Daily Archives: October 27, 2023

Recent legislation passed by our County Council threatens to erode our Second Amendment rights. This legislation obstructs citizens right to open carry by mandating the possession of a concealed carry permit, in opposition to Missouris Constitutional Carry laws. This move is not only problematic but also unconstitutional.

First and foremost, this legislation represents a significant overreach by our local government into the lives of our law-abiding citizens. Unlike the gun-grabbing extremists on the County Council, I recognize the vital role that our Second Amendment plays in safeguarding our individual freedoms. This legislation seeks to limit St. Louis County residents ability to openly carry firearms, imposing unnecessary restrictions on those who seek to defend their families by requiring them to obtain a permit.

One of my primary concerns is that this legislation only applies to unincorporated St. Louis County. This approach creates a confusing patchwork of different rules and regulations across our county, as each city within our district would be forced to pass its own, potentially differing laws regarding open carry. Such a haphazard system is not only confusing for our law-abiding citizens but also impractical for law enforcement agencies tasked with enforcing these varying regulations.

Furthermore, this legislation may also be in direct violation of Missouri state statutes, which explicitly prohibit local governments from passing laws that differ from the state laws concerning firearms. Our state constitution upholds the right of our citizens to bear arms, and it is my firm belief that we should not infringe upon those rights.

As a member of the County Council, I voted against this legislation. Criminals will continue to be criminals, and only law-abiding citizens will follow this new law. This law will also further its proponents stated goal, which is increased gun confiscation. Additionally, state and federal law already prohibits the crimes being used as justification to pass this legislation. We need to support the enforcement and prosecution of the laws already on the books.

We must focus on effective and sensible measures that enhance public safety without infringing on our constitutional rights. This means supporting law enforcement and providing resources for mental health services. Our freedoms and our ability to defend our families should be cherished and protected, not undermined by ill-conceived legislation.

Read the original post:
Opinion: Protecting Our Second Amendment Rights in St. Louis ... - The Missouri Times

Yesterday, Lewiston, Maine became yet another community torn apart by senseless gun violence. This time a bowling alley and a restaurant have been turned into scenes of unimaginable carnage.

Doug and I join the President and Dr. Biden in mourning those who were killed, praying for the many who were injured, and grieving for so many more whose lives are forever changed.

The Biden-Harris Administration will continue to provide full support to local authorities in Maine. I join President Biden in urging area residents to follow the warnings and guidance of local officials as the investigation proceeds.

Let us also continue to speak truth about the moment we are in. Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in our nation. It does not have to be this way.

It is a false choice to suggest we must choose between either upholding the Second Amendment or passing reasonable gun safety laws to save lives. Congress can and must make background checks universal. Pass red flag laws. Ban high-capacity magazines. And renew the assault weapons ban.

In the meantime, President Biden and I are not waiting around. Through the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, we will continue to work to save lives.

We do not have a moment to spare, nor a life to spare.

###

Read more from the original source:
Statement by Vice President Kamala Harris on the Mass Shooting in ... - The White House

I'd always taken my Second Amendment rights for granted. Then Obama came along with his statement they cling to their guns and bibles referring, of course, to flyover country. I went to a gun store and there he was, a half size Obama with a notation Employee of the Month. I went home with a 9 mm.

The words: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed couldn't be more specific. It is a shame that citizens need laws to protect them against the central government, but we do.

The present denizen of the White House would disarm us in the drop of a hat if it weren't for the 2nd Amendment. Iowa recently added the 2nd Amendment to the state Constitution, becoming the third state to do so. Eighteen additional states now have laws declaring themselves gun sanctuaries. The majority of counties in the U.S. have passed gun sanctuary laws. In Illinois, 80 of its sheriffs refuse to prosecute Pritzkers new gun law.

Why is it so important today? In the 20th Century specifically, 80% of the world's murder victims were victims of their own government. This Is the number of innocent people murdered by governments. Are You anti-state yet? In addition to Stalin and Mao, dozens of tin pot tyrants, e.g., Pol Pot, Edi Amin, casually murdered in the guise of discipline. Disarming the populace is a necessary and sufficient act to achieve tyranny.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Continue reading here:
Letter: Second Amendment matters more than ever - Quad-City Times

The next gun rights case before the Supreme Court, United States v. Rahimi, involves an individual that no sensible society would allow to have a gun.

Three years ago, according to the Justice Department, Zackey Rahimi and his girlfriend had an argument in a parking lot where Rahimi threatened to take away their mutual child. He then allegedly grabbed her wrist, knocked her to the ground, dragged her to the car, and hit her head on the dashboard. After he realized that a witness had seen this fight, Rahimi allegedly pulled a gun and fired at this bystander.

He later called his girlfriend and allegedly threatened to shoot her if she told anyone that hed assaulted her.

This is one of a series of gun crimes allegedly committed by Rahimi. In 2020, he allegedly threatened another woman with a gun. According to the Justice Department, Rahimi also participated in a series of five shootings in December 2020 and January 2021. In one alleged incident, he fired into the mans house with an AR-15 rifle. In another, he allegedly followed a truck and fired multiple shots at another car that had been traveling behind the truck after the trucks driver flashed their headlights at Rahimi.

Although Rahimis lawyers claim that these allegations are disputed, they do not deny any of the DOJs specific claims. Nor do they offer an alternative version of these events.

Yet last February, a federal appeals court held that Rahimi and other domestic abusers have a constitutional right to own a gun. The Supreme Court will consider whether this decision was correct at a November 7 oral argument.

The federal law at issue in Rahimi allows someone to be disarmed before they are actually convicted of a violent crime. But the law also provides several due process safeguards.

Before anyone can be disarmed under this law, a court must have issued a restraining order against them, in a proceeding where the defendant was given an opportunity to appear and make their case. Federal law does not disarm anyone unless a court has either explicitly determined that they are a violent threat to their partner or to a child, or implicitly made such a determination by prohibiting them from engaging in violence against that partner or child.

Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit didnt just strike down this law. It ruled that the law is unconstitutional on its face. That means that, if the Fifth Circuits decision is upheld by the Supreme Court, this federal ban on firearm possession by domestic abusers may never be applied to any individual, no matter how violent that individual may be and no matter how careful the court that issued a restraining order against such an individual was in ensuring that they received due process.

And that brings us to the single worst aspect of the Fifth Circuits decision in United States v. Rahimi: It was correctly decided. Or, at least, it was correctly decided under the Supreme Courts incompetently drafted decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which places an extraordinarily high burden on any government lawyer tasked with defending any gun law in court.

Bruen was supposed to be the crown jewel of originalism the belief, now ascendant among Republican lawyers and judges, that the only legitimate way to read the Constitution is to determine how it was understood when it was ratified. The Bruen opinion was the six GOP-appointed justices attempt to build an originalist framework from the ground up, one that forced judges to rely almost entirely on historical sources when deciding Second Amendment cases.

A little more than a year after Bruen, it is clear that this approach is an unworkable failure that produces deeply immoral outcomes and that has fostered mass confusion within the federal judiciary.

The core question in Rahimi, in other words, is whether the Court will back away from its decision in Bruen, which has led to all kinds of disastrous results, including the Fifth Circuits decision holding that abusive husbands have a right to keep a weapon they could use to murder their wives.

Bruen held that, in order to justify nearly any law regulating firearms, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nations historical tradition of firearm regulation. This means that lawyers defending even the most widely accepted gun laws, such as the federal ban on gun possession by domestic abusers, must show that analogous regulations also existed and were accepted when the Constitution was framed particularly if the law addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century. If they cannot, the challenged gun law must be struck down.

This places an extraordinarily high burden on any lawyer defending a gun law. When the historical record is ambiguous or indeterminate, the government loses, and a gun law is effectively repealed by the courts. And lawyers defending gun laws face an especially heavy burden when they defend laws that seek to address a problem, like domestic abuse, that has existed for centuries.

Almost immediately, the Bruen decision sparked mass confusion in the federal courts. Judges have reached contradictory results in a multitude of post-Bruen challenges to gun laws. Courts applying Bruen have struck laws prohibiting guns in places of worship, requiring guns to have serial numbers that allow them to be tracked by law enforcement, and prohibiting underage ownership of guns all claiming that these laws are inconsistent with historical tradition.

And if Bruen is legitimate, Zackey Rahimi must have a constitutional right to own a gun.

Until 1871, when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that a husband and wife may be indicted for assault and battery upon each other, it was legal in every state for married partners to beat their spouses. There is historical evidence that abused women, in at least some parts of the country, were able to obtain court orders requiring their abusers to temporarily turn over money, which would be forfeited if the abuse continued. But there is no founding-era analog to the federal law disarming domestic abusers.

And so the question the Supreme Court must confront in Rahimi is whether a decision like Bruen, with its unworkable legal standard and catastrophic consequences, can be tolerated any longer.

On the day Bruen was decided, Justice Stephen Breyer warned in a dissenting opinion that, by requiring judges to dive into often-vague and indeterminate historical records, Bruen imposes a task on the lower courts that judges cannot easily accomplish. Courts are, after all, staffed by lawyers, not historians, Breyer continued. And legal experts typically have little experience answering contested historical questions or applying those answers to resolve contemporary problems.

Indeed, Bruen has proved so unworkable and has led so many judges to such upsetting conclusions that many of those judges complain openly about it in their opinions. By announcing an inconsistent and amorphous standard, complained Judge Holly Brady, a Trump appointee to a federal court in Indiana, the Supreme Court has created mountains of work for district courts that must now deal with Bruen-related arguments in nearly every criminal case in which a firearm is found. Another judge slammed the Supreme Courts Second Amendment cases as filled with methodological flaws that invite judges with an axe to grind to selectively find historical evidence that supports the outcome they want to reach anyway, and then use it to justify that result.

Judge Robert Miller, a Reagan appointee, was even more blunt in his assessment of Bruen. After holding that a federal law that prohibits individuals from receiving a firearm while they are under a felony indictment must be struck down under Bruen, Miller concludes his opinion by admitting it was drafted with an earnest hope that its author has misunderstood New York State Rifle v. Bruen. Bruen, Judge Miller continues, insults the framers by assuming they were so short-sighted as to forbid the people, through their elected representatives, from regulating guns in new ways.

Needless to say, sitting federal judges do not typically hurl these kinds of insults at the Supreme Court, as the high Court has more or less unlimited power to sabotage lower court judges work.

One fundamental problem with Bruen, as Judge Millers critique of the decision emphasizes, is that the six Republican-appointed justices who joined it appear to have no understanding of why changes in American society over the past 250 years make it difficult or impossible to draw meaningful analogies between modern gun laws and those that existed when the Constitution was written.

Recall that Justice Clarence Thomass majority opinion in Bruen announced that gun laws that address a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century are presumptively unconstitutional unless there is a distinctly similar historical regulation from the 1700s. Applying this newly announced rule, Thomas argued that a citywide handgun ban is unconstitutional because firearm violence in densely populated communities was a problem that existed at the time of the founding, but 18th-century lawmakers did not address it with a handgun ban.

But the kind of urban communities that exist in modern-day America did not exist in the early American Republic. According to the 1790 census, New York City had only 33,131 residents around the time when the Second Amendment was ratified. The second-largest city, Philadelphia, had fewer than 29,000 residents.

Eighteenth-century lawmakers, in other words, simply did not confront the problem of firearm violence in densely populated communities because densely populated communities of the kind that struggle with gun violence in modern-day America did not exist in the 18th century. At the time of the founding, Americas largest city had more or less the same population as modern-day Meridian, Mississippi the eighth-largest city in the poorest state in the Union.

And yet, because the Supreme Court declared in a majority opinion that urban policymaking in 1790 was closely analogous to governing modern-day New York City, every judge in the country is now bound to follow this absurd conclusion.

Meanwhile, there are countless other ways that America in the 21st century would be unrecognizable to the framers.

For one thing, early America did not have police forces or, at least, the kind of organized police forces that could enforce modern-day gun laws. While early US communities sometimes relied on citizen watchmen to keep the peace and used patrols to track down escaped enslaved people, publicly funded and organized police forces did not emerge until the middle of the 19th century. Many sources claim that the first such police force in the United States was formed in Boston in 1838. New York City formed its police force just a few years later.

When the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1791, in other words, neither the United States nor any state or municipality had the capacity to enforce a law seeking to disarm domestic abusers. But that doesnt mean that such laws should be declared unconstitutional, any more than modern-day laws regulating the internet are unconstitutional because the framers lacked the ability to send electronic communications.

We simply have no idea how people in 1791 would have regulated guns or what sort of regulations they would have deemed permissible if early Americans actually had the state infrastructure necessary to do modern-day law enforcement. Bruens inquiry into which kinds of laws existed in a pre-police society tells us nothing about which sort of laws the framers would have deemed constitutional.

Similarly, we have no idea how early American lawmakers would have regulated the kind of advanced weapons that are widely available today, but that did not exist at all or that were at least very uncommon when the Second Amendment was ratified.

Indeed, the sorts of firearms that were widely available in the 18th century are not the sort of weapons that were typically used to commit acts of violence against family members or romantic partners. As Ohio State University historian Randolph Roth explained in a 2019 book chapter, fewer than 10 percent of household homicides in colonial and revolutionary New England or Maryland were committed with a gun.

The most likely reason why 18th-century firearms were not often used in family violence is that the kind of muzzle-loading guns that were available at the time could not be used impulsively unless they were already loaded for some other purpose. These guns could not be kept loaded because the black powder used by these guns would corrode the weapons inner workings and would become moist, losing its ability to ignite. Loading such a gun took at least a minute, as the user had to pour powder down the barrel, hold it in place with wadding, and drop or ram the shot or ball onto the charge.

So one other likely reason why 18th-century Americans did not enact many of the sort of gun laws that exist today is that guns were fundamentally less dangerous in the early Republic. The fact that early Americans did not forbid impulsive men the sort of men who might murder their wives from owning a muzzle-loading musket tells us nothing about how the framers might have regulated a weapon that can be stored while loaded, that can be hidden in someones pocket or waistband, and that can rapidly discharge more than a dozen bullets.

In fairness, Bruen does acknowledge that cases involving dramatic technological changes may require a more nuanced approach, and it does include language indicating that, say, machine gun bans remain viable, even though machine guns were not invented until 1884. Bruen says that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are in common use at the time. So machine guns will remain illegal so long as they remain uncommon.

But the fact that the drafters and ratifiers of the Second Amendment were comfortable living in a world where muzzle-loaded muskets were commonplace tells us nothing about whether they would have also wanted the Constitution to protect weapons that can be carried while loaded and that can turn a mere argument into a murder in less than a second.

At this point, you might be wondering how six Supreme Court justices all of them legally trained and well-credentialed could have embraced a legal framework with such obvious flaws that has been so harshly criticized by judges across the political spectrum. The short answer to this question is one word: originalism.

Originalism, in Justice Amy Coney Barretts words, is the belief that constitutional text means what it did at the time it was ratified and that this original public meaning is authoritative. All reasonable judges believe that it is sometimes useful to inquire into how the Constitution was originally understood in order to decide cases, but originalism, at least in its strongest form, claims that this is the only legitimate way to interpret the Constitution.

Many Republican lawyers, including Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Barrett, view originalism as an important part of their identity.

Barrett, at least, also acknowledges two serious problems with the originalist methodology: It sometimes leads to terrible or ridiculous results, and it sometimes produces no result at all. As Barrett wrote in a 2016 article co-authored with scholar John Copeland Nagle, adherence to originalism arguably requires, for example, the dismantling of the administrative state, the invalidation of paper money, and the reversal of Brown v. Board of Education results that, Barrett admits, would wreak havoc.

Similarly, Barrett has also acknowledged that originalist methods dont always produce a clear result, although her answer to how originalists should approach this problem is unsatisfying: For an originalist, the meaning of the text is fixed so long as it is discoverable.

Justice Thomass biggest innovation in his Bruen opinion is that he figured out a way for originalists to resolve Second Amendment cases even when it is not clear how that amendment would have been understood at the time it was ratified simply apply a presumption that all gun laws are unconstitutional, and strike down the law unless the government produces sufficient historical evidence to rebut this presumption.

Thomass innovation makes a lot of sense if you are an originalist judge who wants to solve the problem of not knowing how to rule on a case if the historical record is indeterminate provided, of course, that you dont care one bit what happens to the people of the United States after countless gun laws are struck down. But Bruen does nothing to solve the other problem acknowledged by Barretts scholarship: What should an originalist do if their methodology leads to a truly awful and destabilizing result?

A responsible Court would confess that it erred in Bruen and come up with a new framework that can be applied in a sensible and predictable way by lower court judges. (As it happens, in the decade before Bruen, lower court judges came up with a two-step framework for deciding Second Amendment cases that was accepted by every federal appeals court that considered it. The Supreme Court could simply bring that framework back.)

And there is a precedent for the Court swiftly abandoning a disastrous legal framework after a majority of the justices realized it led to disaster.

In Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940), the Supreme Court upheld a public school districts decision to expel two students who refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance in class the students were Jehovahs Witnesses, and they objected to saying the pledge on religious grounds. Almost immediately after it was handed down, the Gobitis decision triggered a wave of hate crimes against Witnesses, with one Southern sheriff dismissing the violence because theyre traitors the Supreme Court says so, aint you heard?

Three years later, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), a humbled Court reversed course, holding that the First Amendment forbids the government from forcing anyone to say something they do not want to say.

Will todays justices show the same humility their predecessors showed in Barnette? Unlikely. But there is a way out of the Bruen dilemma that will allow the six justices who joined that benighted decision to save face, while affirming that the government may enact reasonable gun regulations such as a ban on gun possession by domestic abusers.

Although Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh both joined Thomass opinion in Bruen, they also joined a separate concurring opinion by Kavanaugh, which enumerated several categorical exceptions to the right to bear arms:

[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. ...

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Kavanaugh added, moreover, that this list does not purport to be exhaustive, which implies that he would also endorse other categorical exceptions perhaps one for domestic abusers, or for people that the legislature has determined are too dangerous to be armed.

This list of Second Amendment carve-outs, moreover, appeared in the Supreme Courts decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Courts first decision holding that the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms. And these carve-outs were not added to the Heller opinion because the Court determined that they fit into some kind of originalist framework.

Rather, as Justice John Paul Stevens revealed less than a year before his death in 2019, Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of Heller, added this language after relatively moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy asked for some important changes to the original draft of the Heller opinion.

Kennedy is no longer on the Court, but Kavanaugh, his successor, appears to have appointed himself as the keeper of this compromise that Kennedy struck with Scalia. Add on Robertss decision to join Kavanaughs Bruen opinion, plus the Courts three liberals, and thats five votes that are willing to create categorical carve-outs to the right to bear arms which exist outside of Thomass originalist framework.

Moreover, while Thomass framework supports the Fifth Circuits unconscionable decision in Rahimi, Kavanaughs framework offers the Court a way to rule that domestic abusers do not have a constitutional right to own a gun. As the Justice Department argues in its brief, the Court can add a new carve-out to Kavanaughs list, holding that the Second Amendment permits lawmakers to disarm people who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens.

Thats not a particularly satisfying answer to the legal questions presented by Rahimi because it places the Court in the role of an arbitrary policymaker, striking down some gun laws and upholding others because five or more justices think that a new carve-out should apply. But its a much more sensible outcome than affirming the Fifth Circuit and allowing abusers to have guns.

The most responsible course the Supreme Court could take, given Bruens many flaws, would be to overrule that decision in its entirety and announce a different, more workable framework that courts can apply in future Second Amendment cases such as the two-step framework that was used by the courts of appeals before the Supreme Court made them abandon that framework in Bruen.

But, since this Supreme Court is unlikely to admit that it erred, Kavanaughs willingness to create categorical exceptions to the right to bear arms offers the Court a way to save face while also reversing the Fifth Circuits terrible Rahimi decision.

Will you support Voxs explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what were trying to do at Vox, there are a couple reasons that we can't rely only on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on.

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, were not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe thats an important part of building a more equal society. We cant do that if we have a paywall.

Thats why we also turn to you, our readers, to help us keep Vox free. If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today?

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

See the original post:
The Supreme Court is seriously considering whether domestic ... - Vox.com

Just hours prior to a mass shooting in Maine that killed 18, Congressman Mike Thompson, D-Yolo, delivered a letter he co-wrote with Nancy Pelosi and 90 members of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force to new House Speaker Mike Johnson urging him to take action on gun violence prevention.

Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children and teenagers in America. Parents across our country now live with the reality that if their child dies, the most common reason for that death is not because of cancer or a car crash, but a bullet, the members wrote. As you assume the responsibility of Speaker of the House, we stand ready to work with you on legislation that will reduce gun violence and urge you to commit to putting gun violence prevention legislation on the floor as soon as possible.

The letter added that since former Speaker Kevin McCarthy was removed from his leadership role on Oct. 3, 1,030 people have died from gun violence including 15 children and 60 teenagers, another 2,069 people were injured and 33 mass shootings occurred.

Although we can never get back the time that was wasted by the chaos caused by the lack of leadership in the House of Representatives, we must not let that dysfunction prevent us from working together to address the gun violence crisis moving forward, the letter stressed. We suggest that the House first start by considering the numerous gun violence prevention bills that are supported by a majority of Democrats, Independents and Republicans.

According to the Associated Press, Johnson said prayer was a proper response from the House for the Wednesday mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine.

Were really, really hopeful and prayerful, Johnson said. Prayer is appropriate at a time like this, that the evil can end and the senseless violence can stop.

Johnson then declined to take questions including those regarding gun violence legislation.

The suspect, Robert Card, is still at large and residents in Lewiston are being encouraged to shelter in place, according to the Associated Press.

According to data provided by the Associated Press and USA Today in partnership with Northeastern University, there have been 569 mass killings since 2006, with 37 so far in 2023 as of the time of publishing.

The database defines mass killings as an attack in which four or more people have died, not including the perpetrator, within a 24-hour period, which is consistent with how the FBI defines mass killings.

Cards family told NBC News that his mental health had deteriorated rapidly and that they had contacted his Army Reserve unit and police after he began hearing voices.

Following a rampage four years ago, Maine passed a law aimed at preventing mass shootings referred to as a yellow flag law instead of the red flag laws that have proven effective in other states, including California, according to the Associated Press.

A gun-rights group helped write the law to show that the state still had a pro-Second Amendment mindset. However, it is uncertain if the yellow flag law was used in Cards case, but many are blaming the killings on the states weak gun laws.

Red flag laws, which in California are called extreme risk protection orders, capitalize on what social epidemiologist Veronica Pear calls leakage, referring to when a shooter has a plan to perpetrate a mass shooting and tells someone else about it.

So theyre making the plan before it happens, she remarked in a June 2023 interview concerning red flag laws. The role of red flag laws is to capitalize on this phenomenon of leakage by basically providing an opportunity for those people who are made aware of the plans to either petition themselves, if they are permitted, or to law enforcement who can then petition a judge to ask for the civil order that would temporarily remove firearms from the high-risk person for either three weeks to up to five years in California.

However, Pear warned against the argument that mental health is the only cause of gun violence because it misses the point of what her research shows could save lives, which is that mental illness is not a leading cause of violence.

Its much more likely to be related to self-harm and people who have mental illnesses are more likely to be harmed by others than to harm others, so it is definitely just a red herring, she argued.

Pear is an assistant professor at the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program and argued that people want a solution that doesnt involve major change and pinning it on a stigmatized and vulnerable group can be an easy way out.

In one of her studies, Pear and her colleagues examined gun violence restraining orders in California between 2016 and 2018 by analyzing case details and respondent mortality.

The data showed that mental illness was a less severe risk factor than substance use or a sudden life-altering event such as the loss of a loved one or the end of a relationship.

Its not helpful conversation to just focus on mental illness because what we found was a majority, 80%, didnt have mental illness, she said regarding respondents of her study. So focusing just on that group means that youre missing a huge swath of people who are at risk of harming themselves or others and really shouldnt have firearms.

She stressed that the problem with politicians conflating mental illness and red flag laws is that the laws are being treated as mental health intervention when theyre really intended to be behavioral health intervention irrespective of a diagnosis.

Congressman Thompson is a staunch defender of the Second Amendment and rejects any solution that involves removing the right to bear arms for law-abiding American citizens except in the case of people who have a history of mental illness.

Ill never give up my guns and Ill never ask law-abiding Americans who have no history of mental illness to give up their guns, he stated on his website. Not only am I personally against this, but the Constitution forbids it.

However, a 2022 Columbia University study found that only about 5% of mass shootings and other types of mass murder were related to severe mental illness and that half of mass shootings were associated with no red flags.

When asked if his argument that he will never ask law-abiding Americans who have no history of mental illness to give up their guns is flawed given the data, Thompson said, Thats in the constitution.

Americans have a constitutional right to have a firearm, he doubled down in a late May 2023 interview regarding gun violence and mental health. There are things that we can do to make it safe, and thats what Im working on.

Thompsons rhetoric around mental illness and its relation to gun violence is one made by many on both sides of the aisle and is often used as a scapegoat by Republicans after significant mass shootings such as the one that took the lives of 19 schoolchildren and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas last year.

Pear believes that Thompsons view comes off as an overly narrow approach thats going to be leaving out a lot of people who could benefit from ERPO law.

Additionally, she argued that this rhetoric has been encouraging other states such as Tennessee to begin shaping their red flag laws around mental illness.

View original post here:
Letter urging House Speaker to act on gun violence sent hours prior ... - Woodland Daily Democrat

Have you seen the NRAs latest column in the Rutland Herald? The piece, titled, Gun-control legislation, dives into the current state of Vermont politics.

From the column:

One might ponder: How do such stringent gun-control measures find approval in Vermont? Its straightforward The gun-controllers are abandoning their rural roots. But, many rural Democrats have stood on principle and diverged from party leadership to uphold Second Amendment rights. However, their influence seems to be waning, overshadowed by politicians who choose to pander to major donors than stand with everyday Vermonters.

Over the past decade, progressive politicians have sold the rights of Vermont citizens away to the highest bidder. As we approach another legislative session and election year, it is time for Vermonters to stand up and make their voice heard. Click the Take Action button below to challenge your lawmakers to vote with their community, not progressive political bosses.

Despite being one of the safest states in the country, these progressive politicians continue to pass laws to restrict your Second Amendment rights. Thankfully for Vermont residents, the NRAs State Affiliate, the Vermont Federation of Sportsmens Club, is challenging unconstitutional laws in Vermont. To learn more about their efforts, click here.

View post:
Vermont: Gun-Controllers Are Abandoning Their Rural Roots - NRA ILA

The increased dollars will be used to plug funding holes for struggling legal services organizations

The Florida Bar Foundation will distribute roughly $32 million to state organizations providing free civil legal services to those who cannot afford them by December 31, up from $7.7 million last year.

The 34 legal aid groups that received money last year should expect additional Foundation grants this year, but at roughly four times the amount, said Foundation Executive Director Donny MacKenzie.

MacKenzie said the Foundation sent out a survey asking the legal aid services if they have the capacity to spend that money.

We dont want to waste money, MacKenzie said. All of the grantees who responded said yes.

Donny MacKenzie

The money is intended to be used to pay for the salaries of attorneys who represent low-income clients for free in areas that affect their basic needs: health and shelter, personal safety, security, and stability.

The increased funding seems like a boon to legal aid at first blush, but it isnt.

For one thing, funding is already low, meeting about just 8% of overall need in both Florida and the nation. For another, needs have been exacerbated for low-income families during the pandemic. Also, other federal funding sources are expected to drop off next year.

Funding from the federal Victims of Crimes Act, which uses largely white-collar crime fines to pay for compensation and assistance to victims, is expected to decrease statewide by $40 million. And annual dollars from the federal Legal Services Corporation may go down, too.

So, this added money comes at a very fortunate time, said MacKenzie.

MacKenzie said the Foundation received a letter from one legal aid services group in rural Florida saying the additional money would be used to hire back someone they had to let go, and to restart a pro bono program they had to shut down.

Were going to basically get back to where we were, said MacKenzie. And thats always good news.

The Foundations legal aid funds are generated from interest on IOTA accounts. These funds increased more than four times over last year because interest rates have increased along with inflation.

While this money appears unstable, the Florida Supreme Court is trying to bring transparency and stability to the funds. Since 2021, the court has issued two amendments to the rule that governs the funds. The first amendment required the Foundation to spend no more than 15% of the total dollars on administration, and to separate the funds out for easier tracking. A 2023 amendment required lawyers to keep their trusts in higher-yield trust accounts that would bring in more money for legal aid.

The Florida Bankers Association is pushing back on the second amendment, saying that it goes too far, too fast. The court on rehearing is taking comments on the matter until November 1, at which time the court could make a final decision on the amendment or allow oral arguments.

The Florida Legislature is one of just three in the country that declines to provide funding for civil legal aid services in its annual budget topping $117 billion this year, according to the 2022 final report by The Florida Bars Special Committee on Greater Public Access to Legal Services. The committee recommended to the court in that report that the Legislature start allocating annual money for civil legal aid, in part, because these programs produce $7 in economic impact for every dollar spent.

Funding is critical to the operations of all the states legal aid programs, states the committees report. The Court, The Florida Bar, The Legislature, and the Executive branch should work collaboratively to secure dependable funding.

Florida civil legal aid funds are a patchwork of donations from the Foundation, individual fundraising by local legal aid organizations, and federal dollars from the Legal Services Corporation and the Office for Victims of Crime, which disburses the Victims of Crimes Act compensation and assistance allocations.

Both federal programs are struggling to meet the growing need for civil legal assistance.

The Legal Services Corporations bipartisan board requested $1.6 billion for 2024, up from the $560 million Congress allocated in 2023.

Current funding is simply inadequate to come close to meeting the current need, wrote Legal Services Corporation Communications Manager Kathryn Fanlund by email. More than 33% of unmet legal needs are directly related to COVID-19.

But the increased funding ask is unlikely to materialize and may even decrease in 2024. The U.S. House is considering decreasing funding from $560 million to $489 in 2024 and the U.S. Senate is proposing to maintain it at $560 million. If the House proposal is adopted, the Legal Services Corporation estimates that Florida legal aid groups will serve 12,437 fewer people.

Two areas of major concern include housing and domestic violence, Fanlund wrote.

Traditionally, the federal Office for Victims of Crime would step in on domestic violence assistance, but it continues to take in less money every year since white-collar crimes arent being prosecuted as frequently. President Biden signed the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 2021, a measure that amended the law to deposit fines from cases that arent prosecuted, which should restore billions to the fund, according to the National Network to End Domestic Violence.

But that will take time.

Florida is still spending past years allocations, according to the state attorney generals office, which disburses the victims of crime money to local aid groups. So the $40 million statewide cut for 2024-2025 matches the decreased Florida assistance funding from 2020 to 2021: $106.7 million to $66.7 million.

Jim Kowalski

In addition to that impending cut, President and CEO of Jacksonville Area Legal Aid James Kowalski, Jr., said his office already received a 25% reduction in those federal dollars for this year.

When the federal victims of crime funding drops, state family law assistance programs suffer.

Other than that federal money, which requires applicants to come in through the crime victim door, legal aid in Florida provides almost zero general family law assistance across the state, Kowalski wrote. It is the single biggest area of need, and the coverage is almost zero.

In addition to the $32 million the Foundation will disburse in December, it has already doled out $3.8 million in pro bono support from the $45.5 million it received in 2022-2023 in IOTA collections. The grants are for one year. The Foundation expects to receive a report on last years disbursements from the legal aid organizations in the spring of 2024.

As part of the 2022 disbursement, the Foundation gave $61,207 to IDignity, an organization that works to secure I.D. cards for vulnerable individuals in Central Florida.

One woman who benefitted from the grant, Angel, lost her I.D. while having heart surgery almost two years ago, hindering her ability to apply for a job or secure housing.

I was completely homeless, Angel says on an IDignity promotional video. I came to IDignity to get my I.D. and my birth certificate. And Ive got all my documents that I need. It made me human again.

Read more here:
Foundation prepares to disburse roughly $32 million in legal aid ... - The Florida Bar

Sean Hannity had one combat sport in mind while outlining how he gears up for potential shootings just hours after a mass killing in Maine left at least 16 people dead on Wednesday.

And then I always ask the question when something like this happens, what is your plan? What do you do? I have a personal security plan. I train in mixed martial arts, the Fox News host mentioned in an interview with GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley.

Ive been a big believer in the Second Amendment for a long time with the prayer that I would never have to use it.

The Fox News hosts comments arrived after the deadly shootings at a bar and bowling alley in Lewiston, the states second-largest city. Law enforcement sources told The Associated Press that dozens of people were wounded in the shootings.

State police have since identified a person of interest, a military-trained firearms instructor and was committed to a mental health facility for two weeks over the summer.

Hannity went on to ask Haley what she views as the underlying cause of shootings in America before the candidate called for serious law and order, the defunding of sanctuary cities and to acknowledge the cancer in America that is mental health.

Social media users mocked Hannity over his mention of his MMA training, joking that hes training to block bullets with his body during a shooting.

Continued here:
Critics Sock Sean Hannity Over His Bizarre Personal 'Plan' For Mass ... - Yahoo! Voices