Monthly Archives: September 2021

The mainstream media is beginning to notice something President Joe Bidens (D) team refuses to see.

All his life, Jabril Battle was anti-gun. Then came the pandemic, the lockdown, the shortages and a feeling that at any moment, things could blow. Battle bought a Beretta.

The Washington Post

Six months ago, Svetlana Kim was so scared of guns, she couldnt even look at an image of one without feeling anxious . That all changed when something scarier came along. Months into the pandemic, people who looked like Kim were being shoved and kicked to the ground, punched, stabbed and slashed, while doing everyday activities like walking around the neighborhood, shopping and riding buses and trains . On March 3, Kim went from being a really anti-gun person to the new owner of a Springfield Armory handgun. Time

This, of course, isnt the sudden change the media is pretending it is. Anyone who has traveled a littlemaybe competing in some type of shooting sportknows gun ownership is and has been diverse. It just seems to be getting more so. What these Left-leaning media outlets are reacting to is the startling factto them, not to the members of the NRAthat more of the voters who usually swallow their brand of politics are buying guns for self-defense.

The numbers outlining this trend are compelling.

A survey of 104 retailers covering the first six months of 2020, done by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), found that gun sales to Black men and women were up 58%, compared to the same period in 2019. Also, gun sales in the first six months of 2020 to Hispanic customers were up 47% and sales to Asian Americans were up 43% during the same timeframe.

Incredibly, about 40% of these sales were to first-time buyers, according to the NSSF data. In all, the NSSF says over eight million new gun owners entered the market in 2020 alone.

This growth in the practical use of this constitutional right begs the question: Are these new gun owners now more likely to vote for their freedom? To answer this question, we looked into the data and reached out to people who are close to this issue, includingKevin Jackson, a best-selling author and documentary filmmaker, for his insights into the continued growth of the use of this constitutional right.Stay tuned for a video interview with Jacksoncoming soon at A1F.com.

Despite the identity politics now being played by so many, the Second Amendment makes no distinction about a persons race, ethnicity or gender. The Second Amendment is a restriction on government. The Second Amendment therefore is apolitical. Standing for freedom isnt and never should be a partisan issue in America.

The fact that the mainstream media is beginning to notice that more Americans of all backgrounds are embracing this right is hopefully a sign that the media is realizing they need to drop the partisan attacks on law-abiding gun owners. Maybe, just maybe, this means that someday well see honest discussion about this right in the mainstream media. Then, imagine this, instead of blaming the peoples gunsbought and carried for self-defensewed all be focused on stopping the violent criminals in our society.

Continue reading here:
The Second Amendment Isn't Partisan - America's 1st Freedom

Second Amendment

By Amanda Robert

September 23, 2021, 9:29 am CDT

State and local governments have long had the right to tailor firearm regulations to their own judgments about how best to protect public health and safety, the ABA told the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

In an amicus brief filed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the ABA noted that governments consider population density, access to first responders and other characteristics of their communities when creating concealed-carry regulations. Governments also weigh potential risks, including whether minor incidents could escalate into life-threatening situations and whether criminals and other people who should not have guns could gain increased access to them.

The association additionally said many states use concealed carry regulations to protect victims of domestic violence who could potentially be harmed in public spaces.

In the ABAs view, it would be disruptive to centuries of settled practiceand deleterious to the protection of human lifeto revoke state and local governments flexibility to balance these interests in fashioning concealed carry regulation, according to its brief.

The Supreme Court agreed in April to decide whether the state of New York violated the Second Amendment when it denied applications for concealed-carry permits for self-defense.

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and two individuals sued a New York licensing officer and the superintendent of the New York State Police in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York after the individuals were not granted unrestricted firearm-carry licenses.

The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, and according to an ABA press release, said clear precedent of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New York showed the states handgun licensing law did not violate the Second Amendment. The appeals court had upheld New Yorks regulations in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester in 2012.

The 2nd Circuit issued a summary order upholding the district courts decision in the present case last year.

In asking the Supreme Court to affirm the 2nd Circuit, the ABA said respecting State and local government reliance interests is fully compatible with the Second Amendment.

The association cited the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court held that while the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm and to use it for self-defense within the home, the right is not without limits.

Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms, the Supreme Court wrote in Heller.

The ABA said in its brief it has studied firearm regulation for more than a century and began debating and issuing policies related to firearms after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

In a resolution adopted in 2011, the association said it supports laws giving law enforcement and other authorities broad discretion to determine whether concealed-carry permits should be issued in jurisdictions that allow the carrying of concealed weapons.

Oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen are scheduled for Nov. 3.

Originally posted here:
New York and other states have the right to limit concealed weapon permits, ABA says in amicus brief - ABA Journal

Ahmedis have continuously been under threat in Pakistan since the second constitutional amendments passing in 1974

Whoever has needed to get their Pakistani passportmade or renewed may know that in order to start the process, Muslims must, as part of the paperwork, declare Ahmadis non-Muslims. To challenge this bigotry, a Pakistani citizen, Hareem Sumbul, recently set out to appeal to the Passport Office in Lahore to waive this section off from her application form.

Her argument,one that I support, is even thoughPakistans constitution says that Ahmedisarenon-Muslims, it does not necessarily mean citizens have to do the same. Why then, are citizens required to fill out a highly discriminatory section within the passport application form?

Ahmedis have continuously been under threat in Pakistan sincethe secondamendment was passedin 1974. They face trouble when it comes to acquiring passports and other documents related to identification. Furthermore to hold any governmental office they are supposed to condemn Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect. In addition, they are prohibited from calling themselves Muslims and not allowed to call their place of worship a mosque nor are they allowed to say the first kalma.

The anti-Ahmadi influence within Pakistani culture is heavily supported by the legislation, which leads to them being rejected by a majority of the Muslim population. Ahmadis not only face cultural isolation but they are also vulnerable to extremist violence. For example, in addition to many Ahmadis being prosecuted regularly, their mosques in Faisalabad have been attacked in 2018. The most recent attack was earlier this year which left many people dead and injured.

Unfortunately, Pakistans growing religious polarity and lack of tolerance towards other existing sects and religions has no doubt made the environment around here severely dangerous. Many people, even Sunni Muslims who are perhaps the most protected community in the country are fleeing to other parts of the world in order to build a freer life for themselves.

Sumbul has so far been made to run in circles and no positive outcome has come out of her stand till now. Her passport renewal fee was refunded and she was advised to send her passport to Islamabad. She has written necessary emails and we can only hope that she is able to pull something that is not entirely impossible but quite a feat regardless, to get a passport without signing the declaration. It has been done before just last year, with another citizen successfully getting the section cut off from her application before she signed it.

In order to prevent the image of Pakistan from being tainted, our government needs to address unfair and discriminatory conditions put on Pakistans minority groups while making sure that all of its citizens are treated equally. Pakistan needs to ensure that people are given the freedom to practice their religion, as the Constitution of Pakistan also promises in Article 20. Not only will such moves help our minorities breathe easier but it may also help us gain more respect in he international community.

Read the original:
The second amendment and its impact on religious harmony - The Express Tribune

Orange County Fair & Event Center officials have decided to back off on attempts to soften the economic blow of a state Senate bill that, if signed into law by the governor, would end gun shows at the O.C. fairgrounds.

Board members earlier this month considered sending a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom urging him to veto SB 264, a piece of legislation intended to enact a statewide ban on the sales of guns and ammunition on state-owned properties but was later amended to apply only to the Costa Mesa fairgrounds.

That property has hosted gun shows operated by Utah-based Crossroads of the West for more than 25 years, earning millions for the 32nd District Agricultural Assn. and drawing up to 70,000 visitors annually.

To help prevent the loss of as much as $1 million in income next year should SB 264 pass, board members were also considering pre-approving a 2022 contract with Crossroads before the bills Jan. 1 effective date.

But those plans were halted Thursday in a meeting during which the bills author, Sen. Dave Min (D-Irvine), several public speakers and even some board members challenged the necessity of a state-operated entity involving itself in firearms sales.

The nine-member panel decided 5-3 (Director Newton Pham was absent) to refrain from sending the letter and, in a second vote, tabled talks of a Crossroads contract until January 2022.

Min told board members in a public comment SB 264 was written to get California out of the business of selling guns, even if only at a single fairground site. He vowed to introduce new legislation to widen his scope once more to include all such properties.

While I respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, there is no requirement that the state of California has to be an accessory to, has to profit off, the sales of guns when we know this will invariably lead to more gun violence and the astronomical, moral social and economic costs, he said.

OCFEC Chairwoman Natalie Rubalcava-Garcia maintained it was the responsibility of board members, as governor-appointed policy makers, to remain fiscally solvent and viewpoint neutral. She said she supported sending the letter to create a public record about the negative economic impact SB 264 would have on center finances.

But Director Nick Kovacevich said if the letter wouldnt help recoup the lost funds, hed prefer to hold off on appealing to Newsom, especially when the governor has previously spoken in favor of gun sale bans on state-owned properties in the past.

Im a believer in picking your battles, he said. I dont see the merit or the fruit this letter would yield.

In the discussion of whether to pre-approve a 2022 contract with Crossroads of the West, which some speakers said would be an outright circumvention of SB 264s mandates, some board members favored the move.

This is about the financial impact to the 32nd DAA, said Director Robert Ruiz. I would be in favor of approving this for the sole reason that now I know [the revenue] is going to go away. And this would buy us time, another year at least, for us as a board to come up with another solution to replace the money that were going to lose.

Newly appointed Board Member Melahat Rafiei took a different view.

This would be a hyper-political move to try to fast forward these contracts for something thats clearly not going to be moving forward otherwise, she said. So, Im going to not support us signing these contracts.

The board voted 6-1 to table the contract.

Support our coverage by becoming a digital subscriber.

See the article here:
OC Fair & Event Center board stands down from plan to fight bill aimed at ending gun shows - Los Angeles Times

BOSTON Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey joined 19 attorneys general in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that the Second Amendment does not prohibit states and local governments from regulating the public carry of firearms in their jurisdictions, as they have done for hundreds of years.

The brief, filed Tuesday in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, supports Kevin Bruen, the New York State Police Commissioner, and the states law regulating when individuals can obtain a license to carry firearms in public. It specifically argues that the Second Amendment does not provide Americans with an unrestricted right to carry firearms in virtually all public places, as the petitioners are seeking, but instead, in keeping with centuries of tradition, allows states to enact policies regulating public carry that are tailored to local public safety concerns.

Here in Massachusetts, we know that strong gun laws save lives, AG Healey said. Ensuring that our state and local officials have the ability to enact policies and regulations related to the carrying of firearms in their own communities is critical to protecting public safety.

The brief argues that throughout the history of this country, public carry regulations have varied from region to region. That tradition goes backmore than 700hundredyears in England and pre-dates the founding of the United States.Regulations today and centuries ago varied substantially between and within the Statesthe result of accountable policymakers enacting regulatory schemes tailored to local needs and conditions.A one-size-fits-all approach to regulating public carry would take away the ability of state and local officials to address the particular public safety needs of their residents.

Under Massachusetts law, individuals are required to have a license to carry a firearm in order to carry a firearm in public. Massachusetts police chiefs have the authority to issue firearm licenses based on the suitability of the applicant to carry a firearm. Police chiefs also have discretion to set conditions on firearms licenses, including restrictions around the licensees ability to carry a firearm outside of the home.

Massachusetts has among the strongest gun laws in the country, and as a result, among the lowest rates of gun-related deaths. Research has shown that states with more stringent restrictions on public carry have significantly lower rates of gun-related homicides and other violent crimes.

Joining AG Healey in filing the brief are the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

###

See the rest here:
AG Healey Urges Supreme Court to Uphold the Right of State and Local Governments to Regulate the Public Carry of Firearms - Mass.gov

President Joe Biden last weekwithdrew his nominationof prominent gun control activist David Chipman to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Bidens move came aftermonths of bipartisan concernover Chipmans advocacy of severely restrictive gun control measures, his controversial statements appearing to mock new gun owners, andallegations of racist conductduring his time as an ATF agent.

Many gun control advocacy groups lamented Bidens decision, but the withdrawal of Chipmans nomination is a big step toward ensuring that the Second Amendment is protected from anti-gun bureaucrats who treat it as an antiquated, second-class right.

The reality is that the right to keep and bear arms is vital in a free republic where the government cant or wont always be there to enforce citizens individual rights against criminals.

Almost every major study on the issue has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between500,000 and 3 million timesa year, according to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting some of the previous months many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missedor that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read accountsherefrom 2019, 2020, and so far this year.)

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in August. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundations interactiveDefensive Gun Use Database.

Government officialsespecially unelected, unaccountable bureaucratsought not to be in the business of restricting Americans enumerated rights and mocking those who choose to exercise those rights for the first time.

Broadly imposed and highly restrictive gun control measures such as those supported by Chipman would not make a single innocent person in the circumstances above any safer from violent threats to their lives and liberties.

But Chipmans preferred policies and government-sanctioned scorn for their gun ownership may well have acted as barriers to the one thing that actually kept them safethe lawful exercise of their Second Amendment rights.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

Go here to see the original:
11 Examples of Defensive Gun Use That Bid Good Riddance to Biden's ATF Nominee - Heritage.org

The Supreme Court will grapple with the right to bear arms outside the home during the upcoming term in a case court watchers are calling significant because its been more than a decade since the justices weighed the limits of the Second Amendment.

Democrats are concerned the 6-3 conservative majority on the high court will curtail the governments ability to impose regulations and requirements on gun ownership.

Justice Amy Coney Barretts presence on the bench shes one of the three Supreme Court picks former President Donald Trump made during his one term in office especially worries progressives because of a pro-gun opinion she wrote while serving as a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court for the Seventh Circuit.

Gun rights advocates are hoping that her addition will make five justices who are more willing to take a more active role and start striking down what most people consider gun safety rules, said Elliot Mincberg, senior fellow with People for the American Way.

While on the 7th Circuit, Justice Barrett authored a dissent, disagreeing with her colleagues over bans on convicted felons possessing firearms.

In the case, a nonviolent felon challenged the restriction on Second Amendment grounds. Justice Barretts position was that legislators have an interest in stripping violent felons from owning guns not nonviolent felons.

Her dissent was lauded by gun rights supporters.

But in the New York case, the justices will consider New Yorks scheme on granting a license to carry to applicants.

Two men and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association are challenging the states law requiring anyone who wants to carry a handgun outside the home to apply for a license and show proper cause for the need to carry the gun.

Robert Nash was denied his license despite pointing to a string of robberies in his neighborhood and verifying that he had taken an advanced firearm training course.

Brendan Koch, similarly, applied for a license, noting his extensive experience with handling firearms in a safe manner.

But New York officials denied both men their licenses, saying they did not show a proper cause for carrying a gun in self-defense.

The men and the New York gun rights group argue courts have split rulings over a states discretion in denying the right to keep and bear arms outside the house.

Despite the wealth of authority confirming that the Second Amendment guarantees the peoples right to keep and bear arms for self-defense outside the home, several courts of appeals continue to resist that conclusion, leaving the law in a state of chaos and the fundamental right to carry a firearm dependent on where one lives, they argued in court papers.

But the state of New York contends the Second Amendment right is not unlimited and that the state has had laws regulating the carrying of firearms in public since 1913. They said its not impossible to meet the proper cause requirement.

This flexible standard, which numerous New York residents have successfully satisfied, generally requires a showing that the applicant has a nonspeculative need for self-defense, the states court filing read.

The lower courts ruled for New York officials, upholding the states licensing scheme. But the men took the case to the high court and at least four of the justices voted to hear the legal conflict, announcing in April they would review the case.

Lawyers for both sides will present oral arguments in person before the justices on Nov. 3.

A decision is expected by the end of June next year. The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin P. Bruen, superintendent of New York State Police.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, said strict licensing schemes for carrying a gun outside the house are a problem across the country not just in New York.

It really has to do with the overlap of the open carry and closed carry laws that work together to make it impossible for individuals to have a gun in any sense outside their home, she said. That is something that is going to have an impact much further than New York.

But she views the conservative majority on the high court as encouraging, saying there are justices who will protect constitutional rights.

Its been about a decade since the justices grappled with the limits of the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the high court ruled 5-4 that it was unlawful for D.C. officials to restrict the possession of firearms inside the home.

At the time, the makeup of the high court was much different. Five of the justices who took part in considering the Heller case are no longer on the bench.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Justice Stephen G. Breyer were all on the court at that time and they still remain on the bench. All but Justice Breyer ruled against the District of Columbias restriction.

Daniel Goldberg, legal director for the Alliance for Justice, said its deeply concerning that the new 6-3 conservative majority with Mr. Trumps three appointments will now weigh the right to carry firearms outside the home.

President Trump backed by the NRA made clear that one of his litmus tests was justices that would turn back the clock when it came to the ability of the state and local governments to protect citizens from gun violence, Mr. Goldberg said.

I hope I am wrong, but I think these justices the ultraconservative justices on the court are on the court with the backing of the NRA, and I think are teed up to handcuff the ability of local officials to keep their citizens safe, he added.

More:
Supreme Court to weigh New York's limit on carrying a handgun - Washington Times

SECOND AMENDMENT TO

CHICO'S FAS, INC. OFFICER SEVERANCE PLAN

AND

SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION

Pursuant to the authority granted under Section 7.01 of the Chico's FAS, Inc. Officer Severance Plan and Summary Plan Description (as amended and restated effective January 1, 2020 and as amended by the First Amendment on March 31, 2020) (the "Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended as set forth below, effective on September 14, 2021 (the "Effective Date").

1. Replace Article 13 of the Plan with the following:

ARTICLE 13

PLAN FREEZE AND REINSTATEMENT

The Plan was frozen effective March 31, 2020 through September 13, 2021, so that no Employee shall be eligible to participate in the Plan on and after March 31, 2020 throughSeptember 13, 2021. If you are an Employee and your employment with the Company is involuntarily terminated on or after March 31, 2020 and before September 14, 2021, you are not eligible to participate in or receive any Benefits under the Plan. If you are an Employee and your employment with the Company is involuntarily terminated on or after September 14, 2021, your eligibility under the Plan will be determined under Article 3 and other applicable provisions of the Plan. This Article 13 overrides all other inconsistent provisions in the Plan.

2. Replace Subsection (b) of Section 5.02 of the Plan with the following:

(b) Your reemployment or other employment or service as provided in Section 5.03;

3. Replace Section 5.03 of the Plan with the following:

Section 5.03 Reemployment with or Other Service to Sponsor or Affiliate or Other Employment or Service. If you are reemployed with the Sponsor or an Affiliate, or otherwise provide services to the Sponsor or an Affiliate as an independent contractor or consultant, prior to the payment or receipt of all of the Benefits under the Plan, the Plan Administrator may in its sole discretion reduce or forfeit any Benefits not yet paid under the Plan. If you are employed with or otherwise provide services as an independent contractor or consultant to a company other than the Sponsor or an Affiliate (other than services which would be a violation under Section 5.02(d) which would result in immediate forfeiture) (the "Other Services"), the Plan Administrator may in its sole discretion reduce the Benefit Amount payable under the Plan, dollar-for-dollar, by the amount of base salary, consulting fees or actual hourly compensation (without reduction for any withholding amounts or deferrals) that you receive from the Other Services (the "Other Income"). You are required to notify the Sponsor's Director, Executive

Compensation of the amount of theOther Income within five (5) business days of accepting the Other Services. Also, during the Severance Period, you are required to certify monthly to the Company that either you do not have any right to receive Other Income or the amount of Other Income. You will be notified of the certification process following your termination of employment. If you fail to provide timely certification or provide inaccurate information, the Plan Administrator may in its sole discretion immediately terminate all further payments under the Plan. In such event, you will forfeit all rights under the Plan.

4. Replace Appendix A of the Plan with the following:

APPENDIX A

Section 1:

Benefit Amount and Bonus Payable under Sections 4.01(a) and 4.01(b) other than with respect to a Terminated Employee whose Employment Termination Date occurs within twenty-four (24) months following a Change in Control (subject to all eligibility provisions in the Plan):

Benefit Amount

A Terminated Employee shall receive the following cash severance Benefit Amount payable in installments in accordance with normal payroll practices during the applicable period below:

Terminated EmployeeBenefit Amount

Chief Executive Officer 24 Months of Annual Base Salary

Executive Vice President 12 Months of Annual Base Salary

(includes titles of President

(alone or of a group or brand), CHRO,

CFO, and COO or variations thereof)

Senior Vice President 9 Months of Annual Base Salary

Vice President 6 Months of Annual Base Salary

Bonus

A Terminated Employee shall receive the Bonus, calculated based on actual performance during the fiscal year, that would have been payable to the Terminated Employee had the Terminated Employee not terminated employment with Sponsor or Affiliate only if the Terminated Employee's Employment Termination Date is on or after the last day of the applicable fiscal year upon which the Bonus is calculated.

Otherwise, a Terminated Employee shall have no right to the payment of the Bonus.

Section 2:

Benefit Amount and Bonus Payable under Sections 4.01(a) and 4.01(b) with respect to a Terminated Employee whose Employment Termination Date occurs within twenty-four (24) months following a Change in Control (subject to all eligibility provisions in the Plan):

Notwithstanding (and in lieu of) Section 1 above, in the event a Terminated Employee's Employment Termination Date occurs within twenty-four (24) months following a Change in Control of Sponsor, the Terminated Employee shall receive the following combined Benefit Amount and Bonus in a single lump sum payment:

Terminated EmployeeBenefit Amount and Bonus

Chief Executive Officer 24 Months of Annual Base Salary

plus Bonus at Target

Executive Vice President 18 Months of Annual Base Salary

(includes titles of President plus Bonus at Target

(alone or of a group or brand), CHRO,

CFO, and COO or variations thereof)

Senior Vice President 12 Months of Annual Base Salary

plus Bonus at Target

Vice President 9 Months of Annual Base Salary

plus Bonus at Target

5. All other provisions of the Plan not inconsistent with the above shall remain in effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Second Amendment to the Plan is hereby adopted on this 14th day of September, 2021, to be effective as provided above.

CHICO'S FAS, INC.

By: /s/ Kristin Gwinner

Title: Chief Human Resources Officer

Disclaimer

Chico's FAS Inc. published this content on 20 September 2021 and is solely responsible for the information contained therein. Distributed by Public, unedited and unaltered, on 20 September 2021 20:11:08 UTC.

Read this article:
Chico FAS : Second Amendment to Chico's FAS, Inc. Officer Severance Plan and Summary Plan Description effective September 14, 2021 (Form 8-K) -...

NEW YORK, September 21, 2021 Everytown for Gun Safety, the nations largest gun violence prevention organization, today filed an amicus brief in the U. S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a case challenging the constitutionality under the Second Amendment of a New York law regulating the concealed carry of firearms in public. Everytowns brief explains the constitutionality of the law by:

In this latest attempt to force their dangerous views on the Second Amendment on the rest of the country, opponents of strong gun laws are relying on a distorted telling of history, said Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law, the litigation team affiliated with Everytown for Gun Safety. The last time this NRA affiliate argued before the Supreme Court, just two years ago, it was unsuccessful in advancing its extreme and dangerous position. While the courts makeup has changed since then, the Second Amendment has not. As communities across the country grapple with increased gun violence, its particularly important that the high court get this case right, too.

Everytown Law is representing Everytown for Gun Safety in this matter along with the law firm Gupta Wessler PLLC. The Everytown Law attorneys on the brief are Eric Tirschwell, Janet Carter, William Taylor, Lisa Ebersole, and Carina Bentata.

Key quotes from the brief:Public-carry laws like the one at issue here enjoy an almost singularly impressive historical lineage among firearms regulations.Herenot only is there a long tradition of regulating public carry, but even the uncontested history is longstanding: The petitioners do not dispute that dozens of states and cities from the mid-19th-century to the early-20th century enacted laws that were at least as restrictive -4- as New Yorks law. When this unrebutted history is added to the long tradition of public-carry regulations, there can be no doubt that New Yorks law is constitutional.

To set aside the body of historical evidence in this case, while claiming the mantle of originalism, would only serve to diminish itreducing the methodology to little more than an exercise in picking out ones friends in a crowd of historical sources.

About Everytown Law Everytown Law, the litigation arm of Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, is the largest team of litigators in the U.S. working full-time on advancing gun violence prevention in the courts. Everytown Law fights for the right of every individual to live free from gun violence, including challenging dangerous gun laws, defending gun safety laws against Second Amendment and preemption challenges, and representing survivors of gun violence seeking accountability and reform from the gun industry. Learn more about Everytown Law at http://www.everytownlaw.org.

Everytown Law regularly posts commentary and analysis on firearms litigation issues and developments at https://medium.com/everytown-law.

About Everytown for Gun Safety Everytown for Gun Safety is the largest gun violence prevention organization in the country with nearly six million supporters and more than 375,000 donors including moms, mayors, survivors, students, and everyday Americans who are fighting for common-sense gun safety measures that can help save lives. Learn more at http://www.everytown.org and follow us @Everytown.

The rest is here:
Everytown to Supreme Court: NRA Affiliates Case Rests on Distorted Telling of History - YubaNet

New Jersey

Acting Attorney General Andrew J. Bruck announced on Tuesday that New Jersey has joined a multi-state coalition in filing an amicus brief in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that defends the constitutionality of state laws that require those who seek to carry a concealed firearm in public to show a particularized need to do so.

In the press release, Attorney General Andrew Bruck said at issue in the caseNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, No. 20-843 (U.S.)is a New York law that requires applicants for a concealed carry permit to show an actual and articulable - as opposed to merely speculative or specious - need for self-defense.

"We will always defend our state's common-sense gun safety laws,"Governor Phil Murphy said."Concealed carry can and does lead to unnecessary violence and brings more firearms to our town and city streets. We have worked hard to make New Jersey one of the safest states in the nation and have done so with the help of New Jersey's longstanding gun safety laws.

Residents and their families deserve to feel comfortable in public and not fear that anyone on the street can easily turn a dispute into an armed confrontation. I look forward to seeing Acting Attorney General Bruck's success in upholding our concealed carry restrictions."

"New Jersey residents should be able to go to a shopping mall or sporting event without having to worry about whether the person behind them is secretly carrying a firearm for no good reason,"said Acting Attorney General Bruck.

"The Second Amendment has always allowed states to adopt common-sense restrictions on carrying a concealed firearm in public to protect their residents. A Supreme Court decision striking down reasonable firearm licensing laws would pose a significant risk to public safety."

TheBruencase centers on the denial of concealed carry permits to two men who applied for them in New York, citing a generalized desire to protect themselves by carrying a concealed firearm.

Upon being denied, the men, joined by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, filed a lawsuit alleging the denial represented a violation of their Second Amendment rights.

A U.S. District Court judge dismissed their complaint, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit subsequently upheld the dismissal. The Supreme Court has now agreed to hear the case.

New Jersey's concealed-carry statute prevents private persons from obtaining a license to carry a firearm outside the home unless they meet the criteria for an exception under the law or show a specific, individualized need.

Specifically, New Jersey's law requires written certification of "justifiable need" to obtain a concealed-carry permit and makes public carry of a handgun without a state permit a second-degree crime.

In support of the states' legitimate interest in regulating public carry of firearms, the multi-state amicus brief filed today observes that "States with the most permissive public carry laws, which generally allow most residents to carry in most places, experience higher rates of violent crime than those who do not."

The brief points to several studies that have linked less restrictive "right to carry" laws with increases in violent crime. One of those studies reported a 13-to-15-percent increase in violent crime, while another reported nearly an 11-percent rise in the rate of homicides committed with guns.

The press release said Tuesday's brief asks the Supreme Court to reject a misguided ruling that would confer an "almost unfettered right ... to carry loaded firearms in virtually any public place at virtually any time, based solely on a stated desire to be armed for purposes of self-defense."

The brief argues that the plain text of the Second Amendment contains no such requirement and that laws like New York's are consistent with an extensive history and tradition of individual States regulating firearms in public spaces in accordance with their own concerns and considerations, including protection of public safety.

More:
NJ Files Brief with SCOTUS Defending Common-Sense Limits on Concealed Carry of Firearms - RLS Media