Monthly Archives: August 2020

In 2008, Kamala Harris signed on to a District Attorneys' friend-of-the-court brief in D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court's leading Second Amendment case. Of course, she may have changed her views on the Second Amendment since then (perhaps in light of precedents such as Heller); and she may have different personal views than the ones she expressed as a D.A. (though note that she signed on to the brief as a signatory, and not just as a lawyer for the signatories). But this brief likely tells us something about her views on the Second Amendment.

[1.] To begin with, the brief urged the Court to reverse the decision below, and thus to reinstate D.C.'s handgun ban. Thus, Harris's view in that case was that the Second Amendment doesn't preclude total bans on handgun possession.

[2.] The brief also came at a time when the great majority of federal courts (including the Ninth Circuit, which covered Harris's jurisdiction, San Francisco) viewed the Second Amendment as not securing any meaningful individual right of members of the public to personally keep and bear arms. Rather, those courts viewed the Second Amendment as endorsing (to quote the then-existing Ninth Circuit precedent, which the brief itself later cited),

the "collective rights" model, [which] asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons.

Under this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as due process, equal protection, and the like.

And the brief supported that majority view among federal courts: Affirming the D.C. Circuit decision, which rejected the collective rights model and recognized an individual right to own guns,

could inadvertently call into question the well settled Second Amendment principles under which countless state and local criminal firearms laws have been upheld by courts nationwide.

Thus, Harris's view in that case was thus that the "collective rights" view of the Second Amendment was correct, since that was the "settled Second Amendment principle[]" in lower federal courts at the time.

[3.] Now the brief also said that "The District Attorneys do not focus on the reasons for the reversal [that it was urging], however, leaving these arguments to Petitioners and other amici." Nonetheless, it argued that,

For nearly seventy years, courts have consistently sustained criminal firearms laws against Second Amendment challenges by holding that, [among other things], (i) the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms, (ii) the Second Amendment does not apply to legislation passed by state or local governments, and (iii) the restrictions bear a reasonable relationship to protecting public safety and thus do not violate a personal constitutional right. The lower court's decision, however, creates a broad private right to possess any firearm that is a "lineal descendant" of a founding era weapon and that is in "common use" with a "military application" today.

The federal and state courts have upheld state and local firearms laws, as well as criminal convictions thereunder, against Second Amendment challenges on three primary grounds. In holding the D.C. laws at issue to be unconstitutional, the decision below undermines each of these grounds, which also could be cast into doubt by an affirmance in this case.

First, courts nationwide have upheld criminal gun laws on the basis that the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms. See, e.g., Scott v. Goethals, No. 3-04-CV-0855, 2004 WL 1857156, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2004) (affirming conviction under Texas Penal Code 46.02 for unlawfully carrying a handgun because Second Amendment does not provide a private right to keep and bear arms); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052,1087 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that California residents challenging constitutionality of California's Assault Weapons Control Act lacked standing because Second Amendment provides militia-related right to keep and bear arms); State v. Brecunier, 564 N.W.2d 365, 370 (Iowa 1997) (upholding firearm sentence enhancement because defendant "had no constitutional right to be armed while interfering with lawful police activity").

The lower court's sweeping reasoning undermines each of the principal reasons invoked by those courts that have upheld criminal firearms laws under the Second Amendment time and again. First, under the lower court's analysis, the Constitution protects a broad "individual" constitutional right, one that is not militia-related, to possess firearms.

This certainly seems to me like approval of the principle listed as (i) in the brief, which is the view that "the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms."

Now perhaps this passage could be read as simply describing what courts were doing, or as suggesting that the Supreme Court could either adopt principle (i) or perhaps some of the other principles instead. But it certainly sounds to me like an endorsement of the "only a militia-related right to bear arms" view, especially since that's the lower federal courts' "well settled Second Amendment principle[]" to which the brief had earlier alluded (see item 2 above).

Plus principle (ii) is an endorsement of the view (rejected by the Court two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago) that states and localities can institute whatever gun bans they want (even total gun bans) without violating the Second Amendment. And even if we focus on principle (iii), under which gun laws are constitutional if they "bear a reasonable relationship to protecting public safety," the brief was supporting a total handgun banif that is permissible on the theory that it "bear[s] a reasonable relationship to protecting public safety," then I would think a total ban on all guns would be, too.

The brief closed with a suggestion that "the Court exercise judicial restraint and explicitly limit its decision to the three discrete provisions of the D.C. Code on which it granted certiorari" (the handgun ban, a licensing requirement, and the requirement that guns be stored disassembled or bound with a trigger lock), because "This would avoid needless confusion and uncertainty about the continued viability and stare decisiseffect of this Court'sand other courts'prior Second Amendment jurisprudence."

This passage doesn't expressly urge the Court to adopt a particular line of reasoning. But, again, the first principle that the brief mentioned, and the one most clearly consistent with lower federal courts' "prior Second Amendment jurisprudence," was that the Second Amendment didn't secure an individual right that ordinary citizens could exercise in their daily lives. It sounds like that is at least one approach that the brief is endorsing.

So, to summarize:

An article by Cam Edwards (Bearing Arms) on Aug. 11 made a similar argument in concluding that"Kamala Harris Doesn't Think You Have the Right To Own a Gun" (to quote its original title), but an Agence-France Press "Fact Check" on Aug. 18labeled that claim "false." I find the "Fact Check" quite unpersuasive, at least as to the specific question of Harris's views on the right to own a gun.

AFP writes, "Rather than outright opposition to gun ownership, Harris has supportedlegislation aimed at increasing safety." It may well be that Harris wouldn't promote a statute banning guns outright. But her brief states that she thinks governments have the constitutional power to ban at least all handguns, and likely guns more generally.

AFP writes, "Nor has she called for the destruction of the Second Amendment, whichsays: '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.'" But she has endorsed, as I read it, the view that the Second Amendment doesn't protect a normal individual right to own guns, rather protecting only a "collective right" under which states can limit gun ownership to members of a state-designated "militia."

AFP goes on to say, "Legal scholars, however, say that although Harris supported the amicus brief, it is false to conclude from it that she believesas the article claims'you don't have the right to own a gun'":

"The brief in question is not about whether there is an individual right under the Second Amendment. It is about the crime-related consequences of invalidating the DC handgun law at issue in Heller," Aziz Huq, of the University of Chicago Law School, told AFP by email. Huq studies how constitutional design interacts with individual rights and liberties.

Adam Winkler, a specialist in gun policy at the UCLA School of Law, made a similar argument.

"This statement is false," he said of the article's claim.

"The brief she supported argued that DC's gun laws should be upheld but not because there was no right to own a gun," Winkler said in an email to AFP.

"Rather, the brief argued that the laws should be upheld because there is a tradition of gun restrictions, and DC's were reasonable regulations," said Winkler, the author of "Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America."

Again, for the reasons I gave above, I think Profs. Huq and Winkler are mistaken. The brief does seem to endorse the collective rights view of the Second Amendment, under which there really is no right to own a gun. And, again, at the very least the brief endorses the view that all handguns could be banned, consistently with the Second Amendment.

Finally, the brief turns to another scholar:

The amicus brief which Harris joined argued "that at least as far as the Second Amendment is concerned, it doesn't relate to private rights," said [Jake] Charles, of the Duke Center for Firearms Law.

But he added: "I'm not sure it's fair to claim that as her current position given that the Supreme Court decided in Heller that people do have that right, and I haven't seen her questioning the Heller decision."

Here, I agree that (1) the amicus brief does take the view that the Second Amendment doesn't protect any "private rights," and (2) we can't be certain that this remains her view today. But it is at least plausible that her views about the subject haven't changed, and that if she could participate in reshaping the Supreme Court, she would reshape it in favor of reversing the Heller decision, and moving the law back to a view under which "the Second Amendment doesn't relate to private rights."

More here:
Kamala Harris on the Second Amendment Reason.com - Reason

Dont let the politicians or the NRA scare you about taking your guns away. The Second Amendment to the Constitution would have to be repealed. Heres how the process works:

A proposed amendment to the Constitution must first be passed by Congress with two-thirds majorities in both the House and the Senate.

Then three-fourths of the states must ratify the amendment. Thats done either through getting the state legislatures to approve of it or by ratifying conventions. Three-fourths is a high bar if as few as 13 states refuse to approve the change, the amendment stalls. Considering how many states are considered gun-friendly, its unlikely that the amendment would survive.

The other option for repealing the Second Amendment is more radical: Calling for a constitutional convention under Article V of the Constitution (AKA an Article V convention). If two-thirds of the state legislatures call for a new convention, they could convene delegations and start drafting new amendments. Its understandably a controversial idea, but arguably could be a way to repeal the Second Amendment.

LARRY L. DUBEY,

Alpena

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read the original here:
Repealing the Second Amendment is not easy | News, Sports, Jobs - Alpena News

On March 21, 2018, newly elected U.S. Senator Doug Jones gave his first-floor speech. The topic of his speech most certainly was one that is rarely heard from members of the Alabama delegation in either chamber his support of gun control and restrictions on the nations Second Amendment rights.

According to an NPR story, Jones said he was supportive of efforts that were discussed and later implemented after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting, including, moving to ban bump stocks that can convert guns into automatic-style weapons, efforts to strengthen the background check system. He went on to say those restrictions werent enough. Jones proposed making background checks universal, including on internet sales, at gun shows and even private sales, as well as implementing three-day waiting periods.

Jones has since tried to reframe his speech and its purpose. AYellow Hammer news story cross-referenced his senate speech with an interview with Al.Com. In his speech, Jones said, So while I know that guns and gun control are difficult issues for this country, I can tell you theyre complicated for me, too. In his interview with Al.com, he backtracked, saying, I didnt make a speech about gun control. I made a speech about gun safety.

Doug Jones attracted the attention of NRA-ILA and its members when the national organization called upon him to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Jones voted against Kavanaughs confirmation.

A recent Ammolandeditorialby Harold Hutchinson laid out additional arguments for electing Republican Tommy Tuberville over Jones. Electing Tuberville would help give Republicans an advantage in the Senate. He goes on to explain,Jones did sign on to a version of the For The People Act, which for all intents and purposes he says is intended tosilence grassroots opposition to left-wing politicians and causes, like gun control.

Hutchinson also noted in his piece that Along with control of the Senate, the need for a Republican advantage lies in the ability to fill judicial vacancies. The next elected president will possibly fill the vacancies of judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, orClarence Thomas. Donald Trump will certainly continue to nominate pro-Second Amendment judges, and if the Senate majority narrows, the nomination and confirmation of these judges could be stopped.

In contrast, Tuberville has openly stated his support for the Second Amendment. On his campaign website, Tuberville states, While we are fighting out-of-touch liberals to protect life and liberty, we must also stand up for the time-honored traditions we hold dear in Alabama. Being a sportsman has always been a part of my life. That is why I will always vote to protect and preserve our Second Amendment rights.

In an interview with the Daily Mountain Eagle, Tuberville said, A mental health plan is needed to address the mass shootings in the nation. He added it once had one. Now he says the plan is to release prisoners to the streets.

There is not a gun problem. It is a people problem, he said. Theres been guns here forever. Im not for any form or fashion of gun control. Theyre are not taking my guns, because what happens is they are not looking to take guns because you want to hunt and do some casual shooting or target practice. They want to take your guns away so they can control you. In this country, we cannot do that. The Second Amendment says we are allowed to bear arms.

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) endorsed Tuberville over Jones. Dudley Brown, a NAGR-PAC chairman, made a statement to Yellowhammer News.Tommy Tuberville scored a perfect 100% on the NAGR survey and has pledged to support the Second Amendment and fight back against illegal gun grabs as a member of the U.S. Senate.

Like Loading...

Related

See the original post:
Second amendment rights on the line with Doug Jones US Senate reelection bid - Alabama Today

We are living in extraordinary times, and it will take an extraordinary effort by freedom-loving Americans during this years presidential election to emerge with our liberties intact. The candidates could not be further apart in how they view your fundamental right to protect yourself and your loved ones. Regardless of party affiliation, if you value the right to keep and bear arms and wish to preserve it for this and future generations, you must vote to re-elect President Donald J. Trump in November.

I explained last month why the election of Joe Biden would be a disaster for gun owners and would cripple the Second Amendment as we know it. That alone makes the choice easy.

But for his part, President Trump has earned the gun vote by keeping his promises to Americas firearm owners and by proving time after time that he is a stalwart and trusted ally to Second Amendment supporters.

Gun owners will remember that 2016s presidential election was largely a referendum on who would choose the successor to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the landmark 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. Scalia used text, history and tradition to establish as a matter of law what was already common knowledge to most Americans: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, independent of service in an organized militia. Justice Scalias decision led to the end of handgun bans in the District of Columbia and Chicago. It also signaled that the Second Amendment must be afforded the same respect as other individual liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

Gun prohibitionists reacted with fury and have been trying to undermine and reverse Hellers individual-rights holding ever since. They may well have succeeded, had the Senate confirmed Barack Obamas choice to fill Scalias vacant seat on the court. That nominee, Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, had voted to rehear the lower court decision that would eventually become the Heller case before the Supreme Court. Garland manifestly believed the full D.C. Circuit needed another crack at interpreting the Second Amendment, after a three-judge panel issued an opinion holding that D.C.s handgun ban violated the Second Amendments individual right to keep and bear arms.

Donald Trump made appointing a worthier successor to Scalias legacy a keystone of his presidential platform. He even published a list of potential Supreme Court nominees during his campaign, so voters could see for themselves what sorts of judges Trump would appoint to the nations highest court. The common denominator among these judges (besides impeccable professional credentials) was a demonstrated respect for Americas constitutional order, legal traditions and Second Amendment.

Most had also adopted Scalias signature originalist style of constitutional interpretation, which limits judicial policy-making by deferring to the meaning of constitutional language as it was understood at the time of its adoption. This ensures permanence and stability for the nations founding principles, unlike the contrary practice of simply declaring constitutional precepts out of thin air to suit the judges preferred politics and to keep up with the elite trends of the day, whatever they happen to be.

Gun owners understood the stakes in 2016 and voted for Donald Trump in droves. After his election, President Trump kept his most important promise by nominating Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, then of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, to ascend to Scalias vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Gorsuch, in contrast to Garland, had demonstrated his respect for the Second Amendment, writing in one case that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly. Like Scalia, Gorsuch also emphasized textualism and originalism in his approach to constitutional interpretation.

President Trump had another opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice with the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2018. Kennedy was widely recognized as the critical swing vote in Heller and the follow-up case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. Yet he was also typically characterized as a centrist, and it wasnt clear how far his support for the Second Amendment extended. Many believe the reason the Supreme Court remained silent on the Second Amendment in the years after Heller and McDonald was that neither the evenly divided pro- and anti-gun wings of the court had confidence that Kennedy would vote their way.

Trumps choice to succeed Kennedy was Brett M. Kavanaugh, then of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Kavanaugh had one of the strongest records on the Second Amendment of any potential nominee, having penned a lengthy and well-reasoned dissent from a case that upheld various aspects of D.C.s onerous post-Heller gun control regime. It was clear he would take the Second Amendment seriously if elevated to the high court.

In judicial appointments and many other ways, President Trump has unapologetically supported the Second Amendment.

Since their appointments to the Supreme Court, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been even clearer about their concern over the lower courts dismissive treatment of the Second Amendment and their desire for the court to rectify that situation. Both have joined or written opinions expressing this sentiment in cases in which the court ultimately declined to revisit the right to keep and bear arms. No one knows when the Supreme Court will take up another Second Amendment case, but when they do, few doubt that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will be among the strongest defenders of that essential liberty.

Speaking of the lower courts, President Trump has been busy there as well, in June reaching the milestone of 200 judicial appointments. Only a tiny fraction of cases ever reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The decisions that affect Americans lives and libertiesincluding the right to keep and bear armswill mostly be rendered by judges at the district and circuit court levels. President Trump recognizes this and has made an investment in the judiciary that will pay dividends for gun owners for decades to come. Even Trumps detractors recognize that his reshaping of the federal judiciary will be his most important and lasting legacy.

Yet President Trumps support for the Second Amendment goes well beyond his judicial appointments. Shortly after taking office, he wasted no time repealing an Obama-era scheme that forced Social Security recipients to choose between their benefits and their Second Amendment right to possess a firearm. President Trump made sure that Americans rights should never be the subject of such a false choice.

During his 2016 campaign, Trump promised to abolish so-called gun-free zones that empower criminals and disarm the law-abiding. He did exactly that in April, initiating a rulemaking to end a ban on the possession of firearms in water resource development projects administered by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). These areas comprise one of the largest networks of outdoor recreation sites in America, encompassingmore than 400 lake and river projects in 43 states. Visitors use these sites for hiking, boating, fishing, camping, hunting and geo-caching. Yet carrying firearms for self-defense in these areas is prohibited.

The proposed rule would abolish an existing gun-free zone on 12 million acres of public lands and waters nationwide, including 55,390 miles of shoreline, 7,856 miles of trails, 92,588 campsites and 3,754 boat ramps. It is set to be one of the single largest expansions of the right to carry in the nations history.

The Trump administration also reformed Americas antiquated system for regulating exports of firearms and ammunition in a way that benefited both individual gun owners and the lawful industries that support them. Among other things, this move reversed Obama-era polices that wreaked havoc with gunsmiths and gunsmithing schools, as well as with hunters traveling abroad with personally owned firearms and ammunition.

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many state governments were poised to use the novel virus as a means to restrict Second Amendment rights, President Trumps administration identified the firearms industry as critical infrastructure, forcing all but a few states to keep gun stores and other firearm businesses open. In doing so, President Trump made clear that the self-defense rights of law-abiding Americans are and forever will be essential.

And, who could forget the historic moment when President Trump unsigned the Arms Trade Treaty on stage at our 2018 Annual Meeting. His leadership freed the U.S. from a terrible treaty that could have imposed restrictive international gun control on American gun owners.

The president additionally used his authority to increase access to public lands for the use of hunters and sport shooters, both through executive orders and by signing federal legislation to that helps states provide more shooting ranges on public lands.

More so than any of his predecessors, President Trump has unapologetically supported the Second Amendment, even when elite opinion has railed against it.

President Trump understands that despite what these so-called elites claim, nothing is more important than the fundamental freedoms we enjoy as Americans. Thats why Ive whole-heartedly endorsed him in my role as Chairman of NRA-PVF, and why I look forward to casting my ballot to help re-elect him on November 3. I invite you to join me by doing the same.

Excerpt from:
The Choice Is Clear: President Trump's Second Amendment Record Has Earned Him the Gun Vote in 2020 - America's 1st Freedom

The man who called gunmen to gather on the streets of Kenosha Tuesday night culminating in the deaths of two people and an injury to a third says he did so to keep the city safe. Despite the deaths, he believes they made it safer.

Kevin Mathewson is a former Kenosha alder who in June created a Facebook page called Kenosha Guard Armed Citizens to Protect our Lives and Property. On Tuesday, he posted a call to arms as a page event.

Any patriots willing to take up arms and defend out [sic] City tonight from the evil thugs? Nondoubt [sic] they are currently planning on the next part of the City to burn tonight!

In a subsequent public post, under the identity of the page, Mathewson addressed Kenoshas police chief, Daniel Miskinis:

Chief Miskinis, As you know I am the commander of the Kenosha Guard, a local militia. We are mobilizing tonight and have about 3,000 RSVPs. We have volunteers that will be in Uptown, downtown and at the entrances to other neighborhoods.

Despite characterizations in those posts and elsewhere, as Mathewson described the Kenosha Guard in an interview with the Wisconsin Examiner, it is little more than a Facebook group with an indeterminate number of self-appointed members.

I started the page, I am the admin of the page, but its a very loose organization. You know, theres no meetings, theres no bylaws the Second Amendment and individual freedom, Mathewson said.

Mathewson said he has never met Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old from Antioch, Ill., who was arrested Wednesday in connection with the shooting deaths of two people Tuesday night in downtown Kenosha and the hospitalization of a third. In the interview, Mathewson was quick to distance himself from the suspect.

He was a child that had no business carrying a gun, so I wonder who condoned him leaving another state to come here carrying a gun without questioning that, Mathewson said.

With regard to the shootings themselves, he said, I dont want to take the position if what he did was self defense or not, because we dont have all the facts. But state laws are very clear: You have to be 18 to possess a long gun and 21 to possess a pistol.

I dont know him, hes not affiliated in any way with me or my Facebook page that I know of. Never met the guy, he continued, calling it always a tragedy when anybody loses their lives, even if its in self-defense.

Authorities have not tied Rittenhouse to a specific militia group, and its not clear whether he came to Kenosha Tuesday because of the Kenosha Guards post, although it drew widespread attention.

Our effort has made national media, stated the post addressed to the Kenosha police chief, linking to the extremist rightwing website InfoWars.

Mathewson is a freelance private detective who works for area lawyers and has a wedding photography business. He was often outspoken and controversial in his two non-consecutive terms on the citys common council. He resigned his seat in 2017 after moving out of the city to the adjacent community of Somers.

Hes always liked controversy, and if theres any controversy to be found, he will find it, said Ald. Jan Michalski, who is still on the council and was a member during Mathewsons time in office. Michalski described him as someone who would pick fights. But he said he was not aware of Mathewsons association with the Kenosha Guard page, adding that he doesnt engage with social media.

Mathewson said the Facebook page is very loose, very loose the page is open to anybody, anybody could like the page, anybody can see all the comments, anybody can comment. So theres not like an application process or approval process. So technically anybody could claim theyre a member.

Mathewson, however, said he is the only one who controls the page itself and the only one who can, and did, issue a call to arms.

Later in the interview he returned to that question. Theres really not my group, right? he said. I cant give a list, Heres members of the Kenosha Guard. So, the Kenosha Guard is basically me sending a message that we need to take control of our city. So, technically, theres no members.

As of Wednesday, the Kenosha Guard Facebook page had been taken down, but another Mathewson Facebook page, associated with his former role as a Kenosha alder, includes videos and commentary also referring to unrest in Kenosha and pictures of Mathewson and others with weapons, guarding a residential area.

Theres no way to really know how many people came downtown with guns Tuesday night, said Mathewson. He was downtown early in the evening before dark, when there were at least 30 to 50 of us.

Mathewson started the page in June, when we had businesses being destroyed and looted for the George Floyd incident, he said. Although interest was slow initially, it took off, reaching 4,000 page followers.

Tuesdays event came together on the fly.

When he posted the event notice that same day, I think there were 6,000 that hit the interested button and over 1,000 that committed to going last I looked, Mathewson said. Other militia-style groups also were in Downtown Kenosha Tuesday night, he said, and some armed people have been there every night since Sunday, although he had not posted about the unrest before Tuesday.

Mathewson said he left downtown before dark and returned to his own residential neighborhood. I just kind of hung out at the entrance to my subdivision so I wasnt in the thick of things at night, he said.

Like him, others who responded to the event took up posts in groups outside area subdivisions around the city, he said: Were talking at least a few hundred that were outside, armed and trying to help the community.

It would be nice to have a well-regulated militia, he said, but we didnt have enough time to really prepare and organize just a general call to arms.

The message he sought to convey, he said, was Hey, are you a patriot? Do you want to defend our city, grab your gun, go outside, defend your neighborhood, your home, your store. Lets supplement the police because theyre outnumbered.

And thats why I think we were appreciated, Mathewson said, when some people on the street started throwing rocks, bricks and Molotov cocktails at the police. Those officers are scared and I think thats why were welcomed so warmly Giving us water, telling us thank you.

At a news conference on Wednesday, Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth said he had been asked about deputizing armed civilians. Beth did not state what group or individuals had specifically made the request, but said that he opposed the idea.

Once I deputize somebody they fall under the constitution of the state of Wisconsin. They fall under the county of Kenosha, they fall under my guidance, they have to follow my policy, they have to follow my supervisors, Beth said. They are a liability to me, and the county and the state of Wisconsin.

If the person who fired the fatal shots had been deputized, he said, that would have been, in reality [a] deputy sheriff who killed two people, Beth said. And the liability that goes with that would have been immense. Theres no way that I would have deputized people.

In his interview, Mathewson who has clashed with Beth over the departments handling of deputy misconduct allegations criticized the sheriffs rejection of deputizing armed civilians, although he also acknowledged that you cant just go around deputizing people because youve got to vet somebody who has the time? But the conversation should have to happen.

Mathewson said he talks regularly with Miskinis, the Kenosha police chief, however.

He made the Kenosha Guard post on Tuesday that directly addressed Miskinis because I wanted to make at least that communication reaching out, he said. Maybe he had advice for us. Maybe he needed us in certain places.

There was no response, he said, and I dont blame him because theres probably liability issues. If he responds, people can say its condoning the militia.

Miskinis declined to directly answer questions at Wednesdays news conference about his departments officers interactions with militia members seen on videos that have circulated on social media.

Mathewson continued: But by definition, we dont need the governments permission. We dont need to be told we can do it. In fact, the Constitution tells us we can do it. And the Second Amendment was put in there for instances like this when were at war and under siege.

On both the now-defunct Kenosha Guard page and Mathewsons own public page, some who posted comments about the Tuesday night shooting deaths praised the gunman. Others, however, told Mathewson that he bore responsibility for the deaths. A MoveOn online petition is calling on authorities to charge Mathewson as an accessory to the killings.

Mathewson rejected the accusation.

Nobody is responsible for somebodys behavior except for that person, he told the Wisconsin Examiner. This was a child who had no business carrying a gun. To suggest that I in some way am responsible for the death simply because I asked my fellow countrymen to arm themselves and defend themselves against murdering, scumbag, criminal looters is preposterous. I had nothing to do with that. I did not inspire that.

Mathewson said that he believes the presence of dozens of armed people downtown Tuesday made the area definitely more safe.

Im trying to put myself in the shoes of a criminal who wants to burn a building down, Mathewson said. Id probably want to do it away from armed people probably want to do it somewhere where its just criminals, not citizens carrying weapons. Certainly if I was a criminal I would not want to attack somebody carrying a gun, thats for sure.

He rejected the suggestion that the two deaths Tuesday night, the first fatalities in three nights of unrest, contradict the idea that armed militia members made the city safer.

No were very fortunate that no one was killed on nights one or two Buildings were torched with apartments above, he said. And thats an inherent risk of loss of life right there.

He added: People who disagree with the Second Amendment, they dont realize that the fact that people can be armed in itself is a deterrent.

At the city-county news conference, however, Kenosha Mayor John Antaramian offered a very different assessment.

No, I dont need more guns on the street in the community, when were trying to make sure that we keep people safe, Antaramian said. Law enforcement is trained, theyre the ones who are responsible. Theyre the ones we have faith will do their jobs to make sure it gets done. And it would be beneficial and helpful to everyone to realize that.

More here:
A 'call to arms' that filled Kenosha with combat weapons - Wisconsin Examiner