Category Archives: Second Amendment

Federal law prohibits nine categories of persons from receipt and possession of a firearm. As the Supreme Court continues to develop its Second Amendment jurisprudence, which ones of those types are most significant in regard to representativeness and numerosity?

Felons in possession of firearms have been the leading type of prosecution under the federal Gun Control Act since its enactment in 1968. There were 7,454 such convictions in 2021.

The ban on felon possession is found in 18 U.S.C. 922(g), which also includes eight other categories of prohibited persons all of which pale into insignificance compared to the felon ban. One of the more minor categories is a person subject to a domestic restraining order. While the feds aren't too good at posting current data, in the years 2013 to 2017, there were 26,717 such convictions based on felon status, and only 121 for restraining order status. The proportions can't be much different today.

Given that disparity, why is Attorney General Merrick Garland so keen in having the Supreme Court decide whether the restraining order folks, instead of the felons, are protected by the Second Amendment? The felon issue is ubiquitous, and not just because of the sheer numbers. It involves not only the violent felony vs. non-violent felony issue, but also whether any limits exist in this day-and-age in which almost anything can be a felony. Why has Martha Stewart forfeited her right to have a gun for self-defense?

So why would the government try to convince the Supreme Court to take up the atypical issue regarding persons with a restraining order? Here's my take.

The Biden Administration is salivating at the prospect of United States v. Rahimi, about which I've written previously, being the next Second Amendment case to be decided by the Supreme Court. That's because the defendant in the case appears to be such an odious character. Arrested by police following multiple shooting sprees, Rahimi was prohibited from gun possession because he was subject to a prior agreed-upon civil protective order. The Fifth Circuit found the ban to be facially unconstitutional because no historical analogue allowed disarming a person based on a civil protective order rather than a criminal proceeding.

The government didn't bother to file a petition for rehearing en banc, and rushed straight to the Supreme Court with a cert petition. There is a reason for the adage that bad facts make bad law, and the Administration is angling to take full advantage of that.

So do the amici that have filed briefs urging the Court to grant cert. One of them is California Governor Gavin Newsom, who argues that the Court's "intervention is needed immediately," given that the Fifth's Circuit's decision "is just one example of lower courts misreading Bruen."

It then lists some of the other decisions that take the Second Amendment seriously, an obviously unacceptable outcome to those who wish to re-designate the right to bear arms to a second-class status.

As the cert petition states, "the government is filing this petition for a writ of certiorari on a highly expedited schedule . . . in order to allow the Court to consider the petition before it recesses for the summer." Nothing like rushing to the front of the line and insisting to the Court, "Pick me!"

And the government recently opposed the full length of an extension requested by Rahimi's counsel to respond to the petition. In its response the government indicated that it would only agree to cutting in half counsel's normal reply time "given the substantial disruption caused by the court of appeals' decision," in order "to allow the petition to be distributed on June 6 for consideration at the June 22 conference." The extension was granted only in part, to May 30.

To be clear, whether the Court considers the petition now or in the fall, it will not hear the case until next term. An apparent aim of the Administration is to ensure that Rahimi is the next Second Amendment case the Court hears. If there are other meritorious prohibited-person petitions that are filed after cert is granted in Rahimi, under typical Court practice those petitions likely would be held pending resolution of Rahimi. After that, the Court would grant cert, vacate, and remand (GVR) the pending cases for reconsideration in light of whatever it would decide in Rahimi.

A better approach would be for the Court not to act too quickly and to wait until it returns from its summer recess to decide whether to take Rahimi or another case for plenary review. The Court likely will at that time have a fuller menu of options from which to choose. For example, the Third Circuit is poised to decide the Range v. Garland case en banc. Range presents an as-applied civil challenge to the federal felon prohibition on behalf of an individual who was convicted for excluding lawn-mowing income from his food stamp application nearly thirty years ago. The three-judge panel upheld his conviction based on improper historical analogues such as the disarming of slaves.

In addition, the Second Circuit recently held argument in Zherka v. Garland, a challenge similar to Range's on behalf of an individual convicted of conspiring to commit bank and tax fraud. The district court upheld his legal disability under the "two-step" framework that Justice Thomas characterized in Bruen as "one step too many." These cases present more typical challengers than the one in Rahimi, and the facts of the cases are less likely to have a skewing effect on the law.

Rather than precipitously granting the Rahimi petition and then holding cases like Range and Zherka if they come before the Court, the Court should consider the full array of petitions that are filed when it comes back from recess and grant the one, or ones, most representative of the challenges that typically are brought in this area. The Court could then hold Rahimi pending the outcome of that case or at a minimum grant another petition alongside Rahimi.

Read more:
Second Amendment Roundup: U.S. Seeking Cert on Prohibited Persons % - Reason

Listen to Article

Listen to article 4 minutes

A problem occurred. Try refreshing the page.

0.8x 1.0x 1.2x 1.5x 2.0x

However you feel about guns, take a moment to check out our 2nd Amendment quotes to learn more.

We have some of the most insightful and historically relevant Second Amendment quotes to help you better understand both sides of the debate.

You may also enjoy reading these related articles:

The Second Amendment is a provision that protects an individual to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Many people have interpreted this provision differently, so the Second Amendment has varying meanings depending on who you ask.

Check out these Second Amendment facts below:

The Second Amendment prevents the need for the United States to have a professional standing army.

When the Second Amendment passed, the country was in different conditions than today.

The Second Amendment wasnt intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense.

However, the right to bear arms generally refers to a persons right to possess weapons.

As a result, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitutional right to bear arms as an individual self-defense right over the years.

Some people believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to carry arms.

Other people believe the Second Amendment preserves the right to bear arms within the context of a well-regulated militia.

The interpretation of the Amendment has spawned national debate for centuries.

People in favor of gun rights suggest that the Second Amendment is a necessary safeguard against government tyranny.

Gun control activists disagree.

They suggest the Second Amendment is outdated.

They dont believe it accounts for modern violence concerns.

To learn more, check out our Second Amendment quotes below.

These quotes remind us why some people are so passionate about maintaining the integrity of the Second Amendment.

1. There is more hooey spread about the Second Amendment. Molly Ivins

2. The Second Amendment is an integral part of the Bill of Rights. Ted Cruz

3. The Second Amendment is, of course, very much part of the American fabric. Peter Bergen

4. The Second Amendment says we have the right to bear arms, not to bear artillery. Robin Williams

5. The Second Amendment is just as important as all the other Amendments. John Kennedy

6. A gun saved my life. Thats why I wont let my Second Amendment right be taken away from me. Stacey Dash

7. You know why theres a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one. Rush Limbaugh

8. We also cannot allow Wall Street banks to rewrite the Second Amendment just because theyre too big to fail. John Kennedy

9. The Second Amendment does protect the right to people to possess weapons for self-defense in the home. Laurence Tribe

10. The Second Amendment, like the First Amendment, was never written to apply to the states themselves but to Congress. Ryan McMaken

Below are some Second Amendment quotes from some well-known individuals.

11. I dont hate the government. I dont think the Second Amendment is being infringed upon. Henry Rollins

12. But the guns are there, the Second Amendment is there, to make sure all of the rest of the amendments are followed. Louie Gohmert

13. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed. Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court

14. The final line in the Second Amendment says, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means not by the president, not by Congress. Chuck Norris

15. As an ardent defender of the Second Amendment, I will work aggressively with my House and Senate colleagues to make sure no attack on gun rights becomes law. Ronny Jackson

These pro-Second Amendment quotes are all about freedom and the law of the land.

16. The Second Amendment is not just words on parchment. Wayne LaPierre

17. Theres another group that just hates the Second Amendment. John Kennedy

18. Thankfully, the Second Amendment and the American people will not stand for it. Katie Pavlich

19. We need to get some rationality on the Second Amendment. This is crazy what we allow ourselves. George Takei

20. I will not sign a piece of legislation that has anything to do with imposing limitations on our Second Amendment. Glenn Youngkin

21. If the U.N. gun-ban treaty is ever signed and ratified into law, we may never get a second chance to save the Second Amendment. Wayne LaPierre

22. If youre too dangerous to buy an airplane ticket, youre too dangerous to buy an assault weapon. And when we talk about the Second Amendment. Jim Gray

23. There is a group of people that I think in good faith honestly believe that further curtailing our Second Amendment rights will enhance public safety. John Kennedy

24. Im not representing any organization. I represent the people of Ohio, and a lot of people in Ohio feel very strongly about their Second Amendment rights. Rob Portman

25. What a lot the media, and especially Fox News, has messed up with me is theyve made it seem like Im trying to take away peoples guns that Im against the Second Amendment. David Hogg

Here are a few additional gun control quotes and perspectives.

26. I dont think you should infringe on the type of weapon somebody should buy or the number of rounds in a high-capacity magazine. Gabriel E. Gomez

27. For me personally, Im anti-gun and always have been and always will be. But Im definitely not someone who is looking to abolish the Second Amendment. Justin Tranter Stevens

28. For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. John Paul

29. What I dont want to do is restrict law-abiding citizens from their Second Amendment rights, which are focused on freedom. I point out all the time. Remember, bad guys arent stupid; theyre just bad. Jim Jordan

30. How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of. Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp

The founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment into law to protect gun rights.

Here are some of their most memorable quotes.

31. I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

32. No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

33. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined. George Washington, First Annual Address to Congress, January 8, 1790

34. I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

35. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! Benjamin Franklin

36. That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment, to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion. George Washington, letter to George Mason April 5, 1769

Here are some additional quotes to hear what the founding fathers thought.

37. The Constitution of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

38. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country. James Madison, Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

39. A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies. John Adams, speech to US Congress January 8, 1790

40. On every occasion, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed. Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

Supporters of the Second Amendment often cite a desire to preserve their freedom as the basis of their passion; these quotes remind us why.

41. I am a strong supporter and proponent of the Second Amendment. Always have been. Lucy McBath

42. The authors of the Second Amendment had a more sophisticated vision of gun ownership than is often assumed. Ryan McMaken

43. I support the Second Amendment but the Second Amendment was created and designed to prevent tyranny and not to encourage terror. Jim Gray

44. I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense. Cass Sunstein

45. The enemies of freedom are waging an all-out assault on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which we have sworn to protect and defend. Jeff Duncan

Here are a few additional quotes about liberty and the importance of protecting it.

46. Our fight isnt just about the Second Amendment, its about preserving all our liberties saving our constitutional heritage and protections for the future. Wayne LaPierre

47. The Second Amendment is a constitutional right. I didnt make it up; the Republican Party didnt make it up. Its in the Constitution. I think its just as important as any of the other rights in our constitution. Marco Rubio

48. We are a country that believes in free speech and the open debate of ideas. Were a country that also believes in the Second Amendment and our ability to have guns. But weve got to figure out a way to keep America safe. Valerie Jarrett

49. I support gun safety measures, and Ill tell you, I grew up in a family of gun owners and hunters, and I went hunting with my dad as a kid, and you know, I have deep respect for the Second Amendment and the culture of our country. Eric Swalwell

50. It is often, therefore, just assumed that the writers of the Second Amendment were nave and incapable of seeing the vast asymmetries that would develop between military weaponry and the sort of weaponry the average person was likely to use. Ryan McMaken

Debates regarding the Second Amendment continue to rage.

Therefore, you have people on both sides who do not seem to be able to agree with an interpretation of the provision in a way that makes sense for each side.

There is an adage that says there is nothing new under the sun.

Whether private citizens should bear arms or if this right belongs to militias or the military was not raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

The United States was founded by those who feared what would occur if governments used soldiers to oppress people.

They were fresh from under the thumb of the British Royal Crown and wanted to protect themselves from tyranny.

It is understandable why they would enact measures to protect themselves from repeating the hardships from their previous conditions.

So today, people argue that since the United States has a strong, professional standing army, there is no need for an armed public.

However, gun rights advocate point to crime, violence, and a need to protect their families as reasons to keep their guns.

Where do you stand on the 2nd Amendment conversation?

Be sure to let us know in the comments below.

Originally posted here:
2nd Amendment Quotes for Hot Topics - Everyday Power

Today, the Buffalo News published an editorial on gun violence and how Governor Hochul has strengthened New York's gun laws. Text of the editorial is available below and can be viewed online here.

If it's true that our choices define us - and also understand that doing nothing is a choice - a recent News story shows that residents of this state have cause to be thankful they live here and not in the armed camp called Texas.

Both states suffered terrible tragedies last year. In Buffalo, 10 Black residents were murdered by a racist teenager while, only days later in Uvalde, Texas, another teenager massacred 19 elementary students and two teachers. Both killers used AR-15-style rifles, the preferred weapon of American mass murderers.

In New York the response was prompt. Gov. Kathy Hochul and state legislators saw the weaknesses in the state's gun laws and moved to tighten them. Among them was New York's red flag law which, had it been implemented against the shooter, might have avoided a terrible tragedy.

But in Texas, the bloodshed and the grieving of an entire community seems to matter not a bit - not officially, anyway. Not only has the state government there chosen to do nothing in response to that human tragedy, its governor has gone of his way to celebrate not just guns, but a murderer from another part of the state.

This is not about the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers' murky protection of firearms. It's no more absolute than the First Amendment is. Rights have limits; they may be indistinct and subject to interpretation, but they exist, regardless of the braying of absolutists.

What this is about is priorities: public safety vs. the right to own any kind of weapon; children's lives vs. the right to carry firearms designed for mass murder. In New York, there is a willingness to take facts into account, while in Texas, the compulsion, apparently irresistible, is to ignore such facts no matter how much blood is spilled or how young the victims.

Gun laws make a difference. Along with a more even-keeled culture, New York's laws help this a much safer state than Texas is, as stark statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention document. For 2021, the most recent year available, New York's firearm injury death rate was 5.4 per 100,000. The rate in Texas was nearly triple New York's, at 15.6 per 100,000. Similarly, while New York's homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000, the Texas rate was almost double, at 8.2 per 100,000. Those number tell a tale. The adoration of guns is a predictor of death.

And it is a cultural problem in Texas, as its reckless governor makes abundantly clear. A jury in Austin convicted an individual of murder of murdering an armed man - yes, it's Texas - who was protesting police brutality. But such is that state's commitment to gun culture - and its hostility to protest - that Gov. Greg Abbott wants to pardon him. Call it further evidence of the nation's rising problem with mental health.

Support for rational gun laws crosses political lines. Even many gun owners understand the need for legitimate controls. The flat rejection of them is mainly the province of the far right, often under the romantic guise of protecting the country from the imaginary risk of attack by their own government.

It didn't work that way on Jan. 6, 2021. Then, it was members of the far right, some of them armed, who sought by means of violence to overturn a fair election in service of a defeated president who had shown his disdain for the Constitution. So part of the value of gun laws is to protect decent Americans from extremists with too easy access to such weapons.

No state's gun control laws are perfect, as the May 14 murders at the Jefferson Avenue Tops supermarket showed. But neither is any state's laws against murder. You do what you can.

It would be much more effective for Washington to act, of course. Even with effective state laws, it's too easy to bring in weapons from states that benefit from the gun culture. Again, the numbers document the need. As healthdata.org shows, the United States is an outlier on gun violence, leading all high-income countries and territories with populations of at least 10 million. And leading by far: The country's rate of 4.12 firearm homicides per 100,000 people is more than double the rate of Chile, in the No. 2 spot at 1.82 per 100,000. Canada's rate is 0.5 per 100,000; the United Kingdom's, 0.04.

That's worse than an embarrassment. It's malfeasance - a failure to act in the face of facts that are killing Americans. Already this year, the Gun Violence Archive reports 243 mass shootings - that's about 1.7 per day - and 23 mass murders, or a little more than one per week.

It's a terrible record of violence and federal indifference. But it makes it good to live in New York.

See more here:
ICYMI: Buffalo News Editorial: Gun Laws and a More Sensible ... - ny.gov

As it stands in Prince William County, unloaded firearms are allowed in parks and public places where families and children gather. The Board of County Supervisors has the power to change this and improve residents safety.

Banning firearms from park property, apart from those carried by law enforcement, is essential to protecting the people who use county parks, is constitutionally sound and needs the support of the community.

Without an ordinance, unloaded guns are allowed on baseball and softball fields. These fields are used by children, teenagers and their families to play and watch youth sports. No one should have to worry about a concealed firearm while watching their child play softball. Allowing firearms, even unloaded, in any park is reckless and asking for tragedy.

Prohibiting firearms in sensitive areas is constitutional and does not threaten Second Amendment rights. The constitutionality of firearm bans in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings has been upheld by the Supreme Court repeatedly.

The time to enact change is now. Lets keep our kids safe at public parks.

The writer is a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

See the original post:
Opinion | Prince William needs gun-free zones - The Washington Post

Another federal court has cast doubt on the legality of one of President Bidens unilateral attempts at implementing new gun restrictions.

United States District Judge Jane L. Boyle of the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the ATFs ban on pistols equipped with stabilizing braces on Thursday in the case Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) v. ATF. Drawing on the injunction issued against the ban on Tuesday by a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Boyle said similar concerns over administrative procedure and Second Amendment rights were at issue in the case before her court. She limited her injunction to just the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Although the Fifth Circuits order limited relief to the plaintiffs in that case, the Court finds the same relief is appropriate here, Boyle wrote in her order. And while Plaintiffs raise some arguments that were not raised in Mock, the resolution of that appeal will almost certainly affect, if not control, the Courts decision on Plaintiffs Motion. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion and issues a preliminary injunction as to Plaintiffs in this case only, pending resolution of the expedited appeal in Mock v. Garland.

The ruling represents a bittersweet victory for gun-rights advocates who have fought to have the pistol brace ban tossed since the ATF finalized it earlier this year. While the injunction will provide a slight reprieve for the pistol brace-owning plaintiffs in the case ahead of the end of the bans amnesty period this month, its limited nature may leave millions of brace owners at risk of federal prosecution unless they register their braced firearms with the government beginning in June.

The lawsuits stem from President Joe Bidens decision to try and reclassify guns equipped with pistol braces, which are designed to strap to a shooters forearm rather than be pressed against their shoulder, as short-barrel rifles or shotguns. The reclassification would put them under the jurisdiction of the National Firearms Act, which requires the guns to be taxed and registered with the ATF. The agency set June 1st as the deadline to submit tax-free registration. Anyone who owns a pistol-brace-equipped gun that falls under the rule and doesnt register it could be charged with a federal felony.

President Biden used a similar rulemaking procedure to reclassify unfinished gun parts as firearms in another executive action that has since run into legal trouble. His ghost gun ban has also been enjoined by federal courts since it went into effect, though those injunctions have been limited in the same way the pistol brace blocks are.

Confusion over how far the new injunctions stretch prompted the Firearms Policy Coalition, the plaintiffs in the Fifth Circuit case, to request clarification from the court as to how many people are covered by the injunction it issued.

Absent such clarification before the time when the Final Rule goes into effect, many persons interacting or residing with Appellants, as well as members and customers of the organizational Appellants, risk inadvertent violation of the Final Rule and potential prosecution, and Appellants themselves will be unsure of the scope of the relief provided and how they can act to mitigate their otherwise irreparable injuries, FPC said in its motion for clarification.

As with the FPC case, the SAF case includes a gun-rights group and a gun company alongside several individual plaintiffs. Whether the injunctions extend to all the members of FPC and SAF as well as the customers of Maxim Defense and Rainier Arms will have a major impact on how many people are protected from prosecution as the cases move forward.

The courts interpretation of the plaintiffs covered by the injunction could have ramifications for the injunction issued in the Northern Texas case. Judge Boyle said she would not consider ruling on any additional claims against the ban until the Fifth Circuit panel concluded its expedited proceedings on the matter. Oral arguments in that case are not scheduled to take place until June 29, nearly a month after the amnesty period for brace owners will have ended.

Despite the rulings limited scope, gun-rights advocates still called Thursdays order a significant win.

We are pleased that the Court has preliminarily enjoined ATFs brace ban before the effective date, Adam Kraut, Executive Director of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), said in a press release. SAF will continue to aggressively litigate this issue to prevent the erosion of constitutional rights and prevent administrative agencies from overstepping their authority.

The ATF did not respond to a request for comment.

Continue reading here:
Second Federal Judge Expands Block on Biden Pistol-Brace Ban as ... - The Reload

Gift this article

Share this article paywall-free.

By the Editorial Board

This newspaper has consistently criticized Missouris Republican political leaders for a blatantly unconstitutional state law declaring certain federal gun restrictions unenforceable in the state. Thats simply not how it works; federal law supersedes. It would be inconsistent, then, to suggest that St. Louis could simply declare Missouri legislation against transgender citizens unenforceable in the city which is why Mayor Tishaura Jones approach is a better one.

The executive order Jones signed last week doesnt take the legally doomed approach of presuming to invalidate state legislation that harasses transgender people regarding medical care and sports participation. Instead, it counterbalances the effects of that legislation by providing support services for trans citizens.

Missouris 2021 Second Amendment Preservation Act is mainly designed to let the Legislatures Republican majority play to its gun-culture base. It threatens to fine any police agency in Missouri that enforces any federal gun laws that dont have an equivalent in state law. This has made Missouri-based law enforcement hesitant to work with their federal counterparts for fear of running afoul of the statute, thus endangering public safety. Luckily, the law is headed for probable overturn in the courts under the core constitutional principle of federal supremacy.

There is a parallel relationship between state and local policies: When they are in conflict, state law supersedes. That would include two cynical bills awaiting Gov. Mike Parsons signature that would restrict transgender minors from receiving gender-affirming medical care or participating on school sports teams that dont align with the gender on their birth certificates. The gender-sports issue is such a rarity in the real world as to render the legislative focus on it ridiculous, while gender-affirming health care involves complex medical and family issues that politicians have no business interfering with. These are mean-spirited attacks on a tiny minority in order to stoke the political right.

Jones order could provide real protection for trans kids without a counterproductive direct challenge to state statutes. It orders the city health department to organize a summit for providers to discuss best practices under the expected new law and disseminate information on access to gender-affirming care. It orders the designation of at least one bathroom in every city administration building as all-gender and calls for city employee training on gender identity inclusivity. It directs city economic development experts to recommend ways to incentivize businesses to support gender inclusivity. Regarding the sports issue, it simply declares that city-run sports programs wont ask participants their gender identity.

Whats notable about Jones order in addition to not giving state lawmakers much if anything to hang a legal challenge on is that it takes a supportive approach to the issue. A fair-minded public, both in and out of the city, should note the contrast with the outright malice of the state legislation.

Views from the editorial board, opinions from guest and national columnists plus the latest letters from our readers.

Continued here:
Editorial: Mayor's order of support for trans citizens contrasts with the ... - St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Ringo Li, Las Vegas

Saturday, May 27, 2023 | 2 a.m.

The conclusion of the May 23 letter Gun solution is pretty simple is simple, yes, but impossible.

The idea of getting rid of something to solve a problem is just too easy and oversimplified. We simply get rid of guns, and we will not have a gun problem. We simply get rid of drugs, and we will not have drug problems. We simply get rid of criminals, and we will not have crime problems. It is not the idea that is important. It is the implementation that is important.

How do we get rid of guns in the hands of civilians? There are a few obstacles. First, there is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Getting rid of guns would violate the Second Amendment. Second, who is to carry out the policy? The government could send out armed agents and takes the guns by force. However, how would we handle the gun owners who agree with Charlton Heston, who said the government could take his gun from my cold, dead hands?

Lastly, criminals are civilians too; they are certainly not going to get rid of their guns willingly.

There are more guns than people in the United States. It is impossible get rid of guns.

More here:
Simple answer isn't workable - Las Vegas Sun

Al Arabiya, Saudi Arabia, May 26

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced his intention to run for the US presidential primary race in 2024. The young governor has become a phenomenon in the Republican Party and is perhaps the only competition to former President Donald Trump, who is advancing, despite all hardships, in his bid to again clinch the Republican nomination. It is undeniable that DeSantis has a charismatic persona, a glowing record, and a family unit that almost looks like that of the late President John F. Kennedy. Indeed, Ron DeSantis has all the attributes that have led politicians to enter the White House. With a doctorate in law from prestigious Harvard University, DeSantis is considered to be a member of the highly educated American intelligentsia. His service in the US Armed Forces, along with the Bronze Star for his bravery, has enabled him to obtain the so-called green light from the military. DeSantis foray into politics began when he served in the US House of Representatives from 2013 to 2018, before officially becoming the governor of Florida in 2019. Yet where the young governor stands ideologically is still a conundrum to many, especially given the numerous stances DeSantis has expressed over the past year. The darling of the new Republican Party routinely makes the rounds via traditional as well as social media, becoming a leader in the war of ideas that his party has seen fit to wage against a broad range of ideologically diverse politicians, companies, and intellectuals, particularly from the left. Conservatives have helped shape the upcoming presidential contest into one of cultural, ideological, and dogmatic divisions. Gov. DeSantis has taken a hard-line stance on abortion, introducing restrictive laws at six weeks of pregnancy that were even too much for former President Trump to stomach. This raises the question of how deeply his religious convictions really run, and should his Catholicism be an active part of his decisions, or will it be a dormant force as is the case with President Biden, who is Catholic yet openly supports abortion? Besides abortion, there are further issues that reveal Gov. DeSantis rightward leanings. He has ordered schools in Florida to refrain from teaching theories of racial equality and organizing discussions about sexual identity. As more steps are taken to legalize same-sex relationships, and their advocates become more vocal in different states, DeSantis has expressed his rejection of what he calls fraudulent tolerance regarding the LGBT community in the United States. This wins over millions of traditional conservatives but also alienates millions of others who see him as being extreme. DeSantis appears far removed from circles that favor the casual use of firearms among civilians, yet he did not directly address the matter of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which concerns this right. The issue of illegal immigration, on the other hand, is one of those issues on which DeSantis takes a firm stance, and he has not let up on his claims that the Biden Administrations lax policies at the border have enabled a massive influx of undocumented immigrants into the country. He continues to emphasize what he views as the damaging impacts of illegal immigration resulting from the federal governments careless border policies. A follower of DeSantiss ideology might be perplexed, especially since he does not uphold the consensus of the broader Republican Party, as evidenced in his stance on abortion. This begs the question: Who is placing their faith in the Florida governor? Banning abortion is popular among some conservatives in the Republican voting base, yet this has caused many to swing their votes in favor of the Democrats. It is no secret that the Democrats have been a hindrance to many of DeSantis initiatives, particularly those spearheaded by the more progressive wing of the party and the Democratic National Committee. Recently, the DNC described DeSantis abortion ban as extreme and declared that it disrupts womens ability to make health care decisions before they even know they are pregnant. It has been widely speculated that DeSantis could be in the running for the White House in 2024 or 2028, which one can infer from the title of his recent memoir, The Courage to Be Free: Floridas Blueprint for Americas Revival. The book offers an understanding of DeSantis convictions, although he has shied away from discussing his potential ambitions on the national stage. Nevertheless, it is clear that his administration in Florida is a reflection of his values and views on American politics. The trajectory of DeSantis life has demonstrated that he is a paragon of nobility among politicians: one who is able and willing to stand by their conscience, regardless of possible consequences or rewards. This staunchness sets him apart, raising him above engaging in political disputes and entrusting him with the noble aim of improving America and restoring its damaged moral compass. Could DeSantis be Americas next leader? Emile Amin (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)

Read the rest here:
DeSantis and the Road to the White House - The Media Line

success for parents who dont want gun stores near their schools often depends on a variety of factors: the political climate in a town, state firearms laws, buy-in from local officials. Opponents say restrictions harm small businesses or potentially infringe on Second Amendment rights. (Getty Images) (Icy Macload/Getty Images)

Ashley Singleton never thought of herself an activist until a gun store opened next to her sons elementary school.

While the nondescript brick storefront was under construction, she passed it twice a day in the school car line. Shed assumed it might be a doctors office; it looked like many other small businesses in Madison, a middle-class suburb in North Alabama known mostly for its good schools and proximity to the city of Huntsville, a tech hub thats become the states fastest growing metro.

But one morning in the school drop-off line, Singleton saw the business had a new sign: Rocket City Armory.

After dropping off her first-grader at school, Singleton went home and looked up the business.

It was a firearms customization and repair shop that would also sell guns. Its property line sits less than 500 feet from that of Midtown Elementary, which has nearly 900 students in pre-K through fifth grades. Around the corner, about the same distance away, is Primrose School, a private preschool and child care center. The armory has four large front windows and its sign bears a rifle crossed with a Saturn V rocket, a nod to Huntsvilles history in NASAs Apollo space program.

My son can see (the gun store) from the school playground, Singleton said. Hes 7. If the store was anywhere else, I would not care. But who in their right mind would put anything to do with guns almost directly between a preschool and an elementary school?

Its a question more communities have begun grappling with as parents and policymakers look for solutions to combat a rising tide of gun violence and school-based shootings. More than two-thirds of American parents say theyre concerned a shooting could happen at their childrens school. Late last year, gun violence surpassed car accidents as the leading killer of children and teens in the United States. Active shooter drills are as common as fire drills in American schools.

At the state and federal levels, debate over gun violence prevention remains intensely partisan and mostly gridlocked. Democratic lawmakers push for tighter restrictions around guns while Republicans refuse to support policies they see as infringing on Second Amendment rights.

But in some communities, pockets of parents like Singleton are pushing for change at the most local of levels: municipal zoning ordinances. In the past few years, dozens of towns across the country, from California to Nevada to Massachusetts, have enacted local laws to ban gun stores from operating near sensitive areas like schools and child care centers.

I would say these efforts have been mostly successful, said Allison Anderman, senior counsel and director of local policy at GIffords Law Center, a nonprofit focused on ending gun violence. We zone lots of businesses away from sensitive areas because they pose heightened risks: cannabis shops, adult businesses, even car repair shops. Theres no reason sellers of lethal weapons could not also be included.

But success for parents who dont want gun stores near their schools often depends on a variety of factors: the political climate in a town, state firearms laws, buy-in from local officials. Opponents say restrictions harm small businesses or potentially infringe on Second Amendment rights.

For Singleton and a group of fellow Madison city parents, their ultimate goal is to get the armory moved somewhere else. Theyve contacted the mayors office, their city council members, local police, spoken at city council meetings, done spots on local TV news and circulated petition thats garnered more than 800 signatures. They also hope to push the city to create zoning restrictions that would prevent gun stores from opening near any other schools in town.

Im an introverted person; Im not a social justice warrior, said Singleton. But I cant take a backseat on this one because not only could this affect (my sons) physical safety, but for me its also about his mental health. School shootings have such an impact on our kids lives, and their learning, and how they navigate their campus.

Now they can see a visible reminder while theyre outside playing basketball.

Lauren Zack, whose 4-year-old daughter attends Primrose, first noticed the Rocket City Armory sign as she was dropping off her daughter at preschool. As soon as she got home that day, she said called the Madison Police Department and asked what the active shooter protocol was for her daughters school.

Thats not something I ever thought I would need to do, she said. My biggest concern is that somebody could stand in that parking lot and shoot up the Primrose playground and be gone before anybody could call the police.

A 1990s-era federal law bans guns within 1,000 feet of a school, but the law has several exceptions, including for private property that isnt part of a school campus.

The owner of Rocket City Armory, Jared Hill, acknowledged parents concerns about the proximity of his business to the schools in an emailed statement to Reckon.

When Rocket City Armory opens, we promise to uphold all firearm laws including the requirement that all firearms are to be unloaded before entering and leaving our establishment, he said. We will not allow unaccompanied minors to enter our store without adult supervision. The safety of children and neighbors in Madison is critically important to our Rocket City Armory family.

The storefront is not yet open, but its Facebook page currently has more than 1,300 followers. Hill said in his statement that he wants his business to raise awareness about firearm safety standards in Alabama, as well as teach about the history and artistry of the trade of gunsmithing, which involves the repair, design and modification of firearms.

Last year in North Carolina, state Sen. Natalie Murdock proposed legislation that would have created a statewide study to determine whether banning gun stores within 1,400 feet of schools or child care centers would improve safety of school-age children.

The idea was to put forward a new, out-of-the-box solution, said Murdock. I still support universal background checks, red flag laws and safe storage laws. But what if we can also not make it convenient for someone to go to a gun store, then walk up the street to a school? If thats not common sense, I dont know what is.

Research is scant on the impact of gun stores operating near schools. One 2020 study in California found the proximity of gun stores to schools was significantly associated with an increase in students bringing guns onto school campuses.

Most states have a state law that specifically restricts how local municipalities are allowed to regulate firearms, including firearms sales. California is one state that does not, and Anderman said at least 29 jurisdictions have enacted local laws banning gun sales near child-sensitive areas like schools, daycares, libraries and parks.

More are starting to follow that lead.

In February, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors called for an ordinance that would require a 1,000-foot buffer zone between gun stores and child-sensitive areas like schools. In March, after several months studying potential gun safety regulations, officials in Redwood City, Calif., proposed an ordinance that would create a 300-foot buffer between gun stores and sensitive facilities like schools, daycares, libraries and parks.

Anderman said guns and gun stores can be high value targets for theft. Last year, she joined her neighbors in Phoenix to oppose the city granting a permit to a gun dealer to sell weapons from his home near an elementary school.

At the hearing a police officer spoke, she said, saying its a terrible idea (to allow a gun dealer to operate near a school), citing the number of times he had to chase a suspect whod stolen guns.

In that case, the gun dealer actually withdrew his request for a permit.

Hill, the armory owner, told the public at the city council meeting that he was committed to upholding strict firearms storage and handling requirements for his customers, and had installed state-of-the-art security systems.

But some Madison parents who spoke with Reckon said they worried that an incident at the armory such as an accidental discharge or a disgruntled customer making threats could send the nearby schools into lockdown.

The bottom line is, how close would you want your children to be to an area where guns are handled regularly, without you there? said Alex Vaughn, the parent of Midtown Elementary students, at the city council meeting. Would you want oversight of that area? I think you would.

Other parents said they worry more about the mental and emotional impact of their children seeing a gun store so near their school campuses.

My third-grader is at an age where shes really taking in information and able to process things like this, said Rebekah Faris, who has three children at Midtown Elementary. She told me she and her friends were talking at school about the Nashville shooting in which three students and three staffers were killed by an armed assailant at Covenant School in March.

She and her friends know whats going on, they know about school shootings and they express their fears and anxiety, Faris said. Of course we want them to be physically safe, but its also troubling for them, mentally, to drive by this every day and see a gun store right next to their school.

Nationally, efforts to create buffer zones around schools tend to succeed when community stakeholders can generate support among enough local leaders, including local law enforcement, said Anderman. Getting zoning laws revised is less likely when the new restrictions would displace an existing small business, she said.

Singleton acknowledged the chance of getting the armory moved isnt high, but shes determined to keep pushing: My new goal is to ultimately do something about zoning like this in the future so we dont have this same situation.

Meanwhile, the city of Madison recently approved the construction of Big Blue Marble Academy, a 12,000-square-foot child care center scheduled to open this autumn, just across the street from Rocket City Armory.

Visit link:
Should gun stores be allowed near schools? These parents are ... - Reckon

Hawaiians can now carry billy clubs and batons for self-defense as the legal fight over the weapons ends.

On Tuesday, United States District Judge Jill A. Otake implemented a permanent injunction on the law prohibiting Hawaiian citizens from carrying billy clubs as a condition of a settlement in Yukutake v. Shikada. The settlement allows law-abiding Hawaiians to own and carry cudgels, truncheons, police batons, collapsible batons, billy clubs, or nightsticks for their protection. It also orders the state to pay $50,000 to cover the plaintiffs legal fees.

[T]he Attorney General shall direct her agents and all other persons under her authority to comply with the terms of this Injunction and will direct all persons under the legal authority of the Attorney General not to enforce the billy provision of HRS 134-51(a) as set forth in the Injunction, Judge Otake wrote in his order.

The settlement offers citizens of the state, which has some of the countrys strictest weapons regulations, a new opportunity to carry at least some kinds of concealed weapons. It also represents a new high water mark for Second Amendment advocates looking to expand the amendments protections to arms other than guns. It may also crack the door for changes in other states where baton and billy club bans are already being challenged. At least ten other states still prohibit the carrying batons, including California, New York, and Illinois.

Alan Beck, the plaintiffs attorney, argued the settlement is a win for all Hawaiians.

I am very glad the people of Hawaii will have access to batons after today, he said in a statement. They are a practical means of self-defense.

Beck has also won a series of Second Amendment cases related to weapons that arent firearms. Last year, the countrys final ban on stun guns was struck down in a lawsuit filed by Beck. It was the culmination of a successful decade-long fight to eliminate such prohibitions, a campaign that saw the most law changes of any as a result of the Supreme Courts landmark 2008 ruling in Heller v. DC.

Now, in the wake of another landmark Supreme Court Second Amendment ruling last year, Beck has turned his attention toward baton bans. In addition to the Hawaii suit, he has filed suit against Californias near-total ban on the possession of billy clubs.

Hawaii has some of the most expansive gun laws in the country, making it more difficult to legally buy and carry a gun than most other states. It has issued few concealed carry permits since being forced to abandon its subjective permitting law by last years landmark Supreme Court ruling. Lawmakers are also looking to vastly expand restrictions on where those with permits can carry their firearms in the near future. Some localities have already implemented new gun-free zones.

Under the settlement, Hawaiians now have the option of carrying billy clubs for self-defense without having to obtain a permit. The comparative ease of getting batons and carrying them legally as opposed to firearms may make the weapons more popular in the state.

Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez (D.) did not respond to a request for comment.

View post:
Hawaii Agrees to Drop Baton Ban After Losing Court Fight - The Reload