Kimberlee Kruesi, Associated Press

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bill Hagerty speaks to supporters on Friday, July 17, 2020, after casting an early voting ballot at the Nashville Public Library Bellevue Branch in Nashville, Tenn.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bill Hagerty speaks to supporters on Friday, July 17, 2020, after casting an early voting ballot at the Nashville Public Library Bellevue Branch in Nashville, Tenn.

Photo: Jonathan Mattise, AP

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bill Hagerty speaks to supporters on Friday, July 17, 2020, after casting an early voting ballot at the Nashville Public Library Bellevue Branch in Nashville, Tenn.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bill Hagerty speaks to supporters on Friday, July 17, 2020, after casting an early voting ballot at the Nashville Public Library Bellevue Branch in Nashville, Tenn.

Trump joins Hagerty in tele-town hall as early voting begins

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) President Donald Trump on Friday once again threw support behind his former U.S. Ambassador to Japan Bill Hagerty, a Republican running in the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat in Tennessee.

Hagerty, 59, has frequently touted Trump's endorsement ever since the president broke the news the former ambassador was running for political office nearly a year ago.

Ill never forget I went to Japan and he knew every person over there, he knew the businessmen, he could pronounce those names I had a hard time with, Trump said in a tele-town hall with Hagerty. I had a very hard time pronouncing those names.

Trump encouraged Tennesseans to vote early, warning that it was critical to elect senators in office who would vote in favor of the judges he appoints.

Your Second Amendment is under siege. If I werent here I dont think you would have a Second Amendment," Trump added while praising Hagerty's support of law enforcement. You would certainly have a very weak one.

Hagerty's main opponent in the Senate primary is trauma surgeon Manny Sethi, who is also seeking the position being vacated by outgoing Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander. The two candidates have recently increased attacks on one another as early voting kicked off Friday.

In a recent ad, Sethi attacked Hagerty's past political donations to Republican Mitt Romney the only Republican to vote to convict the president during his impeachment trial.

Why is the establishment attacking a nice guy like me? Sethi asks. Well, folks are finding out that Bill Hagertys endorsed by Mitt Romney."

Romney has not publicly endorsed Hagerty since the former ambassador joined the race, but Romney had previously supported the idea, according to the Wall Street Journal in mid-2019.

Meanwhile, Hagerty criticized Sethi in an ad as a liberal elitist.

I volunteered full-time for six months when nobody else was supporting President Trump, certainly not Manny Sethi didnt lift a finger, didnt donate a dime back in 2016 to help President Trump get elected, Hagerty told The Associated Press on Friday.

Early voting ahead of the Aug. 6 primary will be open Monday through Saturday until Aug. 1.

For those who do not want to vote in person, a judge is giving all eligible voters the option to vote absentee during the pandemic. Absentee ballots can be requested until July 30. First-time voters can only vote absentee if they have shown ID at a county election office.

___

Associated Press writer Jonathan Mattise in Nashville, Tennessee, contributed to this report.

Read the original here:

Trump joins Hagerty in tele-town hall as early voting begins - Greenwich Time

Kimberlee Kruesi, Associated Press

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bill Hagerty speaks to supporters on Friday, July 17, 2020, after casting an early voting ballot at the Nashville Public Library Bellevue Branch in Nashville, Tenn.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bill Hagerty speaks to supporters on Friday, July 17, 2020, after casting an early voting ballot at the Nashville Public Library Bellevue Branch in Nashville, Tenn.

Photo: Jonathan Mattise, AP

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bill Hagerty speaks to supporters on Friday, July 17, 2020, after casting an early voting ballot at the Nashville Public Library Bellevue Branch in Nashville, Tenn.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bill Hagerty speaks to supporters on Friday, July 17, 2020, after casting an early voting ballot at the Nashville Public Library Bellevue Branch in Nashville, Tenn.

Trump joins Hagerty in tele-town hall as early voting begins

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) President Donald Trump on Friday once again threw support behind his former U.S. Ambassador to Japan Bill Hagerty, a Republican running in the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat in Tennessee.

Hagerty, 59, has frequently touted Trump's endorsement ever since the president broke the news the former ambassador was running for political office nearly a year ago.

Ill never forget I went to Japan and he knew every person over there, he knew the businessmen, he could pronounce those names I had a hard time with, Trump said in a tele-town hall with Hagerty. I had a very hard time pronouncing those names.

Trump encouraged Tennesseans to vote early, warning that it was critical to elect senators in office who would vote in favor of the judges he appoints.

Your Second Amendment is under siege. If I werent here I dont think you would have a Second Amendment," Trump added while praising Hagerty's support of law enforcement. You would certainly have a very weak one.

Hagerty's main opponent in the Senate primary is trauma surgeon Manny Sethi, who is also seeking the position being vacated by outgoing Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander. The two candidates have recently increased attacks on one another as early voting kicked off Friday.

In a recent ad, Sethi attacked Hagerty's past political donations to Republican Mitt Romney the only Republican to vote to convict the president during his impeachment trial.

Why is the establishment attacking a nice guy like me? Sethi asks. Well, folks are finding out that Bill Hagertys endorsed by Mitt Romney."

Romney has not publicly endorsed Hagerty since the former ambassador joined the race, but Romney had previously supported the idea, according to the Wall Street Journal in mid-2019.

Meanwhile, Hagerty criticized Sethi in an ad as a liberal elitist.

I volunteered full-time for six months when nobody else was supporting President Trump, certainly not Manny Sethi didnt lift a finger, didnt donate a dime back in 2016 to help President Trump get elected, Hagerty told The Associated Press on Friday.

Early voting ahead of the Aug. 6 primary will be open Monday through Saturday until Aug. 1.

For those who do not want to vote in person, a judge is giving all eligible voters the option to vote absentee during the pandemic. Absentee ballots can be requested until July 30. First-time voters can only vote absentee if they have shown ID at a county election office.

___

Associated Press writer Jonathan Mattise in Nashville, Tennessee, contributed to this report.

Link:

Trump joins Hagerty in tele-town hall as early voting begins - Thehour.com

A Slate Belt townships elected officials said they are looking for ways to protect residents from potential disturbances from recreational gunfire while maintaining Second Amendment rights.

Upper Mount Bethel Township supervisors have been discussing potentially adopting an ordinance that would put restrictions on shooting firearms in the township.

At Mondays supervisors meeting, which was live streamed on Facebook, township solicitor Ron Karasek presented supervisors with an existing firearms ordinance from neighboring Stroud Township, Monroe County, as a starting point for discussion of an ordinance the township might consider.

Supervisors have received complaints through the years from some residents about loud gunfire heard late at night and shooting occurring close to property borders without buffers.

Supervisor Martin Pinter said he owns guns and shoots but some people have been shooting without taking their neighbors into consideration.

There are certain instances around the township where it is taken to an extreme, Pinter said.

Under Stroud Townships ordinance, shooting is prohibited before dawn, after dusk, or within 150 yards of an adjacent occupied structure.

The ordinance makes exceptions for hunting, farmers and indoor or outdoor shooting ranges.

Before any decision would be made on an ordinance, supervisors said they want to look at other municipalities firearms ordinances to weigh what provisions might be suited for Upper Mount Bethel Township.

Stroud Townships ordinance contains a provision stating a law enforcement officer is authorized to seize a firearm that is fired in a way that violates the ordinance.

A discussion Monday about firearms seizures caused a stir among some commenters watching the live stream of the meeting. Several people stated they object to the idea of the township seizing weapons.

However, Pinter said he would not support any Upper Mount Bethel Township ordinance that contained language about seizing weapons. Other supervisors echoed his sentiment.

I dont think seizures would benefit anybody, Pinter said. We are not going to make an ordinance to take away guns.

Karasek said an ordinance for a municipality to seize a firearm might be subject to challenge constitutionally.

Supervisors Chairman John Bermingham said he respects peoples Second Amendment rights but the township also must consider ways to deal with residents who use firearms negligently.

Township resident Richard Klingle Jr. said if the township tells people where they can shoot on their properties it will be a problem.

Many residents hunt and sight-in rifles on their properties and firearms restrictions would interfere with long-standing activities in the township, Klingle said.

The supervisors are likely to discuss the matter again at their Aug. 10 meeting.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to lehighvalleylive.com.

John Best is a freelance contributor to lehighvalleylive.com. Find lehighvalleylive.com on Facebook.

Read this article:

Slate Belt township considers restricting when and where residents can shoot guns - lehighvalleylive.com

BELLE PLAINE, Kan. (AP) A Missouri gun range violated the civil rights of a Muslim woman by not allowing her to shoot unless she removed a religious head covering, an advocacy group said Thursday.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations asked the U.S. Department of Justice in a letter for a civil rights probe into the denial of services by Frontier Justice during an incident earlier this year at one of their gun ranges located in the suburban Kansas City, Missouri, metropolitan area.

The law demands equal access to public accommodations regardless of your race, color, religion and national origin, said CAIR attorney Zanah Ghalawanji. So Frontier Justice has disregarded and violated the civil rights protections by actively excluding Muslim women who wear the hijab from their business.

The company, which touts on its website its core values of Faith, Family and Freedom, has facilities in Lees Summit, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas. It said in an email that head coverings are a safety risk because they could catch the hot brass when firing a firearm.

It saddens us that anyone would say we are not inclusive, given that we serve all races and religions every single day in all of our stores, Frontier Justice President Bren Brown said in a statement. We pride ourselves on this fact, and we strongly believe in America and the second amendment that is for every single American.

Rania Barakat recounted during a Facebook Live news conference Thursday an incident that unfolded on Jan. 1 at the Frontier Justice gun range in Missouri when she went with her husband there to shoot.

The couple waited in line for an hour that day, she said, and when they approached the cashier to pay she was told that she must remove her hijab in order to use the facilities. Barakat said she had shot at other gun ranges without having to remove her hijab.

Frontier Justice employees cited the companys dress code policy, which is posted on its website: Hats, caps, bandanas, or any other head covering will be removed in the facility, except baseball caps facing forward.

Barakat said she was told by the ranges manager that it was a safety issue. She said they left when it became clear they werent going to let them shoot.

Ive encountered racism before, but it was never to the point someone told me I had to remove my scarf in order to enter a facility or do any type of activity like this, she said. It was very shocking to both my husband and I.

She later discovered online reviews about Frontier Justice that were written by other Muslim women who had also been told they needed to remove their hijabs to shoot.

To have this happen to me personally, it was very sad and, you know, frustrating, Barakat said. And I would never want anyone to go through what I went through.

Moussa Elbayoumy, chairman of the CAIRs Kansas board, said the local chapter had received a number of reports around the same time about that same facility from other Muslim women who were also told they had to remove their hijabs to shoot.

He contended the ranges policy is not based on any legitimate safety concerns, but is meant to exclude Muslim women.

Frontier Justice, you know, says they value faith, family and freedom, Ghalawanji said. That appears to be their motto, but, however, their actions tell us that they have shown otherwise.

More here:

Muslim woman says gun range ordered her to remove hijab - Associated Press

BOSTON, July 13, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Eaton Vance Corp. (NYSE: EV) today announced that Eaton Vance Management, a wholly-owned subsidiary, and Eaton Vance Exchange-Traded Fund Trust have filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a second amendment exemptive application seeking relief to permit the creation and operation of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that would employ a novel method of supporting efficient secondary market trading of fund shares (the Clearhedge Method). Because disclosure of current holdings would not be necessary, an ETF's portfolio trading activity could remain confidential. The application amends and supplements the Clearhedge Method exemptive application filed on February 20, 2019 and first amended on March 18, 2020.

As proposed, ETFs utilizing the Clearhedge Method would (i) publicly disclose prior to the beginning of U.S. market trading each business day a "NAV Reference Portfolio" generally consisting of liquid market instruments trading throughout U.S. market hours whose performance the ETF's adviser expects to be highly correlated with the performance of the ETF's actual portfolio, but varying from the ETF's holdings to protect the confidentiality of the ETF's current trading; and (ii) provide for market makers and other arbitrageurs active in the ETF's shares to enter into "Clearhedge Swap" transactions with the ETF, allowing for a precise hedge of their ETF shares positions. Applicants believe that, by varying the size and direction of its NAV Reference Portfolio and Clearhedge Swap positions as it changes its positions in ETF shares intraday, an arbitrageur could manage its inventory risk in the ETF's shares with substantially the same precision as if it knew the ETF's current portfolio holdings. Applicants expect ETFs utilizing the Clearhedge Method to exhibit better secondary market trading performance than the many existing ETFs that do not afford arbitrageurs a comparable ability to hedge their fund share positions. As an additional potential advantage, Applicants expect ETFs utilizing the Clearhedge Method to provide greater transparency of investor trading costs than offered by existing ETFs.

"The filing of a second amended exemptive application is an important milestone in advancing the availability of actively managed ETFs that both protect the confidentiality of fund trading information and support efficient share arbitrage and low shareholder trading costs in all market environments," said Stephen W. Clarke, President, Advanced Fund Solutions LLC (AFS), a subsidiary of Eaton Vance Management formed in 2019 to manage the development and commercialization of ETFs utilizing the Clearhedge Method and other fund-related intellectual property."By enabling arbitrageurs to perfect their arbitrage positions using Clearhedge Swaps, we expect ETFs utilizing the Clearhedge Method to demonstrate best-in-class trading performance."

Aspects of the Clearhedge Method are subject to U.S. Patent 10,102,573 and pending patent applications. Through licensing and services arrangements, Eaton Vance and AFS seek to make the Clearhedge Method available across the ETF industry.

Eaton Vance provides advanced investment strategies and wealth management solutions to forward-thinking investors around the world. Through principal investment affiliates Eaton Vance Management, Parametric, Atlanta Capital, Calvert and Hexavest, the Company offers a diversity of investment approaches, encompassing bottom-up and top-down fundamental active management, responsible investing, systematic investing and customized implementation of client-specified portfolio exposures. As of April 30, 2020, Eaton Vance had consolidated assets under management of $465.3 billion. Exemplary service, timely innovation and attractive returns across market cycles have been hallmarks of Eaton Vance since 1924. For more information, visit eatonvance.com.

The information contained herein is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any security, investment product or service.

Statements in this press release that are not historical facts are "forward-looking statements" as defined by the U.S. securities laws. You should exercise caution in interpreting and relying on forward-looking statements because they are subject to uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those set forth.

SOURCE Eaton Vance Corp.

http://www.eatonvance.com

Read the original:

Eaton Vance Files Second Amended Exemptive Application for Clearhedge Method Portfolio-Protected ETFs - PRNewswire

President Trump and his campaign have been repeating a dire warning about the nation's future should he not win reelection, claiming that Joe Biden would "abolish" the American way of life if he becomes president.

Trump tweeted the message Wednesday, along with an accusation that Biden along with left-wing radicals are in favor of abolishing institutions, including police, Immigration and Customs Enforcementandthe Second Amendment.

BIDEN LEADS IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT SOME POINT TO 'SECRET TRUMP' VOTERS: POLL

"Joe Biden and the Radical Left want to Abolish Police, Abolish ICE, Abolish Bail, Abolish Suburbs, Abolish the 2nd Amendment and Abolish the American Way of Life," Trump tweeted. No one will be SAFE in Joe Bidens America!"

Trump campaignnational press secretary Hogan Gidley delivered a similar message on Fox News Monday.

"He'll pop out of his basementevery once in a while to say 'Defundthe police!'" Gidley claimed."Our jobs aren't safe, families aren't safe, and ourAmerican way of life is not safe ...Joe Biden is waging war on all three."

BIDEN UNVEILS $2 TRILLION PLAN TO BOOST CLEAN ENERGY, REPAIR NATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE

The overall message appears to be a response to Biden's Unity Task Force, which was established along with his former primary opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. The task force's recommendations include a statement that "Democrats support eliminating the use of cash bail," as well as a promiseto change immigration enforcement policies, and a desire to "reimagine policing." Biden has not called for repealing the Second Amendment, but his platform does include a variety of new gun control measures.

The claim that Biden wishes to abolish suburbs echoes a recent piece by Stanley Kurtz in the National Review, in which Kurtz warns against the possibility that Biden would eliminate suburban zoning practices he considers "exclusionary" by threatening to withhold federal dollars.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Biden, meanwhile, has been attacking Trump for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, calling him "the worst possible person to lead us through this moment," and saying that "unlike this president, I'll actually listen to the experts and heed their advice. Not silence them."

Fox News' Charles Creitz contributed to this report.

Go here to read the rest:

Trump claims Biden wants to abolish the American way of life - Fox News

Legal action against militias

Theres a mistaken belief that the Second Amendment protects everything militia. But laws in every state make it clear that they do not. The U.S. Supreme Court underlined this in the 2008 case, Columbia v. Heller, which made it clear on one hand that gun ownership is an individual right, but on the other hand that the Second Amendment does not prevent the prohibition of private military organizations. (Drug prohibition backfired, so be careful, here.)

Armed white men have shown up at Black Lives Matter demonstrations across the Inland Northwest, including Spokane, Coeur dAlene and Sandpoint, reports columnist Shawn Vestal in the Spokesman Review (June 24). He says, All around the white rural West, armed self-appointed militia dudes have risen up in opposition to the call for civil rights and police reform around the death of George Floyd, disrupting peaceful protests, glowering at people with cardboard signs, declaring themselves defenders of America.

Property tax patriots who are directed into racist activity should be wary of their leadership.For your state, search: Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, search private military activity is prohibited, then download the first result: Prohibiting private armies

ICAP wants officials to know they have legal authority they might not know they have to protect American freedom marchers. ICAP offers pro bono legal assistance if officials want it. And ICAP wants the public to know of these laws in case they want their leaders to use them.

Heres my ask. Next time theres a hint of militant action against a planned protest in Pullman, I ask that Mayor Glenn Johnson and Police Chief Gary Jenkins dont scare the merchants, protesters and city staff. Rather, I ask that they advise the militias that their presence would invite legal action, per Washingtons constitution and tax codes.

Excerpt from:

July 15 Letter to the Editor | Opinion | dnews.com - Moscow-Pullman Daily News

In Jackson County, the sheriff's office said they received several calls about legally carrying a gun while having a mask on.

Rocky Harnen, chief deputy for Jackson County, said after the governor announced a mandatory masking order, the sheriff's office got multiple calls from people asking if they're able to legally carry a gun with a permit and wear a mask at the same time.

Harnen says the answer is yes.

"There is nothing that prohibits you from carrying a gun, concealing it with a concealed carry permit and having a mask on," said Harnen.

He says the sheriff's office wants to make this message clear.

"We certainly support the Second Amendment, right to carry a weapon, if you have a pistol permit, carry and conceal that is absolutely fine. Wear a mask, do what the governor says, and let's get rid of this thing," said Harnen.

Harnen said as for enforcing the statewide mandatory mask order, the office is still reviewing how to enforce it if necessary but encourages people to follow the governor's order.

Read the original here:

Jackson County Sheriff's Office: Legally carrying a gun while wearing a mask is OK - WAAY

Woody's Woods & Waters -

Its hard to imagine interviewing Charlie Daniels without mentioning a fiddle, but I did it.

A few years ago, I called Charlie at his Wilson County farm to inquire about a public-service TV announcement he did for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.

From there the conservation wandered off to NASCAR, his support of the Second Amendment, and the military.

I forgot to congratulate him on his induction into the Country Music Hall of Fame as the worlds most famous fiddler.

Charlie died July 6, at age 83.

He will be remembered for his music and myriad of good deeds. Hell also be remembered for his fondness for the outdoors.

He told me that day he was glad to do the TWRA spot because it was a subject close to his heart.

I grew up hunting and fishing in rural North Carolina, he said.

In Tennessee were blessed with some of the most beautiful outdoors anywhere, and Im glad to help promote it. And not just hunting and fishing we can go camping, hiking, sight-seeing the important thing is to get out and enjoy the blessings.

We also talked NASCAR.

Growing up in the heart of stock-car county, I was a big Richard Petty fan, Charlie said. I also liked Dale Earnhardt. He was tough The Intimidator -- but a nice guy off the track.

After Earnhardt died at Daytona in 2001, Charlie wrote and recorded a song in his memory. He titled it The Intimidator.

He was a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment.

A couple of years ago Charlie donated an autographed fiddle to the Wilson County Friends of NRA in support of the groups Second Amendment initiatives.

I got my first gun when I was about 12, he said. The first thing I was taught was safety to treat every gun as though it is loaded, and never point it at anything you dont intend to shoot. Those are the lessons we need to emphasize. A gun is not evil, it just has to be treated in a safe manner.

Another of Charlies passions was the military and veterans.

Ill do anything I can to support our troops and their families, he said. They are a special breed, the finest young people in our society, and they make great sacrifices for the rest of us. I feel honored whenever Im in their presence.

At the time I chatted with Charlie, he was doing about 100 tour dates year, in demand nation-wide. As soon as he stepped off the stage, he returned to the solace of his farm and the outdoors.

I love performing, but Ill always be a country boy, he chuckled.

As for his public-service announcements:

I've been extremely blessed, he said. I like to give back something in return.

Nobody gave back more than Charlie Daniels.

Ill bet the angels are tapping their toes right now.

View post:

Charlie Daniels treasured the outdoors | | wilsonpost.com - Wilson Post

The Supreme Court has, at least for now, kicked the Second Amendment can a bit farther down the legal road. How much longer can this continue? (Dave Workman photo)

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) announced the filing of an important amicus brief in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals case, Drummond v. Township of Robinson. The brief, joined by the Madison Society Foundation, is available online at FPCLegal.org.

The Greater Pittsburgh Gun Club (GPGC) started offering firearms sales and training on rural land outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania over 50 years ago. For many of those decades, Robinson Township has resolved to shut the club down. In the 1990s, Robinson Township brought a nuisance action against GPGC, but the court determined that GPGC was not a nuisance. Then, Robinson Township brought a licensing action against GPGC, but failed in court again. Now, Robinson Township has enacted an ordinance forbidding GPGC from operating for-profit, or from allowing center-fire rifle shooting on the propertybut only if it is operating as a gun club. The clubs owner, William Drummond, brought this action, alleging that the new ordinance violates the Second Amendment.

Too often people are bullied for engaging in constitutionally protected activity, so we filed this brief to explain why the court should step in and protect the exercise of Second Amendment rights, said FPC Director of Research and brief author, Joseph Greenlee. We are happy to help Mr. Drummond defend his rights and the rights of his clients against Robinson Townships relentless efforts to forcibly close his gun club.

Were hopeful that GPGC can soon get back to providing the public with goods and training protected by the Constitution, as it has for several decades, Greenlee concluded.

Background

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPCs mission is to protect and defend constitutional rightsespecially the right to keep and bear armsadvance individual liberty, and restore freedom.

About Firearms Policy Foundation

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a grassroots 501(c)3 nonprofit public benefit organization. FPFs mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Peoples rights, privileges, and immunities deeply rooted in this Nations history and traditionespecially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

Read more here:

Courts Must Treat the Second Amendment as a Real Right, Not a Second-Class Right - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

According to my stay at home and find something to do research efforts, the American buffalo is officially known among biologists as the species Bison bison, although Ive not been able to discover why biologists need to say everything twice. (I had the same problem with the 80s rock band Duran Duran, but they were not named by biologists as far as I know.)

Apparently, the big, bovine animals much prefer to be called buffalo instead of Bison bison even though the biologists claim they are not allowed to be called a buffalo because the biologists use the name buffalo to indicate a couple of distant relatives: the Asian water buffalo and the African Cape buffalo. This has been confusing to the American buffalo, Im sure, but thats the kind of thing that can happen when you arent paying attention in biology class.

The American buffalo make up for their lack of formal education, however, by sporting a cool beard something the water buffalo and Cape buffalo are unable to muster up.

To go along with his beard, the American buffalo generally cultivates a cool, easy-going attitude, but you dont want to piss him off considering he weighs more than 2,000 pounds, has sharp horns, and can come charging at 50 MPH.

These usually mild-mannered beasts somehow made it through the last Ice Age no mean feat and then grazed and wallowed their way through 10,000 years of the Holocene Interglacial Period, happily making baby buffalo along the way. (I use the term, happily because, except for mating season, the males typically hang out in separate herds and leave the females to raise the kids. Which might indicate that formal education isnt such a necessity, after all.)

The indigenous tribes of North America sometimes referred to the buffalo as The First People, and there was a culture of mutual respect between the two species Bison bison and Homo homo sapiens both being stuck with repetitious names. At the time the first Europeans arrived on the scene, its estimated that North American was home to maybe 60 million buffalo all wearing beards, and roaming from Northern Canada to Central Mexico.

But 10,000 years of prosperity were no match for the new immigrants from Europe, who arrived in the New World with guns and Second Amendment rights. By 1889, successful extermination campaigns by the US government aimed at eliminating the traditional food sources of indigenous tribes, or perhaps due simply to a prejudice against beards had reduced the number of buffalo down to an estimated 1,500, the vast majority of them living sheltered but rather unexciting lives in zoos. A census in 1908 counted 475 wild buffalo still roaming free in North America, mostly in Canada.

Around that time, a group of pioneering conservationists including William T. Hornaday and Theodore Roosevelt decided to save the buffalo from extinction having utterly dropped the ball with the dodo bird and carrier pigeon and the American Bison Society (ABS) was founded in 1905 with a daunting task ahead of them.

The buffalo themselves were pretty keen on the idea, too, never having fully understood the value of Second Amendment rights. (Note to young readers: pay attention in your American Government class.)

The President of the ABS was initially pessimistic about their prospects, while also hinting at some sentimental reasons behind the undertaking. When we began conserving these animals, he explained in an interview in 1930, everyone believed they would become extinct within a few years. It was simply a gesture on our part to keep alive, for as long as possible, a memory of the Old West.

But the ABS, with financial assistance from the federal government, foundations, and private corporations, succeeded beyond all expectations, thanks at least in part to a concomitant effort by male and female buffalo. In 1923, the ABS published a press release noting that nearly 12,000 buffalo were now roaming North America. The Society felt so confident about the buffalos future that they disbanded in 1935. We dont know if the buffalo themselves were feeling quite as confident because they werent prone to form societies and publish press releases.

In fact, the buffalo may have felt a subtle sense of betrayal, because by 1935, a budding industry had sprung up in the US, and thousands of buffalo were being slaughtered for their meat and hides.

It must be tough, to be saved from extinction, only to wind up on someones barbecue grill. You might find yourself asking, with complete justification, What is this some kind of practical joke?

Follow this link:

READY, FIRE, AIM: Where the Buffalo Roam - Pagosa Daily Post

By Hearst Connecticut Media Editorial Board

A group of about 11 mostly-armed demonstrators protesting the stay at home order marched around downtown Raleigh May 9 and ordered sandwiches at a Subway.

A group of about 11 mostly-armed demonstrators protesting the stay at home order marched around downtown Raleigh May 9 and ordered sandwiches at a Subway.

Photo: Travis Long / News & Observer / @vizjourno

A group of about 11 mostly-armed demonstrators protesting the stay at home order marched around downtown Raleigh May 9 and ordered sandwiches at a Subway.

A group of about 11 mostly-armed demonstrators protesting the stay at home order marched around downtown Raleigh May 9 and ordered sandwiches at a Subway.

Editorial: Guns have no place in public spaces

Add Subway sandwich shops to the list of responsible businesses that demonstrate care for the safety and comfort of customers and employees.

The Milford-headquartered franchise changed its policy and will now ban the open carrying of firearms in its restaurants, even in states where open carry is permitted, following similar moves by businesses such as Target, Walmart, Whole Foods, CVS and Walgreens.

What precipitated the policy change is a disturbing sign of the times: Eleven protesters, most carrying pistols and shotguns, marched around downtown Raleigh, North Carolina, in May and went into a Subway shop to order sandwiches as part of a reopen demonstration during pandemic stay-at-home orders.

Photos taken by a local news photojournalist went viral and prompted gun violence prevention organizations to send a letter signed by 153 families and survivors affected by gun violence, and petitions signed by more than 50,000 people, beseeching Subways CEO John Chidsey to change the open carry policy. U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy of Connecticut sent a letter on June 29 urging the prohibition of openly carrying firearms in the restaurants.

In a nation plagued by the scourge of gun violence and lockdown drills, the mere sight of weapons in restaurants and other public venues is often triggering, said Newtown Action Alliance Chairwoman Po Murray of Newtown.

A response in some quarters would be that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms and that right should not be infringed upon. But there are limits, and other individual rights to consider.

Aside from the notion of why would anyone need to carry a gun into, say, a grocery store, the issue comes down to public safety, not conflicting rights. And private businesses are free and responsible to set policies that will make customers feel safe, not intimidated by someone slinging a shotgun in the produce aisle.

The same should be true for public community spaces.

The Newtown Action Alliance is asking its hometown to adopt an ordinance to ban firearms on town property and within 1,000 feet of public demonstrations. Other municipalities should consider the same.

Alliance members regularly rally in front of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a national gun-lobbying organization also headquartered in Newtown.

Counter protesters have used their guns to threaten us, Murray said. Peaceful rallies have become increasingly aggressive when gun enthusiasts attend. The right to peaceably assemble is embedded in the First Amendment. Even that, however, comes with local regulations, such as not disrupting traffic.

A spokesman for the shooting sports group called the Newtown Action Alliances requests preposterous and undermine the very definition of what it means to be American.

Not so.

The definition of what it means to be an American does not include intimidating people by brandishing firearms. To be an American means respecting others rights and, yes, people do have the right to buy legal guns and use them appropriately. In public spaces and private businesses, though, guns have no place.

More:

Editorial: Guns have no place in public spaces - Danbury News Times

Despite this, his role in Bostock largely shocked and angered the conservative legal movement. Justice Scalia would be disappointed that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today, for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards, Carrie Severino, the president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said after the Bostock ruling. This was not judging, this was legislatinga brute force attack on our constitutional system. Her organization is a key player in the right-wing judicial-confirmation juggernaut, and most of its budget comes from anonymous six- and seven-figure donations. JCN reportedly spent $10 million to back Gorsuchs confirmation. Presumably, these donors care less about the technicalities of textualism than the results to which the philosophy leads, which usually line up with conservative political causes.

As I noted at the time, the ruling in Bostock ruptured the basic pact between social conservatives and the Republican Party over the past few decades. In exchange for large-scale electoral and political support, GOP candidates were supposed to defend religious liberty and stand athwart the sexual revolutionor at least install judicial nominees who would do it for them. Many of them used the Supreme Court vacancy caused by Antonin Scalias death to justify their support for Donald Trump in 2016. Then they saw the nominee who filled that vacancy write one of the most sweeping judicial victories for LGBTQ rights in American history.

This decision, and the majority who wrote it, represents the end of something, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley said in a floor speech after Bostock came down. It represents the end of the conservative legal movement, or the conservative legal project, as we know it. After Bostock, that effort, as it has existed up to now, is over. I say this because if textualism and originalism give you this decision, if you can invoke textualism and originalism in order to reach such a decisionan outcome that fundamentally changes the scope and meaning and application of statutory lawthen textualism and originalism and all of those phrases dont mean much at all.

His comments reflect a deeper divide on the right about the future of the movement. A medley of right-wing figures like Hawley, New York Post columnist Sohrab Ahmari, and Harvard University law professor Adrian Vermeule have argued that conservatives should embrace illiberalism to reverse their defeats in the culture wars. Their many critics, such asNational Reviews David French, note that this strategy makes little sense when the American public largely disagrees with them, their grip on the apparatus of state may be fleeting, and their abandonment of liberalism is more likely to backfire than succeed.

Fueling this debate was Chief Justice John Roberts, who resumed his old role as a spoiler for would-be conservative victories this term. He sided with the courts liberals in June Medical Services v. Russo to strike down a Louisiana law that would have closed all but one of the states abortion clinics. In Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, he made the same alliance to quash the Trump administrations efforts to rescind the DACA program. Many court-watchers believe he is part of the reason why the court has largely avoided Second Amendment cases for the past decade, though the courts votes on accepting and declining cases usually arent public.

A recurring theme in right-wing criticism of Roberts is that hes guided not by the law, but by complaints from liberal politicians and legal commentators. It is all too apparent that Roberts can be cowed by the Democrats frequent and noisy threats to pack the courts or otherwise poison their credibility and legitimacy with the public, National Reviews Dan McLaughlin wrote last month. By caving to such threats, he only invites more of them. This criticism, whether intentionally or not, often ends up adopting the same attacks on the courts legitimacy that it claims to abhor. And its not liberals who are out of sync with the public on abortion rights, Dreamers, and LGBTQ rights.

Fears of Roberts turning to the center, to say nothing of being liberal, are still overblown. He is a conservative justice, Jonathan Adler, a Case Western Reserve University law professor, wrote last week, but more than anything else, he is a judicial minimalist who seeks to avoid sweeping decisions with disruptive effects. As Adler notes, this does not explain all of Robertss rulings over the years. The chief justice infamously wrote the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a key Voting Rights Act provision and opened the door to a wave of voter suppression across the South. (This was the capstone on Robertsslong career of working to undermine the VRA, which began when he was a lawyer in the Reagan Department of Justice.) He can be willing to move mountains if it will structurally tilt American democracy in Republicans favor.

But Robertss judicial minimalism works well as a general rule, especially after this term. The chief justice found himself outside the majority in only a handful of the major cases this term. In Ramos v. Louisiana, he joined Justice Samuel Alitos dissent from a ruling that required unanimous jury verdicts to find a defendant guilty. That ruling, Alito complained, imposes a potentially crushing burden on the courts and criminal justice systems in two states that had used non-unanimous jury verdicts to convict defendants. And in McGirt, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation ruling, Roberts warned that the majoritys ruling had profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma. (It did not.)

Visit link:

The Strategic Blunders of the Conservative Legal Movement - The New Republic

The assembly approved an ordinance Tuesday night that reaffirms its support for Americans right to bear arms.

The ordinance repeats some of the language from the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution, which protects Americans rights to keep and bear arms. Sponsored by borough mayor Charlie Pierce and assembly members Jesse Bjorkman, Norm Blakeley and Kenn Carpenter, the main change in the ordinance is to declare the Kenai Peninsula Borough a Second Amendment Sanctuary. That term comes from a national political movement by gun advocates pushing local governments to pass laws saying they wont enforce state or federal gun laws, which gained significant attention in Virginia earlier this year.

Bjorkman said he wanted to see the ordinance passed as it was because of threats to the Second Amendment in the state. He didnt specifically list any legislation, but one introduced in 2019House Bill 62would implement a red flag law in Alaska, allowing courts to issue temporary protective orders allowing firearms to be removed from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others.

"There are bills being filed that people would like to be passed that would remove a bit of due process, that would remove some peoples rights," he said. "Thats a fact. As people see their second amendment rights being threatened, they want to take action, and they want folks to take action at all levels of government."

Assembly member Hal Smalley and assembly president Kelly Cooper both offered amendments hedging some of the vague language, particularly on what a second amendment sanctuary is. Smalleys amendment was defeated, but Coopers ultimately passed, clarifying that the borough does not have police powers nor authority over the cities police departments nor authority to regulate firearms, and defining that the sanctuary means what is specifically outlined in the ordinance.

Smalley said hes a lifelong hunter and supports the second amendment, but is bound to anyway as a public servant.

"I do not believe and I do not see see where my second amendment rights are under any attack," he said. "Our oath of office requires us to support and defend the second amendment rights. Its required. The definition or the issue of a sanctuary city and looking at that which was sent out to us, we are not allowed to defy federal and state laws."

Cooper said she is a gun owner as well but didnt like the vagueness of the language, especially in line with the boroughs existing powersthe other examples of local governments that have passed these sanctuary laws have been cities and counties, many of which have their own police departments.

"I just think that its important that we and its responsible of us to clarify what our authority is," she said. "Yes, we do support the second amendment. No, we do not have that authority. We need to make sure people in our communities understand that so we do not have misuse or misrepresentation of the language that we pass. So I would ask for your support, and I would also ask that we encourage firearm safety training."

Written public comments were split, but the majority of comments given during the meeting Tuesday opposed the ordinance, with concerns about what would happen if the borough saw an increase in gun violence and wanted to take action. As a second-class borough, the Kenai Peninsula doesnt have police powers. A vote could change that, but voters have rejected the borough establishing police services before, such as in Nikiski in 2015.

The amended ordinance states that the assembly will oppose any laws that would unconstitutionally restrict gun ownership and, within its powers, wont use its resources to unlawfully restrict the ability to bear arms. The ordinance is uncodified, which means its not within the boroughs regular code of laws like planning, roads, et cetera.

Alaska actually already has a law that exempts certain firearms and accessories from federal legislationthe Alaska Firearms Freedom Act, signed by former governor Sean Parnell in 2010 and updated in 2013. That law states that any firearms or accessories manufactured in the state and that stay in the state are exempt from federal regulation.

Reach Elizabeth Earl at eearl@kdll.org.

Read the original post:

Assembly passes 2nd amendment 'sanctuary' ordinance - kdll.org

To the editor:

This letter is in response to Daniel Dearborns letter of July 3. Mr. Dearborn states that the Second Amendment recognizes the unalienable right of the citizen to bear arms without limitation, exception, or exemption.

Really? That language does not appear in the Second Amendment but is simply Mr. Dearborns interpretation. It is ironic that later in his letter he does quote the exact language that reads, 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.

Why does he ignore the language regarding a militia?

For the first 200 years of our republic, the prevailing attitude of the courts was that the Second Amendment was a collective right, belonging to state militias, as codified in United States v. Miller in 1939, and not an individual right.

It was not until 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the individual right to bear arms was upheld by the Supreme Court headed by Justice Roberts and passed by a conservative court by a 5-4 margin. However, even that conservative majority concluded the right to bear arms was not without limitation, contradicting Mr. Dearborn's assertion.

How did we get to this point regarding the intent of the Second Amendment? In the 1970s, special interests, including the NRA and other gun proponents, began to propagate the argument that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

Over time, these efforts have been successful in changing the views of the public, legislators and even judicial appointees. That these interests have been successful in reshaping the argument is regrettable.

In 1991, retired Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger (a conservative appointed by President Nixon) stated that the idea that the Second Amendment provided an individual right to bear arms is one of the greatest pieces of fraud I repeat the word fraud on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

Amen, brother.

Things have only gotten worse since then. However, with a Biden victory in November, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court can, eventually, be overturned and sanity in the form of legitimate, sensible gun control laws, based on the original intent of the Second Amendment, with limitation, exception and exemption, can become a reality.

StevenBell

Amesbury

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

See the rest here:

LETTER: Different view of the Second Amendment - The Daily News of Newburyport

Legal action against militias

Theres a mistaken belief that the Second Amendment protects everything militia. But laws in every state make it clear that they do not. The U.S. Supreme Court underlined this in the 2008 case, Columbia v. Heller, which made it clear on one hand that gun ownership is an individual right, but on the other hand that the Second Amendment does not prevent the prohibition of private military organizations. (Drug prohibition backfired, so be careful, here.)

Armed white men have shown up at Black Lives Matter demonstrations across the Inland Northwest, including Spokane, Coeur dAlene and Sandpoint, reports columnist Shawn Vestal in the Spokesman Review (June 24). He says, All around the white rural West, armed self-appointed militia dudes have risen up in opposition to the call for civil rights and police reform around the death of George Floyd, disrupting peaceful protests, glowering at people with cardboard signs, declaring themselves defenders of America.

Property tax patriots who are directed into racist activity should be wary of their leadership.For your state, search: Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, search private military activity is prohibited, then download the first result: Prohibiting private armies

ICAP wants officials to know they have legal authority they might not know they have to protect American freedom marchers. ICAP offers pro bono legal assistance if officials want it. And ICAP wants the public to know of these laws in case they want their leaders to use them.

Heres my ask. Next time theres a hint of militant action against a planned protest in Pullman, I ask that Mayor Glenn Johnson and Police Chief Gary Jenkins dont scare the merchants, protesters and city staff. Rather, I ask that they advise the militias that their presence would invite legal action, per Washingtons constitution and tax codes.

Originally posted here:

Letter to the Editor | Opinion - Moscow-Pullman Daily News

Second Amendment Protects the Right to Carry Arms Outside the Home FPC

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) announced the filing of an important brief in the en banc rehearing of Young v. Hawaii in support of the right to bear arms. The brief is joined by several professors of Second Amendment law, the Cato Institute, Madison Society Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, and Independence Institute. The brief is available online at FPCLegal.org.

The issue before the en banc Young court is whether the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to openly carry firearms outside the home. In 2016, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to carry a concealed firearm. Thus, a three-judge panel in 2018 held that the Second Amendments right to bear arms must protect the right to openly carry a firearm. An en banc panel of the court will now reconsider the open carry issue.

The Founders words and actions make indisputably clear that they intended to protect the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms outside the home through the Second Amendment, said FPC Director of Research and brief author, Joseph Greenlee. In the brief, we articulate the founding-era understanding of the Second Amendments text, demonstrate that the right to carry arms was virtually unrestricted throughout the colonial and founding eras, provide a summary of laws mandating the carrying of arms outside of military service (for example, to attend church and to travel), and provide examples of Americas most influential founders carrying as part of their ordinary lives.

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPCs mission is to protect and defend constitutional rightsespecially the right to keep and bear armsadvance individual liberty, and restore freedom.

About Firearms Policy Foundation

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a grassroots 501(c)3 nonprofit public benefit organization. FPFs mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Peoples rights, privileges, and immunities deeply rooted in this Nations history and traditionespecially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

Visit link:

Second Amendment Protects the Right to Carry Arms Outside the Home - FPC - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Pete Sessions and Rick Kennedy will face each other for Texas Congressional District 17 seat in the November general election.

AUSTIN, Texas Pete Sessions and Rick Kennedy won their respective July runoff elections and will face each other in the November general election, vying for the Texas Congressional District 17 seat.

Pete Sessions defeated Renee Swann in the Republican runoff, and Rick Kennedy beat David Jaramillo in the Democratic runoff.

The districts incumbent, U.S. Rep. Bill Flores a Republican chose in Sept. 2019 not to run in the 2020 election. Flores is currently serving his fifth term representing the 17th Congressional District after he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010.

The 17th district covers part of North Austin and Pflugerville, and Waco and College Station.

A look at the Democratic candidate for Texas Congressional District 17:

According to his official campaign website, Kennedy believes healthcare should be reformed, specifically by creating a public option to achieve universal coverage.

Additionally, Kennedy said he stands for immigration reform, climate change action and making higher education more affordable. He suggested implementing a universal pre-kindergarten class and investing in vocational programs.

Kennedy released the following statement following his victory in the primary runoff election:

To the people of Congressional District TX17, thank you for this victory tonight. Im thrilled to have the honor of taking the next step in representing you in the US House.

My work starts tomorrow and so I extend this request to all citizens of this congressional district--please reach out to me with your ideas, concerns & needs. Visit rickkennedyforcongress.com for contact info.

This stance reflects the very reason the US House was established more than 230 years ago, which was revolutionary then and, I regret to say, is still revolutionary today. So Ill say it another way to be clear: I want to hear from you so I can best represent you--not the establishment, not big money, not dark money, not a particular party, not the president.

To David Jarmillo, and to primary candidate William Foster III, thank you for running principled, issues-oriented campaigns. I sincerely hope you stay in the political arena; our country needs people of your caliber & passion. Whatever you decide to do next, I wish you both the best.

We have work to do. Lets get going!

A look at the Republican candidate for Texas Congressional District 17:

Sessions is a graduate of Southwestern University who was born, raised and now lives in Waco. Sessions is a pro-life conservative who says, according to his campaign website, he is dedicated to fighting to put the Trump Public Charge Rule a rule to reduce the number of non-citizens on welfare into law. He is also a lifetime member of the Texas Rifle Association. His campaign website says Sessions is also pro-second amendment, pro-family and pro-farmer and rancher.

PEOPLE ARE ALSO READING:

Read the original post:

Pete Sessions, Rick Kennedy to face off for Texas Congressional District 17 in November election - KVUE.com

LEWISTON A Georgetown Law report suggests armed, unregulated groups who patrolled the streets of Lewiston and other Idaho towns during Black Lives Matter protests last month operated contrary to Idahos constitution and several sections of Idaho code.

But some local officials arent buying it, claiming the report, issued in 2018, omits important considerations, including a 2008 Idaho preemption statute, open carry laws, the ability for a prosecutor to bring a case and the right to bear arms.

Georgetown University Law Centers Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection issued the report, Prohibiting Private Armies at Public Rallies, highlighting laws and constitutional sections in every state that seem to prohibit private military and paramilitary conduct.

The report highlights Article I, Section 12 of the Idaho Constitution, which states the military shall be subordinate to the civil power. It does not mention that Idahos constitution mirrors the U.S. Constitutions Second Amendment right to bear arms.

You have to start with the constitutional right to bear arms, which in Idahos constitution is clearly established as a personal right, and we have statutes that protect an individuals right to open carry, Nez Perce County Prosecutor Justin Coleman said. I think its important in this state to look through that lens first with regards to defense challenges and especially considering trying to establish any criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.

The report highlights an Idaho law that says people who are not in the National Guard or an unorganized militia called into service must not associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with firearms in any city or town of this state.

It cites Idahos Terrorist Control Act, including a section that prohibits one or more persons to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitutions or laws of the United States or the state of Idaho, by use of violence against the person or property of such citizens.

The law prohibits people from being on a highway or the premises of another citizen with intent to use violence against a citizen or property or to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege.

It also prohibits training or instruction of techniques to cause property damage, bodily injury or death.

It is easy for someone to philosophize about legal statutes and frameworks; however prosecuting a case on the ground is a much different thing, Coleman said.

He said the groups that assembled in response to Black Lives Matters rallies did not amount to a militia or military, and these statutes simply dont apply to what happened here. I think the bottom line is that we had two divergent groups that protested peaceably in the same town at the same time. There was no violence, there were no crimes committed and not even one citation was issued during the events by law enforcement that Im aware of.

Lewiston City Council Member Bob Blakey had a different take.

Armed militias are not welcomed on our city streets unless authorized by the governor, and what we had on that Saturday was an organized, armed militia, organized by Heather Rogers, Blakey said. What I saw was intimidation.

Blakey is the subject of a recall effort, spearheaded by Rogers, who took to Facebook to organize a Second Amendment rights protest in downtown Lewiston the day Black Lives Matters protesters rallied nearby in Kiwanis Park.

Blakey suggested the city council pass a resolution asking the Idaho Legislature to give cities more authority to regulate firearms at protests, following feedback from downtown business owners who said they were intimidated by and lost business because of the armed protesters. Rogers said his proposal amounts to an attack on Second Amendment rights.

Coleman said it would be difficult to bring a case against the groups.

We would not be able to prove there was any hierarchy structure or drilling, amongst other things, which would help to prove that element beyond a reasonable doubt, he said. A group promoting an activity on Facebook would not be enough to establish this element. Additionally, their activities would not likely be defined as parading in public.

Blakey believes the city council needs to tighten city code to reflect Idahos constitution.

I believe the majority of people in Lewiston would like to see us enforce the state constitution, he said. I think the majority of people were uncomfortable with the show of force on our city streets.

Thats the job of our police force, not the job of individuals, he said. In no way do I want to endorse any kind of outside group operating outside of the city government, outside of the purview of the police force, because theyre not accountable.

Coleman said intent would likely be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt under the reports criminal code sections that were cited.

We would have to prove that someone had the intent to threaten or intimidate or had specific intent to use violence, he said. While also proving a conspiracy to do so amongst more than one person. And there were no other law violations that would be linked to the group in any way showing that there was that intent by any particular individual and another person.

Rep. Mike Kinglsey criticized the Georgetown report for not giving a full account of Idahos laws and rights regarding the Second Amendment and laws that allow people to carry firearms in the state.

I absolutely support the Second Amendment and the rights of my fellow citizens to peacefully protest, armed or unarmed, Kingsley said. It also did not provide Idahos preemption statute and other relevant areas of state law which protect Idahoans Second Amendment rights and ensure cities cannot enact their own forms of radical gun control.

The preemption law states It is the legislatures intent to wholly occupy the field of firearms regulation within this state.

The preemption law prohibits counties, cities, agencies, boards and all other political subdivisions in Idaho from adopting or enforcing any law, regulation, rule or ordinance that regulates the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, transportation, carrying or storage of firearms or any element relating to firearms ... including ammunitions.

Read the original post:

Idaho prosecutor: Armed protesters were likely within bounds - MDJOnline.com

Some places around the country, such as San Francisco, Seattle, and Los Angeles, are sanctuary cities for illegal aliens.

But the Kenai Peninsula Borough is now a sanctuary for gun owners. The Assembly on Tuesday approved an ordinance that restates what should be obvious: The right to bear arms is constitutionally protected and the borough opposes any legislation that restricts that right.

The ordinance explicitly declares the borough a Second Amendment Sanctuary a belts-and-suspenders approach to individual gun rights.

The ordinance was proposed by Kenai Borough Mayor Charlie Pierce, along with Assembly members Kenn Carpenter, Jesse Bjorkman and Norm Blakeley. Although Assembly member Kelly Cooper tried to water it down by making it merely a resolution, it passed intact as an ordinance, with the force of law.

The Second Amendment is essential to the people of this Borough, and it is important to me as well, Pierce said. As long as I am your mayor, I will protect your right to keep and bear arms. I believe in this so much that I put together an ordinance to engrain this right into our Borough.

Alaska as a state has been considered a Second Amendment Sanctuary since Gov. Sean Parnell signed the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act into law on July 9, 2010. HB 186 declared that certain firearms and accessories are exempt from federal regulation in Alaska.

In 2013, Parnell signed HB 69 into law, which expanded rights made clear under HB 186.

But anti-gun lawmakers such as Rep. Geran Tarr of Anchorage have tried to create red flag laws that would allow the government to enact protective orders and take firearms away from people whom officials deem to be a threat.

Nationally, gun sales are at record levels, along with background checks. This may be in part because of the Black Lives Matter movement to defund police, and in part because of associated lawlessness in cities across America.

Last June, the gun-rights stronghold of Alabama saw 42,898 firearms sales, while this June the number was nearly 140,000.

Alaska firearm sales went from 5,557 in June of 2019 to over 9,060 in June of 2020, a 63 percent increase.

Compare historic FBI background check data here.

These results are consistent across the country. While gun sales are up in every state, ammunition inventories are running low for many caliber.

Like Loading...

See more here:

Kenai Borough ordinance reinforces gun rights - Must Read Alaska