Monthly Archives: April 2021

Just a day after President Joe Biden announced he would take executive action on gun control, the Assembly Judiciary Committee moved forward firearm reforms of its own in the Legislature.

Assembly Bill 286which passed out of committee on a party line votewould ban homemade firearms that lack serial numbers and expand the locations where concealed carry permit holders are legally prohibited from carrying guns.

Debate over these measuresas well as those yet to comewill undoubtedly be an amalgamation of tried-and-tired soundbites from both sides. Conservatives will declare, with righteous indignation, that the only thing capable of stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Meanwhile, gun control advocates will promote statistics about gun violence as irrefutable evidence that something must be done to start taking dangerous firearms off the streets.

And yet, theres a crucial aspect of the gun control debate that remains conspicuously and tragically under-discussed by both sides: The racial, historical and civic relevance of Second Amendment rights.

The last several years of racial and cultural tension have had a predictable effect on firearm ownership that is certain to complicate progressives political calculus regarding gun control: More Americans are buying more firearms than ever, and minorities are increasingly joining the ranks of first-time gun buyers.

The explosion of firearm ownership among Black Americans, especially, is something that would make some of the civil rights activists of decades-past beam with prideand, with good reason: Historically, gun control has negatively affected disadvantaged communities to a greater extent than white middle-America, and gun rights were once integral to the expansion of civil rights.

In fact, at one point, racial inequities were actually the purpose of gun control laws.

The Black Codes in the post-Civil War South were, in part, aimed at disarming freed Black slaves. Gun licensing laws, registration schemes and even prohibitions on certain models of weapons were used as legal tools to strip African Americans in the deep south of the ability to defend themselves against the terrorist tactics of organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. In the early 20th Century, northern states began adopting similar regulatory frameworks as a means of disenfranchising marginalized Italian and German communities.

Obviously, gun control activists today arent advocating for a return to the racist and prejudiced policies of the Jim Crow South or the anti-Italian sentiments of New Yorks Sullivan Act. However, better intentions dont magically erase the disparate impact such laws generate. Like any number of bureaucratic burdens on individual rights, its not unreasonable to think firearm regulations would disproportionately affect communities that suffer from institutional or social prejudice.

However, the inequitable impact of gun control among racial and socioeconomic demographics arent blind spots only for progressives. After all, the most powerful gun-rights organization in the nation, the National Rifle Association, often appears less interested in defending the principles of firearm ownership among certain social groups than it is in pandering to political factions within the conservative movement.

Sure, the NRA likes to boast about the massive numbers of female and minority gun owners from time to time, but it has proven radically unwilling to stand up for those same demographics when doing so might upset its predominantly Republican, blue-lives-matter, conservative base.

The organization, for example, was deafeningly quiet when Breonna Taylors boyfriend followed the advice of virtually every NRA instructor teaching home defense, by confronting unknown intruders in the middle of the night with his firearm. Regrettably, the intruders werent home invaders, they were plain-clothes police officersand Breonna lost her life as a consequence.

In another high-profile example of police misconduct, Philando Castilea Black man pulled over for a broken taillightwas fatally shot in 2016 by a police officer in Minnesota after he calmly informed officers he was a concealed carry permit holder with a firearm on his person. (Warning: This video of the incident is distressing.) Just as in Breonnas case, and many others, the NRA was conspicuously MIA'' during the national conversation that followed.

And thats what many conservative gun groupssuch as the NRAget so very wrong about the debate over gun rights: Defending the Second Amendment is about more than constitutional concerns regarding proposed gun laws. Morally and ethically, there are significantly more important reasons for defending Second Amendment rights than a run-on sentence authored by admittedly flawed men in the late 1700s.

Firearm rights have historically been minority rights. Theyre civil rights. Throughout our nations history, gun rights have been directly and indirectly married to the progress of racial and social justice. For communities and individuals treated as second-class citizens, these rights have literally been a lifeline during times of unrest, social change and racial tension.

As Malcom X rightfully pointed out at the height of the civil rights movement, the Second Amendment isnt just about weaponry Its about equality.

Michael Schaus began his professional career in the financial sector, where he became deeply interested in economic theory and the concept of free markets. Over a decade ago, that interest led him to a career in policy and public commentaryworking as a columnist, a political humorist and a radio talk show host. Today, Michael is director of communications for the Nevada Policy Research Institute and lives with his wife and daughter in Las Vegas.

See the rest here:
Racial equality and the Second Amendment - The Nevada Independent

Chad Lyle Published 7:01 a.m. MT April 9, 2021

President Joe Biden announced executive actions aimed at curbing gun violence. USA TODAY

Texas could soon join the ranks of a small, but growing, club of states that have passed laws that designate them as second amendment sanctuaries.

On Tuesday, the State Affairs Committee in the Texas House approved House Bill 2622, which would prevent state resources to enforce any new federal restrictions on firearms and ammunition. The bill, titled the Second Amendment Sanctuary State Act, would prevent state officials from enforcing new federal gun ownership rules, such as firearm registries, licensing requirements and confiscation programs.

It mirrors legislation that previously passed in Alaska, Kansas, Idaho, Wyoming, and, most recently, Arizona.

Basically, were freezing Texas state law and federal laws in place that have to do with guns, said the bills author, Rep. Justin Holland, R-Rockwall. And (were) not recognizing, at the state level, any federal changes.

Holland said he hadworked closely with Gov. Greg Abbotts office to write the legislation. Abbott had expressed his desire to make Texas a second amendment Sanctuary State during his 2021 State of the State address. Both officials have said they want to pass the legislation this session to counter a push by the Biden Administration to enact new gun control measures.

Current impending federal legislation and potentially forthcoming presidential executive orders from Washington D.C. are threatening to infringe on the constitutional rights of Texans, Holland said. Particularly the right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms.

On Thursday, Biden announced he would be taking executive action aimed at preventing gun violence, which he referred to as an epidemic. The Justice Department is poised to lead many of these efforts, including creatingnew rules to prevent people from building guns at home without serial numbers also known as ghost guns.

The Biden executive actions will also include a template that states can use to craft their own red flag laws, which generally allow family members and police officers to request that a court temporarily remove firearms from an individual who might be dangerous.

More: Biden looks to stem ghost guns,' unveils other steps to curb gun violence 'epidemic'

Biden also called for the Senate to take up gun control bills that the House passed in March. That legislation would require every gun buyer to receive a background check and give the FBI more time to vet prospective gun buyers.

The federal bills would extend the FBIs time window to deny firearm sales to citizens without failing a background check, Holland said. The Democrats in control in Congress, in the Senate, and in the White House have introduced and passed legislation, as well as talked about executive orders that would directly impact the Second Amendment, Constitutional rights of Texans.

While Holland was joined by almost 50 mostly Republican co-authors, not every Texas Democrat plans to welcome new federal firearm restrictions. Rep. Terry Canales, D-Edinburg, is a joint author of Hollands HB 2622. Although Canales could not be reached for comment by the El Paso Times by deadline, he has previously said he owns a large collection of assault rifles and roughly 580 guns.

Even without bipartisan support, however, HB 2622s path to becoming state law appears assured. The bill has a Senate companion, Senate Bill 541, by Sen. Drew Springer, R-Muenster, and Abbott has promoted the legislation on multiple occasions.

This is what Im seeking for Texas a law to defy any new federal gun control laws, Abbott said in a tweet Wednesday about Arizonas new Sanctuary State law. I look forward to signing it.

Holland said he anticipates that a sanctuary state bill signed by the governor would withstand a legal challenge if Congress subsequently passed new gun control laws. Similar to states that have legalized recreational marijuana use which is still a controlled substance at the federal level Texas would decline to use its own law enforcement agencies and resources to enforce the federal law, he said.

Were not precluding the federal government from coming and enforcing their laws, Holland said. Were just not gonna do it for them.

Read or Share this story: https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/2021/04/09/what-would-happen-if-texas-became-second-amendment-sanctuary-state/7146515002/

Read the original:
What is a 'Second Amendment Sanctuary' State, and what would happen if Texas became one? - El Paso Times

Wisconsin (WAOW) -- State Senator Mary Felzkowski, a Republican lawmaker out of Tomahawk, is authoring legislation that would make Wisconsin a Second Amendment sanctuary state.

According to a release, the bill would prevent the federal government from confiscating firearms or ammunition which are legally owned and made in Wisconsin.

This comes on the same day President Joe Biden announced executive action on gun reform.

Today, we witnessed a blatant overreach and attack on our second amendment rights. The sitting president of the United States of America signed six executive orders aimed at stripping millions of legal gun owners across the country of their sacred, unalienable rights," said Felzkowski.

The bill would also keep state public fundsand state employees from helping confiscate legally owned firearms protected by the Second Amendment.

Its been said time and again our Second Amendment right to bear arms is the only thing protecting the American people from an overreaching government. Our Constitution is set in stone. You dont get to pick and choose which sections you adhere to and respect based off of a political agenda, and this bill makes that crystal clear," said Felzkowski.

Here is the original post:
Area lawmaker working on Second Amendment sanctuary bill - WAOW

In some 229 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the framers' intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barretts dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.

I will relate further by demonstration, my understanding of the intent of the framers using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Merriam Webster defines militia as "a body of citizens organized for military service; a whole body of able-bodied citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

If, as some may argue, the Second Amendments militia meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe one's right as a private individual is not as a militia but as a person. (The individual personality of a human being: self)

The Article of Confederation lists 11 references to person/s. The Constitution lists person or persons 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a person his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.

Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to person is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun person/s as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual persons right to bear arms as a person?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, textualism approach having zero reference to person/s. Justice Barretts view only recognizes person/s in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of person/s, mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.

Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barretts judgment in question.

In the entire U.S. Constitution militia is mentioned five times. In these references there is no mention of person or persons. One reference to people in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.

Now comes the word shall mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. Merriam Webster. Shall as ought to, must .. will have to; MUST; will be able to; used in laws; regulates or directives to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the near future.

And interestingly, the word shall appears in the Second Amendment. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.

[S]hall not be infringed. Adding another word infringed to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Merriam Webster. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another; defeat, frustrate, encroach.

The condition Infringe has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall not infringe or encroach on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject Militia.

Finally, clarifying ..the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

Merriam Webster. People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by common interest. 2. human beings, persons.

In closing, I am not against guns, everybody has them. Im against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.

Link:
Voice of the People: Justice Barrett's Second Amendment dilemma - Kankakee Daily Journal

If our country isnt going to face up to the fact that we have a gun out-of-control problem, maybe we should just leave the flag flying at half-mast from now on.

Men, most of them white, some mentally ill, and all with easy access to assault rifles, seem to be lining up for their 15 minutes of fame. Their targets? Innocent men, women, grandparents and children shopping at the grocery store, going to school or working in the small business down the street.

Many Americans realize there is something terribly wrong, both socially and spiritually, with a country that has more guns than people. We watch the news, wondering if the latest attack on the innocent will be the tipping point, the moment when the nation rises up and says, enough is enough. But if the killing of children in their own school, the spraying bullets from a hotel room window down on a crowd of people at a concert and the killing of Bible study attendees isnt enough, what is?

Several years ago, I was a guest speaker on religious diversity at an Indiana high school. The day happened to be soon after another mass shooting at a school elsewhere in the country. Before I could start my talk, we had to listen to a message over the intercom from the principal.

The principal reminded students of the schools policy in the event of an armed intruder at the school. I watched the faces of the students as the guidelines were presented. Most of the students looked down as they were instructed, if such a crisis occurred, to turn off the lights in the room, barricade the door and hide under their desks. I will never know how the students absorbed the principals last piece of advice because what he said chilled me to the bone. He told the students that if all else failed, they were to fight for their lives.

No parent or grandparent should accept that this is the best we can offer our children. And every parent knows that children, in order to learn, must feel safe. The majority of Americans, when polled, know that its insane to have assault weapons as easy to buy as French fries. The majority of Americans want some logical gun control legislation.

Yes, we all know about the Second Amendment. Of course, most of us recognize that the Founding Fathers didnt have assault weapons or bazookas in mind when they passed that amendment. So, I want to go on record as being a Strict Constitutionalist. Lets keep the Second Amendment but interpret it as the Founding Fathers did every man has the right to own a musket. You know, that cumbersome weapon that took minutes to load, fire and reload.

A musket, at least, would give our children a fighting chance. Can anyone say that about assault weapons?

David Carlson of Franklin is a professor emeritus of philosophy and religion. Send comments to letters@dailyjournal.net.

Here is the original post:
David Carlson: A Constitutionalist's interpretation of the Second Amendment - Daily Journal

Austin, TX, April 6, 2021 After then-presidential candidate Beto ORourke proclaimed in 2019, Hell, yes, were going to take your AR-15, dozens of counties across the State of Texas passed resolutions pledging to refuse the enforcement of any unconstitutional firearm restrictions.

With the increased likelihood of stricter federal gun regulations coming into fruition under the Biden administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress, the idea of a Second Amendment sanctuary has been brought to the limelight in Texas again, this time at the state level.

During a keynote discussion at a Texas Public Policy Foundation conference in January, Governor Greg Abbott said that he wanted to see Texas become a Second Amendment sanctuary so that no government at any level can come and take your gun away from you.

At that point, several bills had already been filed in the mold of the Texas Firearm Protection Act, which Abbott helped draft in 2013 when it passed in the state House with 100 votes.

That legislation was never considered in the Senate, but Rep. Steve Toth (R-The Woodlands) introduced the bill again this year along with a few more variations by other lawmakers.

Though Toths bill has not been heard in a House committee yet, the Senate companion in the form of Senate Bill (SB) 513 from Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood) will be heard in the Senate State Affairs Committee on Thursday.

But the pro-gun bill in the vein of a Second Amendment sanctuary that has gotten the most traction is House Bill (HB) 2622 from Rep. Justin Holland (R-Rockwall).

Abbott lent his apparent support to the bill sharing an article about it on Twitter and noting that it would forbid Texas state agencies & local governments from enforcing new federal gun laws or rules.

Hollands bill is nearly identical to an earlier one filed by Rep. Matt Krause (R-Fort Worth), HB 635, as well as one filed by Sen. Drew Springer (R-Muenster), SB 541.

In total, 46 of the 150 members in the lower chamber have signed onto Hollands bill, including over half of the Republican members and Rep. Terry Canales (D-Edinburg).

Four GOP members on the State Affairs Committee, where HB 2622 was referred, have put their names down on the bill including Chairman Chris Paddie (R-Marshall) and Reps. Will Metcalf (R-Conroe), Matt Shaheen (R-Plano), and Shelby Slawson (R-Stephenville).

On Tuesday, the State Affairs Committee reported the bill favorably in an 11 to 2 vote.

Next, the bill will go through the Calendars Committee chaired by another one of the bills coauthors, Rep. Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock) which will determine if or when the legislation is brought before the entire chamber.

If passed, the bill would prohibit state agencies and subdivisions of the state from enforcing any new federal firearm regulations that are not expressly permitted under state code.

As Holland noted during the layout of his bill in the committee hearing last week, HB 2622 does not and cannot prevent federal government from enforcing their new laws, regulations, and restrictions.

We just wont enforce or allow their policies, or direct state resources to any federal efforts in Texas, said Holland.

During the committee hearing, the bill met some pushback from Rep. Donna Howard (D-Austin), who questioned the legality of such a proposal.

Im having a hard time understanding how we can ask law enforcement not to enforce a federal requirement, said Howard.

In 2017, Howard supported the sanctuary cities that refused to enforce federal immigration law and voted in opposition to legislation that targeted such cities.

During the hearing last Thursday, Howard also asked if the bill would have any consequences related to federal funding, to which Holland replied that in the four other states to pass similar legislation, none have had their funding cut as a result.

Current and pending legislation, and potentially forthcoming presidential executive orders from Washington, D.C., have threatened and aim to infringe upon the constitutional rights of Texans, said Holland.

House Bill 2622 is intended to protect the current rights of law abiding gun owners in the state of Texas.

Read the original post:
Second Amendment Sanctuary Bill Approved by Texas House Committee - The Texan

After a second mass shooting in the space of a week, a friend noted that only one amendment in the Bill of Rights began with the words Congress shall make no law.

Its not the Second Amendment, he said.

Of course, that doesnt deter gun rights advocates like Sen. Cynthia Lummis, a Republican from Wyoming.

Every time that theres an incident like this, the people who dont want to protect the Second Amendment use it as an excuse to further erode Second Amendment rights, she said.

Shes not wrong, I guess. Many Americans see mass shootings like those in Georgia and Colorado, and they cry out for their leaders to do something, anything, to make the carnage stop.

Vice President Kamala Harris accused folks like Lummis of setting up a false choice.

This is not about getting rid of the Second Amendment, Harris said during an appearance on CBS This Morning. Its simply about saying we need reasonable gun safety laws.

Both she and President Joe Biden have spoken out in support of such reform.

The point here is Congress needs to act, Harris said during that CBS interview. On the House side, they did. There are two bills which the president is prepared to sign, and so we need the Senate to act.

Biden also urged Congress to reinstate a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that had been in effect for 10 years in the 1990s and early 2000s.

There is no reason why we have assault weapons on the streets of a civil society, Harris said. They are weapons of war.

Reform advocates have public opinion on their side.

A Gallup survey last fall found that 57% of respondents thought gun regulations should be more strict. That number has been as high as 78% in the early 1990s and as low as 44% in 2010. It was 67% in 2018.

A survey taken this year found 56% of respondents were at least somewhat dissatisfied with the nations gun regulations. It found 33% to be very dissatisfied.

Among those wanting a change in the regulations, those wanting stricter rules outnumbered those wanting to ease regulations by a margin of 5 to 1.

Heres another statistic driving public opinion. A Gallup survey in 2019 found that nearly half of respondents were at least somewhat worried about falling victim to a mass shooting. Roughly one in five admitted to being very worried.

And yet guys like Republican U.S. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana suggest that tightening restrictions to fight gun violence would be like banning sober drivers to fight drunk driving.

This issue hasnt always been one pitting conservatives against liberals.

Take the example of Warren Burger, former chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Burger was in all respects a conservative, but he was no fan of the Second Amendment.

During a 1991 appearance on PBS, the retired chief justice observed that if he had been writing the Bill of Rights in the 1990s, he wouldnt have included the right to bear arms.

The gun lobbys interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud I repeat the word fraud on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime, he said. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies the militia would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

Sounds like maybe he would have been on the side of the reformers.

Kelly Hawes is a columnist for CNHI newspapers in Indiana. Send comments to editorial@therepublic.com.

See original here:
Second Amendment isn't absolute - The Republic