Category Archives: Second Amendment

There are two things non-Americans can almost never understand about America and should probably never speak about. The first is guns. If you have a British accent and arrive in America, or talk about America, you should be very careful before opining on the Second Amendment.

It isnt a precise analogy, but you might compare it to an American arriving in Britain and suddenly talking about the rights and wrongs of hereditary monarchy. There are lots of reasons why countries end up with the institutions they have. And though Her Majesty the Queen is clearly responsible for fewer fatalities each year than Americas right to bear arms, the Second Amendment is as much a centrepiece of American democracy as the monarchy is of our own. Outsiders might find it barmy, and aspects of the Second Amendment maybe are (notably some of the arms that people are now able to bear). But that is the settlement Americans have and it is probably for the best for outsiders to keep their wonderment to themselves.

The other issue that outsiders find most unfathomable about America is the culture war about abortion. There is a reason for that. In countries like our own the abortion debate is essentially over though abortion has come a long way since it was first made legal in Britain. In 2020 there were almost 225,000 abortions in England, Scotland and Wales. That is the highest number on record, exceeding even the previous peak of 2019. That 2020 figure is almost ten times the number carried out in the year after abortion became legal in this country.

Back then most of the cases were justified on the grounds of risk to the physical or mental health of the mother. I suppose it is possible that the number of women in the UK facing physical or mental risk from allowing their pregnancy to go to full term has gone up tenfold. More likely is that abortions have become easier to acquire and less troublesome to perform. The specific grounds for abortion laid out in the 1967 Act long ago spilled out. But few people in Britain seem much exercised by this.

Catholics are, of course. Or at least most of them are. But outside of that minority most of the country seems to have made its peace with the idea of a quarter of all pregnancies in the UK being terminated. One reason is the undoubted strength of the argument that abortion should be available to women who have been raped or otherwise forced into pregnancy. That this constitutes a tiny percentage of the relevant cases is ignored. Then there is the claim that if abortions were made less available women would go for dangerous backstreet operations. This is the spectre of Vera Drake and other movies. Women in Ireland coming over to the UK when abortion was illegal in the Republic are another memory. So what started as something permitted in very specific circumstances has become another means of contraception in the UK.

Even if this makes you queasy, almost nobody in Britain of any political stripe knows what to do about it. If they venture an opinion, they are shouted down very firmly.

Personally, although I find the American abortion debate unsettling I also find it rather impressive. Many British and European people think it is a sign of American backwardness, as though the country must, by definition, catch up with us at some stage. I tend to think otherwise. Whatever the to-and-fro of the debate, the fact that America still regards abortion as a serious moral issue seems to me to be a demonstration that America is still a serious moral country. It recognises that here is one of the great moral issues: the question of life, and the encouragement or otherwise of its cessation. It is not settled on the matter, nor does it imagine there is a clear direction of moral travel directed by the passage of time.

So this weeks leak from the Supreme Court came as a bombshell. The possibility that Roe vs Wade may be overturned has sent left-wing America into a panic. Within minutes of the draft judgment being leaked there were crowds outside the Supreme Court screaming about fascism.

In fact, the detail of the judgment is worth lingering over for more than a moment. What Judge Alito says is that it is not clear that the constitution permits a right to an abortion, and that the right effectively mandated by the courts 50 years ago may be unconstitutional. In America this is a big issue on its own. If the public votes for something, either at state or national level, that is one thing. But should the Supreme Court engage in political interpretations of the constitution? Many Americans think not.

As usual the debate has now been seized by the spectrums shoutiest ends. On one side some conservatives are salivating at what could be the biggest setback American liberals would have had in a generation. On the other are people like attorney-general Letitia James,who told a demonstration on Tuesday that when she chose to have an abortion she walked proudly into Planned Parenthood. And I make no apologies to anyone. As Mary Wakefield wrote here some years ago, there is often something discordant in the pro-abortion argument. A kind of glee. Why walk proudly into an abortion clinic? Surely under any circumstances it is a situation that is sad, to say the least?

All such nuance will be lost in the coming days. One of Americas most simmering culture wars has just been turned up to the highest heat. Both sides will now try to wound the other very deeply. They will taunt each other. They will exaggerate and lie about each other. And in the process they will forget the majority in America who do not want to deny abortions to all American women, but who have doubts about second and third trimester abortions, and are certainly not on the abortion-celebrating train. Buckle up, America. This is going to be one ugly ride.

Original post:
What America gets right about the abortion debate - The Spectator

The fallout from the leak of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alitos draft opinion, which could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade, continues to fall out. In the wake of the leak there are two distinct conversations which the country should lean into.

The national debate over possible ramifications of such a ruling should foster crucial conversations in society about life, choice, womens health care, moral relativism, family, social safety nets, adoption and at-risk youth just to name a few. Unfortunately, the result of the leak has been the fomenting of anger and angst, fear and frustration, false-choices and contempt, political rancor and partisan rhetoric rather than the fostering of deeper dialogue.

There should also be a conversation relating to the leaked draft opinion and the need for integrity, trust and restraint in institutions and individuals.

Separating the leak itself and the opinion draft content and possible implications is important for this conversation.

Trust is the coin of the realm in the Supreme Court. Leaks, controversy and clicks are the currency of far too many politicians, partisans and media organizations.Assessing which coin and currency is of greater value to American society will determine whether or not our future freedom hangs in the balance.

Many have focused on the repercussions of overturning Roe in order to justify the leak. (From early assessment it appears the leak likely came from one of the clerks.) Others have jumped on the bandwagon that the clerk was brave to leak the document and Politico was right to publish it.

The Deseret News convened a panel discussion in Washington, D.C., for just such a conversation. Staff writer for The Atlantic, McKay Coppins, emphatically stated, This is a no-brainer, that you publish that story as a journalist. His comments drew approving nods from the other two members of the panel, according to a Deseret News article about the event. The panel then continued its conversation on journalism ethics.

Poynter, the journalism think tank, had this to say about Politico: When confronted with an unprecedented leak like this, news consumers are understandably skeptical in this era of mis- and disinformation. When journalists behind the work dont signal that they have gone through an ethical process, consumers may conclude that ethics dont matter to journalists.

Coppins stated that a concern for protecting institutions journalists cover would have negated some of the most important exposes of the past half-century, such as Watergate and the Pentagon Papers.

To be clear, writing a first draft opinion is NOT a national security breach or cover-up, nor is it an investigable or impeachable offense. Therefore, there was no legitimate reason to undermine the credibility and moral authority of the High Court by circulating a leaked draft.Writing such drafts, for and against every single ruling, is the job of members of the Supreme Court. The court is the last civil institution which maintains a positive balance of trust from the American people.The price of the trust withdrawals from societys bank account by the leaker and Politico will prove most costly.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts called the leak a singular and egregious violation of trust. Roberts inferred that it was not an act of bravery, but of betrayal to the branch of government where such trust truly is the coin of the realm.

There are lessons from Watergate that do apply to this case. Several years ago, I interviewed legendary journalist Bob Woodward a number of times in preparation for an event, sponsored by the Deseret News, I would moderate at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. The event was entitled, Integrity and Trust.

Three words Woodward repeated to me countless times during the course of these interviews and from the stage at the Newseum, still echo in my mind as a lesson for today: Restraint always works.

Woodward shared how he and his partner regularly wanted to run the Watergate story early in their investigation. Their editor reiterated the need for more work, more investigation, more sources, more dialogue rather than rushing.

Just because you can do something, doesnt mean that you should. Restraint always works.

Neither the clerk who leaked the document nor Politico who ran it showed restraint or proper consideration for anything or anyone beyond their own interest.

Politico noted, without truly acknowledging, that this was the first time in our nations history that an opinion of theSupremeCourt had been leaked and published before a ruling had been rendered. That precedent suggests restraint matters and trust is vital to judicial discussion.

It should be noted that not only has the Supreme Court not rendered a decision in the leaked opinion case, but also that the Supreme Court still has other crucial cases to decide over the next six weeks including rulings on religious liberty, affirmative action, prayer and the Second Amendment. Absent trust, it will be extremely difficult to have candid conversations and rigorous debate between the nine justices. Justices are likely to be less candid, more guarded, less open-minded and more defensive with the cloud of a comment ending up as a headline the next day in the media.

Sadly, a void in trust actually prohibits persuasion and enlightenment from occurring. Our judicial system demands such trust and such conversations to occur inside the court and between the justices.

It matters where this lack of restraint and undermining of trust leads America. It worries me greatly. We have stressed-tested our democracy in civil war, economic collapse, race riots, assassinations, world wars and pandemics but we have never tested our democracy in the absence of trust. Trust in institutions, trust in leaders and trust in each other are required for a constitutional republic to continue to endure.

With instant access to information and the ever-accelerating race and rush to judgment, we often fail to remember that restraint always works. The national media, political pundits and each of us as individual players on social media could benefit from a little more restraint.

There is another lesson from Watergate that could be rightly applied to both the leaker and Politico. Woodward spent years frustrated with the answers he received from President Gerald Ford about the closing chapters of the Watergate scandal.Woodward was convinced for more than 25 years that the pardon Ford granted Richard Nixon was the final act of corruption and collusion.Surely Ford had made a deal with Nixon a pardon for the presidency. Yet, Woodwards reporter instincts caused him to feel that Ford wasnt telling the whole story.He was right.

After meeting with Ford regularly over a period of months Woodward asked the former president one more time why he had pardoned Nixon.Ford responded, Why do you keep asking me that?Woodward replied, Because I dont think you have really answered the question.

The aging Ford then laid out how he had completely rejected any thought of gaining the presidency in exchange for a pardon. He wasnt about to buy into that historically bad bargain of selling his soul for power. Instead, Ford described his internal thought process of assessing the state of the nation.The country was exhausted and filled with distrust toward the government.Ford recognized that if Nixon were jailed and tried it would lead to several more years of conspiracy theories, angst, anger and frustration.He feared that the important work of the country would remain undone and the distraction of such a trial would further fracture the nation.

Woodward said to me that his view of Ford flipped 180 degrees that day. He saw Fords decision to pardon Nixon not as corruption, but as the ultimate act of courage and selflessness.

Ford asked himself the right question. He didnt ask, What is best for me? Instead, he asked, What is best for the country? He seemed to recognize in a very real way the need for the nation to move forward.Ford also knew such a decision would be the worst thing for his own political power. He was absolutely correct, it was good for the country and bad for him.Fords popularity plummeted from 71% down to 49% almost overnight and he lost the presidential election to Jimmy Carter.

Most historians, regardless of political persuasion, agree that Fords ending the long night of darkness for the country was the best thing for the country.

As a country we continue to be plagued by palace intrigue, scandals, political back-stabbing and partisan power struggles.If only government workers, media companies and elected officials would ask, What is best for the country? before launching us headlong into the black hole of distrust.

Absent restraint and a willingness to ask what is best for the country, we will deplete Americas already diminished coin of the realm account of trust. Such a bankruptcy of trust will put the nation in real peril.

The bigger crisis for the country is that the distrust perpetuated by institutions of government, large organizations, political leaders, individual actors and the media has begun to fray the fabric of trust in our communities and even in our personal relationships.

Restraint always works. Asking what is best for those you lead or serve or love will make the nation rich in the coin of the relationship realm that matters most TRUST.

Excerpt from:
The Supreme Court leak: Can the High Court be trusted?| Opinion - Deseret News

Anyone expecting Judge Ketanji Brown Jacksons confirmation hearing to be a firework show when it came to gun rights was disappointed. President Joe Bidens nominee answered questions posed by probing U.S. senators, but some of those answers gave reason for pause.

Although Judge Jackson noted the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller affirmed the Second Amendment is an individual right, her full testimony was revealing. Judge Jackson demurred on questions surrounding concealed carry, spoke of the importance of Court precedent and refused to define her judicial philosophy.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) started off the three-days of marathon questioning of Judge Jackson getting to the heart of the matter.

Do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right? Sen. Grassley asked.

Judge Jackson answered, Senator, the Supreme Court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.

Sen. Grassley pressed further asking the judge to describe how she would decide what a fundamental right is under the Constitution. Judge Jackson pointed to Court precedent that serves as a guide for how justices would discern fundamental rights. She added that those precedents set the standards for determining if rights are fundamental, including the 14th Amendments Due Process Clause as it applies to liberty and personal autonomy.

Thats the tradition of the Court for determining if something is fundamental in that way, she added.

Click here to read the entire article at NSSF.org.

Read more here:
Judge Jackson Affirms Second Amendment Rights But ...

By U.S. Sen. Mike CrapoR-IdahoPresident Biden and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco recently announced the nomination of Steve Dettelbach to serve as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

They also used the opportunity to reiterate the administrations hard stance against so-called ghost guns and its efforts to extend firearms record-keeping requirements that risk establishing an unlawful gun registry.

The administration is using all of its tools, including circumventing the legislative process, to go after law-abiding gun owners and firearms vendors. I do not support more gun control.

Burdening law-abiding citizens of this country with additional gun restrictions is not the answer to safeguarding the public. I continue to oppose all efforts to weaken Second Amendment rights.

ATF Nomination Steve Dettelbachs nomination to lead the ATF is rightly concerning, as it would put a person who has voiced support for eroding Second Amendment rights in charge of the federal law enforcement agency responsible for enforcing gun laws. At President Bidens direction, the ATF has begun broadening restrictions, including returning to the outrageous practice of repressing firearms licensees for de minimis (trivial) grammatical errors in their record keeping.

Ghost Guns The Biden administration has taken a hard stance against so-called ghost guns, or guns built from unserialized gun assembly kits. The ATF finalized rule 2021R-05, Definition of Frame or Receiver and Identification of Firearms, that would redefine firearm receivers in order to require them to have serial numbers. Additionally, President Biden created a National Ghost Gun Enforcement Initiative focused on prosecuting criminals who use ghost guns in crimes.

However, data concerning the use of ghost guns in crimes is limited, and reported numbers on confiscated guns are not limited to those used to commit crimes. The administration should focus its resources on pursuing dangerous criminals, not scapegoating hobbyists.

Firearms Record Keeping I am also deeply concerned by the ATFs admission it is cataloguing and digitizing business records from shuttered federal firearms licensees (FFLs).

Current federal law requires FFLs to keep their records of firearm transfers for 20 years, at which point they can be destroyed. Should an FFL close its business, it must turn its records over to the ATF, which maintains them at the National Tracing Center.

The final rule 2021R-05 would extend record-keeping requirements by requiring FFLs to retain key records until they shut down their business or licensed activity. The Firearms Owners Protection Act prohibits the federal government from creating a national gun registry. The ATF must adhere to this law and cease any efforts to create a de facto gun registry.

The ATFs excessive rulemaking is deeply troubling, and I am countering its bureaucratic overreach:

I am an original co-sponsor of S. 1920, the ATF Accountability Act, that would ensure firearms manufacturers and lawful gun owners are not subject to unchecked bureaucratic ATF rulings;

I joined in pressing the ATF on its use of secret internal guidance to enforce regulations not openly published; and

I joined in demanding the ATF provide answers on recent actions to prevent law-abiding citizens from creating and owning suppressors.

These are just some of the recent efforts underway to protect and preserve our constitutional right to bear arms.

Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) characterized the Administrations push for more gun restrictions as a distraction from the reality that the explosion of crime in blue cities is directly attributable to those same cities implementing de-policing, installing progressive prosecutors, and enacting disastrous bail reform policies.

I agree and will continue to press for policies that truly get at the root cause of the violent crime problem without compromising law-abiding citizens constitutional rights.

Read more from the original source:
Countering Biden's push to erode Second Amendment rights - The Highland County Press

Written by Steve Ulrich, Managing Editor

In the past week, Pennsylvania residents have been subjected to TV ads featuring U.S. Senate candidate Dave McCormick firing a series of weapons, showing his experience as a teenage hunter, a West Point cadet and a solider in Iraq.

Im Dave McCormick and I approve this message to protect the second amendment because thats what guarantees the rest.

Today, Mehmet Oz released a new ad showing the celebrity doctor from New Jersey handling a rifle, explaining how his father taught him about how to handle a rifle and that he is passing along the same lesson to his son.

Its about our constitutional right to protect ourselves from intruders or an overly intrusive government, said Oz in his ad.

Four years ago, Conor Lamb introduced himself to the Commonwealth with a video that stated he served four years in the Marines. Still loves to shoot.

In 2020, the Pennsylvania Game Commission reported over 887,000 general hunting licenses for residents of the Commonwealth. The Commission estimated hunters took 435,180 deer during the 2020-21 seasons.

No other state in the Northeast can match those numbers, not even when taking landmass into account, the Game Commission wrote highlighting the season.

Pennsylvania by the numbers Percent of residents with paid hunting licenses: 7.3% (24th out of 50 states) Total paid hunting license holders: 930,815 Total hunting license, tags, permits and stamps: 2,646,720 Gross cost of all hunting licenses: $36,873,199

But this appears to be more than just about hunting for sport.

A little over a decade ago, the Supreme Court redefined the Second Amendment. Before then, in the eyes of the federal courts, the amendment protected the rights of state militias to bear arms not the rights of individual Americans. That all changed in 2008 with the stroke of a pen.

The scale of Second Amendment arms puts firearms into context. To be sure, Americans possess hundreds ofmillions of guns. But researchers trace most firearms tomultiple-gun owners, and about half to super-owners the three percent of the adult population that owns 17 guns on average.

Most eligible Americans do not possess firearms, and the percentage of households that do has dropped in recent decades, according to onecommonly cited survey, from 47 percent in 1980 to 31 percent in 2014.On an individual level, that survey found that only 22 percent of American adults own a firearm; 78 percent do not.Far more people own knives for the basic reason that they have broader utility in day-to-day life. Some Second Amendment scholars havecalled knives the most common arm in the United States.

Politicians supported by gun rights groups similarly assume that the Second Amendment is just about guns. In fact, the Republican Partys official platform conflates gun rights and SecondAmendment rights:

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a natural inalienable right that predates theConstitution and is secured by the Second Amendment. Lawful gun ownership enables Americans toexercise their God-given right of self-defense for the safety of their homes, their loved ones, and their communities.

As the days count down to the primary election on May 17, we will continue to see candidates utilizing hunting and firearms to make their case for who is the most Pennsylvanian.

April 29th, 2022 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Senate, Top Stories, Video | 12 Comments

Continue reading here:
The Politics of Hunting in Pennsylvania - PoliticsPA

By Dr. Harold A. Black

blackh@knoxfocus.com

haroldblackphd.com

The latest French election shows voter discontent with the establishment. The incumbent was primarily challenged by the same far right candidate that was soundly vanquished in the last election. However, this year, the election was closer than predicted with the ruling party garnering less than 50% of the vote dictating a second round runoff. The challengers party was openly racist and pro-Nazi when it was founded with its sole issue being the massive immigration of Muslims into France. Today its rhetoric is softer. The party now speaks of independence from the European Union, the removal of French forces from the command of NATO and amending the French constitution to limit immigration.

In last weeks runoff, the opposition party ended up with less than 50 percent of the vote but the French discontentment was still evident. It is almost identical to the discontentment with the Biden Administration. The Wall Street Journal called the discontent a cultural alienation from a progressive hegemony in the Wests academic, media and artistic institutions and resistance to the new religion of universal climate change compliance with its costly implications for energy customers and seething fury with the little autocrats in government and health bureaucracies decreeing lockdowns, masks and vaccine mandates. underlying it all, righteous indignation at the arrogance of unaccountable elites who dismiss opposition to their authority as the product of bigotry and ignorance and denounce anyone displaying it as a traitor or a domestic terrorist. Sound familiar?

The incumbent, Emmanuel Macron won but acknowledged that many voted for him as the lesser of two evils. A few on the American Left have said that if Macron could be re-elected with his low popularity, then there is hope for Biden. I am no expert on the sagacity of French leadership but Macron is no Joe Biden. Here our problems are compounded by the ineptitude of our leadership. We, too, must endure the lefts obsession over climate change, open borders and Covid mandates. Add to that Afghanistan, gender identity, transgender athletes, Critical Race Theory, the woke military, inflation, shutting down pipelines, shackling oil and gas, the Build Back Better fiasco, the surge in crime and the war on parents where the attorney general was investigating parents attending PTA meetings as domestic terrorists.

The difference between the French election and our forthcoming election is that the opposition is projected to win. If Republicans win both the House and the Senate, then Biden will try to enact his changes through edict something that the progressives in Congress have been urging all along. No Biden budget would pass both Houses. No radical progressive would be confirmed by the Senate. Republicans would have the power to effectively shut down the Biden agenda and throttle back actions taken by those in the administration who think that climate change is the existential crisis of our time. I find it remarkable that so much damage has been done to our economy and our national psyche in so short a time.

We are confronted with elected officials who want to severely curtail our freedoms, re-write the Constitution, pack the Supreme Court, eliminate the Electoral College, abolish the Senate, cancel our culture, muzzle free speech and annul the second amendment. We take to heart the words of Abraham Lincoln: Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. Amen.

See the original post here:
The French election and the international revolt against the ruling 'elites' - The knoxville focus

In the Western North Carolina region, eight long-time sheriffs arent seeking reelection. Voters in Avery, Cherokee, Clay, Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Transylvania and Rutherford counties will elect a new sheriff in the midterm election.

BPR talked with retiring sheriffs and reformers about what this turnover means for the region and the future of law enforcement.

Macon County Sheriff Robert Holland has been sheriff since 2002 - now hes retiring.

In his office there is a picture of Holland as juvenile officer shaking hands with Former President George Bush when Bush was campaigning for his son in 2000.

Courtesy of Robert Holland

/

I was in my early twenties. I was a baby. That was a long time ago, said Holland.

Hes says that he has seen the job grow in his three decades in law enforcement.

Gosh, looking back at, you know, through my career, there's been lots of changes. I can remember a time where when your patrol car broke down, you used your personal vehicle to get through the week until you could have your patrol car fixed. Computers I was one of the first ones to have a computer in the agency as an officer, said Holland.

Professionalization, and more technology have been increasingly a part of law enforcement reform.

For example, in 2020, the North Carolina Sheriffs Association recommended reforms such as recruitment, certification, use of force procedures and the creation of an employment database meant to weed out officers with performance issues before they move to a new department was also implemented. They issued an updated report on reforms this year.

Every day things change. What might work yesterday may not work today, and you've got to look at different ways to handle those things. I think that the standards that they're coming up with, they're good, said Holland.

While some things change, the position of sheriff has always been political.That side of the sheriffs role was highlighted in 2020 when the Second Amendment sanctuary movement hit North Carolina.

The resolutions were put forward across the South in part because of gun control legislation moving through the Virginia General Assembly. Cherokee County was one of the first counties to become a sanctuary in 2019. The designation is largely symbolic and promises to uphold the Second Amendment rights of citizens.

In Macon County, the debate lasted three months. Holland calls it an important moment in his career. He provided the county commissioners with a version of the resolution from the N.C. Sheriffs Association which he said did not conflict with the Constitution.

I've already taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes the Second Amendment. One of the major issues that I had with signing this oath for the Second Amendment ... it wasn't the oath that I take for office. It was only a portion of that oath, Holland. And so I had legal advisors outside of Macon County that were giving me advice that you need to understand that if you're signing an oath, a new oath, then you could be null and voiding your oath that you've already taken.

Macon County ultimately passed a resolution protecting the U.S. Constitution, N.C. Constitution and all other laws.

In Haywood County, Sheriff Greg Christopher took a similar stance.

I lean on the North Carolina Sheriff's association to help guide myself as well as our other sheriffs here in North Carolina when it comes to anything constitutional, said Christopher. But especially that second amendment, which is very valid for a lot of people, they do have some valid concerns.

Haywood ultimately passed a similar Constitutional protection resolution.

Christopher, a Democrat, is also retiring after more than four decades in law enforcement.

Two Democrats and three Republicans will run their own Primary Election campaigns in hopes of replacing him. Of the five, two are current employees of the HCSO, one is a former employee and former interim sheriff, and the other two have significant law enforcement experience in Buncombe County. He has this advice for those running:

Our motto here, when it comes to community relations has been, we want to know our communities before we need to know our communities, said Christopher.

Meanwhile in Macon, all five candidates are Republicans. No Democrats filed for the seat, making the Primary Election all-important. Three out of the five candidates in Macon Countys Primary Election are current officers at the sheriffs office. Holland says he will be happy if any of those three are elected.

The Second Amendment is a key issue for candidates and groups who want local law enforcement to have more power.

One national group, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, wants local sheriffs to assert constitutional powers even over those of the president.

The group believes in zero gun control, no federally-owned land in states and more. This is founded in the CSPOAs contention that The vertical separation of powers in the Constitution makes it clear that the power of the sheriff even supersedes the powers of the President.

Christopher says there are reasons for gun permitting laws despite Second Amendment rights.

One of the things that sheriffs across our state are dealing with constantly is people who want to carry a pistol or to buy a pistol or to have a conceal pistol. And then we have to determine, whether from a mental health standpoint, if they need to do that - or not - for the safety of all of our citizens, said Christopher.

We have to protect our citizens and mental health is a huge issue for us, especially here in North Carolina, with the lack of mental health facilities that we have, he said.

Christophers point that sheriffs must consider mental health is a part of an opposing view to the constitutional association.

These conversations about other law enforcement reform spread across the county in 2020 and continue to be an important political topic.

During last months State of the Union, President Joe Biden explained that he wants to fully fund police.

"We should all agree: The answer is not to defund the police. The answer is to fund the police. Fund them with resources and training they need to protect our communities, said Biden.

Biden proposed federal budget for 2023 includes more than $24 billion for law enforcement centered programs and even more for research on gun violence, mental health services and other services.

These reforms are currently being hashed out by local governments like Buncombe County.

Rob Thomas of the Racial Justice Coalition in Asheville has been working on law enforcement reform since 2019. He says the organization advocates to re- invest some police funding into community services.

The one sentence that I would try to use is: Would you try to build an entire house with just a hammer. We try to look at law enforcement as a blanket solution for a lot of our social problems in America, said Thomas.

Thomas says that it feels like the momentum of change in 2020 has stalled.

I think people have forgotten what inspired the attention and focus on law enforcement in the first place and the individuals that didnt appreciate the changes that we made are gaining their platform back, said Thomas.

I think the thing that made so much change in 2020 is that people were able to see the injustice and the deaths and see how this has been happening for a while and it hasnt been personalized. I think that the only way we are going to get back where we were is if we are able to specific stories about how specific policies, specific things and specific power held by specific individuals creates massive ripples in individual lives within the community, said Thomas.

Law enforcement reform will be the ballot this year. Voters turning out will be able to vote for eight new sheriffs in Western North Carolina.

Another version of this story was also published in the Smoky Mountain News.

Read more:
There's a new sheriff in town: How the local elections could have constitutional implications - Blue Ridge Public Radio

Who wants to play the Bucs in Deutschland?

It seems one team is lobbying the NFL to play a road game in London against the Packers. And it got Joe thinking about what teams, if any, are pushing NFL warden Roger Goodell to play the Bucs in Munich?

The Bucs will make NFL history hosting the first NFL regular season game on German soil this fall. Rumors arethe Bucs will play on Sunday, Nov. 13. Later this week, the NFL is expected to announce dates and matchups for all the international games scheduled for England, Mexico and Germany.

That news came from Daylight-Savings-Time-scared, crossword-puzzle-puzzled, Elon-Musk-peeved, Barstool-Sports-triggered, almond-milk-sipping, hot-dog-eating-contest-protesting, mock-draft-scowling,L.L.-Bean-wearing, tennis fans advocate, Second Amendment abolitionist,Mike-Florio-arguing,parrot-insensitive,chewing-with-his-mouth-open,soup-gulping,California-train-romancing, anti-football proliferation,outhouse-admiring,airline-napping,steerage-flying,Yogi Berra-worshiping,urinal-picture-taking,video-game-playing,Taylor-Swift-listening,pickpocket-thwarting,Bucs-uniform-frowning, Allie LaForce-smitten, Big-Ten-Network-hating,pedestrian-bumping,olive oil-lapping,popcorn-munching,coffee-slurping,fried-chicken-eating,oatmeal-loving,circle-jerking, craft-beer-chugging, cricket-watching,scone-loathing,college football-nave,baseball-box-score-reading,NPR-honk,filthy-hotel-staying,fight-instigating,barista-training, Budweiser-tolerant,baseball-scorecard-keeping, pasta-feasting, vomit-dodging scrooge, Kay-Adams-following, Coors-Light-souring, pineapple-upside-down-cake-eating social activist and NFL insider Peter King of NBC Sports fame in his weekly Football Morning in America column.

However, there was another juicy bit of intel from King about international games and scheduling. It seems, per King, the Rams volunteered to play the Packers in London, so long as the game will be played in the second half of the season.

Joes first thought was the NFL rarely puts marquee games on international soil. In 2018, however, the Rams and Chiefs were expected to play in Mexico City but that got moved to Los Angeles because the field in Mexico was not in playing condition.

It turned out to be a game for the ages on Monday Night Football with the Rams winning 54-51. But the vast majority of the international matchups are garbage.

So why in the world would the Rams want to travel halfway across the globe to play the Packers instead of just two time zones away in Green Bay? Well, King said the Rams want to take advantage of a neutral site and avoid Lambeau Field.

The second reason? The weather.

England in November isnt that awful (40s or 50s). In Green Bay? It could be 20 degrees at night and a foot of snow. So by playing in England, Los Angeles dodges potential frigid temperatures or freezing rain or snow, or all three that can easily happen in East-Central Wisconsin in November.

Smart!

So that got Joe thinking: If the Packers opponents are trying to play Green Bay in England to avoid wintry weather and a road-field disadvantage, how many Bucs home opponents are begging the NFL to play Tampa Bay in Munich to avoid roasting in the brutal Florida September or October sun?

Average temperatures in Munich are about the same as in England, 40s in November in Bavaria. The Seahawks are probably begging the NFL to play the Bucs in Munich, which seems to have a Seattle-like climate. (The Packers are another far-northern team on the Bucs home schedule, but Joe doubts they want to travel to Europe twice).

The rest of the Bucs home opponents are more accustomed to the heat.

King also noted that the NFL is trying to get half the league to play an international game instead instead of a ninth home game. Thats fair to Joe. Its been eight home games for decades.

Just FYI, Bucs home opponents this year: Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Green Bay, Kansas City, Los Angeles (Rams) and Seattle.

Enjoy The Ira Kaufman Podcast Dissecting The Draft, And More.

See the rest here:
So Who Is Lobbying The NFL To Play The Bucs In Munich? - JoeBucsFan.com

LAFAYETTE, Ind. A long-serving state senator representing parts of Tippecanoe County has an apparent easy enough route to the November election and perhaps another term, while a relatively crowded field in another Indiana Senaterace appears on the May 3 Primary ballot.

Senate District 22

State Sen. Ron Alting, a Republican, has served as the 22nd District since 1998. No Democrats have filed to run for the seatin the May 3 election.

During the 2022 legislative session, Alting authored14 billsand two rolutions. He co-authored four bills and 21 resolutions.

In response to the controversies swirling around two Tippecanoe County trustees,Alting co-authored Senate Bill 304, which was signed by Gov. Eric Holcomb and becomes law on July 1. The law creates a path to remove trustees who are unresponsive to constituents.

Alting alsosponsored three bills and two resolutions and co-sponsored three bills and one resolution. In total, hes been involved with 51 pieces of legislation this year.

State Senate District 22 includes West Lafayette, portions of Lafayette and Wabash Township.

Indiana District 23 Sen. Phil Boots of Crawfordsvilleannounced his retirement in 2021 after completing 16 years in office.

The open seat has garnered the attention of four Republican candidates: Bill Webster, Christian Beaver, Paula Copenhaver and Spencer Deery, as well as one Democratic candidate David Sanders.

Sanders, the lone Democrat,is an associate professor of biological sciences at Purdue University and currently serves as anat-large member ofthe West Lafayette City Council.

Sanders's campaign aims to address suchconcerns as investing in the infrastructure of District 23, advocating for veterans and investing in renewable energies.

Webster, opting for a second attemptat theIndiana State Senate seat, ran on the Republican ticket for the District 38 seat in 2010 but lost to Democratic incumbent Timothy Skinner.

Webster currently serves as the Parke County GOP chairman and previously served on the Parke County Planning and Zoning Commission.

Webster is a pro-life candidate also campaigning to reduce taxes, reform education, promote job growth, and protect voters' right to own guns.

Christian Beaver is a project manager at Beaver Construction Management but previously worked as the former leasing manager for Granite Student Living.

Beaver is a pro-life candidate who aims to stop late-term abortions. He also wants to invest in the infrastructure in rural communities, address Indianas drug and mental health crisis, reform education, invest in growing Purdue University and protect voters gun rights.

Paula Copenhaver currently serves as the Fountain County clerk and is a member of the Fountain County Republican Womens Club.

Copenhaver is a pro-life and pro-SecondAmendment candidate. She wants to create election reform, promote job and economic growth for citizens in Senate District 38 and reform education.

Spencer Deery currently serves as the deputy chief of staff and as a communications and public policy advisor to Purdue University President Mitch Daniels.

Prior to this election cycle, Deery has said he didnt have the ambition to run for politics, but that changed after the Senate District 23 seat opened.

Like the other candidates, Deery is campaigning on issues like prioritizing education by supporting teachers and focusing on parental rights, promoting job growth by supporting reform that prioritizes workforce development, aiming to reduce taxes, investing in the infrastructure of rural communities and is a pro-life and pro-second amendment candidate.

State Senate District 23covers all or parts of Vermillion, Parke, Fountain, Warren, Montgomery, and Tippecanoe counties.

Noe Padilla is a reporter for the Journal & Courier. Email him at Npadilla@jconline.com and follow him on Twitterat1NoePadilla.

Continued here:
State Senate District 23 a relatively crowded field in the GOP primary - Journal & Courier

The Newnan Times-Herald

Jared Craig, who is running against Rep. Drew Ferguson in the Republican primary for the District 3 seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, was the only candidate present at a recent candidate forum in Newnan.

Jared Craig, who is running against Rep. Drew Ferguson in the Republican primary for the District 3 seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, said at a recent candidate forum that his opponent is out of touch.

Craig presented his platform at the event, held April 14 in Newnan. The event was a chance for both Craig and Ferguson to make their case, but Ferguson was absent. According to Ferguson's team, he was at an event honoring and congratulating students that had earned appointments to the U.S. Service Academies.

As Ive been campaigning since July of last year, Ive gone around 15 counties and asked the voters, do you know who represents you? Craig said. And they either dont know him or theyre still waiting on a phone call back from him, which is telling as today, were still waiting for him to show up and participate in this debate, which he has chosen not to.

Craig, who called himself a conservative Republican and a believer in the America First agenda, said the biggest issue facing the county and the district was energy independence.

If we dont have energy independence, we can do nothing further to bring back critical manufacturing of essential goods, to where we can stop depending on international trade with countries that we consider to be our enemies, that we depend heavily for pharmaceuticals, medical supplies and even technology, Craig said. I want to bring that back to the United States. I want to bring that to Georgia.

Craig also said he was in favor of a merit-based immigration system, finishing up the wall on the southern border, and if Canada gets too wild, we should build a wall up there too, he said.

Craig also expressed support for the second amendment as well as interstate carry, stating that states should not have the right to infringe on your right that is acknowledged in the U.S. Constitution.

In addition, he spoke of endeavoring to insure voter integrity, to investigate what happened and to prevent what happened happening again in 2020, stating that voters were still angry and upset about what happened.

Craig also expressed support for single-issue bills - bills without earmarks or pork added to them, and called himself pro-life, pro-law and order, pro-military and a supporter of Veterans Administration rights. He also supports abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and said he wanted to protect womens sports for our daughters.

I believe that if we do not preserve our country and our way of life as we have it now, we will lose it if we do not act, Craig said.

See the original post here:
Jared Craig: Drew Ferguson 'out of touch' - Newnan Times-Herald