Daily Archives: October 30, 2021

This report is a part of "Rethinking Gun Violence," an ABC News series examining the level of gun violence in the U.S. -- and what can be done about it.

In the bitter debate over gun control, battle lines are often drawn around the Second Amendment, with many in favor of gun rights pointing to it as the source of their constitutional authority to bear arms, and some in favor of tighter gun control disagreeing with that interpretation.

But if the purpose of the debate is to reduce the tragic human toll of gun violence, the focus on Second Amendment is often misplaced, according to many experts on guns and the Constitution.

They say the battle lines that actually matter have been drawn around state legislatures, which are setting the country's landscape on guns through state laws -- or sometimes, the lack thereof.

Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.

Demonstrators gather for a Second Amendment rally at the Washington State Capitol, March 20, 2021, in Olympia, Wash.

"Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."

Watch ABC News Live on Mondays at 3 p.m. to hear more about gun violence from experts during roundtable discussions. And check back tomorrow to read about background checks and how effective they are.

Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, also said the Second Amendment is losing its legal relevance in distinguishing lawful policies from unlawful ones as the gap between what he calls the "judicial Second Amendment" and the "aspirational Second Amendment" widens.

Winkler defines the "judicial Second Amendment" as how courts interpret the constitutional provision in their decisions, and the "aspirational Second Amendment" as how the amendment is used in political dialogue. The latter is "far more hostile to gun laws than the judicial one," he said -- and also more prevalent.

Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

"The aspirational Second Amendment is overtaking the judicial Second Amendment in American law," he wrote in the Indiana Law Journal in 2018, a sentiment he repeated in a recent interview with ABC News. "State law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America's gun laws."

A member of the public carries a pistol during a second amendment rally on Oct. 12, 2019, in Greeley, Pa.

Winkler told ABC News the aspirational or "political" Second Amendment has become the basis for expanding gun rights in the last 40 years.

"In the judicial Second Amendment, gun rights advocates haven't found that much protection," Winkler said. "Where they found protection was by getting state legislatures, in the name of the Second Amendment, to legislate for permissive gun laws."

The debate around the Second Amendment (and why some say it might be overrated)

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads in full:

"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."

The role of the Second Amendment, like many constitutional rights, is to put limits on what regulations the federal government can pass, and scholars and lawyers have debated its scope since it was ratified in 1791.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, much of the debate revolved around the meaning of a "well-regulated militia." The Heller decision struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and established the right for individuals to have a gun for certain private purposes including self-defense in the home. The court expanded private gun ownership protection two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago, determining that state and local governments are also bound to the Second Amendment.

Number of Gun Deaths by Intent, 2019

"The Bill of Rights, by its terms, only applies to the federal government, but the Supreme Court, through a doctrine known as incorporation, has made almost all of its guarantees applicable against state and local governments as well. That's what the question was in McDonald," Blocher said. "But some states have chosen to go above and beyond what the court laid out."

Notably, the court in Heller carved out limitations on that individual right and preserved a relatively broad range of possible gun regulation -- such as allowing for their restriction in government buildings, schools and polling places -- but in many instances, state legislatures have decided not to use the authority that the court has granted them.

"Most states have chosen not to use their full regulatory authority," Blocher said. "If a state decides not to forbid people from having large-capacity magazines, for instance, that doesn't necessarily result in a law. It can be the absence of a law that has the most impact."

It goes back to that widening gap between the judicial Second Amendment as the courts interpret it and the aspirational Second Amendment as used in politics, according to Winkler and Blocher.

"There's a difference between the Second Amendment as interpreted and applied by courts and the Second Amendment as it's invoked in political discussions. And for many gun rights advocates, the political version of the Second Amendment is quite a bit more gun protective than the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court and lower courts have applied it," he said.

Laws based on the 'aspirational' Second Amendment

There are a few laws many experts say bolster gun rights in ways the Second Amendment does not explicitly require.

In more than 40 states, preemption laws expressly limit cities from regulating guns -- with some going so far as to impose punitive damages such as fines and lawsuits on officials who challenge the state's rules. This means, even if a highly populated city had overwhelming support to pass a local ordinance regulating guns, a preemption law in the state would restrict local officials from taking any action.

Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York have no state laws expressly preempting local authorities from regulating firearms or ammunition. Nebraska, California and Colorado allow local governments to retain substantial authority in regulation, but the state legislature has removed this authority in certain areas.

After the National Rifle Association formed its own political action committee in 1977, it began targeting state legislatures with the preemption model and found it was a more effective way to bolster the rights of gun owners than going through Congress.

The effort picked up momentum when a challenge, on Second Amendment grounds, to a local ordinance in Illinois banning handgun ownership failed in 1982 -- years ahead of the 2008 Heller decision. So, he said, the NRA raised the specter of Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove to lobby for preemption laws in order to lessen local governments' abilities to regulate guns in the first place.

In 1979, two states in the U.S. had full preemption and five states had partial preemption laws. By 1989, 18 states had full preemption laws and three had partial, according to Kristin Goss in her book "Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America."

"There's been a concerted effort by gun rights organizations to enact gun-friendly legislation in the states. And they do so using the rhetoric of the Second Amendment, even though nothing about the Second Amendment necessarily requires the state to pass such legislation," said Darrell Miller, another expert on gun law at Duke University School of Law.

While a densely populated area with a high crime rate may want to enact stricter gun policies not necessarily suited for other areas in a state, preemption laws restrict local governments from doing so.

For example, in Colorado, a preemption law had prevented cities and municipalities from passing gun regulation measures. Boulder tried to ban semi-automatic weapons in 2018 after a gunman with an AR-15-style rifle opened fire at a high school in Parkland, Florida, leaving 17 dead and surpassing the Columbine High School shooting as the deadliest high school shooting in American history.

There's been a concerted effort by gun rights organizations to enact gun-friendly legislation in the states. And they do so using the rhetoric of the Second Amendment, even though nothing about the Second Amendment necessarily requires the state to pass such legislation.

But a state court struck down the ban on March 12 of this year -- 10 days before a 21-year-old man with a semi-automatic Ruger AR-556 pistol killed 10 people at a King Soopers grocery store in Boulder. The judge's decision did not hang on the Second Amendment but rather a violation of Colorado's preemption law.

People comfort each other at a makeshift memorial outside a King Soopers grocery store, March 25, 2021, in Boulder, Colo.

Colorado in June became the first state to repeal its preemption law -- a move gun-regulation activists such as those at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence have hailed as a reflection of what voters want. More than half of Americans support more gun regulation, according to data from recent surveys by Pew Research Center and Gallup.

There's also the presence of "permitless carry regimes," said Jake Charles, another gun law expert at Duke University, which is when legislatures interpret the Second Amendment as giving individuals the right to bear arms in public without a permit, an interpretation the Supreme Court has not made.

In all 50 states, it is legal to carry a concealed handgun in public, subject to varying restrictions depending on the state, but at least 20 do not require permits for either open or concealed carry of firearms, with Texas becoming the latest to enact what advocates call "constitutional carry."

Permitless or "constitutional carry" is not something the Supreme Court's reading of the Second Amendment currently calls for.

Experts say that could change.

Demonstrators carrying riffles attend the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) Lobby Day rally at the state capitol in Richmond, Va., Jan. 20, 2020.

In New York state, a person is currently required to prove a special need for self-protection outside the home to receive a permit to carry a concealed firearm. A challenge to the constitutionality of a "may-issue" permit law, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett, will be heard by the Supreme Court this fall -- the court's first major case on guns in a decade, coming as the makeup of the court swings right due to three appointments from former President Donald Trump.

"There are about half a dozen states which have laws similar to New York's, so if the court strikes it down, we can expect to see challenges to those states' laws in short order," Blocher said.

The partisan debate continues

Allison Anderman, senior counsel at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, stressed that, in part because of the influence of state statutes, the Second Amendment should not be a barrier to gun regulation.

She also said that because the Second Amendment's political definition is entrenched in the true, judicial one, the debate surrounding it gets muddied up and the passion is, perhaps, misplaced.

"It's a rallying cry. It's easy. It's a sound bite," she said. "But the Second Amendment gets thrown around politically in a way that's not based in law."

It's a rallying cry. It's easy. It's a sound bite.

Blocher agreed and argued the Second Amendment debate is among the most partisan in the nation.

"The gun debate has gone far beyond judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment and these days has much more to do with personal, political and partisan identity," he said.

Read the rest here:
Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate - ABC News

Many Americans fervently believe that the Second Amendment protects their right to bear arms everywhere, including at public protests. Many Americans also believe that the First Amendment protects their right to speak freely and participate in political protest. What most people do not realize is that the Second Amendment has become, in recent years, a threat to the First Amendment. People cannot freely exercise their speech rights when they fear for their lives.

This is not hyperbole. Since January 2020, millions of Americans have assembled in public places to protest police brutality, systemic racism, and coronavirus protocols, among other things. A significant number of those protesters were confronted by counterprotesters visibly bearing firearms. In some of these cases, violence erupted. According to a new study by Everytown for Gun Safety and the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), one in six armed protests that took place from January 2020 through June 2021 turned violent or destructive, and one in 62 turned deadly.

These kind of data fill a void in ongoing debates about the compatibility of free speech and firearms at protest events. For example, is the phenomenon of armed protests new? Is it frequent? The open display of firearms at public protests, including long rifles and what are sometimes called assault-style rifles, is a relatively new phenomenon. Although many states allow firearms in public places, until recently few Americans have openly toted firearms to political demonstrations. The Everytown/ACLED study examined thousands of protests, showing a marked uptick in protests at which people were visibly armed following the police murder of George Floyd. It found that at least 560 events involved an armed protester or counterprotester. Loose state firearms laws are part of the explanation for this phenomenon. The incidence of armed protests was three times higher in states with expansive open-carry laws, the study noted.

Such research makes much clearer the implications of open carry for public safety, public protest, and constitutional democracy. Some have argued that open carry will make protests safer. In fact, tragedies were far less frequent at protests that did not involve firearms, the Everytown/ACLED research revealed: One in 37 turned violent or destructive, and only one in 2,963 unarmed gatherings turned fatal.

Joseph Blocher and Reva Siegel: Guns are a threat to the body politic

In short, the visible presence of firearms increases the risk of violence and death when exercising ones First Amendment rights. The increased risk of violence from open carry is enough to have a meaningful chilling effect on citizens willingness to participate in political protests. Research thus far has focused on open display of firearms, but further study is needed to evaluate the public safety concerns that may still be present when protesters or counterprotesters bring concealed firearms to demonstrations. In addition, concealed carry may not have the same chilling effect; its possible that without weapons visible, protesters will not be deterred. But at the same time, merely knowing that people might be armed could keep people away from public protests.

Diana Palmer, one of the authors of this article, conducted a study on the impact of open carry of firearms on the exercise of protest rights, and confirmed what common intuition suggests but included some surprises. The study found that participants were far less likely to attend a protest, carry a sign, vocalize their views, or bring children to protests if they knew firearms would be present.

Participants were asked about their willingness to participate in protests in two groups. In the control group, firearms were not mentioned in the questions. In the experimental group, they were. The questions did not specify whether the participants were visibly carrying firearms or not. The participants in the experimental group were much less willing to participate in expressive activities than participants in the control group to whom firearms were not mentioned.

That hesitation was present regardless of respondents political ideology. It was experienced by gun owners and nonowners alike. Survey respondents explanations as to why they would refrain from participating in protests where arms are present revealed the significant chilling effects of guns at protests. Among other things, respondents indicated:

I feel like I would be antagonizing [firearms carriers] and that could lead to me being injured.

If they started shooting, I would be concerned they would target me for what I said.

Ill let the people with the guns do the talking.

Nothing is important enough to be shot over.

Some open-carry proponents insist that they bring firearms to protests to defend themselves against potential violence or to ensure that the First Amendment rights of all participants are respected. However, the Everytown/ACLED study concluded that 77 percent of armed protests during the observed period were driven by far-right mobilization and reactions to left-wing activism. The study also found that 84 percent of armed protesters at Black Lives Matter protests were counterprotesters from extremist groups such as the boogaloo boys, the Proud Boys, and other right-wing groups. Rather than being motivated by self-defense or civil-rights concerns, the decision to carry a gun tends to follow far-right political ideology.

Garrett Epps: Guns are no mere symbol

Whatever the motives of firearms carriers might be, the clear social perception of would-be participants is that armed protests are unsafe. That finding is crucial to understanding the potentially devastating effect that bringing guns to protests can have on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether there is a Second Amendment right to carry firearms and other weapons in public places, a question it has yet to weigh in on. A pending case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, involves restrictions on concealed-carry permits. To decide it, the Court will need to determine whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home. As the studies show, the answer has profound implications not just for public safety but also for constitutional democracy. As courts and legislatures consider gun regulations, they ought to bear in mind not just the physical dangers of armed protests but also the social harms associated with them. For manyperhaps an increasing number ofAmericans, participation in armed public protests may simply not be worth the risk. Even if public protest survives, only those willing to risk their life, or who are inclined and able to carry weapons in defense of their own right to protest, may want to participate. Rather than serving as a democratizing means of expression, protest may become an armed contest and the exclusive preserve of the non-peaceable. Most concerning is that public protest as we know it may cease to exist at all. That would deprive Americans of participating in one of the greatest traditions of this country: expressing their views, engaging in public life, and advocating for democratic change.

Go here to see the original:
How Firearms Threaten Public Protest - The Atlantic

A demonstrator holds up an abortion flag outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as justices hear a major abortion case on the legality of a Republican-backed Louisiana law that imposes restrictions on abortion doctors, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 4, 2020.

Tom Brenner | Reuters

Abortion and guns are front and center as the Supreme Court heads back to the bench in November to hear oral arguments in some of the highest-profile cases of the term.

On Monday, the justices will hear back-to-back arguments in two cases, Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas, challenging a restrictive Texas law that bans most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy.

Two days later, the court will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a case that centers on the Second Amendment's protections of the right to carry guns in public.

The cases, which deal with two of the most fraught and polarizing topics in American politics, will be handled by a court that had already stoked furious backlash and accusations of politicization even before its latest term began. Experts say the court's conservative shift during the Trump administration may be part of the reason some of these cases are being heard in the first place.

Here's what to know:

The court on Monday will consider questions about the structure of the Texas law, S.B. 8, rather than grapple with the legal precedent for abortion including Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey that the state is accused of violating.

United States Capitol Police in riot gear stand between Women rights activists and anti-abortion activist, as they gather in front of the supreme court after a rally at freedom plaza for the annual Womens March October 2, 2021 in Washington, DC.

Tasos Katopodis | Getty Images

S.B. 8 was signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in May, and it went into effect in September. It bans nearly all abortions in Texas by outlawing the procedure after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, which occurs as early as the sixth week of pregnancy.

Rather than task state officials with enforcing the six-week ban, S.B. 8 delegates that power to private citizens, who are empowered to sue, for at least $10,000, anyone who "aids or abets" an abortion.

Critics call that enforcement mechanism a loophole, intended to avoid responsibility and judicial review. The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments against the law from the Department of Justice and from a group of abortion providers, both of whom filed legal challenges against Texas officials.

Texasargued that since the abortion law is not enforced by the state, they are not the ones who should defend it in court. "No state executive official actually enforces [the law]," Texas wrote Wednesday in a 93-page brief to the high court, "making the injunction an improper attempt to enjoin a law rather than a person."

The Justice Department wrote in its own court brief that "other states are already regarding S.B. 8 as a model" and that "if Texas is right, no decision of this Court is safe."

The justices on Dec. 1 are set to hear arguments in another case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, taking direct aim at the rulings that have upheld abortion rights for decades.

Court watchers following along on Monday via livestream audio a novelty of the coronavirus pandemic will be listening closely for hints about how certain justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, will approach Roe and Casey in that case and others in the near future.

"I think everyone will be watching the chief justice very closely," said Jaime Santos, a partner in the Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice at law firm Goodwin.

"Of the conservative justices, he is most inclined to protect the principles of stare decisis" the adherence to precedent in similar cases "and most concerned about public perceptions of the Court as a fair and independent body," Santos said.

The oral arguments over Texas' law come less than two weeks after the court approved the two cases on a highly accelerated schedule. The rocket-docket proceedings could also lead the justices to issue rulings much more quickly than if the cases were moving at normal speed, Georgetown University business law professor Thomas Cooke told CNBC.

Pro-choice activists march past the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Monday, Oct. 4, 2021.

Stefani Reynolds | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Abortion-rights advocates and providers in Texas asked the Supreme Court in late August to temporarily block S.B. 8 before it went into effect Sept. 1 at midnight. But the court did not respond until hours after the law took hold.

In a late-night ruling, a bare majority of five justices including all three who were appointed by former President Donald Trump voted to deny the advocates' emergency request, largely on procedural grounds. Roberts sided with the court's three liberals, writing in a dissent that "the statutory scheme before the court is not only unusual, but unprecedented."

As a result of the 5-4 ruling, abortion providers say, hundreds of patients in Texas have been denied care, while clinics in neighboring states have been overwhelmed.

Critics, including President Joe Biden, fumed. The Supreme Court's approval rating sank to a new low, and calls to reform the high court already a topic of study in the Biden administration grew even louder.

In quick succession, multiple justices, including Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, spoke out in defense of the court. "This court is not comprised of abunch of partisan hacks," Barrett reportedly said in September.

That same month, the abortion providers whose request had been denied filed another petition to the high court. This time, they asked the justices to quickly take up their case challenging the law, even though litigation in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was still pending.

Separately, the DOJ sued Texas in federal court, winning an injunction that was then suspended by an appeals court. The agency then approached the Supreme Court, asking it to block the Texas law by vacating the lower court's decision to reinstate the abortion ban.

The Supreme Court in late October agreed to hear both cases on the expedited schedule.

Two other cases originally set for argument on Nov. 1, Ramirez v. Collier and Shinn v. Ramirez, were rescheduled for later in the term.

Wednesday's arguments center on a century-old New York law, which requires some applicants to demonstrate "proper cause" to receive licenses to carry a concealed handgun in public.

Tom King, head of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA), and a challenger in a case being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court with regards to the right to carry handguns in public, poses at the NYSRPA office in East Greenbush, New York, U.S. October 20, 2021.

Cindy Schultz | Reuters

The case before the Supreme Court stems from a lawsuit brought in 2018 by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and Robert Nash and Brandon Koch.

Nash and Koch are New York residents whose applications to carry guns in public for self-defense reasons had been denied. The licensing officer who denied their requests said they "did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished [them] from the general public."

The petitionfor the Supreme Court to review the case argues that a lower court's ruling upholding the New York law was "untenable."

In a brief in July, petitioners argued that the language of the Second Amendment securing "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" refers to two separate rights. To "keep" arms is to be able to own them, while to "bear" arms is to be able to carry them, they argued.

New York Attorney General Letitia James had argued in February that the Supreme Court should not take up the case.

"The law is consistent with the historical scope of the Second Amendment and directly advances New York's compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention," James wrote.

The most recent major Supreme Court decisions on guns came more than a decade earlier in District of Columbia v. Heller, when the court held that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to carry a gun for self-defense inside the home.

Last year, the courtdeclined to issue a substantial rulingin another case about gun regulations in New York, which has some of the strictest such rules in the country. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Trump's second appointee, urged his colleagues to hear another Second Amendment case "soon."

See the rest here:
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in major cases on abortion and guns. Here's what to know - CNBC

After his home was bombed in 1956, Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a permit to carry a gun. Despite the potentially deadly threats that King faced as a leader of the Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott, the county sheriff, Mac Sim Butler, said no.

Next week, the Supreme Court will consider a challenge to a New York law similar to the Alabama statute that empowered local officials like Butler to decide who could exercise the constitutional right to bear arms. The briefs urging the Court to overturn New Yorks statute include several from African American organizations that emphasize the long Black tradition of armed self-defense, the racist roots of gun control laws, and their disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities.

I went to the sheriff to get a permit for those people who are guarding me, King told fellow protest organizers at a February 1956 meeting. In substance, he was saying, You are at the disposal of the hoodlums.

At the time, it was illegal in Alabama to carry a pistol in any vehicle or concealed on ones person without a license. The law said a probate judge, police chief or sheriff may issue a license if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property, or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol.

Nowadays, Alabama, like most states, requires law enforcement officials to issue a carry permit unless the applicant is legally disqualified. New York, by contrast, demands that applicants show proper cause, an amorphous standard that is not satisfied by a general interest in self-defense.

As the National African American Gun Association notes in its Supreme Court brief, Southern states historically used that sort of discretionary carry permit law to disarm Black people, leaving them at the mercy of white supremacist violence. African Americans who defied the law risked arrest for exercising their Second Amendment rights.

That remains true in New York, as the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid and several other public defender organizations note in their brief. Each year, they say, we represent hundreds of indigent people whom New York criminally charges for exercising their right to keep and bear arms, nearly all of whom are Black or Hispanic.

That situation is unsurprising, the brief says, given the origins of New Yorks gun licensing regime. The Sullivan Act of 1911, which required a license to own handguns and gave local police broad discretion to decide who could obtain one, was enacted after years of hysteria over violence that the media and the establishment attributed to racial and ethnic minorities particularly Black people and Italian immigrants.

A brief from Black Guns Matter argues that New Yorks law is of a piece with the firearm restrictions that Southern states imposed after the Civil War. When the 14th Amendment prohibited explicitly racist laws, white supremacists switched to facially neutral rules that, in practice, made it difficult or impossible for Black people to defend themselves.

Black Guns Matter emphasizes that armed self-defense has always been vitally important to the African American community a tradition that stretches from the struggle against slavery through the civil rights movement. Until relatively recently, as Fordham University law professor Nicholas Johnson details in his 2014 book Negroes and the Gun, mainstream Black organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People steadfastly upheld that tradition.

Not anymore. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which grew out of a fundraising campaign based on the successful defense of Black people who used guns to resist racist aggression, supported the local handgun bans that the Supreme Court overturned in 2008 and 2010.

In the New York case, the organization argues that the states virtual ban on public carry is an important tool in addressing urban violence. It does not even entertain the possibility that armed self-defense might be an important tool in responding to the same problem.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @JacobSullum

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com

More here:
Martin Luther King Jr. and the racist roots of gun control laws - Chicago Sun-Times

GAYLE FERREIRA

In this age of defunding the police, government overreach, riots, social unrest, looting of small businesses with no consequences, gun ownership is soaring. The Virginia Senate approved legislation in January 2021 that would allow authorities to take guns away from people deemed dangerous to themselves or others via the red flag gun laws. This law places restrictions on lawful gun owners who have never committed a crime and would only leave law-abiding citizens defenseless against a shooter. Despite fierce opposition, this is yet another example of government overreach that infringes our 2nd Amendment rights.

Josh Ludwig and Warren W. Gosnell are running for the Board of Supervisors in Frederick County on Nov. 2. Gosnell claims he is a pragmatic conservative. But would a pragmatic conservative support enforcement of the Red Flag Law in Frederick County, a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary? He was employed in Frederick County Sheriff Office when the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in 2019 unanimously passed a resolution opposing any laws that would infringe on Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Can Gosnell remain free of any outside influence from the Sheriffs Office when it comes to serving on the board? I dont think so and neither does Josh Ludwig.

Josh Ludwig, a true conservative, would push back and speak out against the Red Flag law.

Gosnell didnt and defended implementation of the law in a Frederick County case. But following the rules exposed the flaws in the Red Flag law only allegations were made against the accused and charges were never brought forward. The judge immediately overturned the case. Instead, the accuseds rights were infringed, which could result in legal action by the accused. The bedrock of Americas legal system is all citizens guarantee to due process before the government infringes on any of their legal rights. Red flag laws simply trample due process.

Is not pushing back against this abuse of power, for example, the Red Flag Law, the actions of a pragmatic conservative? Again, Josh Ludwig, a true conservative and Constitutionalist, doesnt think so, and neither do I. Josh is the strongest conservative BOS candidate who is a true 2nd Amendment defender and stands for our liberties. He has my vote for the Board of Supervisors in Shawnee District, and if you are a true Patriot, he should have yours too.

Gayle Ferreira is a resident of Stephens City.

Read the original:
Open Forum: Ludwig is a 'pragmatic conservative' | Winchester Star | winchesterstar.com - The Winchester Star

Scott Bauer| Associated Press

Madison, Wis. From the moment Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people on the streets of Kenosha during protests over the police shooting of a Black man, hes personified Americas polarization.

The 17-year-old from Illinois who carried an AR-style rifle and idolized police was cheered by those who despised the Black Lives Matter movement and the sometimes destructive protests that followed George Floyds death. He was championed by pro-gun conservatives who said he was exercising his Second Amendment rights and defending cities from antifa, an umbrella term for leftist militants.

Others saw him as the most worrisome example yet of vigilante citizens taking to the streets with guns, often with the tacit support of police a chaos tourist, in the words of the lead prosecutor, who came to Kenosha looking for trouble.

Though Rittenhouse and all three men he shot are White, many people saw racism at the heart of Kenosha an armed White teen, welcomed by police to a city where activists were rallying against a White officers shooting of a Black man, and allowed to walk past a police line immediately after shooting three people.

That division is likely to be on display at Rittenhouses trial, which opens Monday with jury selection. Rittenhouse, now 18, faces several charges, including homicide and could see a life sentence if convicted.

Its another battle in what has become the central story of our time - the culture wars, John Baick, who teaches modern American history at Western New England University in Springfield, Massachusetts, said.

In many ways, the key question at trial is simple: Was Rittenhouse acting in self-defense? Plentiful video exists of the events in question, and legal experts see a strong case for that. The judge overseeing the trial, Bruce Schroeder, has said forcefully that it is not going to be a political trial.

But the case has been exactly that, almost from the moment the shootings happened driven by powerful interest groups, extremists, politicians and others using it to push their own agendas.

Rittenhouses defenders, including his family, have leaned into some of the symbolism. A website devoted to his defense and raising money for it greets visitors with a quote attributed to James Monroe: The right of self-defense never ceases. The site blasts Big Tech, a corrupt media, and dishonest politicians out to ruin the life of Kyle Rittenhouse. The site briefly sold branded Free Kyle merchandise before vendors backed away.

Ryan Busse, a former firearms industry executive who is now a senior adviser at the gun-safety organization Giffords, which was founded by former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, said hes worried that Rittenhouse will become some heroic martyr.

Im worried about empowering more actors like him who think its glamorous to go kill somebody with a rifle, Busse said.

Rittenhouse made the 20-mile (32-kilometer) trip from his home in Antioch, Illinois, north to Kenosha as the city was in the throes of several nights of chaotic demonstrations after an officer shot Jacob Blake in the back following a domestic disturbance. At least one call had gone out on social media for armed citizens to respond, though Rittenhouses attorneys say that wasnt what brought Rittenhouse to the city.

Videos taken that night show him with a first-aid kit at his side, along with his rifle, bragging about his medical abilities. Video also shows police appearing to welcome Rittenhouse and other armed citizens, including handing them bottles of water.

Later in the evening, video shows a man named Joseph Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse in the parking lot of a used car dealership; seconds later, Rittenhouse shoots and kills him. In the ensuing minutes, Rittenhouse pursued by other protesters shot and killed Anthony Huber, who swung a skateboard at him, and shot and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, who had stepped toward Rittenhouse with a pistol in hand.

Video then shows Rittenhouse walking toward police with his hands up, his rifle slung over his shoulder, as protesters yell that he has just shot people. Rittenhouse went back home, turning himself into police the next day.

The day Rittenhouse was arrested, Democratic U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, of Massachusetts, tweeted that the shootings had been committed by a white supremacist domestic terrorist.

Rittenhouses defense team pushed back against that, saying Rittenhouse isnt a white supremacist and wasnt aware of hateful rhetoric on social media about the Kenosha protests leading up to the shootings. The Anti-Defamation League found no evidence of extremism in his social media accounts.

But Rittenhouse was embraced by the Proud Boys, a far-right extremist group that generally traffics in white nationalism, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The groups chairman, Enrique Tarrio, and other members have been shown wearing T-shirts that say, Kyle Rittenhouse Did Nothing Wrong! And soon after being freed on bond, Rittenhouse was photographed at a Wisconsin bar with people who flashed a hand signal associated with the Proud Boys and sang a song that has become an anthem of the group. Rittenhouse flashed the hand signal, too.

The fact that Rittenhouse wasnt a member of any extremist group before the shootings doesnt matter now given how hes been embraced by them, said Alex Friedfeld, an investigative researcher for the Center on Extremism with the Anti-Defamation League.

He said extremists will be looking to turn the trial to advantage. Some view the mere fact that Rittenhouse was charged as evidence that courts and the system are stacked against conservatives, or that the system is biased against White people, Friedfeld said.

It starts to kind of lay the groundwork for the idea that people need to tear down these institutions and the system is broken and needs to be changed, which requires action, he said.

Baick, the historian, called the Rittenhouse trial a moment for reality TV and said the entire case takes its place amid one of the nations most turbulent periods in generations.

We have to link in Jan. 6, he said. We have to link in military groups across the country, anti-mask protests, school board protests. Whether its Kenosha, or Minneapolis, or the entire state of Florida, these debates over the role of government, the role of law and order these are deeply unsettled in America right now in a way they havent been since the 1960s.

See the original post here:
In Kyle Rittenhouse shooting case, Americans see what they want to see - The Detroit News

Your NRA-ILA has learned that onMonday, November 1, at 1:30pmanti-gun state leaders serving on an interim committee called the Legislative Council planto meet and go into executive session to discuss and act on a proposal to direct Council staff to prohibit all firearms -- including those possessed by concealed handgun license holders -- in the Roundhouse.

Executive session means this decision about your ability to protect yourself at thepeople'sstate capitol building would take place behind closed doors without public input, participation or legislation. The next legislative session hasn't even started and your Second Amendment rights are already under attack!

Please contact these legislative leaders and state lawmakers who serve on Legislative Council and tell them you strongly oppose this move!

Speaker Brian Egolf (D-HD 47)505-986-4782[emailprotected]

Senate President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart (D-SD 17)505-397-8853Contact Sen. Mimi Stewart

Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth (D-SD 25)505-397-8855[emailprotected]

Committee members (click on names for contact information):Interim Committee - New Mexico Legislature (nmlegis.gov)

Link:
Interim New Mexico Committee to Hold Vote on MONDAY to Ban Firearms in The Roundhouse! - NRA ILA

SYMPOSIUM ByRachel Graber and Ruth Glenn on Oct 28, 2021 at 7:47 pm

This article is part of a symposium on the upcoming argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. A preview of the case is here.

Rachel Graber is the director of public policy at the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Ruth M. Glenn is the president/CEO of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Firearms often play a significant role in the lives and deaths of domestic violence victims. Abusers use firearms to exert and maintain power and coercive control over their victims, and, far too often, exert ultimate control by taking their victims lives. To highlight the domestic violence implications of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, joined by 12 other organizations, filed an amicus brief on behalf of the domestic violence field in support of the state of New York. NCADVs brief focuses on the importance of administrative authority to regulate abusers access to concealed firearms beyond categorical prohibitors addressing firearm possession. While possession prohibitors are critical to public and survivors safety, they cannot account for indicators of dangerousness that do not result in an active court record.

At NCADV, we define domestic violence to mean:

the willful intimidation, physical assault, battery, sexual assault, and/or otherabusive behavioras part of a systematic pattern of power and control perpetrated by one intimate partner against another. It includes physical violence, sexual violence, psychological violence, and emotional abuse. The frequency and severity of domestic violence can vary dramatically; however, the one constant component of domestic violence is one partners consistent efforts to maintainpower and controlover the other.

Firearms are used in all aspects of abuse. Abusers point the firearm at the survivor, their children, themselves, their pets, or others; make verbal or implied threats; discharge the firearm; shoot the survivor; pistol whip the survivor; rape the survivor with the firearm; kill a pet; or ultimately kill the survivor, their children, their family members, or themselves.

Federal law restricts certain domestic violence misdemeanants and certain respondents to final protective orders from possessing, receiving, shipping, or transporting firearms. Some states and tribes also restrict firearm possession by adjudicated domestic abusers, and many have more expansive laws, covering a larger category of relationships, including conduct such as intimate partner stalking misdemeanor convictions, or restricting firearms access for respondents to ex parte protective orders. While these laws significantly reduce intimate partner homicides by individuals with an active court record, they exclude the universe of individuals who are known to have committed domestic violence and are known to pose a danger but who have not been through an adjudication process.

This is more common than one would think. A 2014 study found that 97% of domestic violence calls to law enforcement by families with children do not result in a conviction for a wide variety of reasons and not because the abuse did not occur or there was insufficient evidence. Protective orders are temporary, and the expiration of a protective order does not mean that the danger to the victim has expired. While in many of these cases, the abuser poses an ongoing danger to the victim, indicators of this dangerousness will not show up in a firearms background check. However, local law enforcement officials who have responded again and again to violence perpetrated by the same individuals know these abusers. The value of local knowledge must not be discounted when considering public safety needs.

Despite the threat they pose to their victims and their communities, District of Columbia v. Heller gives many of these individuals the right to possess firearms in their homes. However, this right does not extend to the public sphere nor to the homes of other individuals, including dating partners and estranged spouses. State regulatory regimes that consider additional factors when determining whether to issue a concealed-carry permit are fully consistent with the Supreme Courts prior ruling.

Rather than focusing on legal arguments, NCADVs brief highlights the real-life implications of a ruling that would undermine administrative review in determining whether to issue a concealed-carry permit. Many states consider factors beyond what would show up in a firearms background check when determining whether an individual ought to be granted a concealed-carry permit. For example, Massachusetts law permits licensing authorities to consider whether an individual has been subject to a protective order in the past and whether an individual has ever been arrested or charged with a crime. This law was challenged by an abuser, who claimed it violated his Second Amendment rights. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled against the abuser:

[Applicants] conduct in punching his wife in the face, dragging her out of his vehicle, and throwing her to the ground constitutes criminal conduct that would have disqualified him from licensure had he been convicted. The absence of a conviction does not prevent such conduct from consideration by the chief on the question of [Applicants] suitability. [Applicants] acts of domestic violence provide precisely the kind and quality of evidence that rationally support a finding of unsuitability.

Given the previously cited statistic about the infrequency with which domestic violence crimes lead to a conviction, situations such as the one above are not uncommon. The permit applicant in the Massachusetts case had a history of committing violent acts, and his possession of a concealed firearm could put his wifes safety and the safety of those around her at risk.

In sum, the importance of local knowledge in determining who should and should not have a concealed-carry permit is critical to protecting public safety. The domestic violence fields brief asks the Supreme Court regardless of how the court decides the case not to issue any decision that weakens states regulatory authority to protect survivors and communities from known domestic abusers.

Visit link:
To help stop domestic violence, uphold concealed-carry regulations that utilize local knowledge - SCOTUSblog