Daily Archives: July 23, 2022

From Judge Dale Drozd's opinion in Clifton v. U.S. DOJ (E.D. Cal.), filed Friday:

In 2001, plaintiff was in eighth grade at Mt. Vernon Middle School in Los Angeles, California. He was thirteen years old at the time. Because plaintiff's mother had passed away and he never knew his father, plaintiff then lived with his grandmother. His grandmother's husbandplaintiff's step-grandfatherwas physically and mentally abusive toward both plaintiff and his grandmother. One day in June of 2001, while at an after-school program, plaintiff made comments about "what he would like to do toward his step-grandfather in order to protect himself and his grandmother."

Plaintiff never directly threatened anyone nor took any action to harm his step-grandfather. Nevertheless, the school called a Psychiatric Emergency Team ("PET"), which consisted of licensed mental health clinicians approved by the County of Los Angeles Department of Mental Health to provide Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 and 5585 evaluations. Upon evaluation by the PET, plaintiff was hospitalized for mental health treatment at Gateways Hospital and Mental Health Center in Los Angeles, California for 15 daysfrom June 12 through June 27, 2001. Although plaintiff was initially hospitalized for only 72 hours pursuant to 5150, his hospitalization was extended by 14 days for intensive treatment pursuant to 5250.

Upon his release from the hospital, plaintiff was not prescribed any continuing medication, nor was he required to receive any further psychiatric treatment, including therapy or counselling. Plaintiff alleges that he was never notified of his right to seek judicial review of an involuntary hold and that he was never informed of any long-term repercussions as a result of his psychiatric hold. Nevertheless, plaintiff lost his private capacity to own a firearm as a result of 18 U.S.C. 922(g), which prohibits an individual who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution from owning, possessing, using, or purchasing a firearm or ammunition. Notably, 18 U.S.C. 925(a)(1) provides an exception to this firearms ban under federal law for state actors acting in their official capacity.

Plaintiff went on to graduate from high school and enlist in the United States Marine Corps in 2005. Under 925(a)(1), plaintiff was permitted to handle a firearm during his time with the marines. Plaintiff completed three combat deployments before leaving active duty in 2013 and received an Honorable Discharge as a Sergeant. Subsequently, plaintiff was hired by the Federal Bureau of Prisons as a corrections officer in 2015. He remained in that position until April 2019, when he resigned in good standing. Plaintiff is informed and believes that both his service in the marines and his employment as a federal correctional officer required a complete background investigation that would have revealed his past hospitalization.

On April 8, 2019, the Fresno County Sheriff's Office hired plaintiff as a correctional officer at the Fresno County Jail. Prior to being hired in this role, plaintiff underwent and passed a full psychological evaluation that confirmed he is mentally fit to possess and use a firearm. Then, in 2020, plaintiff applied for a "Deputy Sheriff I" position in the Fresno County Sheriff's Office. This time, when Fresno County ran a background check, the California Department of Justice statewide telecommunications system reported plaintiff's prior hospitalization implicating his lifetime firearms ban under federal law.

As a result of plaintiff's federal firearms restriction, the Fresno County Sheriff's Office declined to sponsor plaintiff's entry into the "Basic Academy under the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training" (i.e., "POST Academy") and represented that it will not consider plaintiff for a sworn deputy sheriff position. Thus, although 18 U.S.C. 925(a) provides an exception to the firearms ban under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) for state or federal actors operating in their official capacity, Fresno County has declined to seek to apply that exception to plaintiff. Under state and federal law, there is no other proceeding that plaintiff can bring to expunge or extinguish his lifetime firearms restrictions under federal law.

Clifton challenged 922(g)(4), in part based on the Second Amendment. The court began by observing that, in effect, 922(g)(4) permanently bans gun possession by Californians who had ever been committed for mental health reasons, even long ago:

Federal law prohibits a person "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution" from possessing a firearm or ammunition. Federal law has provided two potential avenues for relief from this lifetime ban, but both have been foreclosed to all California residents.

First, prior to 1992, a person in plaintiff's position could have applied to the United States Attorney General for relief under 18 U.S.C. 925(c), which provided "for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the possession of firearms." Under 18 U.S.C. 925(c), the Attorney General may, but is not required to, grant relief "if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest." However, since 1992, Congress "has prohibited the use of funds to act on such applications, disabling the program." "Congress defunded the program because, among other reasons, determining eligibility had proved to be 'a very difficult and subjective task which could have devastating consequences for innocent citizens if the wrong decision is made.'"

Second, the states may establish programs under 34 U.S.C. 40915 to provide opportunities for relief from the prohibition imposed by 922(g)(4). To qualify to do so, the state's program must "permit[] a person who, pursuant to State law, has been committed to a mental institution, to apply to the State for relief from the disabilities imposed by" 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) and other laws. The program also must provide:

That a State court, board, commission, or other lawful authority shall grant relief, pursuant to State law and in accordance with the principles of due process, if the circumstances regarding the disabilities , and the person's record and reputation, are such that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.

"Thirty-one states and two tribal governments have established such programs, but California has not." Specifically, California law does not require a determination "that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest."

But the court concluded that Clifton's hospitalization may not have counted as a commitment under 922(g)(4), because it didn't involve a judicial evaluation of his mental health:

The court concludes plaintiff has adequately alleged that his 2001 hospitalization does not constitute an involuntary commitment involving robust judicial involvement under 922(g)(4). At the time of plaintiff's hospitalization, California Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 required the officer, staff person, or other professional who caused the person to be taken into custody to state the circumstances giving rise to probable cause that, because of a mental disorder, the person was a danger to others, himself, or gravely disabled, in a written application to the facility or hospital. However, "Section 5150 provided no hearing." California Welfare and Institutions Code 5250 then authorized hospital staff to certify a person for an additional 14 days of treatment, which is what plaintiff alleges occurred with respect to his hospitalization here.

Other federal circuit and district courts have concluded that similar procedures do not qualify as commitments under 922(g)(4). For example, in Rehlander, the First Circuit concluded that temporary hospitalizations carried out by way of an ex parte procedurenot unlike the procedure alleged here pursuant to California Welfare & Institutions Code 5250did not constitute a commitment under the provisions of 922(g)(4). Moreover, the two Ninth Circuit cases to address commitment procedures in the context of 922(g)(4) both involved judicial determinations that the plaintiffs required institutionalization and in both cases the plaintiffs had been represented by counsel at those court proceedings. Thus, the court concludes that plaintiff has adequately alleged that there was no "commitment" within the meaning of that word as used in 922(g)(4). Of course, on summary judgment for instance, the evidence may establish that plaintiff's 2001 certification did indeed include the level of judicial involvement necessary for 922(g)(4) to apply to him.

And the court briefly discussed, but didn't resolve, the question whether 922(g)(4) may be unconstitutional:

In D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court emphasized that nothing in its opinion "should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill." Defendants note that the Supreme Court "identified such prohibitions as 'presumptively lawful,' because they affect classes of individuals who, historically, have not had the right to keep and bear arms." [And Mai v. U.S. (9th Cir. 2020) held that, even as to] a plaintiff committed for mental health treatment as a minor[,] 922(g)(4)'s continued application did not violate the Second Amendment.

In [Mai,] the Ninth Circuit held that 922(g)(4) was constitutional because "the Second Amendment allows categorical bans on groups of persons who presently pose an increased risk of violence." The court reached this conclusion by applying intermediate scrutiny to 922(g)(4). However, the Ninth Circuit's Second Amendment jurisprudence has now at least arguably been somewhat cast into doubt due to the Supreme Court's recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The majority opinion in that case suggests that the intermediate scrutiny approach to certain Second Amendment challenges may no longer govern.

Nevertheless, the undersigned notes that in Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in Bruen, in which Chief Justice Roberts joined, it was stated that "[n]othing in [the Court's] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill ." Moreover, the Supreme Court has previously recognized that in enacting 922(g)(4), Congress sought "to keep firearms out of the hands of presumptively risky people."

Based on the presumptive constitutionality of 922(g)(4) due to the historical evidence supporting laws barring the mentally ill from owning firearms, the undersigned strongly believes that 922(g)(4) would be upheld by the Supreme Court, regardless of any new, as of yet undefined and unapplied, interpretation methods developed in light of the decision in Bruen. That is not a question that this court must answer today. In fact, it would likely be irresponsible to do so in light of the many cases that will undoubtedly address both the holding in Bruen and how it is to be applied in this Circuit. Moreover, of course, neither party has briefed those issues in this case. Instead, because the court will deny defendants' motion to dismiss as to plaintiff's Second Amendment claim on the basis that plaintiff has adequately alleged that he was never "committed" for mental health treatment as that term is used in 922(g)(4), the court need not address the constitutionality of 922(g)(4) in this order. Ifafter further briefing and conducting of discoverythe court is again faced with that question, it will address it at that time.

My tentative view: The Court in D.C. v. Heller did approve of "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by the mentally ill," but "the mentally ill" doesn't mean "anyone who has ever been found to have mental problems." Like the physically ill, "the mentally ill" generally refers to present illness, not long-past illness. (Nor do I know of any longstanding history of permanent disqualification of anyone who had ever been mentally ill.) And while past illness is often evidence of present illness, it seems to me that, to be constitutional, a prohibition has to provide for some sort of reevaluation and potentially recovery of gun rights, especially after many years have pastsomething that 925(c) initially provided, but that it no longer does.

UPDATE: D'oh! I initially wrote "But the court concluded that Clifton's hospitalization may have counted as a commitment under 922(g)(4), because it didn't involve a judicial evaluation of his mental health," omitting the "not." As my parents would say in such situations "with 180 degree precision" . Sorry for the error, and thanks to Jordan Brown for pointing it out.

Read the original here:
Second Amendment Rights of People Briefly Hospitalized for Mental Health Reasons Long Ago? - Reason

I know West Virginias license plates boasts that the state is still wild, but Im pretty sure they meant more like natural and untouched beauty and less like turning our civic institutions into shooting ranges. But what do I know?

Anyway, the latest tale of utterly absurd, and frankly terrifying, courtroom shenanigans comes to us from West Virginia, where a judge allegedly waved his gun at lawyers for the defendant in a fossil fuel royalties case.

According to reports, attorney Lauren Varnado wanted to bring a security team into the courtroom after previously receiving threats. That was rebuffed, which, honestly, seems like a good idea. Im firmly in camp fewer-guns-in-the-courtroom. But Circuit Court Judge David Hummel Jr. had a VERY DIFFERENT reaction.

According to a sworn affidavit submitted to the Judicial Investigation Commission of West Virginia, Hummel decided the right reaction was to pull his own gun (described as a Colt 45 or 1911 model) from a holster underneath his robe:

Arent me and my guns and security enough? Hummel was alleged to have asked as he took out a Colt handgun and waved it in Varnados teams direction. My guns are bigger than your securitys guns! he allegedly said.

Really, this is turning into a measuring contest? How obvious can you be?

Varnado told NBC her reaction was, well, entirely relatable: I could not believe it was happening. She continued, I was like, This is psychotic.' Which yes.

Vernado also indicated there were underlying tensions between her team and the judge over efforts to have him disqualified over a potential conflict of interests.

Hummel spoke with The Daily Beast, the outlet that broke the story, and initially denied having a gun in the courtroom, I absolutely, categorically deny I had a gun that day in the courtroom. It was just me and the attorneys. I had no reason to have a firearm that day.

In a second call, Hummel changed his story, saying he did have a gun on him (his Colt Peacemaker), but not the specific model of gun Varnado describes him flaunting (his Colt 1911), I wore the Colt Peacemaker. The Peacemaker never ever came out of the holster during that trial.

In subsequent calls, his story morphed even more, saying he *did* have his 1911 gun with him, but [i]t was secreted in a drawer on the bench. I never showed my (Colt) 1911 at the trial whatsoever at any point during that trial.

However, The Daily Beast reports two witnesses from the court staff confirmed Hummel drew his gun and bragged about having it in his possession.

Does Judge Hummel want to go for another try at his version of events? Not yet? Okay, buddy.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email herwith any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Excerpt from:
Judge Points Gun At Defense Team IN THE COURTROOM In Latest From Our Second Amendment Hellscape - Above the Law

Ancient Rome's foremost historian, Tacitus, who often sat at the center of the empire's government, observed, "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Today he might add that the nation with ever-more laws is probably becoming not just more corrupt but more dishonest and stupid as well.

The recent mass shooting in Highland Park, Illinois, may be a case in point. That state has tough and comprehensive gun-control laws and a "red flag" law -- just like Connecticut. Yet these laws didn't stop the disturbed young man charged with the crime, whose craziness was well known to his parents and the police but prompted no intervention.

In recent days in Connecticut a 15-year-old boy was shot to death and a woman wounded in Fairfield at a birthday party for a 13-year-old that was attended by dozens of people. Then two people were shot in New Haven, for which a 17-year-old was charged, and two more were shot in downtown Norwich, for which an 18-year-old was charged.

Meanwhile a Norwalk City Hall forum on gun violence, attended by Mayor Harry Rilling and U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, produced only a glimmer of understanding. The forum heard that many young men are idle, uneducated, and unskilled and that despite Connecticut's strict laws, legal and illegal guns alike are prevalent here.

Ebony Epps of Street Safe Bridgeport added, "These kids are so desensitized." But like everyone else Epps advocated only more "programs," which multiply almost as fast as the laws with a similar lack of effect.

There were no calls at the forum to inquirewhythe young men are so "desensitized," no calls to inquire into the causes of the social disintegration that is slowly destroying the country.

There was no acknowledgment that the strictest gun laws have accomplished little more in Connecticut's cities than they have in Chicago or New York.

For the country now has a huge underclass -- disengaged, demoralized, alienated, and unproductive but heavily armed, and the underclass won't be giving up its guns any faster than the rest of the country will be.

Where has this underclass come from? Is it the fault of Donald Trump and George W. Bush? Why wasn't it civilized under Barack Obama and Bill Clinton? Why are fewer people today prepared to become goodcitizens?

Anything short of questions like those is a waste of time, except for people aspiring to careers in "programs."

* * *

Some wise guys in Connecticut, angry at the Supreme Court's recent reiteration in the Second Amendment case from New York that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, are arguing again that the right should be restricted to members of the militia mentioned in the amendment.

Yes, "a well-regulated militia" is the rationale offered by the Second Amendment for the right to keep and bear arms. But this rationale for the right does not establish arequirement. Back when the Bill of Rights was adopted, people didn't have to be formal members of a militia to be eligible to join it or be summoned into it. The Bill of Rights gave the people the right to keep and bear armsjust in case.

That is how the Second Amendment was construed back then. People today may consider the amendment's rationale outdated, but it's still in the Constitution and it's not for the courts or state legislatures to change or invalidate it. That can be done only by repealing the amendment through the prescribed constitutional procedures.

The wise guys complain that today's semi-automatic rifles are "weapons of war," far more deadly than the muskets in use when the Bill of Rights was adopted. The wise guys argue that the country's founders didn't imagine that the right to keep and bear arms included "weapons of war." But of course the founders imagined it, since back then muskets were "weapons of war" too.

Connecticut's own Constitution suggests that the Supreme Court has construed the Second Amendment exactly as it was understood when it was ratified in 1791. For since 1818, 27 years after ratification of the Second Amendment, Connecticut's Constitution has declared: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."

It always was and remains anindividualright.

Chris Powell is a columnist for the Journal Inquirer.

See the rest here:
Why is society falling apart? And court is right about guns - Journal Inquirer

TOPEKA Independent governor candidate Dennis Pyle attended a Topeka gun show in a quest to gather some of the 5,000 petition signatures necessary to secure a spot on the November general election ballot.

The idea was to mine the assemblage of Second Amendment advocates for people open to Pyles decision to step away from the Republican Party to offer Kansas voters an alternative to presumptive GOP gubernatorial nominee Derek Schmidt. Pyle, a state senator from Hiawatha since 2005, would join Schmidt, Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly and Libertarian Party nominee Seth Cordell on statewide ballots.

Pyle has until noon Aug. 1 one day before the primary election to accumulate sufficient signatures to qualify. His movements on the GOPs right flank have drawn interest from Republicans and Democrats intrigued by the idea of Pyle being a wildcard in the three-month race to a finish Nov. 8.

His presence mirrors a belief among some Republicans that Schmidt didnt possess sufficiently staunch conservative views they wanted in a governor candidate.

Were working hard and diligently on the petition drive and everyone will find out the results on August 1, Pyle said.

Pyle wasnt the only person looking for petition signatures at the July gun show. State Rep. Vic Miller, a Topeka Democrat, also worked the crowd for signatures that could be added to Pyles pile. Miller wouldnt say how many he netted, but promised to turn over his signature sheets to the Pyle campaign.

It was more than a one-person job given the traffic. It went well, Miller said. There were a lot of people who didnt care for Derek Schmidt, because hes pretty much a waffler. As opposed to Pyle, who is a man of principle. I like Dennis.

The political sideshow at the firearm gathering brought together an unusual pairing, given Pyles persistently conservative approach in the Legislature and Millers dedication to Democratic politics in the Capitol. After Kelly was sworn into office as governor in 2019, Miller surrendered his House seat after selected by peers to complete the unexpired portion of Kellys Senate term. He later chose to return to House in 2021.

Larry Mzhickteno, who was a neighbor of Miller for more than a dozen years, said he was surprised to see Miller at the gun show. He said Miller was wearing a National Rifle Association hat and held a signature sheet with about 15 names on it. The goal of Miller and other Democrats was obvious, he said.

I think theyre trying to divide the number of votes Schmidt can get, Mzhickteno said. He was being awfully sneaky about it.

In a June announcement, Pyle said he was interested in entering the governors race to give voters of Kansas a diverse choice. He said he was a God-loving American, devoted to the Constitution and protecting our children.

Pyles appeal to voters could be important, especially if the Kelly and Schmidt race came down to the wire. In 2010, Pyle landed more than 31,000 votes in a Republican primary loss to U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, who served Kansas 2nd District in Congress for a decade.

C.J. Grover, Schmidts campaign manager, said Kellys inability to defend her record as governor led her allies under false pretenses to trick voters into adding a candidate to the ballot in hopes of splitting the vote enough to deliver her a win despite a majority of Kansans wanting a different governor.

Shannon Pahls, executive director of the Kansas Republican Party, said acceptance by Pyle of petition signatures gathered by Miller or other Democrats would raise questions about Pyles adherence to conservative principles. She previously said a vote for Pyle in the 2022 election should be considered a vote for Kelly.

If Dennis Pyle has any integrity, he will reject all petition signatures gathered on his behalf by liberal Democrats helping Laura Kelly. The Kansas GOP calls on him to both reject them and make a public commitment that he will do so, Pahls said.

Kansas Democratic Party spokesperson Emma OBrien responded to Pyles announcement of interest in the governors race by suggesting his candidacy reflected Schmidts internal partisan problems and Kellys bipartisan work as a unifying leader.

More here:
Pyle pushes ahead with hunt for 5K signatures to join November ballot in Kansas governor's race - Kansas Reflector

Photo: Chip Somodevilla (Getty Images)

Since Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in 2020, its fate has languished in courts and on the congressional cutting room floor. But its neither the legislative nor the executive nor the judiciary that hold the fate of constitutional gender equality; in fact, the ERA needs just one more signature to take effect. The would-be 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is waiting for the National Archivist to certify and publish those 24 words as a new amendment to the Constitution.

The National Archivist? Like from the National Archives? Yes, exactly. Currently Debra Steidel Wall is the acting archivist at the archives. Unlike her predecessor David S. Ferriero, who blocked the ERA certification, Steidel Wall has the opportunity to make history.

The constitutional amendment process is rather straightforward: An amendment must be passed by two-thirds in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 currently). There are no other steps. The president doesnt even have to sign it. If youre a strict originalist, thats it for the amendment process, Kate Kelly, lawyer, ERA advocate, and author of Ordinary Equality: The Fearless Women and Queer People Who Shaped the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Rights Amendment, explained to Jezebel. Its a states rights issue.

However, Congress added a statutory requirement, and this is where we return to Steidel Wall. The archivist certifies that the states who ratified it ratified it and publishes it. Thats the way for everyone to know that when you print new versions of the Constitution it has 28 amendments, Kelly said. Its a purely ministerial duty. The archivist was never intended to be an arbiter.

In fact, the amendment process is supposed to stay in the hands of those who are democratically elected. The archivist is only confirmed by the Senate and reports to constituency. Article V of the Constitution gives no roles to the courts or executive branches in text.

Because of this, the archivist has been sued by Illinois, Nevada, and Virginia. A federal district court dismissed the suit, but its appeal is pending at the D.C. Court of Appeals. Since then, Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares (a Republican) pulled out of the lawsuit. The lawsuit was dismissed because the states passed the ERA after the 1982 deadline given by Congress. But that deadline only applied to the preamble of the ERA, Kelly said.

Despite this back-and-forth, leading constitutional scholars like Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School told Congress that the ERA is the 28th Amendment.The 24 words that would add gender equality to the Constitution and were ratified by 38 states do not include the deadline.

The states shouldnt have to be beholden to a congressional deadline, Kelly said. There are no deadlines attached to the constitution amendment process [in Article V], she said. There are a lot of deadlines in the Constitution, a census every 10 years for example. If the framers intended to put in a deadline, they would have. The time limit was not something they considered. I think its pretty clear that the deadline is not binding.

The time for constitutional protections for gender have never been more urgent. We will not have permanent protections if we are not in the Constitution, Kelly said. Losing access to abortion as a fundamental right illustrates the vital importance of changing the Constitution. Protections we treated as permanent are not permanent.

But for Kelly, who first learned about the ERA when her mother and grandmother were organizing against it in the 1970s at the behest of the Mormon Church, the ERA represents a long game and a systemic solution.

When you think about amendments, the people who wrote and ratified the Second Amendment never imagined how powerful it would become. They have become incredibly powerful tools and we dont have that for gender. We need to step back and dream as big as we can, she said. It will also outlast every person on the Supreme Court. Its gonna be here in 200 years, 300 years, assuming we still have a democracy by then. It is a permanent amendment.

Read the original here:
The Equal Rights Amendment Just Needs One More Signature - Jezebel

On July 11, Joe Biden held an event at the White House to celebrate what his administration called the most significant gun violence legislation to have been signed into law in 30 years.

The ink on the so-called Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, passed over the NRAs objection, is barely dry. And the same can be said for the U.S. Supreme Courts latest pronouncement on the Second Amendment, which reinforces the principle that the right to keep and bear arms is a defining feature of American freedom and self-governance.

And yet news is now breaking that Congressional Democrats are pushing the largest firearms ban in American history.

This demonstrates as clearly as possible that gun control advocates will never stop, that every success merely emboldens them to take the next, more sweeping and tyrannical step, and that any legislator or voter who thinks otherwise is dangerously nave.

The bill H.R. 1808, sponsored by Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-RI) is scheduled for a markup in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and suffers every major defect attributable to Congressional guncontrollegislation.

First, it is blatantly unconstitutional.

Second, it would provide no appreciable benefit to public safety, while directly infringing on the rights of law-abiding Americans. Its most predictable effect would be to put the law on the side of predatory criminals and against ordinary people peaceably trying to live their lives.

Third, it is punitive, persecutory, divisive, and wholly partisan.

There are many things Congress could do in good faith within its constitutionally delegated powers to address the problems of violent crime and violent criminals. This bill does none of them.

Heres what it would do.

The centerpiece of the bill is a sweeping ban on semi-automatic long guns (what it calls assault weapons), targeting what are in fact the most popular rifles in America today.

It would ban the importation, manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of any semi-automatic rifle that has a removable magazine and any one of the following features: a pistol grip; a forward grip; a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock (or some feature that makes the firearm otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon); a grenade launcher; a barrel shroud; or a threaded barrel.

It would also ban any semi-automatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

The bill underscores its intentions with a lengthy list of firearms that are banned by name, which include all AK types and all AR types, as well as copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof.

Semi-automatic shotguns and pistols, of course, also get their own types of bans.

Even more consequentially, however, the bill would ban any ammunition feeding device that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition, excluding only an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

Also banned by the bill would be any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm but not convert the semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun.

Moreover, any combination of parts from which a [banned] firearm [could] be assembled or the frame or receiver of a [banned] rifle or shotgun would themselves be banned.

The consequences of these bans are literally too encompassing and far-reaching to analyze in depth in a general overview of the measure.

Suffice to say for present purposes that despite the bills use of the term assault weapon it does not target obscure firearms, firearms that are favored by criminals but not law-abiding citizens, firearms that are over-represented in crime, or firearms that are fielded by modern military forces. Rather, it goes after the very types of rifles, in particular, that are most often chosen by Americans for defense of their homes, their families, and their properties.

Thus, the first defect of the bill is that it violates the Second Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use for lawful purposes, most recently on June 23 in its opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen.

There is no question that the AR-15 and other semi-automatic firearms and magazines targeted by this bill meet the common use threshold.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the leading trade association for the U.S. firearms and ammunition industries, reports that semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are among the most popular firearms being sold today. As of late 2020, NSSF estimated (based on import and manufacturing data dating back to the 1990s) that there were 19.8 million of these types of rifles in circulation in the United States.

Moreover, the overwhelming number of semi-automatic rifles and pistols chambered for a defensive cartridge and available in the U.S. today come factory-equipped with magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. There also countless such aftermarket magazines in private hands.

Under any conceivable definition, both items are in common use.

The author of Bruen himself, Justice Clarence Thomas, has in fact already opined on the matter in a dissent to the high courts refusal to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a ban on AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles in 2015. Thomas wrote:

[District of Columbia] v. Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purposeregardless of whether alternatives exist. The Citys ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. [Internal citations omitted.]

Another current justice, Brett Kavanaugh, while a judge on the D.C. Circuit, dissented from a case that upheld a Second Amendment challenge to a similar ban. Under the Heller history- and tradition-based test, or the strict scrutiny test, or even the majority opinions own intermediate scrutiny test, the D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles is unconstitutional, Kavanaugh wrote.

Still another current justice, Samuel Alito, wrote a concurring opinion to a Supreme Court case which concerned stun guns. Citing data that indicated some 200,000 Americans owned stun guns as of 2009, Alito opined: While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country. Massachusetts categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment. This same rationale would apply even more strongly in the case of AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles, which are vastly more common.

Bruen also clarified that gun control laws run afoul of the Second Amendment unless a similar legal tradition existed in America at the time the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment was ratified. Certainly, there was no legal tradition in the states during either period of banning ANY sort of rifle.

Beyond the clearly unconstitutional provisions of H.R. 1808, it is also bad policy.

Far from the choice of criminals, rifles of any type are actually under-represented among the firearms used to commit murder in the United States. FBI statistics consistently bear this out, year after year demonstrating that handguns (which the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller ruled cannot be banned just because they are potentially dangerous) are far and away the crime gun of choice.

Rifles fall not just below handguns as weapons used in murder but below non-firearm weapons as well. This includes not just edged weapons, like knives, or blunt-force weapons, such as clubs or bats, but even so-called personal weapons like hands, fists, and feet.

Even the decidedly anti-gun fact-checkers Politifact could not evade this simple truth. While straining to emphasize the point that firearms, generally, are the most commonly used weapons to commit murder in the U.S., the article had to admit: A Facebook post claimed that more people were killed by hands, fists and feet in 2020 than by rifles. FBI data does confirm that statistic.

Rigorous research also consistently fails to support any crime control benefits for bans of the type in Cicillines bill.

This was true of congressionally-mandated studies that followed the first nationwide experiment with categorically banning certain types of semi-automatic firearms and large capacity magazines from 1994 to 2004. The first such study concluded: At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. A follow-up study likewise acknowledged: the bans impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.

More recently, the RAND Corporation conducted a comprehensive survey of existing, high quality literature on the effects of various gun control measures. That effort was unable to substantiate any convincing evidence that magazine capacity limits or bans on categories of semi-automatic firearms have a beneficial effect on reducing violent crime generally or mass shootings in particular.

But, of course, crime control is not the point of H.R. 1808.

The most benign thing that could be said of it is that its a cynical attempt to appear pro-active to partisans and uninformed voters who understand neither firearms nor the dynamics of violent crime in the United States.

Gun control advocates of all stripes will occasionally admit that banning certain semi-automatic firearms is symbolic at best. Lois Beckett delivered this bad news to her fellow liberals in articles in The New York Times and Mother Jones.

UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, often cited in anti-gun propaganda as a subject matter expert, agreed in an interview with Vice:

My own view is that there's no way to make assault rifle bans effective. It's an ineffective law, it's an ineffective goal, it's an ineffective policy that's mostly about symbolism and not about substance. The truth is assault weapons are used very infrequently in crimes. I think there is a grand total of about 300 people a year who die from rifles of any sortassault or otherwise.

Even an article in the hard-left Cardozo Law Review argued, banning assault weapons is pointless and distracts attention from other gun control initiatives.

Perhaps the most revealing discussion of the issue, however, came from the late Charles Krauthammer, generally considered a conservative pundit but one who supported firearm prohibition. Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain, Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. He continued: Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Krauthammer did not live to see the creeping authoritarianism that that has lately taken hold in these sister democracies, but he likely would have approved.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau purported to use executive authority to unilaterally ban huge categories of semi-automatic firearms in 2020, with current owners given amnesty to come into compliance by surrendering or deactivating their guns. As the deadline approached, Trudeaus government blinked at its own overreach and extended the amnesty period until October 30, 2023. Meanwhile, Trudeau has gone even further and begun pursuing a ban on the importation and transfer of handguns.

In England, where private ownership of guns is nearly extinct and arming oneself for personal defense is considered a crime, police conduct weapons sweep at public housing projects and proudly display the bizarre fruits of their efforts, which include such things scissors, pliers, files, and even a bicycle wheel.

Make no mistake, this is the bright future of domestic tranquility that awaits the U.S. itself if gun control advocates get their way. And however reluctant they usually are to admit it, every step they take in restricting firearm ownership is done with this end in mind.

That is exactly why Biden, on July 11, used the occasion of celebrating a supposedly breakthrough gun control law to call for a broad ban on semi-automatic firearms.

Now his party is trying to accommodate him.

View post:
Never Enough: Congressional Democrats Ignore the Constitution and Reality to Push Futile Gun Ban - NRA ILA

Kansas Reflector welcomes opinion pieces from writers who share our goal of widening the conversation about how public policies affect the day-to-day lives of people throughout our state. Laurel Burchfield is the associate director of Mainstream Coalition, where she advocates for commonsense policy.

We believe fervently in the American Way, which stands for the separation of religion and state. Naturally, we are to live out our beliefs within the political state as private citizens, but we do not attempt to use the states political system to enforce our belief system upon our pluralistic neighbors. Bob Meneilly at The Village Church, Aug. 15, 1993

A popular phrase found on T-shirts, bumper stickers, and memes reads, If youre not angry, then youre not paying attention.

Well, everyone I know right now is angry as we continue to process recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court including the attack against reproductive rights with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the potential dismantling of LGBTQ equality coming down the pike based on Justice Clarence Thomas written concurrence, and the broadening interpretation of the Second Amendment and loosening of gun laws immediately following two mass shootings in New York and Texas. And thats just scratching the surface of things that we should all be angry about as the court repeatedly violates one of our most fundamental freedoms by shattering the wall between religion and government.

Were also scared, because for as much as the Supreme Court is taking this country into new and dangerous territory, we also have a roadmap for what comes next. Allow me to paint that picture for you:

There is no reason to believe that this conservative court made up of judges who are bringing their own religious beliefs to the bench will stop hearing, and ultimately ruling for, cases that chip away at the constitutional protection from the government establishment of religion.

Are you angry yet? Are you paying attention? Because this next part is important.

Every politician will tell you the same thing Kansans are practical people who want common sense policies for our state. The difference lies in what is considered common sense.

Do we want a state where, as Mainstream Coalition founder Bob Meneilly predicted nearly 30 years ago, religious extremists dictate what is good for everyone based narrowly on their religious beliefs? Or do we believe in the common sense principles of the separation of religion and government and in electing individuals who put Kansans interests before ideology and outside influence?

Now is the time to start asking candidates about their position on issues that matter to you, and to start holding them accountable for their words and actions.

Through its opinion section, the Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary,here.

Read the original:
Now is the time to sit up and pay attention, Kansans. What kind of state do we want? - Kansas Reflector