Monthly Archives: June 2020

Is the text of the Second Amendment contrary to slavery? So argued the great abolitionist Lysander Spooner in his 1845 book The Unconstitutionality of Slavery. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1866-68, the Amendment's supporters agreed with Spooner that if the Second Amendment were enforced, slavery would be impossible.

Author of important books and pamphlets on scores of subjects, Lysander Spooner's greatest passion was antislavery. A radical theorist, Spooner was a hero to many antislavery activists, including John Brown, whose raid on Harper's Ferry was inspired by reading Spooner. He was "pre-eminent in the group of abolitionists who developed the constitutional law now incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment." C. Shively, Introduction to 4 Lysander Spooner, Collected Works 11 (1971). For more, see Randy E. Barnett, Whence Comes Section One? The Abolitionist Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment, 3 J. Legal Analysis 165 (2011).

Spooner was "the most theoretically profound advocate" of the position that slavery was unconstitutional. David A. J. Richards, Abolitionist Political and Constitutional Theory and the Reconstruction Amendments, 25 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1187, 1193 (1992).

In the widely-distributed and frequently reprinted book The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, Spooner argued that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original public meaning of the words in the text. In case of ambiguity, words should construed according to natural justice. Spooner did not favor looking to speeches by political figures, newspaper essays, or other sources to put a gloss on the constitutional text itself.

As Barnett explains:

Spooner supplemented this interpretive claim about original public meaning with a principle of construction he took from the 1805 Supreme Court case of United States v. Fisher in which John Marshall articulated a 'plain statement' rule of construction for resolving ambiguities in the public meaning of statutes. "Where rights are infringed, where fundamental principles are overthrown, where the general system of the laws is departed from," wrote Chief Justice Marshall, "the legislative intention must be expressed with irresistible clearness, to induce a court of justice to suppose a design to effect such objects."

As elaborated by Spooner, under this rule of construction, when the original public meaning is ambiguousthat is, when there is more than one reasonable meaning"the court will never, through inference, nor implication, attribute an unjust intention to a law; nor seek for such an intention in any evidence exterior to the words of the law. They will attribute such an intention to the law, only when such intention is written out in actual terms; and in terms, too, of 'irresistible clearness'"

For example, Spooner's natural justice interpretation of the Second Amendment was straightforward:

This right "to keep and bear arms," implies the right to use themas much as a provision securing to the people the right to buy and keep food, would imply their right also to eat it. But this implied right to use arms, is only a right to use them in a manner consistent with natural rightsas, for example, in defence of life, liberty, chastity, &c. . . . If the courts could go beyond the innocent and necessary meaning of the words, and imply or infer from them an authority for anything contrary to natural right, they could imply a constitutional authority in the people to use arms, not merely for the just and innocent purposes of defence, but also . . . robbery, or any other acts of wrong to which arms are capable of being applied. The mere verbal implication would as much authorize the people to use arms for unjust, as for just, purposes. But the legal implication gives only an authority for their innocent use. (Unconstitutionality of Slavery, p. 66).

Spooner used the Second Amendment to argue that slavery was unconstitutional. Since a slave is a person who is (or can be) forbidden to possess arms, and the Second Amendment guarantees that all persons can possess arms, no person in the United States can be a slave. Similarly, the militia clauses (Art. I, sect. 8, cls. 15-16) give Congress the power to arm the militia and to call it forth. He elaborated:

These provisions obviously recognize the natural right of all men "to keep and bear arms" for their personal defence; and prohibit both Congress and the State governments from infringing the right of "the people"that is, of any of the peopleto do so; and more especially of any whom Congress have power to include in their militia. The right of a man "to keep and bear arms," is a right palpably inconsistent with the idea of his being a slave. Yet the right is secured as effectually to those whom the States presume to call slaves, as to any whom the States condescend to acknowledge free.

Under this provision any man has a right either to give or sell arms to those persons whom the States call slaves; and there is no constitutional power, in either the national or State governments, that can punish him for so doing; or that can take those arms from the slaves; or that can make it criminal for the slaves to use them, if, from the inefficiency of the laws, it should become necessary for them to do so, in defence of their own lives or liberties; for this constitutional right to keep arms implies the constitutional right to use them, if need be, for the defence of one's liberty or life. (Id. at 97-98.)

As Spooner recognized, the Constitution never expressly used the words "slave" or "slavery." James Madison explained that he kept those words out of the document because it would be "wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men." Timothy Sandefur, The Anti-Slavery Constitution, National Review, Sept. 30, 2019. So the word "slavery" did not appear in the Constitution until 1865, with the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude."

Spooner argued that the so-called "Fugitive Slave Clause" was no such thing. The actual text said:

No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due. (Art. IV, sect. 2, cl. 3.)

According to Spooner, the text could be read to apply only indentured servants, or other persons who voluntarily undertaken a service or labor obligation. Indentured servants were not legally free, but (unlike slaves) their required service would end after several years, according to the contract they had signed. For example, some immigrants to America paid for their sea voyage by signing a five-year indenture that the ship's captain could sell upon arrival in America. Indenture contracts were legally enforceable.

In Spooner's theory, reading the clause to encompass slavery would violate Chief Justice Marshall's rule of interpretation.

As for the right of "persons whom the States call slaves" to use arms to resist recapture by government officers, Spooner wrote:

The constitution contemplates no such submission, on the part of the people, to the usurpations of the government, or to the lawless violence of its officers. On the contrary it provides that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This constitutional security for "the right to keep and bear arms," implies the right to use them,as much a constitutional security for food, would have have implied the right to eat it. The constitution, therefore, takes it for granted that, as the people have the right, they will also have the sense, to use arms, whenever the necessity of the case justifies it. (Lysander Spooner, A Defence for Fugitive Slaves 27-28 (1850).)

Similarly, Spooner contended that unconstitutional laws need not be obeyed pending their repeal. To require obedience to unconstitutional laws would be to allow the government "to disarm the people, suppress the freedom of speech and the press, prohibit the use of suffrage, and thus put it beyond the power of the people to reform the government through the exercise of those rights." Id. at 28.

In Spooner's best seller, the 1852 An Essay on the Trial by Jury, he used U.S. Constitution right to jury trial and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to make his point that the "right of resistance is recognized by the constitution of the United States." (p. 17).

Courts in the 1840s and 1850s did not adopt Spooner's view that slavery was unconstitutional. Then in 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment made explicit was Spooner had argued was always implicit: slavery is unconstitutional. The Thirteenth Amendment was insufficient by itself to prevent the newly-freed from being de facto re-enslaved. If former slave states could prohibit freedmen from assembling, from contracting their labor freely, from traveling, or from defending themselves, then they could be reduced to servitude by the Black Codes being adopted in the ex-confederate states.

Just a few weeks after the Confederate States surrendered at Appomattox, Frederick Douglass declared:

Now, while the black man can be denied a vote, while the Legislatures of the South can take from him the right to keep and bear arms, as they canthey would not allow a negro to walk with a cane where I came from, they would not allow ve of them to assemble togetherthe work of the Abolitionists is not finished. Notwithstanding the provision in the Constitution of the United States that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, the black man has never had the right either to keep or bear arms; and the Legislatures of the States will still have the power to forbid it, under this [Thirteenth] Amendment. They can carry on a system of unfriendly legislation, and will they not do it? Have they not got the prejudice there to do it with? (Frederick Douglass, In What New Skin Will the Old Snake Come Forth? Address delivered in New York City, May 10, 1865, pp. 83-84 [In Frederick Douglass Papers, series 1, vol. 4).

The next year, Congress recognized that disarming the freedmen was indeed part of the efforts of southern state governments and terrorist organizations to keep the freedmen in de facto servitude. So in 1866, the Second Freedmen's Bureau bill ordered the Union army in the South to protect the freedmen's "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate including the constitutional right to bear arms." The same year, the Civil Rights Act was passed, and the Fourteenth Amendment was sent to the States for ratification. All were enacted with supporters' expressly stated purpose of protecting the Second Amendment self-defense rights of the freedmen. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) (Thomas, J., concurring) (detailing legal history, and citing Spooner).

Whether Spooner's 1845 approach to constitutional interpretation is the best one can be debated. It can be said that parts of his constitutional vision were so compellingand so much in accord with natural justicethat they became the law of the land. As the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes, slavery and the constitutional right to arms are opposites.

Continue reading here:
Does the Second Amendment prohibit slavery? Reason.com - Reason

Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts departs the Trump impeachment trial in Washington,January 29, 2020.(Brendan McDermid/Reuters)The most likely explanation is that neither of the Courts ideological factions was confident enough of Robertss support to risk granting certiorari.

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review all ten of the Second Amendment cases it had pending on its docket. Though the cases presented different fact patterns and procedural postures, the Court simply refused to weigh in on any of them. There seems to be one likely reason: Chief Justice Roberts does not want the Court to take a stance on the Second Amendment. We know because it only takes four justices to agree to hear a case but five to reach a decision once a case is heard and there are four justices on record as being in favor of the Courts reviewing Second Amendment issues.

Justice Thomas has been dissenting from the Courts refusal to review those issues for years, and he did so again on Monday, writing to protest the Courts decision to pass on Rogers v. Grewal, a case addressing New Jerseys unconstitutional handgun-carry-permit laws:

This case gives us the opportunity to provide guidance on the proper approach for evaluating Second Amendment claims; acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry in public; and resolve a square Circuit split on the constitutionality of justifiable need restrictions on that right. I would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Justice Alito authored the landmark 2010McDonald v. Chicagoopinion, which incorporated Second Amendment rights to cover the states, and recently filed a scathing dissent to the Courts decision inNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York:

Twelve years ago inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller. . . we held that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms. Two years later, our decision in McDonald v. Chicago . . . established that this right is fully applicable to the States. Since then, the lower courts have decided numerous cases involving Second Amendment challenges to a variety of federal, state, and local laws. Most have failed. We have been asked to review many of these decisions, but until this case, we denied all such requests.

Alitos dissent goes on to review the underlying merits of the case and argue that the New York City gun-control law at issue is certainly unconstitutional.

Justice Kavanaugh is also in favor of the Courts weighing in on Second Amendment issues. He wrote a well-knowndissent in Heller II, a follow-up case stemming from the Heller decision Alito references, in which he chastised the D.C. Circuits reasoning and directly applied the Supreme Court test that was established inHeller. More recently, he joined Thomass dissent against the Courts refusal to hearRogers, and wrote, in a concurrence to theNew York State Rifledecision:

I share Justice Alitos concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applyingHeller andMcDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

Finally, Justice Gorsuch, while being quieter on the subject, has voiced his support for a review of Second Amendment issues as well: He has joined a couple of dissents penned by Justices Thomas and Alito, inPeruta v. CaliforniaandNew York State Rifle, respectively.

If youre counting along at home, thats four Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in favor of the Courts reviewing Second Amendment issues. Those four together can grantcertiorariin any case they wish. One presumes that the only reason they didnt do so in one of the ten Second Amendment cases the Court passed on Monday is that they were unsure how Chief Justice Roberts would vote once the cases were heard.

To be clear, the Court wasnt in want of choice. The ten cases pending before it covered issues ranging from New Jerseys handgun-carry regulations (Rogers) to Californias presumptively unsafe handgun law (Pena v. Horan) and Massachusetts assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans (Worman v. Healey).

Some of the ten also showed a clear circuit split a conflict between two or more courts of appeals in the nation as to how to decide a similar or identical issue which tends to make the Court far more likely to hear a case. In this instance, there was and is a clear split between circuits on the applicability of the Second Amendment outside the home.

So, ruling out votes and issues, the remaining roadblock would seem to be Chief Justice Roberts. What is unclear is why.

Some have speculated that Roberts wants to avoid risking the Courts reputation on a controversial case during a tense political cycle. But, if the Court had grantedcertiorariin one of these cases today, the case would have been briefed over the summer, argued in late 2020 or early 2021, and decided in early or mid 2021, well after the next president had been elected.

Does Roberts actually align with the four progressive-leaning justices on the Court when it comes to the Second Amendment? Not likely. Remember, the four progressive-leaning justices can grant review of a case just as the four conservative-leaning justices can. Given that they didnt on Monday, they likely dont believe Chief Justice Roberts is on their side of the issue.

The conclusion were left with is that Chief Justice Roberts doesnt want the Court to weigh in on the Second Amendment right now, and neither the four conservative justices nor the four progressive justices were confident enough of his siding with them on the issue to risk granting certiorari in any of the ten cases.

Keep in mind, when the chief justice is in the majority on a decision, he gets to pick who writes the opinion.If Chief Justice Roberts is the swing vote in a case, hell be in the majority however he decides, and could easily assign himself the opinion. Given that the rest of the Court is evenly split, no matter how he drafted it, the justices who agreed with the outcome of the opinion would almost have to sign on, regardless of its reasoning, and that could spell trouble.

For now, we will have to rely on the decisions of the circuit courts in gun-rights cases. But while its unclear what the impact of this week will be on the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence, those of us committed to defending Second Amendment-protected rights will not give up the fight.

Read the rest here:
Why Did the Roberts Court Punt on Ten Second Amendment Cases? - National Review

SaturdayJun20,2020at1:45AMJun20,2020at1:45AM

As someone who knows several of the candidates running in the Republcian Primary for State Assembly, I am proud to offer my full support for Jeff Gallahan. Jeff is the only candidate running who is a Life Member of the NRA and has received an A+ rating from Ontario County SCOPE. He is a concealed carry permit holder and a member of several local sportsmen's clubs.

He has also been a tireless volunteer for efforts to expand high school trap shooting leagues to help teach the next generation.

Lots of politicians take photos with guns and beat their chests about how much they support the Second Amendment, but quickly forget who elected them when they get into office.

Thats not Jeff Gallahan. He is the real deal. We can count on him to stand up to Cuomo and defend our rights.

Tim Maher

Chairman, Ontario County SCOPE

View original post here:
Letter: Jeff Gallahan is the real deal on Second Amendment - MPNnow.com

Final consultation on TAR NC Consultation on draft second amendment 2020 to GSCO Publication of second amendment 2020 to GSCO Proposed RPM Discounts, multipliers and seasonal factors Cost allocation assessment Comment

EU Regulation 2017/460 (16 March 2017)(1) established a network code on harmonised transmission tariff structures (TAR NC). On 31 January 2019 E-Control Austria's national regulatory authority published its first consultation document on the implementation of the TAR NC in Austria (for further details please see "Consultation on implementation of network code on harmonised transmission tariffs"). This article discusses the subsequent developments.

Final consultation on TAR NC

Based on Articles 26 and 28 of EU Regulation 2017/460 and the comments on the first TAR NC consultation document (CP1), E-Control carried out a second consultation on the proposed reference price methodology (RPM) and the resulting indicative reference prices, as well as the proposed discounts, multipliers and seasonal factors. On 6 November 2019 E-Control published this revised final consultation document (CP2) on the implementation of the TAR NC, in accordance with EU Regulation 2017/460's consultation requirements. Comments on CP2 could be submitted to E-Control until 8 January 2019.

Consultation on draft second amendment 2020 to GSCO

Gas system charges are based on the allowed cost and the transported volume established by E-Control's executive board in line with Section 82 of the Natural Gas Act. The allowed cost and the transported volume are fixed periodically, generally for each four-year regulatory period.

The draft second amendment 2020 to the Gas System Charges Ordinance 2013 (GSCO) aligned the transmission system charges with the proposed RPM. This alignment should have entered into force on 1 October 2020. Annex 3 to the draft amendment provided for a further revised and updated RPM compared with CP2.

Pursuant to Section 70(3) of the Natural Gas Act, the adoption of the draft amendment had to be preceded by a consultation procedure. E-Control commenced this consultation procedure in April 2020; comments could be submitted until 5 May 2020.

Publication of second amendment 2020 to GSCO

On 4 June 2020 the second amendment 2020 to the GSCO was published in Federal Law Gazette II (254/2020). This final version of the amendment largely corresponds to the draft amendment, with one major variation: the entry into force date has been changed from 1 October 2020 to 1 January 2021. Austria's two transmission system operators had heavily criticised the original entry into force date in their consultation responses to the draft amendment. Further, the tariff period has been aligned with the gas year foreseen by the TAR NC and thus now extends until 30 September 2024 (and not 1 January 2025, as was previously customary).

Proposed RPM

The proposed RPM for the Austrian entry-exit system remains the virtual point-based approach, with the Baumgarten interconnector point serving as the virtual reference point. Further, the proposed RPM continues to apply clustering (Annex 3 includes one additional cluster for storage facilities), the equalisation of homogenous points and a maximum tariff increase of 10% to all entry and exit points. In CP2 and Annex 3, E-Control justifies this 10% cap with the necessary protection of domestic supply against the volume risk arising from long-term capacity contracts at the transit level. The amount of 10% is explained by reference to the consumer price index according to which the annual increase of consumer prices amounts to approximately 1.8% (7.5 % over four years). Moreover, E-Control reacted to the request of several stakeholders in the consultation process by disclosing the 'theoretical' (ie, real) tariffs in Annex 3 in addition to the effective tariffs previously set out in CP1 and CP2.

An individually calculated exit tariff, leading to a tariff reduction, applies under CP1, CP2 and Annex 3 for the exit at Murfeld (this so-called 'benchmark tariff Murfeld' leads to a 43% reduction of the current tariff) to achieve a competitive level of reference prices on an allegedly competing route leading to the Croatian entry-exit system via the Mosonmagyarvr exit point, thereby avoiding both underuse at Murfeld and congestion at Mosonmagyarvr according to E-Control. Compared with CP1, CP2 and Annex 3 provide for a graphical comparison of the capacity booking process at the Murfeld and Mosonmagyarvr exit points. Further, CP2 introduced a tariff difference limit at Murfeld of EUR 0.67kWh/h/year, which is explained at least to some extent in Annex 3.

Capacity-based transmission tariffs for exits into storage facilities remain discounted by 50% and entries from storage facilities remain discounted by 100%. The breakdown between the revenue from capacity-based transmission tariffs at all entry points and the revenue from capacity-based transmission tariffs at all exit points results in an entry-exit split of 20.6:79.4.

Since the cost approval proceedings V MET G 01/17 (for Gas Connect Austria GmbH) and V MET G 02/17 (for Trans Austria Gasleitung GmbH) were still pending with E-Control when CP1 and CP2 were published, all tariffs were calculated on a preliminary cost basis and were therefore only indicative, which in turn was unfavourable for network users from a planning perspective. These cost approval proceedings have now been concluded and the corresponding official decisions handed down. The cost basis, which provides for substantially lower costs than assumed under CP1 and CP2, is therefore now binding. However, contrary to the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators' (ACER's) recommendation in its opinion on CP2,(2) E-Control has yet to publish the official decisions.

Discounts, multipliers and seasonal factors

While CP2 abolished seasonal reductions but introduced comparatively high separate multipliers at the Arnoldstein exit point, Annex 3 completely waives any discounts, multipliers and seasonal factors. However, the explanatory notes on Sections 3(9) and (9a) of the amendment reveal that E-Control has retained the multipliers described in CP1.(3) To justify their values, E-Control refers to related consultations with national regulatory authorities of neighbouring market areas and the resulting adjustments of these multipliers to an equal level. Although the proposed multipliers are still within the range provided by the TAR NC, they are significantly higher than the multipliers currently defined under the GSCO and higher than the multipliers proposed or applied in other countries. Separate multipliers for the Arnoldstein exit point have been dropped.

Cost allocation assessment

Under Article 5 of the TAR NC, E-Control must perform and publish a cost allocation assessment as part of the final consultation on the proposed RPM. The intent of the assessment is to ensure against undue cross-subsidies on capacity (or commodity) by assessing that the revenue-to-cost ratio for intra-system use is broadly similar to the revenue-to-cost ratio for cross-system use. According to Article 5(6) of the TAR NC, any ratio exceeding 10% requires justification by E-Control in its motivated decision under Article 27(4) of the TAR NC.

In CP1 and CP2, E-Control performed a cost allocation assessment, the index of which never exceeded 10%. Consequently, no further justification was required. Annex 3 now provides for a cost allocation comparison index of 12.29%. This suggests the presence of cross-subsidisation between intra-system and cross-system network use, demonstrating that the proposed RPM does not guarantee cost-reflectivity and triggering the justification requirement of Article 5(6) of the TAR NC.

Comment

The materials accompanying the amendment reveal that ACER has criticised the lack of sufficient explanations and disclosure of important data in CP1 and CP2. E-Control has partially addressed this criticism by publishing an Excel file on the Tariff-Model 2020-2024 and disclosing some additional explanations in Annex 3. However, the tariff calculation methodology is still partially incomprehensible for instance, with regard to the benchmark tariff Murfeld, where suitable evidence for the actual competitiveness of the Murfeld and Mosonmagyarvr exit points is still missing.

With regard to the 10% cap, Annex 3 makes clear that E-Control has not changed its opinion on the reasons for the increase, despite ACER's claim that a 10% tariff increase cap exceeds the benchmarking stipulated in Article 6(4)(a) of the TAR NC. ACER also criticised the fact that E-Control described the market-distorting effect of tariff increases of more than 10% on long-term supply contracts only in general terms in CP1 and CP2. The amendment and the materials thereto do not address this criticism.

Further, it remains unclear why certain entry-exit points are still subject to a tariff increase while the cost basis of network operators was substantially lowered and most other entry-exit points benefit from lower tariffs.

With regard to the cost allocation assessment, E-Control has provided only general comments to justify the cost allocation comparison index now exceeding 10% and has failed to elaborate on the result (eg, by connecting it to the choice of the entry-exit-split or the potential cross-subsidisation effect between cross-system use and intra-system use). Article 5(6) of the TAR NC stipulates that the justification for the cost allocation comparison index exceeding 10% will be provided in the motivated decision referred to in Article 27(4) of the TAR NC. E-Control itself defines the explanatory notes on the amendment as such a motivated decision. However, although these explanatory notes mention the cost allocation comparison index, they lack the necessary justification, which in turn contradicts the TAR NC.

Finally, since E-Control's motivated decision was issued in the form of explanatory notes, which are not legal norms but instead aid the interpretation of the underlying amendment, it is not possible to challenge this decision.

For further information on this topic please contact Bernd Rajal or Felix Schneider at Schoenherr by telephone (+43 1 53437 50203 or +43 1 53437 50213) or email (b.rajal@schoenherr.eu or f.schneider@schoenherr.eu). The Schoenherr website can be accessed at http://www.schoenherr.eu.

Endnotes

(1) EU Regulation 2017/460 of 16 March 2017 establishing a network code on harmonised transmission tariff structures for gas, C/2017/1657, OJ L 72, 17.3.2017, pp29-56.

(2) See ACER, Agency Report analysis of the consultation document for Austria, 6 March 2020, para 16.

(3) The multipliers are as follows:

The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to thedisclaimer.

ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.

More here:
Consultations on TAR NC and second amendment to Gas System Charges Ordinance - International Law Office

An image on social media attributes a quote on arms and ammunition to the first president of the United States, George Washington. The quote, however, is partly inaccurate.

Reuters Fact Check. REUTERS/Axel Schmidt

The image shows a memorial plaque titled 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The text that follows reads: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.

Examples of the post are visible here and here .

The plaque in the picture can be found at a landmark in Amarillo, Texas called the Second Amendment Cowboy ( here ; here ; goo.gl/maps/6DuiCV9BMEBbSPtm8 ).

The first sentence of the text accurately quotes the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, visible here ( bit.ly/37HpGtI ).

The first few words of the second sentence are taken from Washingtons First Annual Message to Congress on January 8, 1790 ( here ).

However, according to the library at Mount Vernon, George Washingtons estate and museum which is managed by a private non-profit, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate ( here ).

The actual text from Washingtons speech is as follows: A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

Partly false. The quote on arms and ammunition attributed to George Washington does appear on a plaque in Texas but is partly inaccurate.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our work to fact-check social media posts here .

Read this article:
Fact check: George Washington misquoted on the need for arms and ammunition - Reuters

At a special meeting on June 18, the Derby City Council convened to consider the sale of the Series 2020 STAR Bonds bonds being issued to finance a portion of construction and infrastructure costs in regards to two STAR bond project amendments.

The amendments would allow for the construction of the Derby Sports Zone (phase two), to include multiple indoor and outdoor sports courts as well as a restaurant facility on-site, and an Olympic-caliber rock climbing gym with an attached outdoor BMX course (phase three) in the STAR bond district.

Initially, the bonds were set to be sold separately, but complications related to COVID-19 postponed the bond sale for the second amendment (Derby Sports Zone) in March. That led to an amendment of the bond sale resolution in May, with the specification that the aggregate principal amount of the bonds not exceed $17.5 million or a six percent interest rate for the two amendments.

Combined, $12.6 million is being requested to help facilitate construction of the two STAR bond project amendments (with inflation and other factors taken into account). Bond counsel was able to secure $14,375,000 in bonds at a 4.637 percent interest rate.

Upon approval of the bond sale, council member Tom Keil asked who would approve expenditures, with it noted those would fall to city staff to review and City Manager Kathy Sexton to sign.

Mayor Randy White pointed out that the city council has been down this road before and it was good to have some familiarity with the process in trying to bring some unique amenities to the Derby community to fill out the STAR bond district.

When we get there, God-willing, this is going to be an exciting place to be around, White said.

The city council unanimously passed a motion adopting an ordinance issuing $14,375,000 in bonds for the phase two and phase three amendments to the STAR bond project.

Read more:
STAR bond sale approved to finance project amendments - The Derby Informer

Opinion

New York -(AmmoLand.com)- These last few weeks, the Arbalest Quarrel has been working steadfastly on analyzing the NYC gun transport case. We felt a detailed analysis necessary as we had serious doubts the Court would grant cert in any of the ten pending Second Amendment cases. The NYC case provided our best chance for a serious Court review of 2A, ten years after the McDonald decision.

We intended to lay out what could have been gained and what was invariably lost from the failure of the High Court to consider the case on the merits; and we had hoped to post a comprehensive analysis of the NYC case prior to a final High Court determination, whether to grant or deny cert on any of the ten pending 2A cases.

We expected the Court would once again relist all ten pending 2A cases, denying cert on each at them at the Courts last conference for the Term. But the Court made its final determination on June 11, 2020.

No surprise to us as to the denial of cert, but the final determination came earlier than we expected. Even so, it means something more than, and something other than, most Americans realize. The cryptic, something other than, pertains to Roberts.

So, then, what went wrong? Actually, for Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the High Court, nothing went wrong. Everything went according to plan.

Some proponents of 2A, including some readers of AmmoLand News, believe the NYC case mootness issue was properly decided. It wasnt. And we may post our legal analysis at a later time. But the mootness issue is and was nothing more than a red herring. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing anticipated that the City would amend its Rules and that the State would amend its laws to avoid a consideration of and a decision on the merits, which would have necessitated consideration of Heller. And that possibility was not be countenanced. It was something that the liberal wing of the Court and Chief Justice Roberts, as well as the City of New York and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, intended to avoid at all costs.

The 2A Heller issue would not be heard.

But, why did Kavanaugh side with Roberts and the liberal wing, and why did he write a puzzling and limp concurring opinion, basically telling Americans, albeit in an oblique manner, that he really does support the Second Amendment and that the Court will have another chance to hear another case; and, so, that Americans need not worry?

Kavanaugh is, at best, a weak supporter of the Second Amendment and of the Bill of Rights, but he does adhere to Supreme Court precedent. His learned and reasoned dissent in Heller II is a testament to that.

Kavanaugh likely did not wish to side with the liberal wing. We believe Chief Justice Roberts cajoled Kavanaugh into doing so. Why? It couldnt be because a sixth vote was needed. It wasnt. Roberts fifth vote gave the liberal wing the majority it needed to find the case moot.

But we are dealing with appearances here: smoke and mirrors. We believe that Roberts may have tried to get another Trump nominee, Neil Gorsuch, to join the majority, too; but Gorsuch would not do so. A 7-2 majority decision would give Roberts even more cover, and cover is what Roberts wants. It is what he needs.

Clearly Roberts did not wish to appear alone, siding with the liberal wing of a Court, especially on a 2A matter. So, Kavanaugh reluctantly agreed to give cover Roberts cover, but insisted on drafting a concurring, to suggest: one that he does support 2A, if only half-heartedly; and, two that the Court should take up another 2A case soon, even as he knew full well that it wouldnthence his use of the word, should, in the concurring, rather than the word, will.

The Press tells us Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy was the sole hold-out in Heller for the critical fifth vote needed and that the late eminent Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who penned the Heller majority opinion, was forced to include language in that opinion to soften the rulings.

The Press paints a picture of Justice Anthony Kennedy as the moderate swing vote on the Court. In doing so, the Press is engaging in just another deception.

The truth of the matter is that Roberts, no less than Kennedy, and, conceivably, more so, compelled Scalia to add language to the opinion that would provide Anti-Second Amendment proponents with a safe harbor; allowing Anti-Second Amendment governments to continue to do what they have been doing all along: to whittle away at the import of the Second Amendment.

So, then, what does that say about Chief Justice Roberts?

Roberts has, for a time, come across as a defender of our Bill of Rights. It was all ruse. He isnt a defender of our Bill of Rights; nor, for that matter, and more specifically, is Roberts a defender of our Second Amendment; and he never has been.

Roberts is as much a trickster as the man who nominated him: the Skull and Bones President, George W. Bush.

Even as the Radical Left tabloid, New York Times, refers to Roberts as a member of the conservative wing of the Court, he is no such thing, and the Times knows it. Nor is he to be perceived as a judicial, moderatethe proverbial swing vote, carrying the mantle of retired Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Roberts has no more desire to see our Second Amendment strengthened than do Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Why, then, did Roberts and Kennedy agree to join the majority in Heller? We think that this says something about the force and indomitability of Scalias personality and intellect: something lost when Justice Scalia met with a deeply tragic and clearly puzzling death. And Roberts has no intention ever again to lock horns with another Justice who has the indomitability of spirit of Scalia.

Recall that George Bush nominated John Roberts to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court as the Chief Justice, not merely as an Associate Justice. This was no accident.

As Chief Justice of the High Court, John Roberts sets the tone of the Court and wields considerable leverage over the Court, as we deduce from Roberts obvious success in cajoling Kavanaugh to side with him, to join the liberal wing on the mootness issue.

The High Court is said to grant writs in four circumstances, as set forth in detail in the Peter Blair weblog:

In every case that has been brought to the Courts attention since Heller and McDonald, all four of the above factors are satisfied. Yet, in all instances, the High Court has either denied cert or has side-stepped the Second Amendment issue altogether, as it had done in Voisine and in the recent New York City case.

So what does this tell you? It tells you that the Court will take up a case when it wants to. And thats that!

In the instant case, Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court do not want to take up a 2A case, but then, the conservative wing wont do so either, unless it can be assured that Roberts is on board with them. He isnt and wont be, ever.

The Roberts Court will not take up another Second Amendment case unless the Court is able to sidestep the core 2A issue as in the Voisine case, or in the recent NYC gun transport case, or when or if the liberal wing knows it has a decisive majority. That would be calamitous. It would sound the death knell for Heller and McDonald. Once our right to keep and bear arms is lost, our Nation is undone.

Thus, the conservative wing wont wish to hear a Second Amendment case unless it knows that Roberts is on board, and Roberts will never be on board.

Understand, each Justice knows how each of the others will resolve a case before any vote is cast to grant cert or to deny cert on a case.

Justice Thomass scathing dissents reflect his knowledge and frustrationwhich obviously, he cannot express openlythat Roberts will not support the Second Amendment. It is as simple as that.

So, forget support from the Roberts Court on our Bill of Rights, given the Courts present composition.

So, where does that leave you and me?

The Globalist puppet masters have been utilizing, of late, Radical Left Anarchist groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa, along with the common criminal class, to rain havoc on our Nationto soften the Country upencouraging rebellion and insurrection, even attempting to destroy public faith in the police. And it is all by design.

The last thing these Globalist puppet masters want to have to deal with is internal police forces and an armed citizenry, in the midst of a civil war these puppet masters have, themselves, fomented. They are neutralizing the police, but they cannot so easily neutralize an armed citizenry; and if they cannot do that, they cannot win this civil war.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: http://www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Read the original:
The Roberts' Supreme Court Will Not Defend The Second Amendment! - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Sophia A. Nelson, Opinion contributor Published 6:00 a.m. ET June 20, 2020

Though the name endures, the current Republican Party is no longer Lincoln's party that advocated freedom, democracy, and justice for all

As President Donald Trump prepared to go to Tulsa for his Saturday rally, Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma proclaimed that no question this is still the Party of Lincoln.

Well, Senator Lankford, I have news for you: Todays GOP, led by Trump, is not the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln. In fact, it is not the party of Ulysses S. Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhoweror Ronald Reagan, either.

Instead, it is a party increasingly dominated by activists who are overwhelmingly white, always aggrieved, virulently militant about the Second Amendment (and their rightsnotto wear a face mask during a pandemic), pro-Confederacy and openly racist. That is your party, senator.

Lets be clear. This is not the party that began in 1854 as a pro-abolitionist, anti-slavery party. This is not the party that freed the slaves or passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution. No, this is not the party whose leaderswon the Civil War, fought the Klan, and ushered in Reconstruction. This is not the party that welcomed Booker T. Washington to the White House or used federal troops in 1957 to integrate Little Rock High.

This is not the party, led by Everett Dirksen in the Senate, that helped pass the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960s. Sadly, this Republican Party has within its elected ranks only one Black senator, Tim Scott of South Carolina, and one Black member of the House, Will Hurd of Texas. Hurd announced he was retiring in 2020, and Scott has saidthat if he runs for re-election in 2022, it will be his final term.

No, this is not your great grandfathers or even your grandfather's Republican Party. This Republican Party will be the first-ever to openly and proudlystain Lincolns legacy and embrace instead the traitors of Southern rebellion that sought to divide and destroy the Union our Founding Fathersestablishedin 1776.

This is now Donald Trumps party. And his trip to Tulsa (a city that, in 1921, was the site of the worst mass murder of peaceful black men and women in the history of America)the day afterJuneteenth (which commemorates the end of U.S. slavery) says a lot.

Sophia A. Nelson(Photo: Family handout)

Trumps conduct during the aftermath of George Floyds tragic murder has been reprehensible, cowardly, and divisive. He has made it clear to us all but most of all to his very white, very monolithic base that he is not on the side of democracy, freedom, and justice for all but, instead, on the side of suppressing free speech, tear-gassing protesters, and engaging in old culture wars that no longer resonate with a 21st century America, where more than 40% of the population is of color."

Both my maternal and paternal grandparents were Eisenhower Republicans. I was a moderate black female Republican for more than 25 years. Inspired by Jack Kemp at a college speech in 1988,I went on to work as an intern for Sen. Pete Wilson, R-Calif., and then for President George H.W. Bushs re-election campaign in 1992. Beyond that, I worked for former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, R-N.J.And then, in 1997,as the first Black female counsel to the Republican majority on the House Reform and Oversight Committee Counsel.

History of Henrietta Wood: The Backstory: The little known story about a former slave who sued her captor and won

But once Trump was nominated and elected in 2016, I, like many moderates and centrists, became a never Trumper. I was an early senior adviser to the Lincoln Project when it launched in January 2020. And I now find myself in June 2020 disillusioned with the Never Trump movement, as it is too white and too male.

Let me say it plainly. If todays Republicans think that marching in Black Lives Matter solidarity with Sen. Mitt Romney one day, then singing Trump's praises the next day, makes you woke, then they are clueless as to the power and impact of this national moment. If todays Republicans think President Trump can throw the black community false sound-bites like I have done more for black people than any presidentwhile turningNational Guardsmen and police against peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square, then they are very wrong.

The 19th-centuryparty of Lincoln was one that stood for the unity of the union. Freedom for the enslaved. Opportunity for the oppressed. The 21st-centuryparty of Donald Trump stands for racial slurs, placing Hispanic babies in cages, telling duly-elected congresswomen of color to go back to where they came from, and hiding in a bunker during historic protests in support of racial equality and justice. It's no wonder that Mary Elizabeth Taylor, a senior State Department official and one of the administration's high-ranking African Americans, followed "the dictates of my conscience" and resigned on Thursday.

JUSTICE Act: GOP Sen. Tim Scott: I've choked on fear when stopped by police. We need the JUSTICE Act.

Make no mistake, what Trump is about to do in Tulsa is dangerous. Even if he gives lip service to racial justice and police reform, he is signaling from the pulpit of the presidency that he will preserve, protect, and defend the whiteness of America. When Republicans like Lankford harken back to Lincolns freeing of the slaves to prove they are not racist, that will not cut it in this pivotal moment for America on race relations.

Richard Nixon, with his southern strategy in 1968, accelerated the process of destroying the GOPs legacy as the party of Lincoln. Donald Trump has finished the job.

Sophia A. Nelson is a CNN commentator, journalist, and author of E Pluribus One: Reclaiming Our Founders' Vision for a United America. Follow her on Twitter:@IAmSophiaNelson

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/20/republican-name-only-trump-and-death-lincolns-party-column/3221447001/

Read the original post:
Trump, Tulsa and the demise of Lincolns Republican Party - USA TODAY