Daily Archives: January 21, 2022

By Shereen Siewert

Public reaction is mixed on a number of bills passed by Republicans in the Wisconsin State Assembly that would loosen the states gun laws by allowing guns to be carried on school grounds and in churches. The proposals also would allow people younger than 21 to carry concealed firearms.

The bills Thursday include AB-495, which allows people with concealed carry permits to bring a firearm in their vehicle onto school grounds; AB-498, which lowers the minimum age from 21 to 18 for a concealed carry permit and AB-597, which allows people to carry firearms onto the grounds of a place of worship.A Democratic amendment to AB-495 that would have required background checks for gun sales in the state failed on a 60-36 vote.

Supporters say the proposals aim to protect Second Amendment rights, but critics say the bills could endanger children and communities. Some Democrats voiced concern that the bills would make it possible for a high school senior to legally bring a firearm to school, putting other students at risk.

Rep. Lee Snodgrass, D-Appleton, said the legislation, combined with federal law that bans people younger than 21 from purchasing handguns from federally licensed firearm dealers, could lead to an increase in teens who could not pass a background check carrying concealed handguns in Wisconsin.

So I dont know about you, but I dont want to make it possible for an 18-year-old senior who is maybe having a fight with his friend or had a bad day at football practice, or is stressed out, Snodgrass is quoted in WisPolitics.com. I do not want that young person to be able to have a firearm on school property, at a practice, at a restaurant where theyre fighting with their girlfriend.

The bill would require a school board that elects not to offer a firearm education or hunter safety course to adopt a resolution confirming that decision, according to WisPolitics.com. Those that offer the course would be required to have someone who demonstrates proof of training in firearm safety to teach the course.

Weston Trustee Nate Fiene issued a statement Thursday that criticized the bills.

I cannot fathom any logical problem that this solves, Fiene said. Given the tense nature of school board meetings already, this reckless and totally obscene vote cannot be in the public good. It serves only to significantly increase the risk of public endangerment and reduce public safety.

Rep. Shae Sortwell, R-Two Rivers and author of AB 498, in a floor speech said Democrats opposed to the measure want to ensure young adults are stripped of more than just their 2nd Amendment rights.

Its also about the 14th Amendment too, equality under the law, he said. 18, 19 and 20-year-old adults are not committing some sort of crime where we should deny their rights.

But Rep. Deb Adnraca, D-Whitefish Bay, said in a pre-session news conference that she supports the Second Amendment but is opposed to legislation that would allow firearms in or around schools.

Im a mom, Im a teacher and Im a gun owner, Andraca said. I have my concealed carry permit and my basic handgun certification. I support the Second Amendment right to own guns for hunting, sport and for personal protection. But I can also tell you from personal experience, guns do not belong in, or anywhere near, schools.

The chamber also approved AB 518, which would allow anyone licensed in another state to carry a concealed weapon in Wisconsin.

Gov Tony Evers is likely to veto the bills.

Read this article:
Assembly bills that would loosen Wisconsin gun laws draw divided reaction - wausaupilotandreview.com

Marsha Keene-Frye grew up around guns, going hunting with her family from a young age near her home in Mississippi County.

To this day, she still regularly carries a firearm and considers herself a supporter of the Second Amendment, just like most of her neighbors in southeastern Missouri.

But for 27 years, Keene-Frye has worked at Susanna Wesley Family Learning Center, which offers domestic violence services in Mississippi County. Shes seen how guns have aided perpetrators in terrorizing and even killing their spouses and children.

We have had people who have physically been beaten to death, said Keene-Frye, who is now the centers CEO, but that is rarer than when someone uses a firearm. Theres typically a deadly outcome.

Missouri ranked second in the nation, behind Alaska, in the number of women killed by men, according to a national study that analyses 2018 homicide data. Among the Missouri women who were murdered by their intimate partners, 80 percent were killed with guns.

Keene-Frye can attest to the real nature of these statistics on the ground, and shes adamant that state legislators must pass a law that would take guns out of the hands of convicted domestic-violence perpetrators mirroring federal law.

Three legislators Democratic Sens. Lauren Arthur and John Rizzo and Republican state Rep. Ron Hicks have filed bills that would answer Keene-Fryes call to amend the law.

Advocates like Keene-Frye, and even law enforcementofficials, say these proposals are even more crucial now, following the passage of the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) last May.

The act, which went into effect in August, made it illegal for law enforcement officers in Missouri to enforce certain federal gun laws among them is the federal law that prevents convicted domestic violence abusers from having guns.

Hicks, R-Defiance, voted for the Second Amendment Preservation Act, and he still supports it. But he also believes that it left the states most vulnerable residents unprotected, and legislators have a responsibility to fix it.

This seems like a very simple piece of legislation to help protect all men and women and children in the state of Missouri, Hicks said, and at the same time still protect our Second Amendment rights.

While the legislation has bipartisan support, both Hicks and Arthur agree it still faces a hefty challenge this session. Its an election year, they said, and Republican candidates fear that backing any restriction on gun ownership could hurt them in a primary.

It says something very dark about our politics, said Arthur, D-Kansas City, that they would rather be on record protecting the rights of convicted domestic abusers, rather than the rights of survivors of domestic abuse.

Red flag law

The proposals have three main parts.

They would allow courts to prohibit a person under a restraining order from having or buying a gun while the order is in effect. They would require the courts to inform the Missouri State Highway Patrol and the FBI when a person is convicted of domestic assault. And, they would make it a crime for anyone who has been convicted of domestic violence to possess or own a firearm.

Those convicted of domestic abuse in Missouri have not always been allowed to carry firearms, Hicks said, nor did legislators intend that to be the case.

When Missouri lawmakers voted to override then-Gov. Jay Nixons veto of a 2016 bill legalizing concealed carry without a permit, both Republicans and Democrats were aware that it would unintentionally make it more difficult to enforce the federal law that prevents domestic abusers from having guns, Arthur said.

That was because the legislation removed required criminal background checks and gun safety training classes the time when these offenders would be screened.

But in typical legislative fashion, the majority party wanted to push forward, and made a promise that we would return to the legislation to fix it, Arthur said.

Hicks was among the Republicans who vowed in 2016 to come back and fix it.

Its 2022 now, Hicks said. Im still sitting here trying to fix it. Im actually keeping a promise.

Its Hicks final year in the House due to term limits, and he said closing the loophole is his top priority.

In May, Arthur attempted to add an amendment that mirrors her current bill to the Second Amendment Preservation Act. State Sen. Eric Burlison, R-Battlefield, who was handling the bill on the floor, said it was one issue he believed Republicans and Democrats could come together on.

If that person has been convicted and we know that they arent responsible with their emotions, and with their actions towards people in their family, Burlison said, then having a gun in that situation, youre absolutely right, it adds to the intimidation, and it adds to lethality of the situation.

However, Sen. Bob Onder, R-Lake St. Louis, decried Arthurs amendment during the 2021 debate as a red flag law, which allows family members, law enforcement or other third parties to ask a court to temporarily remove a persons guns if theyre concerned about the individual.

Hicks, whose district area overlaps with Onders, sponsored the same language as Arthurs amendment in his House bill last session and he strongly disagreed with Onder.

I had a letter from the NRA last year stating this is not a red flag bill, Hicks said of the National Rifle Association. If it was a red flag law, they wouldve rated it. I would no longer be holding an A-plus rating from the NRA.

Onders concerns related to judges prohibiting a person from having guns during restraining-order proceedings. Arthur told Onder that these hearings were a crucial moment in protecting victims because thats when the conflicts are at their hottest and most dangerous points. Hicks said the legislation gives a judge the opportunity to be able to protect residents in these dire moments.

If youre sitting in a courtroom and youve got your spouse or significant other sitting over there, youve already gone to the end, Hicks said. You cant take any more. And I think its up to us then to help them.

Hicks said the NRA assured him that this would not fall in the same category as the type of court orders that Onder is concerned about. Ultimately, Arthurs amendment was voted down by the Senate, which went on to approve the Second Amendment Preservation Act.

Now law enforcement officers cant enforce federal law to prevent convicted domestic violence abusers whether it be a felony or misdemeanor charge from having guns. Missouri law prohibits felons from possessing guns, but Arthur noted that a lot of the crimes that are classified as domestic violence misdemeanors are still violent crimes.

In any other context, if it wasnt a domestic partnership, it would be qualified as a felony, Arthur said. I think that speaks to societys attitude about domestic violence.

Rural Missouri advocates

In southern Missouri, families often live miles apart, and that isolation factor makes addressing domestic violence challenging, said Tressa Price, executive director of the Agape House, a domestic violence shelter in Mountain View.

Some of the families that Agape serves only have one car or one phone, and theyre usually in the abusers control, she said.

Getting help is hard enough, said Price, who is a gun owner herself. But then if they have a gun, they can hold them at gunpoint, they can threaten them with that gun, [and] they can use that gun. We have seen too much of that go on down in this area with too many people murdered.

Price spoke about several cases of women who were shot and killed by their husbands or partners. A woman murdered at a McDonalds. Another who tried to run away, but her male partner captured her at the Walmart parking lot and killed her. Another shot in front of her children in her trailer home. The grief impacts the entire community because, in small towns, everyone knows these women and families well, Price said.

This is the kind of stuff we see in rural Missouri, she said. As long as they still have a firearm in their hand, theyre still free to do what they want to do. They still stalk. They still terrorize. But if theres no law against it, it cannot be prosecuted.

Just as in the Mountain View area, guns are very much part of the culture in Mississippi County, said Keene-Frye. Advocates of domestic violence tend to be able to get bipartisan support on most reforms, she said, except when it involves guns.

The typical arguments that Keene-Frye hears against this proposal is that people need their guns to provide food for their families through hunting, or that judges shouldnt be able to grant protection orders without having a full hearing.

When somebody has an order of protection granted against them, a judge has decided that someone needs protection from this individual for a reason, based on facts, she said. So I just really do not understand the controversy surrounding that.

Mississippi County has a population of about 13,000, and the Susanna Wesley Family Learning Center serves about 400 women a year, she said. They provide 1,200 to 1,800 of bed nights to victims every year at the shelter.

As a lifelong gun owner, Keene-Frye said that most responsible gun owners believe that abusers shouldnt possess guns. But her area has become increasingly ultra conservative over the last few years, she said, and its made this point more contentious.

Is the victims right to life not greater than the perpetrators right to a firearm? she said. I believe it is.

This story was originally published on the Missouri Independent.

More here:
Missouri made it impossible for police to prevent convicted domestic abusers from having guns - KCUR

WASHINGTON The Justice Department on Friday charged a Texas man with publicly calling for the assassination of Georgias election officials on the day before the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

The case is the first brought by the departments Election Threats Task Force, an agency created last summer to address threats against elections and election workers. Federal prosecutors accused the man, Chad Christopher Stark, 54, of Leander, Texas, of calling for Georgia Patriots to put a bullet in a Georgia election official the indictment refers to as Official A.

Mr. Stark, according to the three-page indictment, made the threat in a post on Craigslist, the online message board, while then-President Donald J. Trump and his allies were putting public pressure on Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state who certified Mr. Trumps defeat in Georgia to Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Georgia Patriots its time for us to take back our state from these Lawless treasonous traitors, Mr. Stark wrote, according to the indictment. Its time to invoke our Second Amendment right its time to put a bullet in the treasonous Chinese [Official A]. Then we work our way down to [Official B] the local and federal corrupt judges.

Mr. Stark was charged with one count of communicating interstate threats.

The Craigslist posting came at a moment of intense political pressure against election officials in battleground states. Mr. Trump had phoned Mr. Raffensperger on Jan. 2 last year and demanded that he find nearly 12,000 votes to overturn Mr. Bidens victory in Georgia. The posting was published on Jan. 5, a day before a Trump-inspired crowd attacked the United States Capitol in an effort to block Congress from certifying Mr. Biden as the next president.

On Thursday, a district attorney in Atlanta asked a judge to convene a special grand jury to help a criminal investigation into Mr. Trumps attempts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. If the investigation proceeds, legal experts say that the former presidents potential criminal exposure could include charges of racketeering or conspiracy to commit election fraud.

Mr. Raffensperger on Friday did not confirm if he was among the election officials targeted.

I strongly condemn threats against election workers and those who volunteer in elections, he said in a statement. These are the people who make our democracy work.

Kenneth A. Polite Jr., the head of the Justice Departments Criminal Division, said on Friday that the task force is reviewing over 850 reports of threats to election officials and has opened dozens of criminal investigations.

During the 2020 election cycle and in its immediate aftermath, election workers came under unprecedented verbal assault for doing nothing more than their jobs, Mr. Polite told reporters Friday. As the attorney general and deputy attorney general have both emphasized previously: We will not tolerate the intimidation of those who safeguard our electoral system.

The task force, created last June by the deputy attorney general, Lisa O. Monaco, developed a system to log and track all reported threats to election workers and F.B.I. agents, and federal prosecutors were trained to take in, assess and investigate the allegations. Mr. Polite said the task force has prioritized finding ways to enhance security for state and local election workers.

The Texas case represents the task forces first indictment and arrest. Mr. Polite declined to elaborate on what Mr. Stark may have planned to do.

The communication here speaks for itself, Mr. Polite said, referring to Mr. Starks Craigslist post, which offered $10,000 and called for Patriots to exterminate these people.

In addition to the two Georgia election officials, Mr. Starks Craigslist post also threatened a third Georgia official.

Ivanka Trump. The daughter of the former president, who served as one of his senior advisers, has been asked to cooperateafter the panel said it had gathered evidence that she had implored her father to call off the violence as his supporters stormed the Capitol.

Mark Meadows. Mr. Trumps chief of staff, who initially provided the panel with a trove of documents that showed the extent of his rolein the efforts to overturn the election, is now refusing to cooperate. The House voted to recommend holding Mr. Meadows in criminal contempt of Congress.

Scott Perry and Jim Jordan. The Republican representatives of Pennsylvania and Ohio are among a group of G.O.P. congressmenwho were deeply involved in efforts to overturn the election. Both Mr. Perryand Mr. Jordanhaverefused to cooperate with the panel.

Big Tech firms. The panel has criticized Alphabet, Meta, Reddit and Twitterfor allowing extremism to spread on their platforms and saying they have failed to cooperate adequately with the inquiry. The committee has issued subpoenas to all four companies.

Roger Stone and Alex Jones. The panels interest in the political operative and the conspiracy theoristindicate that investigators are intent on learning the details of the planning and financing of rallies that drew Mr. Trumps supporters to Washington based on his lies of a stolen election.

Michael Flynn. Mr. Trumps former national security adviser attended an Oval Office meeting on Dec. 18 in which participants discussed seizing voting machines and invoking certain national security emergency powers. Mr. Flynn has filed a lawsuitto block the panels subpoenas.

Phil Waldron. The retired Army colonelhas been under scrutiny since a 38-page PowerPoint documenthe circulated on Capitol Hill was turned over to the panel by Mr. Meadows. The document contained extreme plans to overturn the election.

John Eastman. The lawyer has been the subject of intense scrutiny since writing a memothat laid out how Mr. Trump could stay in power. Mr. Eastman was present at a meeting of Trump allies at the Willard Hotelthat has becomea prime focus of the panel.

He wrote: militia up Georgia its time to spill blood . we need to pay a visit to [Official C] and her family as well and put a bullet her behind the ears.

An aide to Stacey Abrams, the Georgia Democrat who is running for governor, said he did not know if Ms. Abrams was Official C.

Threats against Georgias election officials continued well after the state finished counting and recounting the votes in its 2020 presidential contest. Two low-level workers whom Mr. Trump and his allies in the right-wing media falsely accused of counting fraudulent votes have sued the Gateway Pundit website, One America News Network and Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trumps lawyer, for spreading lies about their conduct.

Mr. Raffensperger, a Republican, has faced substantial blame from Trump allies for certifying Mr. Bidens victory. He faces a primary challenge this year from Representative Jody Hice of Georgia, who has adopted many of Mr. Trumps false claims about the election.

Mr. Stark could not be reached for comment. His initial court appearance was in Austin, Texas, on Friday afternoon, and the judge appointed the federal public defenders office to represent him. He was released on bond and his arraignment was set for Feb. 4 in Atlanta. Mr. Stark faces up to five years in prison if convicted.

Katie Benner contributed reporting. Kirsten Noyes contributed research.

Read more from the original source:
Texas Man Charged With Threatening to Kill Georgia Election Officials - The New York Times

As he begins a second term or, as he's described it, the fifth year in an eight-year journey Gov. Phil Murphy has committed to lowering New Jersey taxes.

While he says his administration's focus on the Garden State's high cost of living is not new, it's certainly amplified especially as weary New Jersey taxpayers eye the start of the pandemic crisis' third year.

It also follows Murphy's close call at the polls in November, when Jack Ciattarelli, his Republican challenger, came within striking distance of upending Murphy's plans for a second term. Ciattarelli's campaign, while dogged by the shadow of former President Donald Trump, still made inroads with voters because of his focus on what he has called New Jersey's "affordability crisis."

The progressive framing of the Murphy agenda may well be a thing of the past.

In a wide-ranging conversation that followed his State of the State and second inaugural addresses,Murphy contended that the emphasis on lowering property taxes in 2022 is far from new.

"Affordability is not something that we just came up with last week. This has been something that we've been on from moment one. It's possible, I think perhaps, that we're emphasizing affordability and opportunity ... maybe with brighter lights than we had been," Murphy said. "We've had four of the lowest property tax increase years on record in New Jersey. I mentioned yesterday that's good, but it's not good enough. We want to see them go down."

Citing tax rebates "of hundreds of millions of dollars"distributed last year,efforts to stimulate shared services, the state's commitment to expanding school subsidies and investment in infrastructure as progress, the governor still acknowledged that addressing high taxes will take a process as complicated, perhaps, as the efforts NASA scientists took to guide a wounded Apollo 13 mission back to Earth in April 1970 a pathway to affordability has lots of twists and turns.

"I don't think there's one magic wand as it relates to affordability, so we've been pulling a lot of different levers," Murphy told me. He went on to note that, of course, the state does not set property taxes school districts do. The state's role, Murphy said, will likely be to continue to invest in funding New Jersey's public schools.

The complexity of the task ahead acknowledged, Murphy pledged that his administration would continue to examine any avenue that could allow New Jersey to become more affordable.

"We want to underscore that we've been on affordability from day one, but I want to triply underscore today that we will stay on it and we will," he said.

We will be watching for signs of progress.

'Mission is not yet done':What Murphy said about second-term plans at his inauguration

On his relationship with the Legislature, Murphy was honest about the time it took his administration to build in the first term and his partnership with the now-departed state Senate President Steve Sweeney.

"We've had a good relationship on both sides of the aisle," he said. "Of our first four years,for the past two-and-a-half or three years in particular we all had to get to know each other in that first year or year-and-a-half, but that's long in the rearview mirror."

Murphy also noted that he's counting on his relationships with new Senate President Nick Scutari whom Murphy credited for getting him over the line on legal cannabis as a social justice issue and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin,and that he's working to build relationships with Republican leaders like state Sen. Steve Oroho and Assemblyman John DiMaio.

Column continues below the gallery

When asked about his efforts to contrast what he characterized as the relative functionality of Trenton with the challenges on the national political scale which some observers have suggested was a hint of his potential presidential aspirations Murphy said voters in New Jersey expect progress from their elected leaders.

"We're not always going to agree, but we're getting stuff done," he said. "I think folks, when they elect somebody, they want them to get stuff done."

I asked Murphy about what's to come on a number of other issues:

Murphy mentioned sports betting and cannabis as future revenue drivers for New Jersey in his inaugural remarks.

Sports betting, Murphy said, "is not a big money-spinner on the budget this is still a double-digit-million [industry] by the way, we'll take it."

Murphy forecast recreational cannabis to "go live" in a matter of monthsand said he anticipated that its impact on state revenues would be significant eventually.

"That has the potential not in this budget ... that's probably a multi-hundred-million state revenue business. ... God knows we need it, and we'll put it to good use."

Charles Stile: Murphy faces reality: Emboldened GOP and disorderly Dems in the Legislature

Murphy said the racial reckoning that began in 2020 after the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and others remains a top priority for his administration. He specifically applauded police efforts to build better relationships with their communities, but acknowledged "we have work to do."

Gun control at a time when many New Jersey cities face spikes in shooting crimes and fatalities was among the governor's priorities. Legislation he's called Gun Safety 3.0 is pending, and Murphy said he's eager for its passage and the opportunity to sign it.

"They make a difference," Murphy said of the effort. "This is not abstract. On the one hand, they don't impair your Second Amendment rights. On the other hand, they make us one of the safest gun states, if not the safest, in America."

More work, too, must be done to improve police-community relations, Murphy said.

Gun reforms, no new taxes:Here's what's on Murphy's agenda for 2022

New Jersey's 2021 election was far from smooth, especially in terms of vote counting. Voting by mail and early voting disabled county structures for vote counting. The election's results including Murphy's win took days to determine.

Our 21 counties have different methods of conveying election results, and they do so at different times. As a consequence, the traditional notion of election night is essentially dead. We're now in a reality in which voters can expect major contests to take days to call. Standardizing reporting across the 21 counties is, in my view, the next frontier in election reform.

When asked if the state would standardize vote reporting, Murphy said he would consider early counting of ballots, with steeper penalties for leaking trends something New Jersey allowed in the 2020 general election cycle.

"That's something a lot of us want to look at," he said.

Ed Forbesis a senior editor for the USA TODAY Network's Atlantic Group, overseeing opinion for news organizations inNew York,New Jersey,Pennsylvania,Delawareand Maryland.To get unlimited access to his insightful thoughts on how we live life in the Northeast,pleasesubscribe or activate your digital account today.

Email:eforbes@gannett.com

Twitter:@edforbes

Continued here:
Phil Murphy begins a second term. Here's what he revealed about his agenda | Forbes - NorthJersey.com

Letters to the Editor| The Columbus Dispatch

Deborah Lind, in her Jan. 17letter, "Claim that police see Black people as the enemy' is ludicrous,'"arguesthat the claims of police officers seeing Black people as enemies is ludicrous.

More: Pastor: Police believe Black people are 'the enemy' due to 'warrior mindset'

By coincidence, on that very same day, on the very samepage of the Dispatch, a column by Rashawn Ray titled, "The scary stats about Black men, police," appeared.

More: Researcher: Goodson killing reflects 'disturbing statistics' about Black men and police

I suggest thatLind read thatcolumn with an open mind to see that the claims of police officers' mistreatment, often violent to the point of murder, are hardly

ludicrous.

Of course, there are kind and honest officers. I have metseveral.

But, as the saying goes, "One rotten apple spoils the wholebarrel."

Neelam Soundarajan, Dublin

We are now in a situation where the U.S. Supreme Court is putting citizens personal liberties over the health and well-being of other citizens. The court overturned President Joe Bidens mandate that companies with 100 or more employees require that these employees be vaccinated OR submit to Covid tests on a weekly basis.

More: Some large Ohio employers pause vaccine requirements pending legal battle over Biden rule

Vaccination naysayers amongst any of these employees would not have to get a vaccination.

All they would have to do is be tested.

This would be critical to their health and the health of others around them. How difficult could this be?Conservative politics played a big rolein the courts decision.

More: Ohio attorney general, sheriffs sue Biden administration over COVID-19 vaccine mandate

Lets come together on the COVID issues, America.

Most Americans claim to be caring individuals. Im starting to doubt this when it comes to issues facing this nation.

Wayne Branfield, Columbus

Why are Ohio lawmakers unwilling to make or keep regulatory gun laws that protect law-abiding citizens from themselves?What about all the unintentional deaths resulting from weak gun laws?

Poor James Williams of Columbus (Canton Repository, Jan. 7, "Widow: They just shot him'"), a law-abiding, upstanding human being who was fatally shot by a police officer after he was firing his wifes AR-15 into the air in celebration on New Years Eve.

More: Widow: "They didn't say, 'Police.'They didn't say, 'Freeze.' ... They just shot him."

I grieve for him and his loved ones for this senseless tragedy.

James would be alive today, if tighter gun regulations would have kept James from handling his wifes gun irresponsibly.

James didnt have a permit.Why should those people be allowed to own guns?Clearly they are not using them for protection, as stated in the Second Amendment.

More: Ohio Senate Republicans pass bill eliminating need for concealed carry permits

Stronger gun regulations might make law-abiding citizens take guns more seriously and therefore act more responsibly with this freedom to bear arms, that they so desperately feel entitled to.

More: Letters: Use sanity. Don't fire your gun off on New Year's Eve.

The fact of the matter is, the less guns out there, the less gun deaths.

Whats wrong with having restrictions on gun ownership to protect these law-abiding citizens from their own irresponsible acts which lead to unintentional shooting deaths?

Susie Stan, Columbus

President Joe Biden had an extremely difficult first year, but he has been down before and has popped back up.

More: Is President Biden sleepy or building nation back better? Let's talk about it.

Remember the presidential primary, when he was on the ropes with no money and few supporters and yet he came back and won?

Never count old Joe out. America loves a comeback story and Joe Biden may provide one.

Michael Oser, Columbus

Continue reading here:
Letters: Nothing 'ludicrous' in saying Black men are police enemy. Gun regulations would have saved man - The Columbus Dispatch

On January 6, 2021, in the minutes before the storming of the Capitol, I was sending a welcome message to my new class of criminal-law students while keeping an eye on Congresss certification of the Presidential election. During the next few hours, a violent mob invaded the building, overwhelmed law enforcement, and drove lawmakers to halt the certification process and hide or evacuate. At the end of that semester, I included a new question on the final exam for my criminal-law students, one about the previously little-known crime of seditious conspiracy, which includes conspiring by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.

In the past year, we have seen charges filed against more than seven hundred people for offenses related to the events of last January 6th, ranging from disorderly conduct and assault to conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. So far, more than a hundred and seventy people have been convicted through guilty pleas, most of them for misdemeanors. On the eve of the insurrections anniversary, Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that the Justice Department was moving to resolve more straightforward cases first, and promised that the actions we have taken thus far will not be our last. In other words, the more serious or difficult charges were forthcoming. Last week, eleven people, including Stewart Rhodes, the leader and founder of the far-right group the Oath Keepers, were indicted by a grand jury. The most serious of the charges they face is seditious conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of twenty years in prison.

The indictment describes some Oath Keepers belief that the federal government has been coopted by a cabal of elites actively trying to strip American citizens of their rights. That Rhodes, the leading defendant, graduated from one of the countrys most lite law schools, Yale, is more than just a fun fact. He developed his views on the Constitution as a law student eighteen years ago, and won a school prize for the best paper on the Bill of Rights. His paper argued that the Bush Administrations treatment of enemy-combatants in the war on terror was unconstitutional. Rhodes wrote that terrorism is a vague concept, and that we need to follow our Constitutions narrow definition of war and the enemy. The argument would have found much support in liberal legal-lite and civil-liberties circles. Liberal attorneys, including at the A.C.L.U., have fought the government on behalf of alleged terrorists arguing just thatwith some successes.

Today concerns about terrorism have shifted from foreign to domestic threats. This month, the Justice Department is launching a new domestic terrorism unit, and Rhodes and his co-defendants face federal conspiracy charges, which foreign terrorists have faced. We might wonder how this lawyer strayed so far as to end up leading a group to attack the Capitol on January 6th. The answer may lie in his belief in defending the Constitutionand that, in turn, may even point to a potential vulnerability in the governments case.

The indictment starts with a recitation of federal law on the process for the transfer of Presidential power, namely the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments to the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act. It alleges that Rhodes planned with his co-defendants to oppose that lawful process by force. But, in order to convict the defendants of seditious conspiracy, the government will have to prove that they planned their storming of the Capitol with the purpose of opposing the lawful transfer of Presidential power.

That might seem straightforward, given the groups intent to stop Congress from certifying the Electoral College votes. The question of Rhodess purpose, though, is complicated by the likelihood that he and his co-conspirators believed that the election was stolen, and that Congress was acting unconstitutionally to install an illegitimate usurper as the President. In other words, the defendants subjective purpose may have been to fight against the subversion of law, not to prevent its execution. Thus, the big lieand the troubling fact that much of the country appears to believe it is the truthis at the core of the seditious-conspiracy charge. The question in this case is whether an act can be deemed seditious if its purpose, in the defendants mind, was to protect the law rather than to oppose it.

Rhodes, who joined the Army out of high school, founded the Oath Keepers in 2009, with a mission to resist unlawful exercises of government power. His estranged wife has stated that he envisioned himself as the next George Washington and called the group he founded the libertarian version of the ACLU. The Oath Keepers have focussed their recruitment on members of the military and law-enforcement communities. Extrapolating from the soldiers vow to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, Rhodes has fixated upon the idea that there is an obligation to disobey unconstitutional orders. Members of his organization vow to resist such orders, including gun-control laws that they believe violate the Second Amendment and unconstitutional searches and seizures by the police.

Days after the November, 2020, election, Rhodes sent his followers a message: We arent getting through this without a civil war. Too late for that. Prepare your mind, body, spirit. He urged the leaders of his group, We must now do what the people of Serbia did when Milosevic stole their election. - Refuse to accept it and march en masse to the nations Capitol. On January 6th, having breached the Capitol grounds, he wrote, Hey, the founding fathers stormed the governors mansion in MA and tarred and feathered his tax collectors.... Thats where we are now. Rhodess seeming belief that his plan for January 6th was resistance to an unconstitutional process may seem wholly unreasonable, because it was based on the false idea that the election was stolen and that the certification of its result was unlawful. But, if the case goes to trial, the jury will be drawn from a cross-section of the community, a substantial portion of which may share the false belief or find it not unreasonable. Some jurors may find it difficult to convict Rhodes and others of seditious conspiracy if they find that sincere views about reality informed the defendants purpose.

Former President Donald Trump has called the insurrectionists patriots who were there for one reasonthe rigged election. Any trial on the seditious-conspiracy charges will be a proxy fight over the legitimacy of those words: whether it is reasonable to believe, as both Trump and Rhodes claim to, that on January 6th Congress was doing something deeply unlawful. This raises the question of whether false beliefs about our democracy will determine the enforcement of our laws; a jury could decide that Rhodess conviction that the election was stolen is reasonable enough to mean he didnt commit seditious conspiracy. Such an outcome might have the effect of adding legal legitimacy to the big lie, and it would underscore troubling questions about the future of American democracy. Now that talk of potential civil war occurs not only among extremist groups but in the mainstream press, a public trial of alleged seditionists will showcase the central fissure that could lead us there.

View post:
The Case Against the Oath Keepers - The New Yorker