Category Archives: Second Amendment

Published: 8/21/2023 4:33:57 PM

Modified: 8/21/2023 4:33:46 PM

Those who take a hard right stance on guns claim a never-ending woke effort is to take away, or at least strictly control, their guns. What they want is total elimination of all gun restrictions and controls.

The U.S. Supreme Court decisions of the past couple of years argue that we should go by the contents of the Constitution and its amendments as they were written. The Supreme Court struck down New York states system for issuing concealed weapons permits, ruling that the century-old law requiring that applicants demonstrate proper cause and good moral character violates the Second Amendment.

According to Justice Clarence Thomas: The Second and 14th Amendments protect an individuals right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home, and thus the New York law requiring that applicants justify their need for a concealed weapons permit was unconstitutional.

With recent Texas judge actions, that state has now removed almost all restrictions and controls over gun ownership and carrying. No license, no background checks, no training required, and anyone over the age of 18 is OK. And carry it with you wherever you go. Someone will probably argue that the Supreme Court should make this a national ruling, not limited to Texas, especially after that New York verdict.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Thus, the Second Amendment gives the right to own and carry guns without any government intervention. If you are going to take the Second Amendment literally (as the Supreme Court implies) there is no mention of age and thus it should apply to everyone, including kids.

Following the logic between this Texas ruling and the decision against New York, it could be argued that the Texas ruling needs to be modified to eliminate any age restriction. Let it be up to the parents to decide if their kids can have a gun or not (of course the kid may legally have it in secret from their parents). An 8-year-old kid can own guns and bring them to school.

Imagine if most of the kids in schools were carrying at least a pistol, but many also having an assault rifle while in class. The amendment is a right to keep and bear Arms, but it doesnt say what kind of arms that might be. Back then it was a musket or sword; today it is all kinds of rifles and pistols.

Part of the problem today is that this includes automatic rifles as used by the military. If these are protected under the Second Amendment, then any other weapon (Arms) should be protected as well. In other words, I should be able to own and carry around an anti-tank missile, as it is an armament. However, if you are going to impose the amendment literally, as most of these cases are implying, then the only arms allowed would be those muskets and swords.

One part of the amendment that never seems to be mentioned is A well regulated Militia and what it means. Considering the sentence in its entirety rather than only the last half, it seems that this right applies only to people who are members of a militia. So, if the Proud Boys consider themselves to be a militia, then the amendment applies to them, not to people like you and me.

Lee Armstrong lives in Leeds.

Read more:
Guest columnist Lee Armstrong: Taking 2nd Amendment to extremes - GazetteNET

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) believes the restraining order gun ban is constitutional, but, more interestingly, the liberal group also thinks some gun laws arent.

On Monday, the ACLU filed a brief inUnited States v. Rahimithat asks the Supreme Court to reverse a Fifth Circuit ruling that struck down the prohibition on those subject to domestic violence restraining orders possessing guns. But they also said the power claimed by the Government in its brief was dangerously broad. And it went on to question the constitutionality of numerous gun laws both on their face and as theyre applied in practice.

The historical record is replete with relevant analogues, from 17th century England to the colonial era to Reconstruction, in which governments restricted gun possession by persons individually adjudged to pose a risk to others, the ACLU wrote in its brief. The United States brief lays out multiple examples of disarming such individuals predicated on specific findings of specific threats even as it urges the Court to adopt a far more expansive principle than necessary here. While some historical restrictions on gun rights were overbroad, lacking in due process, or rested on racist assumptions, the record nevertheless provides clear supportas then-Judge Barrett recognizedfor the narrower principle that the Government can deny access to guns to people who pose a specific threat of violence to others.

The group took a relatively expansive view of who, writ large, is covered by the Second Amendment. It cautioned the Governments view of its own power to restrict the rights of those it protected is overly vague.

The Court need go no further and adopt the United States sweeping assertion of power to deny Second Amendment rights to anyone not deemed a law-abiding, responsible citizen,' the ACLU wrote. Constitutional rights generally extend to all persons within the United States, citizen and non-citizen alike. And it would be alarming if an individuals entitlement to a constitutional right turned on the Governments vague determination of whether they were responsible. Nothing about the historical record or this case requires embarking on that path in order to reverse.

Instead, it argued for a much more limited view of the Governments power to restrict gun access.

All the Court needs to doand all that it should doto reverse the decision below is to recognize that the founding generation, like their common law forebearers and Reconstruction-era officials after them, routinely restricted access to guns by individuals adjudged to pose a specific threat of violence, the group wrote. Court-imposed, time-limited restrictions on firearms possession following an individualized finding of danger to an intimate partner or family memberas is at least the case where Section 922(g)(8) is satisfied through subsection 922(g)(8)(C)(i)fit comfortably within this historical practice.

The ACLU also rejected the recent trend of using bigoted historical gun bans as evidence of the constitutionality of modern restrictions.

Our history also includes more categorical gun regulations that were explicitly racist, the group said. For example, from the founding through Reconstruction, American laws routinely denied Black persons the right to possess firearms. Such laws would plainly violate the guarantee of equal protection as we understand it today. There is no need to rely on such laws to uphold the individualized disbarment imposed by Section 922(g)(8).

Additionally, while the group argued Rahimis restraining order leading to a gun ban was justifiable because a judge found him to be a specific threat against the mother of his child due to alleged previous acts of violence, it questioned the other type of restraining order that can lead to a gun ban. It argued barring somebody from owning a gun because they were subject to a restraining order that forbids committing violence against an intimate partner but doesnt allege theres a specific reason to believe the subject is a threat is on shakier constitutional grounds.

It is a distinct question whether the historical analogues discussed above provide sufficient support for restrictions imposed on this lesser showing of need, the ACLU wrote.

It also differentiated the restraining order ban from the other gun prohibitions found in federal law because the ban goes away once the order is lifted. The ACLU argued that because the same could not be said of other categorical prohibitions, some of them may violate the Second Amendment.

Other subsections of Section 922(g) apply in perpetuity to broad categories of persons based on status alone, and are therefore more difficult to fit under historical precedents of disarming individuals found to pose a specific threat to others, the group wrote. They impose sweeping restrictions on all persons with a prior felony conviction, on persons who use drugs, on persons deemed mental unfit, and on aliens, among others, without supplying such persons any opportunity to regain their Second Amendment rights. Those provisions require a different, and more searching, historical inquiry to determine whether they comport with the Second Amendmentan inquiry they may well fail to satisfy.

The civil liberties group also questioned the application of gun laws. It argued enforcement of some restrictions is disproportionately targeted at minorities, especially burdensome possession restrictions.

The ACLU is committed to fighting mass incarceration and overbroad gun possession laws that fuel that phenomenon. It is committed to equal protection of the law and opposes the use of gun possession laws to unfairly target people of color, the group wrote. And the ACLU is committed to due process and fundamental fairness for all, and therefore condemns procedures to restrict constitutional liberties arbitrarily, without due process, or that impose unnecessarily excessive restrictions.

Even so, the group concluded the questionable constitutionality of some firearms regulations is a question for another case because the law at issue in Rahimi is sound.

But this case does not present such policy or constitutional questions, the ACLU wrote. It asks only whether one particular gun regulation, which prohibits firearms possession by persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders, on its face violates the Second Amendment. It does not.

Understandably, the ACLUs brief is already eliciting skepticism from some gun-rights activists. The liberal group filed a brief in support of New Yorks effective ban on gun carry during last years New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen under the dubious claim that striking it down would imperil New Yorkers First Amendment rights. This brief suggests the ACLU would support other challenges to gun laws, but it doesnt change the reality that they have yet to do that in a Supreme Court case.

The ACLUs brief also faces the same fundamental problem the Governments brief ran into: There werent restraining orders that authorized confiscating guns from those accused of domestic violence during the Founding Era.

It has tried to address this issue by noting a historical twin isnt necessary under the Bruen standard. It also argued that domestic violence and firearms were quite different in early American history. It claims domestic violence wasnt taken seriously until much later. And the ACLU said firearms development in the centuries since the Second Amendment was ratified has led to their increased use in domestic abuse, thus creating a uniquely modern problem the Founders couldnt have foreseen, so a broader approach to IDing the analogues required by Bruen.

Its certainly possible this line of argument will convince five justices. However, it will have to overcome the basic fact that domestic violence and guns existed at the founding, but a law banning the possession of the latter because of a restraining order triggered by the former didnt exist.

The Governments practical argument that overturning the law would result in laws from nearly every state being affected does seem likely to help get some of the conservative justices to adopt this line of thinking. However, the ACLUs suggestion of limiting the Governments ability to restrict gun ownership to only those found by a judge to be a specific threat to others could provide those same justices with the comfort to make that decision.

It would not be surprising to see a Supreme Court reluctant to toss a widely accepted temporary gun ban take the ACLUs third way to uphold it while limiting the Governments potential reach.

Continued here:
Analysis: ACLU Warns of Government Overreach in Second ... - The Reload

The National Rifle Association has promoted a false version of American gun culture; among other things is the legendary association with the Second Amendments right to bear arms with the Minutemen of the American Revolution. Carl T. Bogus finds a darker history inMadisons Militia. James Madison, the future president, authored the Second Amendment to placate Southern slaveholders such as Patrick Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death Henry, who threatened to prevent the Constitutions ratification without additional assurances that the slave states could be maintained. The primary purpose of the Amendments well regulated militia was to put down slave uprisings.

Bogus, law professor emeritus at Roger Williams University School, makes his case by examining the minutes from ratification conventions and placing events in context. Madison and members of Congress who voted for the Second Amendment believed that the militias would be useless in defending the U.S. from attack. They saw how poorly those militias performed during the American Revolution. The exact wording bears scrutiny: A well regulated militia being the best security of a free state implies that the militia, raised from white male gun owners in each state, was not intended for national defense but internalsecurityagainst insurrections. In the South, that meant revolts by the enslaved.

David Luhrssen lectured at UWM and the MIAD. He is author of The Vietnam War on Film, Encyclopedia of Classic Rock, and Hammer of the Gods: Thule Society and the Birth of Nazism.

Aug. 25, 2023

8:52 a.m.

Link:
Madison's Militia: The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, by ... - Shepherd Express

A persons right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense does not end at state lines, a Massachusetts trial judge has ruled.

Earlier this month, Lowell District Court Justice John F. Coffey dismissed a criminal case against a New Hampshire man charged with carrying a firearm without a license in Massachusetts. He found the states requirement that non-residents obtain a temporary license to carry in Massachusetts violates the Second Amendment.

An individual only loses a constitutional right if he commits an offense or is or has been engaged in certain behavior that is covered by 18 USC section 922, Judge Coffey wrote on August 3rd in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Dean F. Donnell. He doesnt lose that right simply by traveling into an adjoining state whose statute mandates that residents of that state obtain a license prior to exercising their constitutional right. To hold otherwise would inexplicably treat Second Amendment rights differently than other individually held rights. Therefore, the Court finds that GL. 269, sec. (10a) is unconstitutional as applied to this particularly situated defendant and allows the motion to dismiss on that ground.

The ruling could have significant implications for determining the scope of the right to carry a firearm in public. It is one of the first legal decisions to address gun-carry rights across state lines since the Supreme Court recognized a general public carry right in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen last June. It could fuel gun-rights advocates push for the right to travel in all 50 states with firearms in public, also known as national reciprocity.

The defendant in the case, Dean Donnell, is a legal resident of New Hampshire. New Hampshire is a permitless gun carry state, meaning anyone 18 years of age or older who can legally possess a firearm may carry it in public openly or concealed. It also issues carry permits to residents for reciprocity purposes. However, Massachusetts does not honor New Hampshire permits.

Judge Coffeys order does not specify whether or not Donnell had a valid New Hampshire permit, only that he was in compliance with his home states laws on the possession of the firearm when Massachusetts charged him. The law under which he was charged, GL. 269, sec. (10a), creates a mandatory minimum sentence of 18 months in prison for anyone convicted of possessing a firearm in public without a license.

Judge Coffey wrote that Donnells conduct was clearly covered by the Second Amendment. Therefore, under the standard of review set in Bruen, he said the Government of Massachusetts needed to show a historical tradition relating to disparate treatment of nonresidents to uphold the law.

Rather than point to any historical analogues, the Massachusetts Government argued that previous state court decisions had held that it was not required to recognize the gun-carry rights of non-residents.

Judge Coffey dismissed those arguments because the cited state court precedents relied on a time when Massachusetts issued permits on a subjective, may-issue standard struck down by the Supreme Court in Bruen.

This argument is not persuasive because at the time of the Harris decision, carrying a firearm outside of the home was a privilege, and the Harris Court held that Massachusetts didnt have to give Full Faith and Credit to New Hampshire laws conferring that same privilege, he wrote. The Commonwealth points to no historical precedent limiting the reach of ones exercise to a federal constitutional right to only within that residents states borders.

The government also argued that its law was constitutional because it allowed non-residents to obtain a special temporary permit to carry firearms when visiting the state. They cited Justice Brett Kavanaughs concurring opinion in Bruen clarifying that objective gun permitting systems were permissible as support.

Judge Coffey disagreed that the states nonresident permitting system was constitutionally sound because it sets different standards for non-resident applicants than resident applicants.

As stated above, prior to the Bruen decision, Massachusetts treated the carrying of a firearm as a privilege, he wrote. While it allowed nonresidents to apply to obtain a license for that privilege, nonresidents were not treated the same as residents. Residents of Massachusetts obtaining a license were granted the license for five years. A temporary non resident license was only valid for one year.

As a result, Coffey held that the state failed to meet its burden in proving that Donnells conduct was not constitutionally protected and warranted a felony charge.

This Court can think of no other constitutional right which a person loses simply by traveling beyond his home states border into another state continuing to exercise that right and instantaneously becomes a felon subject to mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration, Coffey added.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell (D.) did not respond to a request for comment about the decision.

Link:
Massachusetts Judge Rules Law Against Carrying Guns Across ... - The Reload

In arecent opinion piecein The Kansas City Star, sociology professor and military veteran Doug McGaw argues that the Second Amendment is a relic of the 18th century that needs to be repealed.

Although McGaw certainly is entitled to his opinion, his argument boils down to little more than a litany of common gun control talking points, all of which are readily refuted.

McGaw argues, for example, that the Second Amendments mention of a well-regulated militia refers to the National Guard. (It does not. Moreover, the right to keep and bear arms belongs broadly to the people and shall not be infringed.)

He insists that the Framers of the Constitution never anticipated modern advancements in firearms technology. (They did. They also intentionally protected arms as a concept instead of listing specific types of arms that existed in their own time).

Throughout the piece, McGaw dismisses any notion that the right to keep and bear arms has a role in securing the rights of peaceable Americans today. He not only thumbs his nose at the premise that good guys with guns are a solution to bad guys with guns, but flippantly suggests that there is little difference between the two.

I assume that the good guys will be the ones in the white hats? McGaw asks. Otherwise, who can tell which is the good guy?

This is silly, of course. Its abundantly clear that the right to armed self-defense is just as important today as it was in 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified.

Almost every major study has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between500,000 and 3 milliontimesannually, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged. In 2021, the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the issue concluded thatroughly 1.6 million defensive gun usesoccur in the United States every year.

For this reason,The Daily Signalpublishes a monthly article highlighting some of the previous months many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missedor that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accountsherefrom past months and years. You also may follow@DailyDGUon Twitter for daily highlights of defensive gun uses.)

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in July. You may explore more using The Heritage Foundations interactiveDefensive Gun Use Database.(The Daily Signal is Heritages multimedia news organization.)

As these examples help demonstrate, more often than not its pretty easy to distinguish the good guy with a gun from the bad guy with a gun.

They dont need different colored hats. Its simply a matter of common sensewho was using a gun to harm the innocent, and who was using a gun to defend the innocent or ensure those who harm them are brought to justice?

With all due respect to McGaw, human nature hasnt changed since 1791. And neither, therefore, has the utility of the right to keep and bear arms in self-defense.

The Second Amendment isnt an outdated relic of another century, but an ever-necessary tool in an ever-present battle against those who would undermine the natural rights of others.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

See the original post:
It's Not Hard to Tell Good Guy From Bad Guy, as 12 More Defensive ... - Heritage.org

On Wednesday, NRA-ILA filed an amicus curiae (or friend of the court) brief in support of a challenge to a Minnesotas permitting law, which bans young adults ages 1820 from exercising their right to carry a firearm for self-defense.

NRA-ILA has been advocating for the right to carry for decades. Last year in an NRA-ILA case, the Supreme Court struck New Yorks restrictive licensing statute that prohibited ordinary, law-abiding citizens from obtaining concealed carry licenses. In doing so, the Court noted that 46 states have shall-issue carry statutes, which was the result of NRA-ILAs efforts.

NRA-ILA has also advocated on behalf of young adults for decades. It currently has a case challenging a Florida statute banning transfers of firearms to young adults pending before the entire Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. This case is a combination of those efforts.

Young adults are the people, the brief argues. It is unquestionable that members of the founding-era militia and citizens who hold political rights are the people, as the founders understood that term. And because they are the people with Second Amendment rights, they cannot be completely deprived of exercising their rights. Minnesota, however, claims that young adults can be deprived of their rights because their rational thinking is overridden by more impulsive, emotional, or irrational behavior. But if it truly believed that young adults couldnt make rational decisions, then neither itnor the Constitutionwould allow young adults to serve on juries, the brief counters.

A free society prefers to punish the few who abuse their rights after they break the law than to throttle them and all others beforehand. [Minnesota has not complied] with that edict, the brief concludes.

The case is captioned as Worth v. Jacobson. It is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Please stay tuned towww.nraila.orgfor future updates on NRA-ILAs ongoing efforts to defend your constitutional rights.

The rest is here:
NRA-ILA Files Friend of the Court Brief Urging the Eighth Circuit to ... - NRA ILA

City Council approved two technical amendments to Ashevilles panhandling ordinance at its Aug. 22 meeting. The first amendment added new language specifying that solicitors must be at least 8 feet away from transit stops (such as bus stops or busy medians) as well as individuals who have made a negative response to their solicitation attempts. The second amendment provided an exception to the existing ordinance that exempts persons who are soliciting from family members and mutual acquaintances.

The vote was the first reading of the proposed change, drawing 26 speakers, which entailed two hours of public comment. It passed 6-1, with Council member Kim Roney as the single opposing vote.

City Attorney Brad Branham said the technical amendments were needed to remain compliant with existing federal laws and were not intended to expand any existing regulations or penalties.

I feel really strongly that the 8-foot addition is an expansion of the language that was not existing in the ordinance before, Roney said in response to Branham. Expanding this ordinance not only distracts from the very important work we need to do to address the issue [of] homelessness, but it still doesnt meet the issue and instead creates new problems.

That sentiment was echoed throughout public comment. Asheville-based lawyer and activistBen Scalesargued that the technical amendments expanded the ordinance and created issues concerning its enforceability.

These changes are more than just technical amendments, and they will increase the burden on our already understaffed, underpaid and definitely underappreciated police force, Scales said. The 8-foot rule would not be admissible in court. There will always be reasonable doubt as to whether a violation is actually 8 feet.

Several community members also expressed concern over the new rules concerning family and mutual acquaintances, noting potential ambiguities.

Poverty breeds desperation, and the proposal in front of you addresses the symptoms, not the cause, said public commenter Eleanor Richards. To me, every poor person in this town and elsewhere is a part of my family, so if I were to be arrested for giving food or money to a homeless person, you would be in violation of your own ordinance.

While the majority of the speakers opposed the ordinance changes, several speakers supported it, including members of the Asheville Coalition for Public Safety.

Sheila Surrett, a member of the organization, brought a slideshow featuring images of homeless people downtown, sitting on sidewalks, standing on medians and speaking with customers at outdoor restaurants. Surrett asserted that panhandling has torn up our tourism. She also stated that police officers should be paid more to address the issues caused by some of the homeless population.

The citys panhandling laws were previously discussed during a July 25, Environment and Safety Committee meeting. Council members Maggie Ullman, Sandra Kilgore and Sheneika Smith are part of the six-member committee. At the meeting, members proposed additional, more substantive amendments, including regulations around drivers giving money and other resources to panhandlers.

The additional amendments are still being discussed and will be considered again by the committee on Tuesday, Sept. 26. City Council is expected to address these additions during its Tuesday, Oct. 10, meeting. Ullman said while its clear people are divided on how to address the ordinance, they all agreed that we need to band together to address root causes.

She also requested that the proposal to restrict a drivers ability to give to a panhandler be taken off the table.

What Im deeply understanding through lots of conversations is that charity is intensely personal and spiritual and religious for many, Ullman said. And I dont see that the government intervening in that individuals choice of charity is in our best interest. I think it will harm more than help.

Read the revised ordinance at avl.mx/prxk.

Council also received an update on the Complete Streets policy, a long-term capital improvement project set to connect existing bike lanes and greenways in the downtown area. As a part of the proposed project, existing parking on main thoroughfares such as Patton and Biltmore avenues would be removed to create space for the new bike lanes.

Jessica Morris, assistant director of transportation, noted that this project was supported by the 2009 Downtown Master Plan and the Complete Streets policy, passed in 2012. While numerous public hearings on the topic have been held this year, Smith noted that several community members personally expressed concern over the proposal to remove parking spaces on main roads.

Even though we are not losing any handicapped lanes or spaces, the loss of any parking could be a potential issue for those who may be less mobile, Smith said. If we get rid of parking, it would effectively exclude certain members of the community from the area.

Kilgore echoed this sentiment, noting that it would also negatively affect businesses. A lot of people dont go downtown because they say that there is no parking, Kilgore said. How come we cant get a plan where these bicycle paths connect on outer streets? What is the difference between me parking in the parking garage and having to walk a couple of blocks to get where I need to go and bikers using side streets and parking there, and then just walking the same way we do?

Ullman disagreed, noting the additional physical strain that bikers face. As a daily bike commuter who is using my body, physically its hard, Ullman said. If we want people to be using these healthier options of mobility, ease of use and connectivity are important.

Given the standing disagreements, Council determined that a work session would be needed before a vote is taken. While no date has been set, it is expected to be discussed before the next Council meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 12.

View post:
Panhandling ordinance amendments pass first Council vote - Mountain Xpress

On the first of July, Floridas new concealed carry law officially went into effect. Signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in April, House Bill 543 allows most adults to carry weapons and firearms without the need for a permit. This does not mean there are no restrictions, though. In fact, there are a handful of key points to remember: the carrier must always have a valid form of identification with them; you may still not openly carry except in specific circumstances; you must be legally eligible to carry; and firearms are still prohibited at certain locations or establishments (schools, courthouses, etc). While Floridas new law does not require the owner of a firearm to have any experience or training with the weapon,

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd does urge training and familiarity for safety and legal purposes. I do encourage anyone who wants to own, possess, or carry a concealed firearm to please become familiar with that weapon, Sheriff Judd said. Learn how to safely handle it and fire it. I am a huge supporter of the Second Amendment, and I encourage anyone who legally can have a firearm, and is comfortable handling it and using it, to get one to protect yourself and your family. But good firearms training is a must, and if you dont understand the law, you can easily find yourself charged with a crime, and we never want that to occur.

Regarding identification, permitless carriers must also be able to produce proof when demanded by a law enforcement officer. Citizens may not open carry freely, as firearms must be concealed at all times unless participating in or traveling to or from certain activities. These exceptions include camping, hunting, fishing, and target shooting. To be legally eligible to carry a firearm, a person must be a United States citizen or permanent resident alien of at least 21 years of age, cannot be a convicted felon, and must not habitually abuse substances, among other things.

There are also a variety of areas where these weapons are restricted, which include bars, police stations, schools, government meetings, courthouses, and private businesses where business owners have declared the weapons are not allowed. Regarding a private business that does not allow firearms on the premises, they may also decide whether or not those weapons are allowed to be kept in a car on their property. According to Florida State Statute 790.115, a citizen may not bring a firearm onto a restricted property like a school, even if it is left in a car. Exceptions exist for instances such as firearms programs that have been approved by the principal or chief administrative officer of a school, among other caveats.

A person shall not possess any firearm, electric weapon or device, destructive device, or other weapon as defined in s. 790.001(13), including a razor blade or box cutter, except as authorized in support of school-sanctioned activities, at a school sponsored event or on the property of any school, school bus, or school bus stop, subsection (2)(a) states.

The Polk County Sheriff continues that citizens must also keep themselves apprised of the current laws governing the use of a firearm, which include Floridas Stand Your Ground Law and the Castle Doctrine.

Sheriff Judd contends that it is still best for citizens to have a concealed carry license (CCL) due to reciprocity with other states laws. This means that other states recognize a Florida license, and a person would be within their rights to carry in many states with one, but you may very well be violating the law in another state without a license. Even under a reciprocity agreement, laws vary between states, and many states only allow concealed carry of handguns or pistols. It is advised to consult that states laws to find out precisely what carry restrictions apply.

Going through the process of obtaining a concealed carry license provides a basic level of safety as it requires a firearms training course. Additionally, a concealed weapons permit may be required for certain firearms training courses. The Hernando County Sheriffs Office is holding a Situational Awareness Firearms training on Aug. 25 that requires a permit because it includes live munitions training.

For more information regarding the fledgling Florida law, aspiring gun owners can go to PolkSheriff.org. Once on the website, the facts will be in the FAQs section under the About tab near the top of the screen. The FAQ page features answers to various questions that the general public should be aware of, including more detailed information on who is allowed to carry a concealed weapon and places where firearms may not be carried.

More detailed information listings may also be found on the state Senates website under Chapter 790 of Title XLVI. For information on obtaining a concealed weapons license, go to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services website.

Remember, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, Sheriff Judd said. In Florida, we have lots and lots of good guys, but theres still some bad guys too.

View post:
Florida's New Concealed Carry Law: What You Need to Know - Hernando Sun

Julie Pickren, a Republican member of the State Board of Education, and PragerUs CEO Marissa Streit jointly announced Tuesday that kids in the Lone Star state would be offered the full gamut of the organization's controversial educational offerings. (Michelle Zenarosa, PragerU)

The right-wing education and media group PragerU seems like its infiltrating some of the biggest public school systems in the country right now.

Earlier this month, it was announced that the unaccredited group had been permitted to offer climate denial educational resources in Florida. Then, just days ago, PragerU inexplicably turned up in Texas.

And it caused a lot of confusion. Julie Pickren, a Republican member of the State Board of Education, and PragerUs CEO Marissa Streit jointly announced Tuesday that kids in the Lone Star state would be offered the full gamut of the organizations controversial educational offerings.

Those include videos denying climate change and rewriting known and widely accepted truths about African-American history, including that slavery was a compromise, among other controversial positions. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis welcomed the groups videos and said they offered a more balanced view than the indoctrination currently offered within the states public schools.

In the joint video, Pickren, present at the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol building, said, We are definitely ready to welcome PragerU into the great state of Texas.A blurb beside the video said the group was now an approved education vendor in the state.

The only problem is, its not true.

Keven Ellis, the chair of the State Board of Education, said in a statement that no one from PragerU had contacted him or ever presented to the board.

Why did Pickren and PragerU lie?

My inkling is that shes (Pickren) attempting to politicize upcoming state school board meetings, said Emily Witt, a spokesperson for the Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based nonpartisan, grassroots organization that supports religious freedom, individual liberties, and public education. Were about to go into a textbook adoption process for science textbooks here in Texas next week, and she may be trying to influence that process before it has even started.

Texas has the countrys second-largest public school student body, with just under 6 million students. California is first with 6.8 million, and Florida third with 3.4 million.

PragerUs rise to prominence has mirrored the rapid escalation of right-wing populism that took hold after Pres. Donald Trump first ran for office in mid-2015. It started in 2009 as a platform for founder and conservative radio host Dennis Prager to reach out to teenagers and college students. The group has become known for its 5-minute videos that take controversial subjects and put a conservative spin on them, often to the point where they rewrite history and, in many cases, downplay slavery and racism in the United States.

Ameshia Cross, the assistant director of Higher Education Communication at The Education Trust, echoed Witts comments about PragerU and pointed to other issues in the Texas public school system.

I think that this move in this narrative is quite frankly hyperpolarizing and is being done on purpose, she said. The problem here is Texas has become a battleground for equity for minority students. Were watching the Houston Independent School District, one of the largest minority school districts in the country, be taken over by a state that doesnt care about facts or the students.

Witt said the Board of Education will consider textbooks discussing climate change and evolution, among other science issues. Texass State Board of Education has a long history of allowing books that ignore, erase, and gloss over information often guided by partisan politics.

A January 2020 analysis of eight textbooks offered in California and Texas identified hundreds of subtle differences. For example, a California version of one of the textbooks notes that the Second Amendment allowed for some gun regulations. The Texas version did not. Teens in both states learn about the Harlem Literary Renaissance and its impact on African-American life. The Texas version says some critics dismissed the quality of literature produced.

However, according to Witt, this latest iteration of adopting what some say is right-wing propaganda and disinformation in classrooms has reached a new level.

Weve had right-wing members before, and weve fought about evolution, especially in textbook adoption, even going as far back as 20 years ago, she said. So weve certainly had members that have tried to sway the public to come in and denounced textbooks that teach the truth about science and history and all of the subjects frankly, but it is pretty unique and new for a member to blatantly lie and then have an organization also lie on their behalf.

Pickren did not respond to a request for comment.

Continue reading here:
Why did PragerU lie about being approved in Texas schools? - Reckon

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WTVF) It's no longer about ostrich egg trophies and quiet discussions outside of the chambers. The Tennessee House and Tennessee Senate are visibly not getting along with each other when it comes to this special session.

The purpose of the special session was to take up bills regarding public safety and the Second Amendment after The Covenant School mass shooting left six dead, including three children.

Its committees closed and adjournment until next week, the Senate gave a clear message to the House: They are done with the special session. This has left the House and its leadership seething at its counterparts.

"We have a duty to warn bill that would have potentially stopped the Covenant shooter from happening that they refused to pass," House Speaker Cameron Sexton said. "So look, if thats their prerogative, if they dont want to come down here and propose a single thing they want to do or pass another bill thats on them, but on the House, were going to do the job we think we should do."

The Senate has passed three pieces of legislation gun storage funding, criminal depositions timing to the TBI and a request from the TBI to create a yearly report on human trafficking.

WTVF / Bud Nelson

In response, the House said it would stick the bills it wanted funded inside its appropriation bill. The Senate has already passed a version of theirs to fund the special session and their trio of legislation plus a funding bill. The House is still meeting and passing bills through committees. In the final finance committee before the House session, lawmakers were going through 13 bills.

The Senate never reopened their committees Thursday to make way for those bills.

"Theyve got a chairman issue over there, so well see," Sexton said.

When asked about what is the disconnect between the House and Senate during this session, Lt. Gov. Randy McNally said it was a list that would take too long to go through with reporters.

"Well, we've completed what the governor has asked us to do," McNally said. "He had six bills plus an appropriations bill. They withdrew one, one had some issues. Four of those bills, we passed. We are waiting to see what happens on the House side. He thought those were the bills that would address the situation (Covenant school shooting)."

McNally said the Senate had sent them their bills and the appropriations bill and they would have to see what would come over from the House. He said that an order of protection bill wasn't a part of the bills, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be taken up in January. Originally, Gov. Bill Lee came up with an extreme order of protection bill that was rejected by the Republican supermajority.

"This is how we usually end up," McNally said. "Both bodies might have a little bit of difference of opinion on what gets done."

View post:
No longer a cold war, the Tennessee House and Senate are not ... - News Channel 5 Nashville