against the Second Amendment and events like this allow the NRA to continue its fight against anti-gun politicians seeking to curtail your constitutional rights.

Your participation helps The NRA Foundation protect our Second Amendment freedoms with activities that promote safe and responsible firearms ownership, and invest in the next generation of Americas leaders. And thats what this is all about, right? Protecting the future of freedom so our children and grandchildren can have the same rights we enjoy, and keep the shooting sports alive and well, said Sarah Engeset, director of volunteer fundraising.

The 2020 Fathers Day Online Auction features an impressive array of firearms, including the Smith & Wesson M&P9 Shield EZ, the 2020 Colt Python, the Mossberg 590 Shockwave and many more. Second Amendment-supporting participants who bid on these firearms know their money is going toward the fight to protect their rights to keep and bear arms, especially with the threat that is looming on the ballot in November.

For decades, the NRA Foundation has served the needs of freedom-loving Americans across the country. To participate in the auction, visit NRAFDAD.givesmart.com or text NRAFDAD to 76278 to register. To learn more about the programs, services, events and more offered by the NRA Foundation, please visit NRAFoundation.org.

Here is the original post:
NRA Foundation Auctions Firearms for Father's Day - America's 1st Freedom

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up Rogers v. Grewal, a case dealing with a restrictiveNew Jersey law that prohibits the carrying of a firearm unless a "justifiable need" to do so can be demonstrated. The decision punts on the next logical question in Second Amendment jurisprudence, following the District of Columbia v. Heller decision of 2008: How restrictive can gun laws become before they start abridging a constitutional right?

The case involves a New Jersey man who applied for a permit to carry a firearm. Because he serviced ATMs in high-crime areas, he felt he needed a gun for self-defense. His application was not found to meet the state's requirements, and he was denied.

The New Jersey law in question requires that private citizens requesting carry permits "specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks, which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun."

Inother words, to prove your need for self-defense, you pretty much need to be attacked first. Good luck; we hope you survive. If you can prove that someone has specifically threatened to attack you, then maybe. Otherwise, your desire to stop potential attacks, even likely ones, is not sufficient grounds for a permit.

The court ruled in Heller that theSecond Amendment guarantees a right to self-defense within the home, among a few other things. The logical next step is to ask how it guarantees self-defense outside one's home. Had it taken the case, the court could have offered clarity on the constitutionality of "good reason" provisions, which are codified in states with various levels of restriction. Moreover, the court could have debated the merits of treating self-defense as a mode of reaction versus as a mode of prevention, which is itself a profoundly compelling question.

Justice Clarence Thomas took the unusual step of filing a dissent from the court's denial of the Rogers petition. In it, he laments how the court has treated Second Amendment cases in recent years, offering criticisms by analogy. "This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights," he writes."And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion."

It's unclear why the court passed up this case when there are so many remaining loose ends in this area of jurisprudence. Perhaps the justices want a narrower question. Perhaps they are comfortable with letting lower courts develop more case law. Either way, the court has to recognize the restrictiveness of certain "good cause" provisions and deal with them. By passing up Rogers, the Supreme Court has declined an opportunity to instruct lower courts on the extent to which the Second Amendment protects the right to self-defense.

As Thomas points out, the lower courts want to be directed. They have said as much. "On the question of Hellers applicability outside the home environment, we think it prudent to await direction from the Court itself," Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2011 case, which Thomas cites in his dissent. More cases will surely come, but the court missed an opportunity to offer that direction.

More:
When it comes to guns, the justices duck - Washington Examiner

With no police officers, CHAZ was established. Over the weekend, Black Lives Matter activists renamed the area Capitol Hill Organized Protest, arguing that the area was not actually aspiring to autonomy or secession. But by then, the demands of the CHAZ had ballooned far beyond addressing systemic racism in policing: In an open letter published on June 10, the activists listed several reforms they hoped the city would undertake, including degentrification initiatives, free college programs and investment in community mental health services.

Conservative reaction to Seattles autonomous zone has a particularly Trump-era undertone to it, Ross said.

Rather than letting local and state officials deal with the protesters, Trump doubled down on vilifying a group that had nothing to do with the organization of the protests not just dog whistling, but calling out his protesters or Second Amendment people to basically get out into the streets and get into the vigilante mode.

The broad support for the racial justice protests indicates the issue will not recede anytime soon, putting pressure on lawmakers of both parties to enact police reform. But while Trump has made some concessions to the movements demands, signing an executive order on Tuesday offering incentives for police departments to adopt some reforms, activists say his offerings have fallen woefully short of what is needed.

Trump has also found political utility in ranting about certain proposals from Black Lives Matter activists, including defunding or abolishing the police, and constantly reiterating his ever-present claim that antifa terrorists are floating among the protesters. And though CHAZ itself has not been a base camp for a leftist insurrection, its existence is based on rejecting existing governing and policing structures. Trump has reacted to that with calls for LAW & ORDER.

They've already walked away from the founding consensus, McCabe said. They're already at the point where they can have an autonomous Seattle zone.

The MAGA sphere has also latched onto the fact that visibly armed members of progressive gun groups are patrolling CHAZ, confirming their belief that the zone is, purposefully or not, incepting an anti-government plot. Far-right groups, Ross said, have used the presence of armed individuals as a pretext to travel to the area under the auspices of protecting civil society, not to protest against CHAZ.

The whole working purpose of the militia in the far right, is they kind of form this sort of porous membrane through which people travel in and out of the extreme right based on whether or not they're open racists, he noted. If you're going somewhere to stop the looting and to protect protesters from antifa outsiders, then you've got a narrative. You've got something clear that you can explain to people that doesn't make you sound like you're just there because you hate anti-racists.

Ultimately, CHAZ may amount to a weekslong encampment in the middle of Seattle, maintained by rather enthusiastic activists, that eventually fades.

To the extent they've avoided violence, that's admirable. But even just trying to take it over is silly, said Scott Walter, president of the conservative-libertarian think tank Capital Research Center, pointing out that the zone still relied on city services such as trash pickup.

Read the original here:
How 6 blocks in Seattle became a microcosm of the culture wars - POLITICO