Category Archives: Second Amendment

To paraphrase a misquoted Mark Twain: The demise of San Francisco is greatly exaggerated. We just spent five glorious days in the city and had the time of our lives.

Fantastic restaurants in the Outer Sunset, on Divisadero, in North Beach. Baseball at Oracle Park. Dear San Francisco one of the best shows Ive seen in years at Club Fugazi. Fun neighborhood bars. We took Muni everywhere. It was clean, it was efficient, it was affordable. It was safe.

No, San Francisco is not the city of my youth, and yes, San Francisco has plenty of issues to deal with, but it is a welcoming, vibrant city still full of promise.

In 1911, President William Howard Taft called San Francisco, The city that knows how, and it has continually shown the world that, indeed, it does. And it still does, today.

Tim Dineen, Beaverton, Ore.

I am appalled that the National Park Service continues to put cattle ranching first over the native tule elk at Point Reyes National Seashore. Tourists like myself do not want to visit Point Reyes to see cattle. Places like a national seashore are meant to protect wildlife, not ranching.

The National Park Service continues to allow preventable deaths of tule elk inside the park. With problems such as having to ship water to these elk and having to cull their numbers, the cheaper option is eliminating ranching at Point Reyes and removing elk fences to stop limiting where they can go. Having free-ranging herds, the elk can find water themselves. I will never visit Point Reyes if the park service continues putting cattle over wildlife.

John Marchwick, Eureka

At the Battle of Yorktown that ended the Revolutionary War, George Washington led an army of 20,000 soldiers against 9,000 British troops. The Brown Bess musket used by the British and American Army could fire three rounds a minute. At that rate, it would take a lone gunman over five days to fire upon every soldier on the Yorktown battlefield.

Modern assault-style weapons like the AR-15 used in this weeks New Mexico mass shooting can fire hundreds of rounds per minute, and the most lethal of modern assault weapons could have killed every soldier at the Battle of Yorktown in under 30 minutes. The authors of the Second Amendment could never have envisioned how firearms would evolve.

If George Washington were to return in 2026 on our nations 250th birthday, he might wonder why our nation had not updated the Second Amendment to preserve the security of a free State by restricting civilian access to military-grade weapons.

John Maa, San Francisco

Regarding the debt ceiling crisis, the elephant in the room is outrageous military spending. Americas annual military spending is now around $900 billion, roughly 40% of the worlds total and greater than the next 10 countries combined!

We need to cut the Pentagon budget.

Ivona Xiezopolski, Hayward

Continued here:
Demise of S.F. exaggerated. It's still a great city to visit - San Francisco Chronicle

The Joint Committee of the three European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA - ESAs) launched today a public consultation to amend the Implementing Regulations on the mapping of credit assessments of External Credit Assessment Institutions (ECAIs) for credit risk. The Implementing Regulations are part of the EU Single Rulebook for banking and insurance aimed at creating a safe and sound regulatory framework consistently applicable across the European Union (EU). The consultation runs until 26 June 2023.

The proposed amendments reflect the outcome of a monitoring exercise on the adequacy of existing mappings, namely those to the credit quality steps (CQS) allocation for four ECAIs and the introduction of new credit rating scales for seven ECAIs as well as the withdrawal of the registration of one ECAI.

In the Implementing Regulations on the mapping of ECAIs, adopted by the European Commission on 11 October 2016, the three ESAs specified an approach that establishes the correspondence between credit ratings and the credit quality steps defined in the Capital Requirements Regulation(CRR) and in the Solvency II Directive.

The ESAs also published individual draft mapping reports illustrating how the methodology was applied to produce the amended mappings in line with the CRR mandate.

Comments to the Consultation Paper on the mapping under Article 136 of the CRR can be sent by clicking on the "send your comments" button on theEBA's consultation page. Comments to the Consultation Paper on the mapping under Article 109 (a) of the Solvency II Directive can be provided by sending an e-mail to 2023Public.Consultation.ECAI.Mapping@eiopa.europa.eu. Please note that the deadline for the submission of comments is 26 June 2023.

All contributions received will be published following the close of the consultation, unless requested otherwise.

Apublic hearingon this consultation will take place on the 7 June 2023 from 14:00 to 15:00 CEST. The deadline for registration is 5 June 2023 at 16:00 CEST.

The proposed revised draft ITSs have been developed according to Article 136 (1) and (3) of Regulation 575/2013 (Capital Requirements Regulation) and of Article 109 (a) of Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II Directive), which state that revised draft ITS shall be submitted by the ESAs, where necessary.

This change follows a third amendment to the Implementing Regulations, which was proposed by the ESAs in June 2021 and adopted by the European Commission on 16 November 2021. The first amendment reflected the withdrawal of the registration of one ECAI and the recognition of five additional ECAIs since the adoption of the Implementing Regulations in October 2016. The second amendment reflected the outcomes of a monitoring exercise on the adequacy of existing mappings, namely changes to the CQS allocation for two ECAIs and the introduction of new credit rating scales for ten ECAIs. Finally, the third amendment reflected the production of mappings for two newly established ECAIs and the outcomes of a monitoring exercise on the adequacy of existing mappings, namely changes to the CQS allocation for two ECAIs and the introduction of new credit rating scales for nine ECAIs.

Link:
ESAs consult to amend technical standards on the mapping of ... - ESMA

Courthouse sparring is ramping up in a case that could eventually decide whether Washingtons newly adopted ban on the sale of semiautomatic rifles is constitutional.

Gun rights advocates filed the lawsuit in federal district court in Tacoma on April 25, the same day Gov. Jay Inslee signed the legislation. On Monday, Attorney General Bob Ferguson registered his opposition to the challengers request for a preliminary injunction to block the laws enforcement while the litigation unfolds.

Under the law, which went into effect immediately, the state barred the sale, distribution and importation of certain firearms defined as assault weapons. Legal owners already in possession of the guns are free to keep them and there is a provision allowing gun shops to sell remaining inventory to out-of-state buyers.

The new filing from the attorney general outlines his theory for why the firearm prohibitions should be upheld under the Second Amendment, following a landmark Supreme Court decision last year that narrowed the path for states to regulate guns.

Central to that high court ruling, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, is the concept that gun restrictions must be consistent with the nations historical tradition of firearm regulation in order for them to pass constitutional muster.

Ferguson argues that Washingtons law clears this bar, pointing to how U.S. authorities have a long history of regulating weapons, including clubs, knives and fully automatic rifles.

Just like bazookas, machine guns, and grenade launchers, assault weapons are not covered by the Second Amendment because they are not tools of self-defense; rather, they are designed to injure and kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, his brief says.

Moreover, it adds, Washingtons regulation of assault weapons fits comfortably within the long historical tradition of regulating dangerous and unusual weapons.

Over the past decade, semiautomatic, AR-style, rifles have increasingly drawn scrutiny as killers have used them repeatedly in mass shootings, including at Connecticuts Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012, where a gunman murdered 26 people, including 20 children, and in the shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas last year that left 19 children and two teachers dead.

Gun rights advocates argue the firearms restricted by Washingtons law dont fall into a category that is susceptible to regulation, which includes dangerous and unusual weapons that are not in common use. Therefore, they contend, these guns cannot be banned.

They note there are an estimated 24 million AR-style rifles, or similar models, in circulation nationwide.

The firearms at issue are in common use and so the Washington Ban is unconstitutional, full stop, reads their request for a preliminary injunction, filed May 4.

Fergusons brief knocks what it describes as the popularity-contest argument the plaintiffs make about how widespread the guns are, saying it leads to the absurd conclusion that a firearms constitutional status turns on whether the gun industry chooses to engage in mass campaigns to flood the market.

Plaintiffs include three Washington residents who say they would buy the banned weapons if they could, a gun shop in Vancouver unable to sell the firearms, and two gun advocacy groupsthe Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition.

The dispute is before U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Bryan who was appointed to the bench in 1986.

Washington is one of 10 states to have adopted prohibitions on semiautomatic rifles, according to Everytown For Gun Safety, which pushes for tighter gun laws. The group notes that from 2009 to 2022, nine out of the 10 mass shooting incidents with the most casualties involved the use of at least one assault-style weapon.

Another challenge to Washingtons law is pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington and gun rights supporters also filed a case in Grant County Superior Court. The Grant County case was recently shifted to a Thurston County court.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a request to step in and prevent the enforcement of an Illinois ban on the sale and distribution of AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles. Those restrictions are now likely to stay in place while a lawsuit over them moves ahead in a Chicago federal appeals court.

Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Bill Lucia for questions: info@washingtonstatestandard.com. Follow Washington State Standard on Facebook and Twitter.

Read more:
'Not tools of self-defense': Ferguson makes case for Washington's ... - The Columbian

Lawrence ODonnell Airs Old Clip of Republican Chief Justice Calling the Second Amendment a Fraud on the American Public  Mediaite

Read the original post:
Lawrence ODonnell Airs Old Clip of Republican Chief Justice Calling the Second Amendment a Fraud on the American Public - Mediaite

Marshall University Prof: Cops and Vets Earn Their Second Amendment Rights Through Months of Training  The Truth About Guns

See original here:
Marshall University Prof: Cops and Vets Earn Their Second Amendment Rights Through Months of Training - The Truth About Guns

The right to keep and bear arms is a lot like the right to freedom of speech. In each case, the Constitution expressly protects a liberty that needs to be insulated from the ordinary political process. Neither right, however, is absolute. The First Amendment, for example, has never protected perjury, fraud, or countless other crimes that are committed through the use of speech. Similarly, no reasonable person could believe that violent criminals should have unrestricted access to guns, or that any individual should possess a nuclear weapon.

Inevitably, courts must draw lines, allowing government to carry out its duty to preserve an orderly society, without unduly infringing the legitimate interests of individuals in expressing their thoughts and protecting themselves from criminal violence. This is not a precise science or one that will ever be free from controversy.

One judicial approach, however, should be unequivocally rejected. During the nineteenth century, courts routinely refused to invalidate restrictions on free speech that struck the judges as reasonable. This meant that speech got virtually no judicial protection. Government suppression of speech can usually be thought to serve some reasonable purpose, such as reducing social discord or promoting healthy morals. Similarly, most gun control laws can be viewed as efforts to save lives and prevent crime, which are perfectly reasonable goals. If thats enough to justify infringements on individual liberty, neither constitutional guarantee means much of anything.

During the twentieth century, the Supreme Court finally started taking the First Amendment seriously. Today, individual freedom is generally protected unless the government can make a strong case that it has a real need to suppress speech or expressive conduct, and that its regulations are tailored to that need. The legal doctrines have become quite complex, and there is room for disagreement about many of the Courts specific decisions. Taken as a whole, however, this body of case law shows what the Court can do when it appreciates the value of an individual right enshrined in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment also raises issues about which reasonable people can disagree. But if the Supreme Court takes this provision of the Constitution as seriously as it now takes the First Amendment, which it should do, there will be some easy issues as well.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) is one example. The right of the people protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like the right[s] of the people protected by the First and Fourth Amendments. The Constitution does not say that the Second Amendment protects a right of the states or a right of the militia, and nobody offered such an interpretation during the Founding era. Abundant historical evidence indicates that the Second Amendment was meant to leave citizens with the ability to defend themselves against unlawful violence. Such threats might come from usurpers of governmental power, but they might also come from criminals whom the government is unwilling or unable to control.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) was also an easy case under the Courts precedents. Most other provisions of the Bill of Rights had already been applied to the states because they are deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition. The right to keep and bear arms clearly meets this test.

The text of the Constitution expressly guarantees the right to bear arms, not just the right to keep them. The courts should invalidate regulations that prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying weapons in public, where the vast majority of violent crimes occur. First Amendment rights are not confined to the home, and neither are those protected by the Second Amendment.

Nor should the government be allowed to create burdensome bureaucratic obstacles designed to frustrate the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The courts are vigilant in preventing government from evading the First Amendment through regulations that indirectly abridge free speech rights by making them difficult to exercise. Courts should exercise the same vigilance in protecting Second Amendment rights.

Some other regulations that may appear innocuous should be struck down because they are little more than political stunts. Popular bans on so-called assault rifles, for example, define this class of guns in terms of cosmetic features, leaving functionally identical semi-automatic rifles to circulate freely. This is unconstitutional for the same reason that it would violate the First Amendment to ban words that have a French etymology, or to require that French fries be called freedom fries.

In most American states, including many with large urban population centers, responsible adults have easy access to ordinary firearms, and they are permitted to carry them in public. Experience has shown that these policies do not lead to increased levels of violence. Criminals pay no more attention to gun control regulations than they do to laws against murder, rape, and robbery. Armed citizens, however, prevent countless crimes and have saved many lives. Whats more, the most vulnerable peopleincluding women, the elderly, and those who live in high crime neighborhoodsare among the greatest beneficiaries of the Second Amendment. If the courts require the remaining jurisdictions to stop infringing on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, their citizens will be more free and probably safer as well.

Read the rest here:
Interpretation: The Second Amendment | Constitution Center

Senate panel okays Tax Laws (Second Amendment) Bill: Fixed tax scheme gets nod to bring 2m retailers into tax net  The News International

Read more here:
Senate panel okays Tax Laws (Second Amendment) Bill: Fixed tax scheme gets nod to bring 2m retailers into tax net - The News International

Gohmert: Without a change to how children are taught, 'We're going to have to get rid of the Second Amendment'  Fox News

See the original post:
Gohmert: Without a change to how children are taught, 'We're going to have to get rid of the Second Amendment' - Fox News

Minim, Inc. and Cadence Connectivity, Inc. Enter Second Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement with Silicon Valley Bank  Marketscreener.com

Read more from the original source:
Minim, Inc. and Cadence Connectivity, Inc. Enter Second Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement with Silicon Valley Bank - Marketscreener.com

1. Opinion: Let's talk about repealing the Second Amendment  The Connecticut Mirror
2. New Jerseys tough gun bill respects the 2nd Amendment and will save lives | Opinion  NJ.com
3. Guns in the Workplace: What Has Changed, and What Can Employers Expect?  SHRM
4. How Many Americans Favor Bruen? Depends on How You Ask.  The Trace
5. Supreme Court Second Amendment Decision in Bruen Regains Public Approval  AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
6. View Full Coverage on Google News

More here:
Opinion: Let's talk about repealing the Second Amendment - The Connecticut Mirror