Daily Archives: July 21, 2023

The legality of a Texas law exempting firearm suppressors made and kept in the state from federal regulations will not be determined by the federal judiciary after a challenge defending the law by the Texas Office of the Attorney General (OAG) on behalf of several Texas residents was dismissed.

The Texas Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 957 by Rep. Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress), known as the Texas Suppressor Freedom Act, into law in 2021. It allows Texans to ask the OAG to obtain a federal court order on their behalf granting them permission to manufacture and keep homemade suppressors without having to register them with the federal government.

The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has warned Texans that all federal laws requiring an application for a tax stamp, as well as the registration tax, still apply. Violations of the law can result in hefty fines and imprisonment.

Several residents asked the OAG to seek a court order on their behalf. Now impeached and suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit, prevailing against the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the first motion to dismiss brought in October of last year. The DOJ had argued the Second Amendment does not apply to suppressors, but Judge Mark Pittmann disagreed.

However, this week Pittman ruled against the state, dismissing the lawsuit for lack of standing.

In his ruling, Pittman took issue with both the situation in which the individual residents who wanted to make suppressors sought relief, and the ability of the state to intervene on their behalf.

Pittman explained that the plaintiffs neither attempted to make a suppressor and demonstrate a legitimate fear of being prosecuted by the federal government by doing so, nor did they fill out an application for a suppressor and demonstrate a burden on their constitutional right by being made to pay a tax.

While he acknowledged that the federal government has a history of prosecuting people for possessing unregistered suppressors, because the plaintiffs didnt claim to have an unregistered suppressor, there was no fear of being prosecuted for having one.

Individual Plaintiffs are correct that the government has a history of prosecuting the illegal possession of unregistered silencers. But these Plaintiffs have adduced no evidence that they, in fact, possess any illegal silencers or otherwise attempted any prohibited conduct. Nor have they shown that they have been threatened with prosecution or that it is likely. And our doctrines of criminal law forbid convicting persons for mere thoughts, desires, or motives, Pittman wrote.

The ruling does leave the door open for a challenge if a plaintiff shows standing, Pittman explained.

However, any future challenge will not be brought by the state on behalf of its citizens under Pittmans ruling, which determined the state doesnt have standing under the Constitution to intervene.

By its own words, Texas seeks to protect the ability of its individual residents to make firearm silencers at home, he wrote, adding, The only purported link between the State of Texas and the (Gun Control Act) regime is Texass state statute exempting silencers from the operation of federal law. And the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution determines the winner of that duel.

While Pittmans ruling has no bearing on whether the Second Amendment protects the right of Texans to make and keep a firearm suppressor in the state outside of federal regulations, any future court challenge will need to be brought by the citizens themselves, who have sufficient standing.

For now, those wanting a suppressor must pay the $200 tax, fill out an application, undergo a background check, and wait roughly 10 months for the tax stamp to be approved by the ATF.

The rest is here:
Federal Judge Rejects Lawsuit to Uphold Texas Suppressor Law for ... - The Texan

All seven pardons Gov. Maura Healey recommended won approval from the Governor's Council on Wednesday, cementing the first pardons awarded by a Massachusetts governor during their first elected year in office in three decades.

Healey in Juneproposed the pardons, which had earned the support of the Parole Board before Gov. Charlie Baker left office in January, when she also announced that she is planning to reform the clemency process to make it fairer, more timely and minimize racial disparities.

The Governor's Council, which reviews and approves the governor's clemency recommendations and judicial nominations, voted unanimously in favor of all seven pardons.

"I think our next seven items are pretty exciting for all of us," Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, who chairs the Governor's Council, said to councilors ahead of the pardon votes on Wednesday. "The opportunity to move forward with affirming pardons proposed by the administration an administration that in its first year of office, this is the first time in any recent memory that an administration has moved forward with pardons."

The pardons are aimed at people convicted on a variety of charges, one dating back more than half a century: Edem Amet, who was convicted in 1995 on drug charges; Xavier Delvalle, who was convicted in 2006 on breaking and entering and larceny charges; Glendon King, who was convicted in 1992 on drug charges; John Latter, who was convicted of arson in 1966; Deborah Pickard, who was convicted on several charges between 1982 and 1987; Gerald Waloewandja, who was convicted of drug charges in 2003; and Terrance Williams, who was convicted of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in 1984.

All seven pardons were recommended by the Parole Board during Baker's tenure, but Baker did not act on them before he left office in January, according to a Healey administration official.

"I just want to thank you and the governor," Councilor Marilyn Petitto Devaney told Driscoll during Wednesday's meeting. "I tried to hard to get the former governor to bring these forward, and you've started off so early with this, that we're going to have a wonderful administration and I look forward to more pardons."

Other councilors echoed Devaney's statements, saying they looked forward to approving more pardons, which forgive offenses, and commutations, which reduce sentences.

When Healey recommended the pardons in June, she said some of the individuals on the list face "barriers and uncertainties" in their lives today as a result of their criminal records.

Latter, who was convicted about 57 years ago, is unable to obtain a nursing license in Florida because of his record, while Williams has been denied a position at a private security company six times due to his conviction, according to Healey's office.

Williams who had long wanted to become a police officer joked in June that he is "too old for the academy" but said he's "not too old to help our community out." He called the process of securing a pardon recommendation a "long journey."

"We really need to look at people who are out there just like me, who just made a mistake years ago who just want that opportunity to come back to society," Williams said. "I never gave up."

King is a U.S. Army veteran who has worked for the Boston Fire Department for more than two decades. He told reporters that the pardon would lift a weight from his shoulders and also allow him to exercise his Second Amendment firearms rights.

"For a gentleman that's got a good head on his shoulders to be labeled a convicted felon for years is not a good thing," King said. "I've done everything by the book, everything right. I just want to get rid of that label."

Healey's office has said she is the first governor to issue pardons during her first year in office since former Gov. Bill Weld did so in 1991.

Despite the initial flurry, the Parole Boardannounced Mondaythat it will not continue advancing any pardon requests to Healey's desk until the governor finishes a promised review of the clemency process.

"In the Governor's first announcement of executive clemency, she indicated that the Administration is currently working to modernize the state's clemency guidelines to center fairness and racial and gender equity," Timothy McGuirk of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security told the News Service. "That process requires meaningful engagement with a broad range of stakeholders before issuing new guidelines later this year. To ensure current and future petitioners participate in a clemency process guided by the new framework, the Parole Board, functioning as Advisory Board of Pardons, will not schedule new clemency hearings until the update is complete."

Read more:
Governor's Council approves all 7 of Healey's pardon ... - WBUR News

Perhaps T.S. Elliot was wrong. July, not April, is the cruelest month, at least for GOP presidential contenders trying to supplant Donald Trump.

Before July, the campaigns have excuses for why the momentum hasnt kicked in yet. They can say theyre just in exploratory-committee mode, or theyre just getting the campaign stood up. Hey, we havent had a chance to meet the voters yet at an Iowa Pizza Ranch or chat with the gang at Manchesters Red Arrow Diner.

The ides of July is when the excuses evaporate in the summer heat as campaigns have to reveal their second quarter fundraising numbers. For Trumps challengers, those numbers vary in ugliness, but none are pretty. Mike Pence, a former vice president with enormous name ID, raised a paltry $1.2 million and may not reach the 40,000 small donors required to make the first GOP debate. Chris Christie, who has the highest negatives of any of the declared candidates, raised $1.6 million and has enough small donors to make the debate.

The most significant disclosures came from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. He raised a lot of money $20 million but he maxed out 70% of his donors, meaning he cant go back to them again. And hes burning through an enormous amount of cash.

But its the polling numbers that should depress everybody but Trump, who leads the field by over 30 points. DeSantis, whose team insisted in the spring that everyone should wait until he actually gets in the race, has actually lost a few points since he got in the race in May. The rest of the field is jockeying to stay out of single digits.

The one thing all of the challengers to Trump agree on is that none of this bad news really matters yet and they have a point. National polls at this stage are stupid. A surprise victory in Iowa or New Hampshire by any of them would completely recalibrate the race.

This is part of the cruelty. Every campaign except the one in the lead thinks its way too early to rule out anybody. Its a marathon not a sprint, as DeSantis says. But the only measures of progress are how much money theyve raised and from whom and those infernal polls.

The political press follows both as if theyre tangible points on the scoreboard and so does the donor class, which now includes tens of thousands of small donors. Its a vicious feedback loop: Failure to raise money or show momentum in the polls leads to negative press coverage, which in turn negatively affects your standing in the polls and how much money you can raise.

Indeed, you have to go back to 2000 to find an open GOP primary where the clear front-runner in mid-summer went on to win the nomination. At the beginning of July 2015, Jeb Bush and Donald Trump were neck and neck (though by the end of the month, Trumps surge had begun). In 2007, Rudy Giuliani led Sen. John McCain 2 to 1. Heck, most recent winners of the Iowa caucus didnt go on to win the nomination.

The problem is that this is an open primary in name only. Donald Trump is effectively running as an incumbent. Of course, he isnt one. He lost in 2020.

But GOP primary voters are acting like they dont know or dont accept that. Perhaps its because Trump refuses to admit defeat. Perhaps DeSantis is right that the criminal indictments of Trump have caused voters to rally around him in an act of defiance or sympathy. (If DeSantis is right, Trump might be looking at another boost: Trump says he received a letter from special counsel Jack Smith that he is a target of the January 6 grand jury investigation.) And maybe having so many Republican challengers praising or ignoring Trump has signaled to voters that Trump is the de facto incumbent until further notice.

Whatever the reason, pretending that this primary is normal when voters have an abnormal attachment to the front-runner is a recipe for the front-runner to glide to the nomination. With the exception of Christie, the other candidates are running as if Trump is not a candidate they are working to defeat, but just an idea. If you think of Trump as if he were, say, the personification of a political concept, like the Second Amendment, the way these GOP candidates talk about him makes a bit more sense. But the Second Amendment isnt running for president. Trump is.

If he werent running, it would make complete sense for GOP candidates to avoid offending Trump voters Republicans in 1976 certainly didnt routinely denounce Richard Nixon on the hustings. But unless they decide to run directly against the guy beating them now, the next six months are going to look a lot like July.

Jonah Goldbergs column is syndicated by Tribune Content Agency.

Read more here:
Jonah Goldberg: Why July is the cruelest month for GOP presidential ... - The Winchester Star