Category Archives: Second Amendment

Alex Jones has, experts say, used the U.S. Constitution as both a shield and a sword.

When Jones first started talking about the Sandy Hook shooting, the day of the massacre itself, he said it was a manufactured crisis intended to create enough sympathy and outrage to enact gun control legislation.

Now that he faces the second of three civil trials to decide damages after courts in both Connecticut and Texas handed down a default judgment in favor of Sandy Hook families, he has claimed that his First Amendment rights to free speech have been limited by a judge hes called a tyrant.

During the current trial, Chris Mattei, attorney for the Sandy Hook families, played a video of Jones saying Sandy Hook and the Aurora, Colo. movie theater shooting a few months prior were false flag operations designed as a pretense to limit the Second Amendment and part of a global conspiracy out to kill and enslave them, Mattei said, quoting Jones.

Earlier in the trial, Jones went on Infowars and told his viewers they came for the Second Amendment with Sandy Hook and now they were coming for the First Amendment, too.

The judge in the case, Barbara Bellis, has attempted to avoid the whole issue by barring Jones from saying in the courtroom that his free speech rights under the First Amendment have been compromised. This trial is about damages. Jones was already found liable for defamation.

The First Amendment is not an issue, Bellis said.

That has not stopped Jones from talking about it outside the courthouse.

We're supposed to be the land of the free, home of the brave, and they're using these dead children not just to try to get rid of the Second Amendment, but now the First Amendment, he said during a press conference on the courthouse steps.

There are limits to the First Amendment. It does not, for example, protect a right to spread misinformation.

It's very frustrating to see someone who has apparently, from all indications, been spreading knowing lies, said David Schulz, director of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School. To try to hide behind the protections of the First Amendment is quite frustrating. It's not what the First Amendment protects. The Supreme Court has said that there's no First Amendment value in lies, and lies that cause harm can be punished.

While Jones might have the First Amendment right to say what he thinks on the air or in court, he cannot use his platform to lie about individuals if those lies cause harm.

He certainly has a right to express his opinion about the right to bear arms, but that's not what's going on, Schulz said. And he doesn't have the right to make up lies to try to fan the flames of, you know, Second Amendment advocates.

William Dunlap, a Constitutional law professor at Quinnipiac University, said there are many limits to the freedom of speech.

Both Congress and the states have a lot of law regulating or punishing speech, he said. "Among the categories of speech that are not protected completely by the First Amendment is defamation, which is what this case is all about.

Throughout the current trial, and the previous trial held in Texas, the question arose of whether or not Jones is a journalist and if Infowars practices journalism. The First Amendment protects not only freedom of speech but freedom of the press.

Opinions are protected, as are honest mistakes.

The Supreme Court over the years has been very careful to protect innocent mistakes when they're made by news organizations on issues of public concern, because, as it is explained, errors inevitably happen in the give-and-take of covering the news, particularly when you're under a deadline, Schulz said.

But Jones and Infowars, Schulz said, did not make an honest mistake when they suggested, year after year, that the parents were actors and the massacre never happened.

What has been going on here is a pattern over the years of repeating information that has been shown to be untrue, he said. The First Amendment says that when you're talking about matters of public concern, that there has to be a knowing falsehood.

Jones has said that he genuinely believed the Sandy Hook massacre was faked, but thats not good enough, according to Schulz.

You can misbelieve something, he said. But when something is so outrageous, so unbelievable, that only a reckless person would put it into circulation. would repeat it, that's not protected. And to continue it over a number of years, it's certainly conduct that can be punishable consistent with the First Amendment.

Ryan ONeill, a professor at Quinnipiac University and a partner with the Law Offices of Mark Sherman, practicing in the areas of criminal defense and defamation, said he believed Jones is being misleading.

Jones is not allowed to say in court that his Constitutional right to free speech is being violated. Hes also not allowed to say in court that he believed Sandy Hook was a calculated false flag maneuver to take away Second Amendment rights.

That, ONeill explained, is because Jones was already found liable.

I understand that he has a problem with the fact that he never had a jury decide whether he was liable, but that was decided by the judgment of the court, ONeill said. The problem is, that that judgment happened because he did not follow the rules of the court with respect to how information is supposed to be exchanged.

New Haven-based attorney Alex Taubes explained that there are rules in any court case.

Both sides have to comply with deadlines, both sides have to hand over to the other side their evidence, he said. Alex Jones wants to claim our system of government, or freedom of speech, open courts, as his savior, but when it came time to actually comply with court orders he refused to do so.

Its not just the court in Connecticut that issued a default judgment in favor of the Sandy Hook families because Jones had so flagrantly ignored the courts rules, specifically the rules on discovery. A judge in Texas decided similarly.

The fact that two judges in two different states reached the same conclusion about Alex Jones litigation conduct tells you, I think, that it was very substantial violations and it wasn't just something that was done by accident, ONeill said.

In ignoring the court's rules, Jones lost his chance to make a free speech argument.

He's talking about things that he would have had the opportunity to potentially argue if he had followed the rules, ONeill said. He didn't follow the rules, and so what Bellis is saying is, It doesn't matter whether you believed it, or what your beliefs are based on right now, because that issue has come and gone. You had the chance to litigate it. You decided not to follow our rules when litigating it, and I had no other choice but to sanction you by deciding the issue of liability.

That is, unless plaintiffs decide to raise questions of motive themselves. If Mattei and his colleagues suggest, as they have, that Jones motive was money, that allows Jones to offer a counter argument.

ONeill called it a calculated high-risk, high-reward scenario. Every time the plaintiffs lawyers raise political issues, Jones lawyer, Norm Pattis, says they opened the door.

Injecting some of these things into the case certainly does arouse more negative emotions toward Alex Jones when they frame it in their way, ONeill said. But it does allow opportunities for Pattis in the defense to start injecting some of these other things that can create more distractions, or also create more justifications in the minds of some folks that might be deciding this.

On the day of the Sandy Hook shooting, literally as the parents were learning that their children had died, Jones was on the air claiming that the massacre was a manufactured false flag operation intended to take away his and his viewers Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Plaintiffs have argued in court that Jones was essentially fear-mongering, that his real motivation was and remains money.

It's come out in the trial so far that he had sponsors, advertisers that were gun manufacturers, and that they were courting other gun manufacturers as advertisers, said University of Connecticut journalism professor Amanda J. Crawford.

The Second Amendment has been, to some degree, a pivot point on which the strategies of both the plaintiffs and defense have rested. When Pattis questions a plaintiff on the stand, he asks whether or not they knew how Jones felt about the Second Amendment, and how the shooting changed their anti-gun activism.

He wants to convince the jury that the goal of the plaintiffs is to silence Jones free speech to talk about guns, that this is a plot to undermine Jones because they don't like what he believes about guns, Crawford said.

There is a connection between mass shootings and gun sales, as Dunlap said: Every time that there is a mass shooting or some other atrocity involving guns, that the sale of guns would go up, because the manufacturers and organizations like the National Rifle Association would say, OK, now they're going to come after your guns.

Claiming that your Second Amendment rights are at risk is a business and advocacy strategy Dunlap said has been going on for years, for decades. Proposals for gun legislation may make it harder for certain people to get guns, those laws are not unconstitutional, he said.

Though he said he disagrees with the substance of Jones arguments disagree with them in a big way Dunlap said using the Bill of Rights to defend your beliefs is, in and of itself, why the Bill of Rights exists.

There aren't very many individual protections in the Constitution itself, but in the Bill of Rights, in the post Civil War amendments, are a lot of rights that I think people are entirely justified in using to protect their behavior, he said.

Jones cannot speak on the record, in court, about the First Amendment, something Crawford sees as a bit of a missed opportunity.

Jones spread misinformation about a national (and local) tragedy. A discussion on the record, in court on where First Amendment protections begin and end might have been valuable to our society.

The court has said that because he didn't cooperate, he can't make his First Amendment argument, she said. Does that help our conversation about what is misinformation, what's allowed in the First Amendment? Not at all.

The default judgment is good for the families, Crawford said. It means they dont actually have to prove liability, just the extent of the damage Jones caused. But that also means the discourse is limited.

If you're looking at this as a case that is important in our current moment, about how do we deal with misinformation through the institutions that exist, from an academic perspective its somewhat disappointing that we don't get to have a trial that deals with the merits of this case, she said.

Jones did not explicitly name many of the people who are suing him (though he did name and publicly mock father Robbie Parker, who took the stand recently). But there will be no serious discussion about what Crawford called the finer points of libel.

There will be no arguments about whether or not his speech was protected by the First Amendment, she said. There'll be no arguments about group libel, and whether or not he actually libeled, defamed or inflicted emotional distress on individuals that he did not name.

The default judgment may have been warranted, Crawford said, but it hands Jones a talking point, the ability to claim on television, in press conferences and everywhere else outside of the courtroom, that his rights have been stolen.

He will forever be able to argue that he didn't have a trial on the merits, that he was hamstrung by the legal system, she said. He gets to prove his argument that they were out to get him.

He gets to say that this was the government going after his First Amendment rights, because he didn't get to make that case, she said.

Read the original post:
How Alex Jones twists the Constitution in his Sandy Hook trial - Danbury News Times

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter

(CNN) -- Chief Justice John Roberts is looking forward to the start of the Supreme Court's new term on Monday, especially now that the public will be able to attend oral arguments in person and the metal barricades erected to ward off protestors on the plaza have been removed.

"I think the more normal the better," the chief told an audience in Colorado last month.

Others are wondering what exactly "normal" means anymore, after last term when the court's reversal of near 50-year-old precedent changed the landscape of women's reproductive health, it cut back on the power of federal agencies, it cleared the way for new Second Amendment challenges and it inserted itself into the upcoming midterm elections.

Critics say the court is unrecognizable because an aggressive conservative majority is moving the country backwards and, in some instances, erasing long-held rights.

"I understand the chief justice's desire to get back to 'normal,'" former Attorney General Eric Holder, who served during the Obama administration, said in an interview with CNN. "But what the court has done in the last term and what -- I fear -- in the term to come, is anything other than that which is normal."

Pointing to the abortion case -- Dobbs v. Jackson -- Holder said it was an example of the court "not acting in a normal, appropriate way," which he said would have entailed following precedent and taking into consideration that people had ordered their lives around Roe v. Wade for a half century.

"It was the court acting in an ideological way to get a result that these justices wanted to get" Holder said.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are celebrating the manifestation of former President Donald Trump's promise to reshape the judiciary. They believe the right side of the bench is correcting errors of the past, lawfully returning the court's focus to the text and history of the founding era and interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original public meaning.

They look forward to making new headway as part of a new normal where conservatives expand the free exercise clause, work toward a so-called color blind society, and diminish the administrative state.

The left "had its way for a very, very long time," John Malcolm of the conservative Heritage Foundation said on Wednesday -- dating back to the Warren Court era known for its progressive rulings. He says liberals are reacting to the conservative majority now by questioning the legitimacy of the court itself.

"If they don't get their way, they have to tear the court down," Malcolm said.

It's unknown whether the public dynamic of recent months -- plummeting approval ratings and nationwide protests -- will impact the decision-making process of the court. All eyes are on three justices in particular: Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Although each is a solid conservative, they've emerged as median justices in certain areas of the law. Whether those justices tap the brakes in the coming months will be the story of the new term.

Last month, Roberts referred to the court's current docket as a "nice batch" of cases but went into little detail. A closer look reveals that a common thread runs through some of the most highly anticipated disputes: race.

Two cases, for instance, concern the role of race in college admissions programs. Another challenge takes aim at a key section of the Voting Rights Act that was put in place to combat racial discrimination.

All eyes will be on Roberts when the voting rights case is argued because back in 2013, he wrote an opinion that essentially invalidated a separate section of the law that required states with a history of discrimination to get any changes to voting rights pre-cleared in advance. As a part of the opinion Roberts wrote, "Our country has changed."

Here's a look at some of the historic cases coming up:

On Tuesday, the court will hear the challenge to Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act that bars voting rules that discriminate on the basis of race.

The court will review a lower court opinion that invalidated Alabama's congressional map as a likely violation of the law. The state has seven congressional districts, and despite the fact that Black voters account for 27% of the state's voting age population, there is only one majority Black district.

The lower court ordered another majority Black district to be drawn that would have led to Democrats gaining another seat in the House in the fall. That court said that the map likely violates Section 2 because Black voters have "less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect candidates of their choice to Congress."

Alabama went to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to put that ruling on hold. The court agreed.

Supporters of voting rights are on edge -- cognizant of the fact that since Roberts' 2013 decision challengers have relied more heavily relied upon Section 2, which may now be in jeopardy.

When the Supreme Court in February froze the lower court ruling and said that the map in question could be used while the legal proceedings play out, Roberts was in dissent. He said that the lower court had "properly applied existing law" and there were no errors for immediate correction. But critically, he agreed that the Supreme Court should take up the case due to "considerable disagreement and uncertainty" regarding the challengers' vote dilution claim.

Steve Marshall, Alabama's attorney general, told the court in briefs that for "decades" the state has only had one minority black district, and that in 2021, when the state enacted new maps, it "largely followed existing district lines" making "race-neutral adjustments for small shifts in population over the last decade."

Marshall argued that the lower court deemed the plan unlawful because it interpreted Section 2 to require the state to "trade its neutrally drawn districts" in order to draw a second majority black district.

Such a requirement, Marshall argued, puts the state at "loggerheads" with the Constitution because the state would have to "prioritize race always in redistricting." For the challengers to succeed in adding another district, he said, the state would have to "intentionally sort Alabamians by skin color."

Challengers to the current map -- including registered voters, voting rights groups -- urged the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court opinion and say that the "mere consideration of race" to remedy a Section 2 violation does not inevitably lead to equal protection concerns under the Constitution.

"As uncomfortable as the political reality in Alabama might be -- and as strong the temptation to shut our eyes to the tenacity of racial discrimination in voting -- the courts must not blink," attorney Abha Khanna, representing Black voters argued in court papers.

Khanna said that plans drawn up by experts for her side show that a second district could be drawn up that complies with traditional redistricting principles that take into consideration compactness, population equality, contiguity, and respect for communities of interest where race was not the predominant factor.

"Black residents in Mobile, Montgomery and the greater Black Belt share deep historical, cultural and political connections," Khanna wrote.

"They could easily elect their preferred candidates in a compact congressional district drawn consistent with traditional redistricting criteria," Khanna said. Instead, the state plan "divides the Black voters within this well-established community of interest across several districts, and as a result, Black Alabamians have no chance to elect their preferred candidates outside of "the one black majority district.

Race will also be a central theme when the court considers whether institutions of higher education can take race into consideration as a factor when considering admissions.

"Ignoring race as one of many factors to be considered in admissions policies perpetuates racial inequalities and the unfair advantages that have always fallen along racial lines -- in and out of education," Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund told CNN. "It also denies all Americans the ability to leverage our greatest strength as a country -- our diversity."

The court will hear separate disputes over admissions programs at the University of North Carolina and Harvard.

Students for Fair Admissions -- a group that says it is dedicated to the right of racial equality in college admissions -- is behind both challenges. William Consovoy, a lawyer for the group says that the schools' policies violate the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

They want the Supreme Court to overturn a 2003 case called Grutter v. Bollinger. In that case, the court held that schools could consider race as a factor in admissions to pursue student body diversity.

"Grutter was wrong the day it was decided" Consovoy argued, because it "departs from the Constitution's original meaning, contradicts other precedents, has eroded over time and has no true defenders."

"Both universities award mammoth racial preferences to African Americans and Hispanics," he said and added that Harvard "uses race against Asian Americans."

In the North Carolina case a lower court upheld UNC's use of race calling it "narrowly tailored," while emphasizing that race is considered simply as a "plus" factor. The lower court also said that UNC did not have a viable race-neutral alternative that would allow it to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.

Another case with voting rights implications is Moore v. Harper, which has yet to be scheduled for argument.

On the surface, the case presents a redistricting dispute out of North Carolina involving a lower court decision that invalidated the state's congressional map. That court struck the map -- calling it an illegal partisan gerrymander -- and replaced it with a court-drawn map that was more favorable to Democrats.

Republican legislators from North Carolina are asking the justices to reverse the lower court and adopt a legal theory called the independent state legislature doctrine. They point to the Elections Clause of the Constitution which provides that rules governing the "manner of elections" must be prescribed in each state legislature.

That provision means, they argue, that state legislatures should be able to set rules in federal elections without being held in check by state constitutions either through interpretation by state courts or by the functioning of commissions created under state constitutional reforms. Traditionally, legislatures have set ground rules for conducting an election, but have not acted alone or had the final word. Processes set in place have been subject to intervention by election administrators and state courts.

The majority of the North Carolina state Supreme Court, in ruling against the lawmakers, said that legislators do not have unlimited power to draw electoral maps. The state court acknowledged that redistricting is primarily delegated to the legislature but said it must be performed in "conformity with the State Constitution."

The Republican lawmakers appealed to the US Supreme Court, arguing in court papers that the "text of the Constitution directly answers the question presented in this case." The Elections Clause provides "unambiguous language" concerning the manner of federal elections and makes clear that the rules will be drawn by state legislatures.

Voters in the state and voting rights groups urged the justices to stay out of the dispute and let the lower court ruling stand.

"The text, history and structure of the federal Constitution reject the notion that state legislatures are unbound by their state constitutions as interpreted by state supreme courts when redistricting under the Elections Clause," Allison Riggs, co-executive director and chief counsel for Voting Rights at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, wrote in legal briefs.

At an earlier stage of the case, three conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, expressed some sympathy for the theory and said the case presented an "exceptionally important and recurring question of constitutional law."

Another case on the court's docket is a follow-up to a case the court decided back in 2018.

That case was brought by a baker who declined to make cakes to celebrate same sex marriages. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker, but the ruling was tied specifically to the facts of that particular case and the justices left a decision concerning whether business in general could decline services to same sex couples nationwide for another day.

Now a graphic designer in Colorado named Lorie Smith, who runs a company called 303 Creative, seeks to expand her business to create websites designs for weddings. Critically, however, she does not want to work with same-sex couples because she has religious objections to same-sex marriage. She has written a webpage explaining why she won't create such websites, but under a Colorado public accommodations law, Smith says she cannot post the statement because the state considers it illegal.

The justices agreed to consider whether the state law violates he Free Speech clause of the First Amendment.

"This case asks whether governments may use public-accommodation laws to compel artists to speak or stay silent when they enter the marketplace," Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group representing Smith, said in court papers. Waggoner argued that artists like painters, photographers, writers, musicians cannot be forced to "speak messages" that violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser defends the state's Anti-Discrimination Act in court papers arguing that it protects Coloradans who buy goods from businesses that are open to the public.

"These customers do not look, love or worship the same way," Weiser said "but they all expect to participate in the public marketplace as equals." He said that the law does not target Smith's message and does not aim to suppress any message that a company might express.

"Businesses are free to decide what services to offer," he said. "The Act requires only that the Company sell whatever product or service it offers to all regardless of its customers protected characteristics."

The-CNN-Wire & 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Read more from the original source:
Curtain lifts on another historic Supreme Court term in the new normal - WDJT

I recently discovered that if you walk around New York City while carrying a colonial-era musket, you get a lot of questions.

You gonna shoot some redcoats?

Wheres your well-regulated militia?

What the hell, man?

Questions aside, a musket can come in handy. When I arrive at my local coffee shop at the same time as another customer, he tells me: You go first. Im not arguing with someone holding that thing.

Why am I carrying around a 1795 firearm? Well, its because Im deep into Project Constitution. Ive pledged to live by the US constitution as strictly and literally as possible. I want to see what its like to be the ultimate originalist.

I got the idea after the US supreme courts latest controversial term. As you might know, its the most conservative court in decades. It overturned Roe v Wade, saying that the constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion. It bolstered gun rights and took power away from the Environmental Protection Agency.

This is, in large part, because several justices adhere to a philosophy called originalism in some form or another. The main gist of originalism is that we should follow the original meaning of the constitution as it was understood when it was first implemented in 1789 (or, if the decision involves one of the constitutions amendments, whenever that was ratified).

So I figured: what if we took this to its logical endpoint?

To be fair, there are many versions of originalism, and no originalist would go as far as I do. Originalists argue that the constitution doesnt require you to opt for muskets over modern guns. Instead, a good originalist takes the centuries-old principles of the constitution and applies them to the current day, using history and tradition as a guide. So the right to privacy, originally meant to stop the constable banging on your door, now applies to your smartphone.

Fair enough. But it seems to me and many other observers that the courts originalists can be pretty stingy when it comes to updating, especially if it involves womens rights, gay rights or environmental regulations. One of the dangers of originalism is that the people who practise it can easily get too frozen in history, and I think thats what some members of the court did this term, says Glenn Smith, a constitutional law professor at California Western School of Law. Theyve let their hidebound sense of history overcome a reasonable originalist approach.

More than that, originalism can be wildly inconsistent. Sometimes a certain constitutional right is interpreted as narrowly as possible Clarence Thomas, the most hardcore originalist on the current supreme court, doesnt believe the liberty recognised in the 14th amendment can expand to include gay marriage, since the drafters never conceived of gay marriage. Other times, a right can be stretched to the breaking point. Most originalists say the right to bear arms covers muskets as well as AR-15 semi-automatic rifles, even though they are arguably vastly different.

So what if I try to be consistent? What if I always apply the narrowest interpretation, avoiding the hubris of assuming I know what the countrys founding fathers would have thought? What if I adhere to the strictest version of what was written in 1789 or, in the case of the later amendments, what was written in 1791 or the 1870s? After all, I want to be prepared in case originalism gets even more extreme.

My Month of Living Constitutionally led me on a weird, enlightening and often deeply awkward journey. I handed out pamphlets, I fetched my own water, I annoyed my wife.

Here is the tale.

As a journalist, Ive always been grateful to the founding fathers for the right to free speech. But Ive learned the 18th-century idea of free speech was startlingly different from todays both in how we communicate and in what is allowed.

First, theres the method I use to express free speech: Twitter. Fortunately for the founding fathers, theirs was a world of paper and ink. It seems to me Twitter is like the AR-15 of speech. Its another animal altogether. To be safe, I decide to stick to the 18th-century version of Twitter: pamphlets.

I order a quill pen and parchment paper, and scratch out a dozen analogue tweets, one on each piece of yellowed paper.

I go to midtown Manhattan to hand out my mini-pamphlets. Its harder than I thought. Most people skilfully avoid my gaze, looking at the pavement, the skyline, anywhere but my face.

Finally, I approach a woman waiting for the light to turn green and read her my tweet out loud: I find it egotistical that we capitalize the word I but not he or she or they.

Yeah, she says. I guess thats interesting.

Do you want to take my pamphlet?

No, I do not.

As mixed as the reaction is, it still feels better than the Twitter cesspool. Just seeing people face to face has a healthy effect.

Now I should mention one other thing: to get fully into the founding fathers mindset I was wearing an Alexander Hamilton costume. This is not constitutionally mandated. But Ive found that there are advantages to dressing the part. The outer often affects the inner. With my tricorn hat, I somehow felt more dignified (even though I was mistaken for both a pirate and Napoleon but, oddly, not Hamilton).

Back in constitutional times, there was another big first amendment difference: the content of speech was much more restricted. Governmental limitations of expressive freedom were commonplace, law professor Jud Campbell wrote in the Yale Law Journal in 2017. Blasphemy and profane swearing, for instance, were thought to be harmful to society and were thus subject to governmental regulation.

It wasnt quite Stalins Russia, but it wasnt a free-for-all. You could be arrested for insulting God or trashing the president. Whats more, according to influential originalist judge Robert Bork, the first amendment only referred to prior restraint, meaning that the government couldnt stop you from buying a printing press. But it could punish you afterwards for what you published.

This will be fun, I think. I get to be a puritanical censor to my kids and blame it on the constitution. When my son drops his iPhone and says: Goddammit! I reply: That is unprotected speech. Say Gosh darn it!

Then I go on Twitter (I know, Im a hypocrite) and open an account under the name OriginalDude89.

I reply to people calling President Biden or Republican senator Lindsey Graham traitors. You realise your seditious comments are not protected by the first amendment, at least as it was conceived of by the founders, right? You could be prosecuted if this were the 1790s. Please remove.

One responds: LMFAO whatever dude!

The 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection, is beloved by liberals, who believe it extends to gay rights and womens rights, among others. Most liberals adhere to a philosophy called the living constitution the idea that rights and meanings in the constitution evolve to fit the times.

Uber-originalists have a much narrower view. The 14th amendment was ratified after the civil war, in 1868, and should therefore only apply to the rights as understood in 1868. It was passed to guarantee rights to Black men, recently freed from slavery. Antonin Scalia, the famously conservative justice who served until his death in 2016, argued that the constitution didnt say anything about gender-based discrimination.

In 1868, women couldnt vote, and in many states couldnt hold certain jobs. This is going to be tricky.

For instance, just five years after the ratification of the 14th amendment, the supreme court upheld Illinois decision to deny a law licence to a woman based on her gender. I email the lawyer who works with my book publisher.

Dear Michelle:

For the duration of this experiment, Im afraid I cant deal with you on legal matters related to my books and articles. Nothing personal!

Id be happy to deal with any male colleagues of yours in the meantime.

Thank you.

I feel like a huge dick pressing send.

Likewise, in 1868 married women in many states couldnt sign contracts. My wife Julie is president of an events business, and prepares and signs several contracts a day.

I tell her that, from the point of view of the constitutions drafters, this activity isnt protected. I might have to take over.

Great! she says, moving from her desk to the couch and picking up a magazine. Ill be over here if you have questions.

Thus commence several hours of me trying to navigate confusing and irritating paperwork. I have to ask Julie so many questions about cancellation policies and pricing that she eventually fires me.

This isnt helping me, she says.

In addition to sexism, I have to address racism. The original 1789 constitution contained notoriously racist parts that slave-holding states insisted be included. For instance, enslaved Black people only counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of calculating congressional representation.

Luckily I dont have to follow that particular egregious rule. It was overturned by three post-civil war amendments.

But of course that doesnt mean the 14th amendments promise of equal protection immediately got rid of constitutionally permitted racism. For instance, Black men could vote, but in many states they could not marry a white woman.

As legal scholar Elie Mystal writes in Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guys Guide to the Constitution: The people who ratified the 14th amendment hated Black people marrying white people Either our understanding of the 14th amendment evolved to include a rejection of racist anti-miscegenation laws, or it didnt. If the 14th amendment doesnt evolve, Alabama could force people to submit pure-blood certifications from Ancestry.com before issuing marriage licenses.

It was not until 1967 that the supreme court ruling lifted intermarriage bans nationwide. Thankfully, today even the most ardent originalist would say interracial marriage is protected. But since Im being strict as possible about hewing to the original vision, I guess I shouldnt. Which is a horrible thing to contemplate.

I call up my sister. She is married to a man from Peru with mixed Latin and indigenous heritage. I explain that her marriage, from an 1868 viewpoint, would probably have been seen as an interracial marriage, which would have been banned in some states.

So American history has a lot of racist assholes not a huge surprise, she says. You know I want to be supportive, but this is crazy.

Agreed.

I guess I could send you back your wedding gift, she suggests.

That could work Ill hold on to the wine glasses I gave her till the project ends.

Actually I think I wont send them, she adds. You can come and pick them up if you want.

Sign up to Inside Saturday

The only way to get a look behind the scenes of our brand new magazine, Saturday. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend.

At least the pamphlet escapade had some redeeming value. This was just plain terrible.

Its time to return to the second amendment. Originalists argue that 2A didnt just apply to muskets. Scalia wrote in a 2008 opinion that the amendments central component was about individual self-defence the amendment applies to bearable arms not in existence at the time of the founding. So it can be stretched to include todays weapons.

Ironically, when it comes to guns, some liberals argue we need to hew more closely to the original worldview. They say muskets and AR-15s are just too different. One shoots four rounds a minute, the other can shoot dozens. Liberals argue its like taking a law written for bicycles and applying it to an 18-wheeler truck. The fact that we use the same word to describe them is almost an etymological coincidence, says Peter Shamshiri, co-host of 5-4, a podcast about the supreme court.

To avoid hubris, Im going to stick with muskets and exercise my 2A rights by getting one. Ive never owned a gun, though I was on the rifle team at my summer camp, so I guess thats something.

I call up a Texas store called Collectors Firearms. I have my eye on a model 1795 flintlock musket. Its crazy expensive $2,000 but the cheapest one I could find. A salesman named Nico answers the phone. I tell him Im interested, but I want to make sure it works.

Yes, it should fire. But since its an antique, we dont recommend shooting it.

Why not?

There is a chance of catastrophic failure.

That doesnt sound great. But what does it actually mean? Basically, Nico explains, it could explode in my face.

Well, nothing ventured, nothing gained. I give him my credit card number.

Three days later, the musket arrives. Its 5ft almost as tall as my wife. I know it was once a deadly weapon it may have even killed someone but Im struck by how elegant it is: dark wood, intricate metal fixings. Its also heavy. Im amazed the revolutionary soldiers were able to carry these all day. And though Im not a gun guy, I also have to acknowledge that this object helped the Americans win the revolution. Im surprised by my desire to keep this historic relic even after my project ends.

So how do I shoot it? I watch a bunch of YouTube videos. Its quite a process. Take out a cartridge (paper tube filled with lead ball and powder). Bite off top. Spit. Open pan. Pour some powder in the pan. Pour rest of powder, along with ball and paper into gun barrel. Take out ramrod. Push ball down. Return ramrod. Cock. Aim. Fire.

I think Ill need to cancel my dinner plans.

But first, Ill need the lead balls and old-style black gunpowder. (Im told not to use modern gunpowder under any circumstances.) I call a Minnesota-based company that sells vintage ammo. I get 25 balls. But the gunpowder? Well, the problem is, the factory is out of commission right now. Its being rebuilt from their latest mishap.

Note to self: dont get a job at a vintage gunpowder factory.

So for the time being, I have to be satisfied with just carrying my unloaded musket around. Which I do. I realise my experience would have been vastly different if I werent a white man. But I find walking around by turns exhilarating and stressful. Exhilarating because on some animal level I feel safer, more powerful. Which is insane, because it isnt even loaded. And stressful because, well, what if I run into someone with a gun from this century?

I have a team of constitutional advisers, and I ask one of them what he thinks of my musket. He points out that a strict originalist interpretation of the second amendment could favour the musket. But it could go the exact opposite direction: it could encourage citizens to buy the latest military gear from Lockheed Martin.

A lot of the rhetoric from the right about the second amendment is about the potential to resist government, says Shamshiri. If thats true, even semi-automatic guns arent enough. You wont be able to face down an invading air force and tanks with just guns. That interpretation serves as an argument for access to military-grade weaponry, he says. The point is, theres no concrete originalist interpretation. It can be taken in different directions.

I dont have the budget for a Stinger surface-to-air missile.

Ive been hoping to use Project Constitution in my perpetual battle with my kids over screen time. And I think I found my secret weapon: good old amendment 14.

The amendment says that no state shall deprive any person of, among other things, liberty. But what is liberty? Well, a 1923 supreme court ruling defined liberty as, among other things, the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

So the constitution enshrines our right to pursue happiness. But it only enshrines ways to achieve happiness that were approved of when the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.

I knock on my sons door. The bad news is, no electronics for the duration of my constitution project. The good news is, I got you this.

I hold up a cup-and-ball that Id bought online a 19th-century wooden toy where you try to get a ball on a string into a cup.

Also, no Netflix, since such entertainment is not protected by the original intent of the first amendment, I say. In the 18th century, some states banned all theatrical performances because of their morally corrupting influence, Jud Campbell wrote in the Yale Law Journal.

My son ignores me.

Which allows me to explore another part of the constitution the eighth amendments ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

How can I punish my son in a non-cruel, non-unusual way? Well, let me look to history and tradition. Up until the 1820s, the pillory the wooden contraption with holes for the head and hands was a frequent way to shame criminals.

According to extreme originalism, if a punishment was common during the founding era, its not cruel or unusual today. For instance, Scalia said the death penalty is constitutional partly because it was common when the eighth amendment was ratified in 1791.

Now I know the eighth amendment is meant for government not personal use, but Im kind of on a roll. I do a Google search for pillory and find theres quite a lively subculture of people who enjoy pillories. Many of the photos of models in stockades wouldnt pass 18th-century obscenity laws. The cheapest pillory I find is $50 and made of cardboard.

OK, hands and head in, I say when it arrives a few days later.

My son shakes his head.

Just do it for my project, I say.

Fine.

He stays there for 30 seconds, then tears out of it like the Hulk. But he does later spend a few minutes with the cup-and-ball, so thats something.

I spent my month frantically trying to abide by other original principles. The constitution talks about the right to assemble, but does that extend to Zoom meetings? Im not so sure. So I meet colleagues in person.

The constitution says the government cannot do searches and seizures without reason. But they only talked about searches of physical spaces. So are my computer files protected? Maybe the government could seize thousands of documents from my computer without violating the constitution. (Not that I have any secrets about foreign nations nuclear capabilities.) The only solution I can think of is to print out all of the laptops documents, keep the pages and delete the digital files. Which was a massive waste of time and black ink cartridges. I gave up after 200 pages.

The constitution also says that no soldiers shall be quartered in my house without my consent. I put an ad on Craigslist offering a free room to a member of the military if and only if I decide theyre cool after an interview. The only response is from an architecture student from Turkey.

So how do I feel? First, I feel grateful that I dont live in 1789. Despite the recent erosion of our civil liberties, it still feels freer than it was in the powdered-wig era. Im also a fan of modern plumbing.

Second, I know that originalists might say that I lived by an unfairly exaggerated version of originalism. And thats probably true. But at the end of this, Im not totally anti-originalist. Originalism comes in many flavours. Im just opposed to the way some are practising it now.

Originalism came to the fore in the 1980s as a way to stop what the conservatives saw as the liberal supreme courts overreach. They worried the court which approved of affirmative action and the right to abortion was untethered and just willy-nilly making rulings that aligned with their politics. The liberals were legislating from the bench.

So originalism was the proposed solution. Judges should put aside their views and objectively focus on the words of the text. As the conservative Federalist Society puts it: Originalists analyze the text and evidence first, then conclude what result logically follows. As opposed to the living constitutionalist camp that decides on a correct result and then use the text and precedent to support their initial assumption.

See more here:
Party like its 1789! My weird, enlightening month living strictly by the US constitution - The Guardian

It should come as no surprise that Mayor Jim Kenneys executive order banning guns and other deadly weapons at city recreation centers and playgrounds did nothing to prevent a 14-year-old boy from getting murdered Tuesday after a football scrimmage outside Roxborough High School.

While Kenneys executive order which was announced hours before the shooting was well intended, it underscores the meager gun safety tools public officials have in a country (and state) that has been hijacked by the gun lobby and a perverted interpretation of the Second Amendment. As a result, Philadelphians are left defenseless by Pennsylvanias absurd preemption law that prevents local governments from implementing their own gun safety measures.

At the federal level, mostly Republican lawmakers have refused for decades to implement basic gun safety measures, while conservatives on the Supreme Court have placed gun rights above human life.

Kenneys executive order was in response to a Department of Parks and Recreation worker who was killed by a stray bullet while sweeping outside of a center earlier this month. The ink was barely dry on the order when a spokesperson for the corrupt National Rifle Association called it illegitimate.

READ MORE: With 750 shootings since Memorial Day, Philadelphia records another summer of mayhem | Editorial

Hours later, a 14-year-old boy was killed and four other teens were shot as they were ambushed while walking off a football field to their school bus. It was the 23rd shooting death of a child and the 400th murder in Philadelphia this year, leaving the city on pace to match last years record of 562 homicides.

Children have been shot in barbershops, on porch stoops, and in their own bedrooms in Philadelphia this year.

Philadelphia has tried numerous times to pass gun safety measures, only to be stopped by the state. Most recently, the city filed a lawsuit challenging the states firearm preemption statutes, which say a local municipality cannot enact its own gun laws. The city argued the GOP-controlled General Assembly has violated the right to life and liberty enshrined in the state constitution by declining to pass gun safety measures.

But in May, a Pennsylvania appeals court rejected the lawsuit. The majority Republican court panel voted 3-2 along party lines. The court ruling and the continued inaction by the General Assembly came despite polls that show the majority of Pennsylvanians want stronger gun laws.

Roadblocks are everywhere when it comes to gun safety.

Despite the rise in gun violence, roadblocks are everywhere when it comes to gun safety. More than 40 other states have preemption laws similar to Pennsylvania.

In June, President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan gun safety bill that was hailed as the most significant measure passed in three decades. While the law will help save lives, it is hardly a game changer.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has paved the way for the return to frontier lawlessness when it comes to guns. In June, the court struck down a New York law that had been in place for more than 100 years that placed strict limits on carrying guns in public. The 6-3 ruling by the conservative majority was expected to spark legal challenges in other states and give Americans broad rights to carry guns virtually anywhere.

The ruling builds on the courts 5-4 landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that, for the first time, said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. The idea that the Second Amendment extends to individuals is a concept that began in the 1980s during the Reagan administration and was aided and abetted by the political rise of the NRA.

READ MORE: As shootings continue unabated, they exact an emotional and economic toll | Editorial

Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, a conservative, called the concept of an individual right to bear arms a fraud. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, another conservative, said the Heller decision was the courts most clearly incorrect ruling of his long tenure.

In 2018, Stevens said the Second Amendment should be repealed. That is not happening anytime soon, but gun safety should be treated as a public health crisis and regulated like cars, where owners are required to get licenses, training, and gun locks. But that wont change until voters hold pro-gun lawmakers accountable.

Until then, there will be more and more senseless shooting deaths.

The rest is here:
The shooting at Roxborough High and the absurd state law that limits local gun safety measures | Editorial - The Philadelphia Inquirer

Justice Clarence Thomas has been on the Supreme Court for more than three decades, and his judicial philosophy rooted in adhering to the original meaning of the Constitution is finally controlling big rulings.

Yet he is still cranking out opinions just like his days wandering in the legal desert of the liberal living Constitution era.

Hes always been one to kind of identify problems that maybe the court hasnt grappled with or issues that need to be brought up, said Carrie Severino, who clerked for the justice 15 years ago. Its taken decades. Hes been on the court over 30 years now, but the court has ultimately been like Oh, yeah, that is an issue we need to look at.

The difference between then and now, she said, is you now see a majority of justices joining him.

Justice Thomas will take the bench Monday for the start of the 2022-2023 term after his most influential year yet. He led colleagues in forcefully asserting Second Amendment gun rights and First Amendment religious free exercise rights and, of course, defenestrating Roe v. Wade.

That 1973 decision was the guiding star of liberal legal scholarship for decades but succumbed to Justice Thomas brand of originalism last year. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the chief opinion, saying it was time to reverse years of wrong legal reasoning that had led to and flowed from Roe.

Justice Thomas joined the ruling but wrote a concurring opinion to warn his colleagues that their job was not done. He said the same substantive due process right that Roe applied to establish a national right to abortion has been the basis for other decisions, such as federal constitutional guarantees of access to contraception and same-sex marriage.

Ms. Severino said thats typical of Justice Thomas.

She said he likens the courts use of precedent to engineers adding cars to a train.

Hes like, Look, you want me to add another car to this long train. I dont even know where this train is going, whos driving this train. So what we need to do is trace it back, go forward one car at a time, until we get to the very beginning, we find out what is going on, she said.

Sometimes, he says, youll find theres a chimpanzee driving it. We should not be adding more cases to this line of reasoning.

Thats one reason he is still writing prolifically when his philosophy is controlling more of the courts opinions.

Adam Feldman, who runs Empirical SCOTUS, said Justice Thomas writes a separate opinion for every five cases on which he votes. Thats a full opinion ahead of the runner-up, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the closest Justice the liberal wing has to Justice Thomas.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writes a separate opinion once in every 14.5 cases of his prevailing, Mr. Feldmans data shows.

Even when [Justice Thomas] agrees with the outcome, he will go further in asserting his own points of view, Mr. Feldman said.

Thats particularly true when it comes to the use of stare decisis.

In the hands of many justices, fealty to justice can be a shield to defend a position or a weapon to attack a colleagues position. For Justice Thomas, its usually just an academic question to be surmounted.

Thomas will go out and say, I dont think its just overturning the law in this case; I dont think theres a distinct place for stare decisis in our jurisprudence that requires our respect. If I dont agree with it, Im going to overturn it, Mr. Feldman said. He takes it a step further.

Over the past term, Justice Thomas wrote eight concurring opinions in which he agreed with the outcome but wanted to make particular points, including in the abortion ruling. He had the highest concurrence rate on the court.

Court watchers figure Justice Thomas will play a significant role in the upcoming term in cases involving voting rights, election procedures, affirmative action in college admissions and First Amendment challenges to laws that require service for same-sex marriages even when it conflicts with a business owners religious dictates.

I could see him having, just because where he sits on these issues of religious liberty and the right to exclude based on a religious perspective, I could see him having some further-reaching opinion than the courts willing to go, Mr. Feldman said.

That the 6-3 conservative court has tilted toward Justice Thomas is mostly a matter of math.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedys retirement and Ruth Bader Ginsburgs death opened slots that had been filled by more conservative-leaning members, tilting a court from moderately originalist to aggressively originalist.

Justice Thomas has found a new voice in oral argument during the pandemic.

He was famously reticent to take part in the back-and-forth during oral arguments and once went a decade without asking a question.

The New York Times sniffed that he had given various explanations for his silence but seemed to settle on one that it was rude to the litigants to interrupt and preen and prod, as has been the practice for oral argument in recent years.

When the pandemic struck, the court went to virtual hearings, and Chief Justice Roberts carved out specific time for each justice to ask questions. On a remote call, talking over one another would be a disaster. Justice Thomas, as the senior member of the court, got the first crack and began to engage again.

The court has gone back to in-person argument, but Chief Justice Roberts has maintained the structured format for each member to have a dedicated chance for questions, and Justice Thomas remains engaged.

I think his colleagues recognized the value that added, Ms. Severino said.

Justice Thomas success on the bench has led to a rocky summer.

George Washington Universitys law school, where he has co-taught a constitutional law seminar for years, faced a rebellion of sorts from students who demanded that he be fired.

The school rejected those calls. Although the justices views didnt represent the schools beliefs, it said, an open debate was part of the point of education. Still, Justice Thomas withdrew from teaching the class.

An online petition circulated over the summer demanded the impeachment of the justice and garnered more than 1 million signatures. Democrats on Capitol Hill dismissed the idea as a non-starter.

Justice Thomas wife, Virginia Ginni Thomas, has been under scrutiny for communications surrounding the 2020 election and her attendance at the pro-Trump rally on Jan. 6, 2021. She testified Thursday to the House committee investigating the mob attack on the U.S. Capitol later that day and reportedly told lawmakers she believed the election was stolen.

She also said Justice Thomas doesnt discuss his court work with her.

His detractors wonder whether the 74-year-old jurist will quit soon.

Ms. Severino doubts it.

No way, she said. On the Supreme Court, the mid-70s is like the new 40s.

See original here:
Clarence Thomas takes the wheel as Supreme Court settles in for post-Roe term - Washington Times

The 17th annual "Right to Keep and Bear Arms Rally" was held on the steps of the State Capitol, with speakers across the country and the Commonwealth

HARRISBURG, Pa. Supporters of gun rights filled the Capitol steps this morning in Harrisburg. Organized by Republican state representative Daryl Metcalfe, the 17th Annual "Right to Keep and Bear Arms Rally", featured pro-Second Amendment speakers from across the country and the Commonwealth.

Metcalfe said this rally on Monday morning was a reminder of the rights, he said, are enshrined in the U.S Constitution.

We have a tradition and we have a heritage," said Metcalfe, "We need to ensure that we protect the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.

Many people that attended the rally agreed. Kevin Anderson, a Chester County native said, "Our rights are rights. They're not an option or a privilege.

Metcalfe is a sponsor of House Bill 357 which is legislation that prohibits any law that imposes gun control.

On the other side of the political aisle, gun control activists say they support Second Amendment rights, but also support protections including safe storage requirements, red flag laws, and universal background checks.

The public at large supports life-saving gun safety policies," said Josh Fleitman, western Pennsylvania manager at CeaseFire PA, "They recognize what Chief Justice Antonin Scalia said in the Heller, the famous Heller decision by the Supreme Court, which is that even the Second Amendment like all Constitutional rights, is subject to reasonable regulation in the interest of public safety and public health.

The Pennsylvania Democratic House Caucus agrees. They wrote in a statement to FOX43:

There are millions of Pennsylvanians who respect 2nd Amendment rights but also support common-sense gun safety measures which would save countless lives across the Commonwealth.

Governor Wolfs office also released the following statement to FOX43:

The governor supports common-sense legislation to address gun violence without impacting law-abiding responsible gun owners.

House Bill 357 is currently in the House Judiciary Committee for the reviewing process.

See the rest here:
Pro-Second Amendment rally held on the steps of the State Capitol - WPMT FOX 43

On August 30, President Biden emerged from about three weeks of vacation to start what appears to be a full transition from leading the country (if you could call it that) to a dedicated campaign mode.

The sparsely attended appearance in Wilkes-Barre, PA was touted as a promotion for Bidens Safer America Plan, but was really just another opportunity for the president to rail against NRA, Republicans, law-abiding gun owners, semi-automatic firearms, and the Second Amendment.

Bidens meandering, at times confusing delivery was what you would expect. He told a bunch of stories about himself and others, although they all seemed a bit too contrived, and impossible to verify. But he also told many lies, and made a few gaffes. Again, what youd expect.

He brought up his long-stated goal of banning semi-automatic firearms, saying, Im determined to ban (so-called) assault weapons in this country. He followed that up with the head-scratcher, I want to be clear: Its not about taking away anybodys guns. So, hes either lying about banning guns, which would, by definition, require taking them away from people, or hes lying about nottaking away anybodys guns.

He then tried to convince those attending, But I support the Second Amendment. And I support the Second Amendment. No matter how often he repeats this line, it remains contradicted by mounds of evidence.

Biden also stated, Right now, you cant go on (sic) and buy an automatic weapon. You cant go out and buy a cannon. The first part of that is sort of correct, but the second is totally wrong.

Yes, fully-automatic firearms are strictly regulated, and prohibitively expensive for most. But if you want to go through the tremendous amount of red tape required to lawfully procure and own one, are willing to wait anywhere from several months to more than a year for your paperwork to be processed, can find another lawful owner willing to part with one, and have the financial resources, you can buy one.

As for cannons, hes just wrong, and he likely knows it. He has made the same outrageous claim for a number of years, originally saying you could not buy one at the time the Second Amendment was ratified. That has been proven to be false a number of times.

Now that he has dropped the historical reference, hes still wrong. Muzzle-loading cannons, which are what most people think of when you say cannon, are what existed and were in common use at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendmentand even up to the Civil War and well beyondand they are not generally prohibited under federal law.

Not satisfied with just lying, Biden then went on to ridicule anyone who opposes his anti-gun agenda, mocking their support of the Second Amendment.

His voice dripping with condescension, Biden proclaimed, And for those brave, right-wing Americans who say its all about keeping America keeping America as independent and safe: If you want to fight against a country, you need an F-15.

While not quite as threatening as California U.S. Representative, and failed presidential candidate, Eric Swalwell (D) implying the U.S. government would use nuclear weapons against its own citizens, its still a rather disturbing statement to make.

In effect, Biden is saying that it is pointless for U.S. citizens to resist oppression from a tyrannical governmenti.e., keeping Americaindependent and safebecause they would be overmatched against a country with its own military forces.

Biden then ran the gamut of nonsense.

First, he claimed AR-15s just rips (sic) the body apart of anyone shot by someone wielding one. For anyone with a basic understanding of ballistics, this statement is absurd. Not only does the standard .223 caliber projectile not rip the body apart, one of the consistent critiques of the 5.56x45mm cartridge is that it is relatively underpowered.

He followed his lie about AR-15s with the tired joke hes been using for years about hunting and deer in Kevlar vests. This time, however, he added bear to the mix of animals that dont wear Kevlar.

Not satisfied with having already shown how little he knows about firearms, he then claimed the bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun.

Not only is the cartridge fired by the AR-15 not five times faster than any other gun, it is actually slower than many other modern cartridges that fire similar weight projectiles. The 5.56x45mm cartridge is limited to around 3,200 feet per second in standard loadings out of the 20 inch or shorter barrels common to AR-15s. Cartridges like the .204 Ruger and .22-250 can push similar bullets up to and beyond 4,000 feet per second.

Of course, he also repeated the lies that he passed the 94 ban on semi-autos (actually passed by the House and Senate, then signed by President Bill Clinton), and that the ban drove down mass shootings (studies found no convincing evidence that such laws reduce violent crime generally or even mass shootings in particular).

But a Biden campaign speech wouldnt be complete without a few gaffes. Throughout his rambling presentation to the small crowd in Wilkes-Barre, there were a number of instances where he mumbled semi-incoherently and trailed off as he appeared to lose his train of thought. For the most part, though, when reading from his teleprompter, he remained reasonably focused, with only a few obvious mistakes when his eyes strayed too far from the screen. At the end, though, looking away from his electronic assistant, he went full Biden.

Trying to come across as the folksy Biden, he asked the small gathering, Please, please elect the Attorney General (Democrat Josh Shapiro) to the Senate. Elect that big ol boy (Democrat Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman) to be governor. Of course, Biden being Biden, he mixed up the candidates and their respective races.

This appearance is likely to be a template for many Biden appearances from now until Novembers midterm elections. The man who was sold as a uniter to voters in 2020 has completely removed that faade, and is using disdain and derision to show his utter contempt not just for the Second Amendment, but for anyone who opposes his gun-ban agenda.

All who care about freedom in this country should make note of this kind of reckless messaging, and use it to embolden themselves and others to work even harder to ensure we elect staunch defenders of the Second Amendment this coming Election Day, on November 8.

Read more here:
Biden Continues Railing Against the Second Amendment - NRA ILA

Today, much of rural America remains as remote and self-sufficient as the frontiers of old. And rural, urban, or otherwise, the swift onset of an unprovoked animal attack affords no opportunity for anything but the ablest of self-defense. Bystanders, if there are any, are often helpless in the face of animal attacks, and their courage to intervene cannot always be counted on. As in the context of self-defense against criminals, we are our own first responders.

Nor can we count ourselves safe simply because we do not live in a rural area. Brazen wild animals often wander into suburbs and cities, and even domestic dog attacks account for 50 human deaths a year.

In June, the Supreme Court decided a seminal case, New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. In it, the Court reinforced a framework of Second Amendment interpretation that required courts to closely analyze American history and tradition in determining the scope of the right to keep and bear arms. And that history and tradition illustrate the longstanding necessity of Americans to protect themselves from animal attacks. In fact, the wild animal populations had grown so out of control and instilled so much fear in the settlers that colonies like Massachusetts and South Carolina began to place bounties on the heads of animals like wolves, bears, bobcats, and panthers.

For an illustration of the dangers of the American frontier, one needs to look no further than the following event involving legendary frontiersman Daniel Boone. Boone and his brother, Neddie, were hunting when they stopped by a stream to rest. Daniel spotted a bear rustling in the woods; he proceeded to shoot and follow it while his brother Neddie remained behind. Then, hearing gunshots, he saw a handful of Shawnee Indians over his brothers corpse, which they had decapitated. With the Indians on his tail, Daniel ran to Boones Station. When he returned with a posse to the site of Neddies killing, he found his brothers corpse eaten by a panther. In one founding era gun story, we have a beheaded corpse, a panther, a bear, and Indians.

Americas wilderness and rural settings can be dangerous today, and one always must be prepared for surprise attacks from unseen quarters. This is especially true of those who visit or travel through these parts since they are the least likely to know how to avoid attracting the attention or interest of wild animals.

The history and tradition of our Nation and our Second Amendment clarify the importance of self-defense in the face of animal attacks. The pre-existing right of self-defense is, as the term suggests, focused on the self. The aggressors identity does not matter; man, woman, or animal, a person has an equal right to defend himself or herself from anyone and anything by whom or which his life is threatened. Given that backdrop for the Second Amendment and early American history, it is quite difficult to see how protection from animals could not be one of the key applications of the right to keep and bear arms.

Justice Alitos concurrence in Bruen concluded with the following observation, which is as applicable to self-defense from animals as it is to self-defense from other humans:

Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.

Originally posted here:
The Second Amendment and the Right to Self-Defense From Lions, Tigers, and Bears SMERCONISH - SMERCONISH

Is the FBI intentionally targeting proponents of smaller government? Or is it just a coincidence that a Domestic Terrorists Symbols Guide solely targets beliefs that fall on that part of the political spectrum? Identifying threats to individual and national security is of the utmost importance to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). But, at the cost of branding citizens as domestic terrorists, where do we draw the line?

On August 2, 2022, an article was published by the often controversial Project Veritas titled, FBI Whistleblower LEAKS Bureaus Domestic Terrorists Symbols Guide on Militia Violent Extreamists Citing Ashli Babbitt as MVE martyr. This article had images that leaked FBI Internal Use Only documents containing information used to identify Militia Violent Extremists.

Militia Violent Extremists (MVE), as described by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT), are [individuals] motivated by a belief that private citizens must use violence to resist government overreach, combat purported tyranny, or maintain law and order.

This definition of a domestic terrorist falls very close to what the framers envisioned as a right and duty so that we, as Americans, may protect our liberties.

Stephen P. Halbrook published a research article about the history of the second amendment and how it applies today. A well-regulated militia was a debate for congress in 1792. The Militia Act would require that all able-bodied white males would enroll in the militia and provide their arms. This gave the people the power to protect our natural rights.

Are we to believe that because we have grown as a nation and evolved, we no longer retain the right that grants us the ability to defend all other liberties? Forming militias from the citizens that are officered by individuals selected among themselves is at the foundation of what it means to be an American.

Many of the symbols outlined in the leaked FBI documents have a rich and valued tradition dating back to the founding of this great nation: The Liberty Tree, the Betsey Ross Flag, the Gadsden Flag, and even refers vaguely to revolutionary war imagery. By associating with these symbols, you are potentially placing yourself under the scrutiny of the FBI as a domestic terrorist.

Wouldnt people associating with historical symbolism be more likely to remain true to the constitution that is being upheld?

The second amendment is also under a great magnitude of scrutiny. The FBI cites that the second amendment allows MVEs to justify their existence due to the right to bear arms and a well regulated militia. Tens of millions of gun owners in America identify with the second amendment in some form or another, or they would not be in possession of a firearm.

Militia Violent Extremists do exist in the United States. They are bad. MVEs desire to inflict violence when not in direct threat of tyrannical oppression is what disqualifies them from being a well regulated militia and labels them as domestic terrorists. The percentage of MVEs to regulated militias is low, and we can decrease it further. But equating individuals who display this imagry to these extremists is nonsensical.

ICCT states, The US government can limit radicalization through transparency around its domestic activity, thereby countering the anti-authority sentiments and conspiracy theorists that fuel the movement.

The leak of this document from the FBI does not invoke feelings of trust among its people and may actually push more people over the edge and make them believe the MVEs were right all along.

Is the FBI a pawn of the ruling class and being used to eliminate the second amendment? Are normal people who are invoking their constitutional liberties and respecting revolutionary symbolism being branded as domestic terrorists? It is time for some transparency.

Spenser Stenmarkcovers natural resource management, forestry, fire ecology, and other critical policy issues affecting the Pacific Northwest.

View original post here:
Has the FBI Identified You as an Extremist? - Catalyst

Protecting abortion rights was the top issue for North Carolina's swing voters who participated in our latest Engagious/Schlesinger focus group.

Yes, but: Whether their feelings on those issues will drive them to the polls in the November midterms was less clear, especially considering many participants couldnt name North Carolina's U.S. Senate candidates, Cheri Beasley and Rep. Ted Budd.

Why it matters: Democrats hope that falling gas prices and voters energized by abortion restrictions will help them win congressional races in North Carolina and several other states in a year that's expected to be more favorable to Republicans.

Driving the news: About halfway between the U.S. Supreme Court's June decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and the November midterms, Axios partner Engagious/Schlesinger conducted two online focus groups on Monday with 11North Carolinianswho voted for Donald Trump in 2016 then Joe Biden in 2020.

Of note: While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, the responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about current events. Schlesinger recruits from a national panel of people willing to participate in qualitative research.

The big picture: Most were passionate about abortion and gas prices, while offering mixed views on gun control and student loan forgiveness, and ambivalence over the state of healthcare in N.C.

Voter Russell T. of Forsyth County listed protecting a woman's right to abortion as his top issue, then protecting the Second Amendment and fighting for racial equity. He said he believes the Republican Party has historically been about keeping "less government in your life," but that changed after the Dobbs ruling.

Reality check: Few participants were engaged in North Carolina's U.S. Senate race. In fact:

Between the lines: Unlike in recent focus groups in Florida and Wisconsin, none of the North Carolina swing voters said they regretted voting for Biden. Most said Biden lost their support early in the presidency but has gained some of it back in the past few months.

When asked if their opinions on Biden would sway their vote in the Senate race, nobody said yes. But when asked if their opinions on former President Trump would sway their vote in the Senate race, however, several said yes.

Continue reading here:
Abortion is top of mind for some North Carolina's Trump-Biden voters - Axios