Category Archives: Second Amendment

FRANKFORT Sen. Robin Webb, D-Grayson, has been selected by the National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL) to attend a firearm policy summit in Denver, Colorado, with lawmakers from across the United States. The event played host to educational presentations and constructive dialogue on existing firearm research, research gaps, and data needed to inform firearm policy.

Second Amendment rights are of perennial interest to Kentuckians and lawmakers and the subject of much debate in state legislatures across the country. The NCSL roundtable provided an opportunity for lawmakers to review research and data to make better-informed decisions while also engaging in candid conversations about research needs on state firearm policy.

I have been a steadfast advocate for our sportsmen and women, as well as a supporter of our Second Amendment rights in Kentucky, said Sen. Webb. I am grateful for being selected to participate in this opportunity and represent the people of Kentucky, where we value our Second Amendment rights.

At the meeting, lawmakers

I look forward to meeting and hearing perspectives from colleagues and experts around the country on these important matters, said Sen. Webb.

The event took place on Tuesday, October 18, in Denver, CO.

END

Senator Webb represents District 18, which includes Boyd, Carter, Greenup, and Lewis counties.

For more information or high-res photos, visit legislature.ky.gov.

Like Loading...

Link:
Senator Webb selected to attend national firearm policy summit - Carter County Times

Political party platforms are composed of issues, aims and principles of which candidates run for election.

On Nov. 8, voters need to vote for the party platform, not the individual.

The Democrats platform encompasses pro-choice/abortion, tax and spend concept, defund the police, gun control, immediate go-green policies and energy dependence to our adversaries.

The Republicans platform encompasses pro-life, a conservative approach to spending, promotes law and order as well as increased funding to law enforcement and our military, upholds the constitution of the United States of America, including the Second Amendment and becoming energy independent of our foreign adversaries.

In reality, this mid-term election is about not the individual candidate but all about the political parties, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican.

Given the different platforms, the choice is crystal clear.

Jerry Fulare

Altoona

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read more:
Election is more about party than candidate | News, Sports, Jobs - Altoona Mirror

Throughout the United States and more specifically, in New York State and New York City, the issues of weapons possession specifically firearms have received much attention as new laws, Supreme Court rulings, and Second Amendment-related issues continue to change the landscape of firearm ownership and charges across the country.

New York has among the strictest gun-possession restrictions in the country. Despite this, it is not uncommon for individuals to be confused about what possessing a firearm entails. For example, simply because you are not physically carrying a firearm does not indicate that you are not legally in possession of one.

As long as the weapon is considered to be within your domain whether it be in your car or house you would legally be considered in possession of a firearm, commonly referred to as constructive possession.

While its not expected that New Yorkers should be aware of every gun charge and regulation outlined in the Penal Code, knowing what the basics are beyond just the Second Amendment when it comes to the possession and transportation of firearms, along with how to beat a gun charge, can be the difference between protecting your innocence and safety, or losing your future and freedom.

Penalties for Weapons Possession in New York

The regulations governing the possession of weapons are laid forth in Section 265 of the New York State Penal Code, which also goes into great length to describe the many sorts of weapons that are covered by this legislation. This included the different types of firearms such as rifles and handguns, as well as other weapons such as stun guns and certain types of knives.

Further, its not necessary for the pistol or revolver you own to be loaded in order for you to be charged with the much more serious violent crime of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, according to New York Penal Law 265.03. The firearm in question only needs to be operational to violate NY Penal Law 265.01-b(1), and your possession of it is illegal because it is not registered or permitted in the area where you were arrested.

The penalties can range depending on the charge, but in short:

Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree is a class A misdemeanor.

Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is a class D felony.

Criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is a class C felony.

Criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree is a class B felony.

While these penalties range depending on what type and where the possession took place, any sort of criminal conviction regarding firearms can have a long-lasting impact on your life, so it is important to think hard before making any statements to law enforcement or allowing them to search your person or vehicle.

Transporting Firearms & Munitions

Along with possessing a firearm, there are also regulations in place for those looking to travel with their guns as well. Whether it be for sport, security, or any other reason, it is important to understand that if stopped by law enforcement and a gun is found on an individuals person that they cannot lawfully possess in the state, the charges will be more than just a minor infraction. Even if a person is totally sincere and has a reasonable purpose for possessing a firearm while passing through the state, they could face a felony and incarceration for the possession/transportation of their firearm.

Traveling Unlawfully with a Firearm

Regardless of whether they are carrying it openly or covertly, a person cannot possess a firearm in the state of New York unless they have the necessary licenses and permits. Without the necessary licensing, the individual breaks the law. Some states do not have any such licensing requirements, even for handguns, but that is not the case in this state.

Further, even if the ammunition is not accessible or ready to be loaded into the firearm, the law will still consider the weapon to be loaded, which could result in even harsher charges and punishment. This is true even if the gun is unloaded and even if the gun owner took that precaution on purpose.

Transporting Firearms Throughout New York State

In New York, it is illegal for anybody to own a firearm without a license. A person needs a permit and a license for the areas in which they want to carry it, which is frequently divided down by county. Add to that the fact that, as one might anticipate, New York City has its own distinct and unique rules prohibiting the possession and transit of guns.

One who is relocating to Manhattan, Brooklyn, or the Bronx from Rockland County or Dutchess County must obtain the necessary permits and approvals in order to bring their handgun into the city; otherwise, they are prohibited from doing so.

Legalities of Hunting in New York State

One of the most common instances where New Yorkers and other individuals can get in trouble when it comes to their gun ownership is when it comes to hunting. While hunting is a fun past-time for many, there are many nuances when it comes to what counts as a legal hunting implement when it comes to hunting game.

For example, when it comes to hunting big game, you are allowed to hunt with shotguns, but only if they are 20 gauge or larger and fire a single projectile. When it comes to rifles, any centerfire rifle is allowed. In regard to handguns, any centerfire pistol or revolver is allowed, but the barrel length maximum is 16 inches. It is also important to realize that in addition to any hunting license, New York State also requires you to carry your NYS Pistol Permit and will not recognize permits issued by other states.

Further, there are different discharge ranges you must be aware of outlined here on the DEC website which if breached can result in not only your hunting license being threatened but also facing criminal action as well.

Challenging Search and Seizures

During the investigation process, a law enforcement officer may encounter evidence through a search and seizure. These can be conducted at your home, vehicle, or even on your person. This evidence is frequently relied upon by prosecutors at a trial. However, sometimes these searches are not conducted legally, and depending on the area that was searched, determines the amount of protection you have.

Evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search cannot be used in the trial, however, whether the evidence is illegal or not is determined by a judge after arguments from both you and the prosecuting attorney. This is why it is important to consider discussing the facts and circumstances of your case with an experienced criminal defense attorney in that, should you be able to show that the evidence was obtained illegally, all evidence from the search becomes inadmissible at the trial.

Furthermore, evidence obtained as a result of further searches based on the information from an illegal search could be deemed illegal as well.

Defeating a Weapons Possession Charge

Keep in mind that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Carrying or keeping a firearm in a secured hard-sided case, while appropriate and reasonable, is also not a defense. The criterion is not whether you knew or didnt know you had the firearm without the necessary permission in New York, but simply that you possessed the physical firearm.

Although you may have mistakenly assumed that since your pistol or rifle had a license from Florida, New Jersey, Texas, or California, you could legally own or carry it in New York, this is untrue.

There are ways to mitigate concerns when it comes to your firearm-related conviction, but as touched upon prior, it is important that you consult with an experienced New York criminal defense lawyer who has experience when it comes to dealing with these matters.

Our team of criminal defense attorneys at Tully Rinckey has experience in assisting clients with their firearm and Second Amendment-related matters and can inform and uphold your rights should you be alleged to be in criminal possession of a weapon.

Peter Pullano is the Managing Partner at Tully Rinckey PLLCs Rochester Office, where he practices criminal defense. With over 30 years of criminal defense experience, Peter has handled thousands of criminal cases, including violations, misdemeanors, felonies, and appeals. He has primarily represented defendants in felony cases in both state and federal courts. He can be reached at info@tullylegal.com or at (866) 264-0142.

Link:
ASK THE ATTORNEYS: How to beat a gun charge in New York - The Saratogian

Sparks flew between Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) and Republican J.D. Vance during the second and final Ohio Senate debate in Youngstown, Ohio, on Monday as the two seek to sway voters just three weeks before Election Day.

The candidates clashed on every issue discussed on Monday, which ranged from abortion to gun control. Ryan and Vance also shared heated exchanges throughout the night as they sought to paint each other as being too extreme for Ohio voters.

MIDTERMS 2022 LIVE: UPDATES FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL AHEAD OF CRUCIAL ELECTION

The Ohio Senate race has attracted nationwide attention since Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) announced he would not seek reelection, giving Democrats a chance to pick up a seat in the contentious midterm cycle. Ohio, once viewed as a bellwether for presidential elections, has since shifted to be a somewhat red state in recent years.

Here are five takeaways from the closely watched debate.

Ryan and Vance spar on economy as well as solutions to rising inflation

The debate began with sprawling answers on the economy and inflation, with moderators asking the candidates whether they supported the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act to ease rising costs.

Ryan started off the night empathizing with Ohio residents dealing with increases in the cost of living, calling the current economic climate rough and "brutal. The House Democrat, who voted in favor of passing the Inflation Reduction Act, went on to lament that one of the "big drivers of inflation" has been strained supply chains nationwide.

Meanwhile, Vance knocked Democrats for voting in favor of the legislation, arguing it won't actually reduce inflation.

That's not going to reduce inflation; that's adding more fuel to the fire of inflation, Vance said. I really wish everyone had stood up to this vote because it might have made the inflation crisis that we've been seeing over the last nine months a lot better if he hadn't.

Democrats have struggled with how to address rising inflation on the campaign trail as Republicans have long focused on the key voter concern in the midterm election cycle, pointing to soaring rates under President Joe Biden.

Candidates attack each other on abortion, but stances remain unclear

Ryan and Vance spent a considerable amount of time sparring over abortion policy, with both candidates seeking to paint the other as out of step with the public.

Ryan echoed his stance that Congress should codify the protections that were provided under Roe v. Wade, which legalized nationwide access to abortion before it was overturned by the Supreme Court this summer. The Ohio Democrat lamented strict abortion laws that have been enacted after the courts decision, pointing to an underage rape victim who traveled across state lines to Indiana to obtain the procedure.

Here in Ohio, we see a couple of stories every week where women are in difficult circumstances and Ohio healthcare workers won't take care of them, Ryan said. So they have to go to Illinois, or they have to go to Indiana with a tragedy: pregnancy through rape. It's tragic, and J.D. and his extreme crew, they want to have a national ban, and they're not happy with people having to go to Illinois. They want people to get a passport and have to go to Canada. The largest governmental overreach in the history of our lifetime.

Vance shot back, arguing he does support abortion access in some cases. However, when asked what specific exceptions he would allow, the Republican candidate stopped short of naming any.

There are a number of different exceptions here, and what I want to say is that you cannot say with total confidence what every single exception in every single case is going to be, Vance said.

Instead, the Republican candidate slammed Ryan for being an extremist, pointing to Ryan's voting record supporting legislation that would make legal abortion without limits up to 40 weeks of pregnancy. However, Vance did come out in support of a 15-week federal abortion ban recently proposed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a position he didnt explicitly state in the first debate.

Ryan again distances himself from party leaders

As he has done throughout his midterm campaign, Ryan attempted to appeal to swing voters by distancing himself from Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, prominent party members who are unpopular with voters on the opposite side of the aisle, and instead tried to tie Vance to former President Donald Trump.

Several times throughout the debate, Vance sought to link Ryan to Pelosi, arguing he votes with the California Democrat "100% of the time." However, Ryan fought back, saying he ran against Pelosi for her leadership position in the House arguing it proves that he, unlike Vance, can "take on your own leaders."

Vance then faced questions from the moderators regarding his relationship with Trump, referencing comments from the former president at a recent rally that Vance, a former Trump critic, is kissing my ass for support. The Republican candidate brushed off the comments, claiming Trumps remarks were just a joke.

When the former president said J.D. is kissing my ass because he wants my support, you took that as a joke? one of the moderators asked.

I know the president very well. And absolutely, Vance replied. He was joking about a New York Times story. That's all he was doing. I didn't take offense to it.

Ryan decries Jan. 6 riot as insurrection, while Vance says Trump testimony would be enlightening

Both candidates responded to a recent vote by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol to subpoena Trump to offer testimony from that day.

Ryan denounced the Capitol riot as an insurrection that sought to "disenfranchise over 80 million" voters.

"He should respond to the subpoena; he should come clean," Ryan said. "If he has nothing to hide, he should come clean ... and I do think that the insurrection was a group of people who are trying to overthrow the United States of America."

Meanwhile, Vance avoided questions on whether Trump should comply with the panel's subpoena, noting he is not "going to pretend to give the president of the United States legal advice." However, he noted it would be enlightening for the former president to offer his testimony and decried the investigation as a political hit job. He said the inquiry into the attack is just as much a threat to democracy as the riot.

The Republican candidate then invoked the racial justice protests that occurred over the summer of 2020, criticizing Ryan for failing to denounce the violence that occurred at those events.

Both candidates back Second Amendment but seek different ways to address gun violence

Although the two candidates have shared support for upholding the Second Amendment, they broke from one another on how theyd address rising rates of gun violence nationwide.

Vance argued the rise in gun violence is largely due to "Democrats [deciding] to declare war on America's beliefs." Instead, the Republican proposed strengthening "commonsense" gun laws rather than trying to implement new policies such as stricter background check systems and other regulations.

The Republican candidate also proposed allowing properly trained teachers to carry firearms as a way to prevent school shootings, prompting pushback from Ryan, who argued its a very risky proposition to have an armed teacher in school even if theyre properly trained.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Ryan maintained his support for maintaining Second Amendment rights but emphasized that laws must be strengthened to address mass shootings at schools.

"You can't watch the level of violence that we have here and not think we need background checks," Ryan said. "We need to close the gun show loophole. We need to make sure that these weapons of war are not readily available."

Read more:
Five takeaways from final Ohio Senate debate between JD Vance and Tim Ryan - Washington Examiner

URBANA Congresswoman Robin Kelly is up for re-election in Illinois 2nd congressional district. Shes running against Republican challenger Thomas Lynch.

Illinois Newsrooms Harrison Malkin spoke with Kelly about ways to curb gun violence, the Green New Deal, and a range of other policy issues.

Malkin: First, I wanted to ask you a little bit about your political background. Some of our viewers dont know you and now youre in their district.

Kelly: All right. Well, as you said, Im Robin Kelly. I represent the 2nd congressional district of Illinois. I was a special election. So, Ive been in the seats since April 2013. So next year will be my 10th anniversary. Prior to that, I was the chief administrative officer for Cook County, the second largest county in the United States. And prior to that, the chief of staff for Alexi Giannoulias. And then I was also a state rep for four years. And before that, (I) worked for local governments, Ive actually worked on every level of government. But my background is really social service. I would say in counseling, and just really, Ive been in the human service business, I think my whole life.

Malkin: I know you studied psychology at Bradley University. How has that informed your politics?

Kelly: Well, its funny, I have an undergrad in Psych, a Masters in Counseling, and a PhD in Political Science. And I always say the psych and counseling helped me much more on this job than the PhD in Political Science. Because you meet all kinds of people from all kinds of backgrounds, whether in your party or not in your party. And then also you have all kinds of constituents, you know, and my district is so diverse. Urban, suburban and rural. And that will be exacerbated when I come into my new district in January.

Malkin: Do you think its created some more compassion as well, when youre talking to voters and thinking about the issues facing people in your newly redrawn district?

Kelly: You know what, when I looked at my district before, and now I really look at five things. Most people want a roof over their head, a job, healthcare. They (want to) live in safe communities and want (a) good education for their childrenI lived in Peoria many, many years. Socoming from Manhattan in New York City, that was rural, to me. Even though Peoria has changed some, you know. Now I live in the suburbs, so Ive kind of had a taste of many different lifestyles. We, my grandparents, had a small farm in Southern (New) Jersey, so Ive lived in more, you know, rural parts, at least for the summer. So I think (I) already had the compassion. And I think that Psych and counseling helped me with that(I) try to look at people as people.

Kelly: Can you just say a bit more about the newly redrawn district and what its going to be like representing, you know, people in rural areas, and also people in Chicago. And then maybe your experience as well in Central Illinois, bridging that divide?

Kelly: Again, you know, I try to look at the simple things that people wantIm very active in the gun violence prevention space. And I know, as I go south in my district, you know, people may have a different take, but its not that Im against guns. I just am against what has been going on for too many years now. And its spreading more and more and more. But I, again, Im urban, suburban, and rural. And Ive gotten very much involved with my farmers. I have a barn home meeting every summer andfarmers come, Democrat, Republican, Independent, and I do a lot of listening.

Ive won awards from the Farm Bureau. So I just want people to know that, you know, dont feel like Im not going to support you and your issues, because I dont think that, you know, farmers would say that across the board. Like in my urban areas, they talk about crime, but in my suburban areas, in even Kankakeepeople talk about taxes and education. And each group talks about that. Its really not as different, as you know, people think.

Malkin: I think one thing that impacts everybody is the economy. And this summer, theres been a lot of talk on inflation, especially as certain professions wages dont keep up. And Im curious what policies youd like to see, especially on the federal level to increase job growth, increase wages for people, and overall boost the economy?

Kelly: Well, I mean, our jobless rate is very low. So were doing well. But its just the idea of how much you get paid in those jobs that you haveBut as you said, the pay raises have not kept up with inflation. And inflation is a global issue. So, you know, we can do some things, but its still, you know, a global issue. Definitely, we should push, and we have $15 an hour, thats still not a whole lot.

But I think we need to raise, you know, the minimum wage federally. And I think that will help some, but I think some of the things that weve put in place, like just the bills weve passed, like the infrastructure bill. Thatll put a lot of people to work, you know, tunnels, bridges, you know, clean water, broadband, for everybody. I think what we just did with the inflation act, lowering the cost of medicine for some folks and what we did with the environment that will put people to work, and not just (in) minimum wage jobs.

Weve done things over the last few years that improve, you know, workforce development, just the training that people have. So, I mean, I think things will get better, I know that I go grocery shopping, also, you know, I put gas in my car. But I think that, you know, everything is not in our handswe really are, you know, a part of the world and whats going on in the world. And COVID has had a nasty impact, not only healthcare, but as far as the economyAnd what we pass(ed) as far as like CHIPS and manufacturing and all of that. I think that people will see the fruits of our labor.

Malkin: Just to follow up real quick, though, would you support a higher national minimum wage. Like $15? Or $20?

Kelly: Ive always supported (the) $15 minimum wage, Ive always supported that. Yeah, Ive always supported it. But again, even with that, its still tough on people. You know, I remember my son, when he went to workwhen he started, he was making $14.10. And every once in a while, you know, I had to help them out, you know, so not everybodys lucky to have, you know, a parent or someone that can help them out.

So yeah, that is (a) big concern. And then the cost of housing and, you know, its hard for kids to move out. And, you know, those kinds of things. And even, I know, no one feels sorry for Congress. But, you know, we either pay two rents, two mortgages. Or rent and mortgage because we have to have a place in DC. And its very expensive to live in DC. Very expensive.

Malkin: Yeah, I mean, when I was in Danville, which again, is a new part of your district, people said jobs and housing are the two biggest concerns. So its good to hear that response from you. And one thing that I think is both economic and also (related to) agriculture (and) climate change is the natural gas pipeline in Pembroke Township.

And some of our viewers dont know about it. So, can you just describe what that is, and the costs and benefits of that project?

Kelly: Sure. When I first went to Pembroke, which is about 10 years ago nowI mean, Im sure Ive driven through it before, but as the congressperson, I was so surprised that, you know, the state of the area where, you know, people had outhouses, they use propane gas, many, most did not have internet or broadband access or anything like that. And even though I know people want to move to a whole different way, you knowthis will help them not only residentially, but help them with attracting business

One of my staff (members) went down and he was in, you know, all the meetings representing me, and then we made a presentation to them, you know, so I mean, I think its a good thing for the town. I know some people had issues with it, but they had to have some movement in a better direction.

Malkin: Right. So, how would you reconcile or react to some of the environmental, and I think, eminent domain concerns as well from some farmers.

Kelly: I get that, but the town would fail. I mean, they had to move in a direction. I think what the eminent domain has to be done in the most respectful way, you know, to the farmers. And Im not sure every little thing they worked out with it. And, environmentally, people were using propane gas, and they had to pay for the gas, you know, ahead of time before they would even get the gas. That is no way to live. You know, I think what were doing, part of it is humane, frankly,

Malkin: Something that you touched on is broadband access, which is both a concern in rural communities, especially in Illinois, and urban areas. How did that project and other initiatives that youre working on seek to combat that?

Kelly: Sure. Well, in urban areas, we hear more about people cant afford it. And then in rural areas, they dont have the infrastructure to have it. So many people worked on it, but it was led by (a) actually bipartisan (campaign), and particularly people that represented rural areas, becausebecause the whip Jim Clyburn was a very big proponent of it.

So we were able to work with them. And in the infrastructure bill, you know, theyll get money to work on the infrastructure. We actually presented a check for $3 million to Pembroke to start working on their internet and broadband. But, again, people couldnt do e-learning, couldnt apply for jobs. You cant do telehealth. And if you live in a rural area, all of those, especially telehealth is extremely important.

Malkin: How do you see climate change as impacting these issues and impacting farmers?

Kelly: Well, I was just on one of my farmsand then watching the news, the floods, the very, very hot weather, you know, like farmers, you know, they live and die by the weather and how well their crops do. So hopefully with some of the things that were putting in place, again, its a worldwide problem, we cant solve all the issues, but hopefully, with more attentionmoney being investedI mean, we cant control the sun, or the rain or whatever, but we can help people put a foundation in place that will help with it. And we can all lessen our carbon footprint.

Malkin: One proposal thats been making riptides, but it struggled a bit is the Green New Deal. Whats your thought on it?

Kelly: The Green New Deal was never a bill. You know, it was an idea, you know, that was put forth. And Im sure some of the things that were the ideas that were put forth have all been taken into consideration, and some recommended and some not. I mean everyone on the side of the aisle I sit on (knows) that something definitely needs to be done. And thats what were trying to do.

Malkin: Would you support it?

Kelly: Um, yeah, I mean, I dont know every specific area of it, but I know that yeah, I would support (it). We need to do something. Its evident, you know, that I want my grandchildren to be able to breathe, you know, when they get older, I want there to be, you know, a world there for them. So I do think we need to do you know whats feasible, you know, and then also, as we, as you know, new generations are coming up to teach them in school, you know, what are better ways to save this planet.

Malkin: Another life and death issue in a lot of ways is gun violence. And this is something that touched you and that youve worked on very closely. Youve worked on a bill with my hometown, New Jersey Congressperson Tom Malinowski, to use the powers of the FTC to hold gun companies accountable. Can you just describe that bill for us?

Kelly: Well, how it started was (that) guns have been carved out of the Consumer Product Safety. Like theres more regulations on teddy bears, cribs, all of that, but not guns. (They) were successfully carved out and we think that they should be put back in and then, you know, we need to look at guns and at the Consumer Product Safety CommissionTom, you know, said they didnt have the resourcesSo hes actually taken up the mantle for me, because I remember when he called me about it to see if we canrework thatthere was some responsibility that the gun makers have and that they have to go through the same process, just like teddy bears, cribs, car seats and those kinds of things.

Malkin: What else would you like to see because its not getting better in a lot of ways. And theres been over 300 mass shootings this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

Kelly: Well, for me, its the mass shootings, but also what I brought to Congress, where theres the everyday, die by yourself shootingsin Chicago from July 1 to July 4, I believe, there were nine shootings, you know, and those people that die by themselves dont get moments of silence or anything like that. Theyre forgotten about. So five or six years ago, I stopped standing up for the moments of silenceI didnt want to be a part of that. Now, for the first time, in 30 years, we did pass legislation, it wasnt everything we wanted.

But we do feel that that legislation will help save lives. And we often hear, well, Chicago has the toughest gun laws. But look what they dont talk about isa big part of (it) was traffickingwe need national laws, because most of our guns come from Indiana and Wisconsin. They hate when I say that, but its the truth.

Since Ive been in Congress, its actually become easier to buy a gun in Indiana and Wisconsin than it was when I first came to Congress. So we need to ban assault weapons, instead of what we have now. (We need) more severe background checks. If you cant buy a handgun until youre 21, you should not be able to buy an assault weapon until youre 21. So to me, that needs to be corrected.

Also, weve always pushed for gun violence being seen as a public health crisis, and then have a report come out every year so that people can see the cost of gun violence. And that (not) only, you know, the people that die(but the) people that have been maimed for life and how much that costs. Weve spoken to many doctors, you know, about that. But I know, you know, the story is, oh, theyre trying to take your gun awayWere not trying to take your gun away. But thats the story that was pushed for so long.

Malkin: Do you think one of the reasons for inaction is not seeing the connection between both mass shootings and non-mass shootings, like you mentioned?

Kelly: Well, I think that if we came in every day, and we had a moment of silence, individually, yeah, I think people see it, you know, more nowwe know suicide is first than homicides, and then accidents. So many, you know people get hurt

Malkin: To put it a different way, this is something you just touched on, but reconciling second amendment rights, you know, especially in a district thats full of diverse opinions on guns with these protections that can save lives.

Kelly: And I get the second amendment, but I have the right to play in a park, to go to the store, to go to school, to go to church, to go to a synagogue, to sit on my porch to ride on a CTA bus. Im just going through the ways I know that individuals, you know, have died. I have a right to do those things too, you know, and we know that when the second amendment was created, the world was a little bit different. And its been so stretchedto me it has become an excuse.

Malkin: Before we finish up, another hot button issue is abortion rights, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. What federal protections would you like to see put in place?

Kelly: We have the Womens, you know, Protection Act, but I want women to be able to travel where they want to travel. First of all, I mean, I think its a travesty what happened that they overturned Roe v. Wade. That is not your business, you know, what I do with my body. You know, and theyve truly overstepped, but women should have the right to travel (to) places that are already safe havensdoctors that do the procedure should not be afraid for their lives, you know, because they are giving women (a) choice.

If something comes in the mail, a pill, that should be okay, too. I think like if we can just make sure, you know, those things are in place that wont help everything, but its very, very scary. You know, when I think about Illinois, you knowthank God, what happened in Kansas, and then we have Minnesota, but places are already overwhelmed. And its just going to get worse. And the other thing that concerns me, I do a lot of work around maternal mortality. And (the) United States ranks very poorly, as far as women giving birth and the amount of women that die each year. And Black women die more. So now youre forcing people to have babies. So, you know, I expect maternal mortality to rise, because were forcing people to have babies.

Malkin: Can you just say a little bit more about your work, and also how some of the strict abortion laws are going to create more medical emergencies?

Kelly: The United States ranks very poorly when it comes to delivering babiesBlack women die three to four times the rate of white women. And dependingIndigenous women, like in Washington state, die eight times (the) rate. And in Illinois, actually, Black women died six times the rate of white womenthese might be women that dont have the same access that other people have. We know there is, you know, a greater inequality in healthcare, and lack of access, theres a lack of, you know, doctors of color. And its been proven, you do better when, you know, the doc or the caretaker looks like you

Malkin: Illinois is a bit of an oasis in this sense, but what can the state do to support people in neighboring states that dont have those rights right now?

Kelly: Well, theyre already doing it. Ive spoken to the head of Planned Parenthood here, and she said theyre already overwhelmed. But Illinois is doing what they can do, you know, to have arms open (and to say) that people are welcome. And then they can get services here. And, again, (were) lucky that Minnesota is not that far away, and then Kansas, you know, came through for us also. So, hopefully, you know, thats going to work. But yeah, I mean, were (an) oasis, in many ways when it comes to policies and politics.

Malkin: Before we close up, I want to finish with your elevator pitch of sorts. Again, some voters are just encountering you. And so what would you saywhy should they choose you as their representative?

Kelly: You know, if they look at my track record, I have a track record that Im proud of. So I think thats, you know, very, very important. I am a member that has integrity. Im smart, Im invested. This is not just a job to me. I really feelthat I was put on this earth to be a public servant, and I think that Im a good one.

Malkin: Well, thank you so much for your time.

Harrison Malkin is a reporter for Illinois Public Media. Follow him @HarrisonMalkin

Read the original:
Rep. Robin Kelly supports the Green New Deal and strong gun control in IPM interview - Illinois Newsroom

Each candidate was asked whether she would respect the outcome of the referendum that will appear on the November ballot in Michigan, in which voters will decide whether to insert language into the state constitution guaranteeing the right to abortion.

Both said they would honor the results of the ballot initiative, and both accused the other of lying about that claim.

Shes a little confused about a constitutional amendment, because this is a governor who time and time again thought she was above the constitution of Michigan, Dixon said. I believe in the peoples right to decide.

Its really ironic when Mrs. Dixon stands here and says she will accept the will of the people, Whitmer shot back. This is a candidate who still denies the outcome of the 2020 election.

Dixon has been endorsed by former President Donald Trump and Michigans powerful DeVos family, earning her partys nomination after a GOP primary mired in chaos. After the debate, Dixon told reporters it was Americans right to question elections.

Its OK to question the results of the election. It doesnt mean that youre not going to accept the will of the people. Thats ridiculous, Dixon said.

Asked by the debates moderator to specifically define her position on abortion, Dixon said she was pro-life with exceptions for the life of the mother and did not say whether she would allow prosecutions in cases of rape or incest. She then argued that she would not have much power over the issue if elected.

A judge has already ruled in this case, Dixon said. The governor doesnt have the choice to go around a judge or a constitutional amendment.

Whitmer sharply disagreed that a governors hands are tied on the issue, noting that her lawsuit against the 1931 ban was what brought about the judges ruling.

Mrs. Dixon is either woefully under-informed about the office shes running for or shes lying to you, she said. The governor will absolutely impact these rights.

In an interview with POLITICO earlier in the week, Whitmer added that the governor has many other tools for shaping reproductive health care in the state, touting her administrations work this year allowing pharmacists to prescribe birth control and, just this week, applying for a federal Medicaid waiver to expand coverage of STD testing, contraception and other services to 25,000 low-income people who dont currently qualify.

Whitmer has led in several polls, though that lead has narrowed to the single digits in recent weeks. She has also benefited from having more robust campaign funds, according to The Associated Press.

Dixon, who acknowledged she might have been speaking to some voters for the first time, introduced herself first as a mother and as a critic of Democratic policies in education and schools.

Echoing GOP rhetoric in state races nationwide, Dixon claimed that children in Michigan were being taught sex and gender theory, and not to read, write and do math. Asked about school safety, she advocated for hardening schools and putting more armed police on campuses.

Whitmer described Dixons position on guns as dangerous.

Shell put the Second Amendment before second graders every time, the governor said.

Dixon and Whitmer are scheduled to debate again on Oct. 25.

Alice Miranda Ollstein reported from Grand Rapids, and Olivia Olander from Chicago.

See more here:
Michigan governor debate features accusations of lies, with abortion front and center - POLITICO

In 2015, as Tony was testifying about an upcoming bill, he realized he was the only black pro-Second Amendment representative out of over 100 people. He wanted to see more representation from his community. How could he encourage minorities to not only exercise their Second Amendment rights but to get involved in advocating for them?

Tony felt a deep need to destroy negative media-driven stereotypes, but how? When he spoke with a friend about this, his friend gave him the answer he needed but didnt want at the time. He told Tony it was on him to start the movement. He needed to be about it, not talk about it.

And so began the 2A4E Diversity Shoot. According to Tony, Our mission is to introduce all people, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or background to learn about their Second Amendment rights.

The event started small in 2015 with only four people attending. Tony partnered with local gun ranges and kept showing up. Between 2015-2019 the event grew so large he had to start using tickets to avoid capacity issues. Eventually, he spread out to other ranges and added more dates. Even throughout the pandemic, Tony found ranges that continued to host. These days, Tony continues to be about it and hosts events twice a month at four ranges and in two states.

As Tony and I chatted about the issues surrounding the gun community, the common theme that came up was divisiveness. Whether it be political rhetoric, false media narratives, or in-fighting, everything seems to be aimed at separating gun owners into different groups. Of course, we all fall into certain categories and come from different backgrounds, but what does that matter if we all agree on the right to bear arms?

We agreed that the hardcore anti-gun crowd is exceptionally united. Theyre on a mission to eradicate guns, and theyll stick together no matter what. They dont want anyone to have guns regardless of gender, race, political affiliation, or other qualifications.

Its not likely well change the minds in that group, but what if we could get to those people in the middle? The ones who are uneducated about firearms and havent chosen a side yet. Certainly, some people have no gun experience, but theyre curious and just waiting for the right conversation.

As Tony and I discussed solutions, it became clear we need two things: unity and more people on our side. We need to have conversations that arent pushy or judgmental, and we must welcome everyone into the 2A community, regardless of how we feel about them.

Thats precisely what Tony Simon is doing. Hes created a safe space designed to be welcoming to everyone, including minorities and underrepresented groups who may often feel comfortable in a firearms class. Tony doesnt care if youre black, white, Asian, gay, straight, or anything else. Youre welcome at the 2A4E Diversity Shoot. As a woman who initially felt intimidated to go to the range, I can say, after talking to Tony, I would have loved to attend his class.

Tony Simons mission is to help people learn about and exercise their Second Amendment rights. Its a human right, after all, he says. His work focuses on showing people that gun laws dont make us any safer and gun owners arent crazy for wanting to protect themselves.

2A4E isnt just a brand or catchy phrase. Its a lifestyle we all, as gun owners, should be living without question. To preserve and restore our rights, we need to unite and invite more people to our side. The best way to do that is to embrace everyone, show them what the Second Amendment truly stands for, and welcome them into our community.

Read the original here:
Growing the 2A Community: The Second Amendment Is for Everyone - Guns.com

U.S. Representative Steve Chabot and Cincinnati Council Member Greg Landsman traded barbs in the final televised debate in the race for Ohios First Congressional District Thursday night.

Chabot has maintained political control over the district since 1995. Hes currently serving his 12th term in office, only losing once in 2008, to Democrat Steve Driehaus, winning the seat back in 2010. He faces one of his toughest re-election bids yet now that redrawn district boundaries include the entire city of Cincinnati.

Asked about rising gun crime across the country, Chabot cited his support for a gun regulation measure this year that only 13 other House Republicans voted for.

It not only protected schools, but it was additional background checks for younger people and the rest, Chabot said.

As for going further, though: We have a Second Amendment, its in the Constitution its not the First (Amendment) but its the Second and its very important, Chabot said. [Landsman] doesnt care about the Constitution, apparently. People have a right to defend their families in their own homes.

Landsman says constituents of the First District want more.

People want these guns gone. He is not going to do it, Landsman said. I will, as a member of Congress, ban assault weapons. I will go after these guns. And I will make it easier for police officers to get these guns out of our neighborhoods.

Listen to this question and responses:

Chabot/Landsman Debate: Gun Question

The two men repeated frequent talking points about abortion when asked: Would you support legislation banning in vitro fertilization and forms of birth control that prevent pregnancy after conception, or legislation to guarantee access to IVF and birth control?

I introduced and passed the ban on partial birth abortion years ago," Chabot said. "It's the law of the land now, most Democrats actually supported it as well. And we had exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

Landsman calls Chabots position on abortion extreme, saying Chabot has also supported abortion bans without exceptions.

I will, as your member of Congress, vote to codify Roe and make sure that you have reproductive freedom. I want that for my daughter, I know you want it for your children, he said. And I will vote to protect contraception, I will vote to protect IVF, I will vote to protect marriage equality.

Listen to this question and responses:

Chabot/Landsman Debate: Reproductive Health Question

The candidates also addressed questions on the economy, housing, public safety, health care, climate change and democracy.

WVXU co-presented the debate along with CET and the Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber. Lucy May, host of WVXUs Cincinnati Edition, moderated the event and Nick Swartsell, WVXU reporter, was on the panel.

Tune in to Cincinnati Edition Friday, Oct. 14, at noon for a segment fact-checking the statements made during Thursday's debate.

More here:
Chabot and Landsman talk guns, abortion and more in final debate - WVXU

On Friday, NRA-ILA filed an amicus brief in a case challenging a New York law that seeks to circumvent the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). PLCAA codified the fundamental legal maxim that the law only holds responsible parties liable for their actions. It limits the types of lawsuits that can be brought against the gun industry by barring suits seeking monetary damages against an industry member for a third partys misuse of a firearm.

Despite PLCAA and the common law, New York officials have been bringing lawsuits against gun industry members for over 20 years now. Former New York Attorney General (who then became the states disgraced governor) Elliot Spitzers suit against Ruger was thrown out of court, and a lawsuit brought by the City of New York against Beretta suffered the same fate.

Congress enacted the [PLCAA] to stanch an epidemic of experimental tort suits attempting to hold the firearms industry liable for third parties criminal misuse of firearms, the brief reads. Dissatisfied with Congresss judgment, New York has set out to undermine the PLCAA, assuming the responsibility to correct [what it terms] federal overreach.

PLCAA is not the only firearms matter that New York lawmakers are bitter about and trying to evade these days. In June, NRA-ILA won NYSRPA v. Bruen, a landmark Second Amendment Case at the United States Supreme Court. Governor Hochul called the high courts decision a mere temporary setback, prompting the state to pass the falsely labeled Concealed Carry Improvement Act, which NRA-ILA is also challenging in federal Court.

This case is captioned National Shooting Sports Foundation v. James. It is on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City.

Please stay tuned towww.nraila.orgfor future updates on NRA-ILAs ongoing efforts to defend your constitutional rights.

Read this article:
NRA Files Friend of the Court Brief in NY PLCAA Case. - NRA ILA

The proposed Credit Card Competition Act failed to become part of a U.S. defense spending bill this week, but backers of the legislation expect to have another chance to attach it to the military bill next month.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Roger Marshall (R-KS), sponsors of the card competition legislation,were hopeful they could tack the legislation onto the National Defense Authorization Act.

It could have been a surefire way to help their bill pass through the chamber because the defense funding legislation is a must-pass bill every year. However, other senators apparently had the same idea, with some 900 other amendments offered, too.

When Sen.Jack Reed (D-RI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee launched discussionof the NDAATuesday, few of the amendments were part of it. He aimed to act on the defense spending bill before a recess that starts later this month, but now its likely to be taken up after that break ends about three weeks later in November.

The Senate will return in mid-Nov to consider the NDAA bill and well push to try to get a vote on this amendment then, Maddie Carlos, a spokesperson for Durbins office, said by email. Only a few dozen amendments were included in this initial version of the bill, she said.

The card competition act would mandate that retailers and other merchants have access to at least two unaffiliated credit networks for routing card transactions when consumers swipe to pay. The thrust of the legislation is to create more competition for the network juggernauts Visa and Mastercard in the interest of reducing the interchange fees that merchants are charged when consumers use the cards.

In late September, Durbin and Marshallintroduced two amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, seeking to attach their legislation to that annual defense bill. In a Sept. 30 press release, they notedthat military veterans must sometimes pay surcharges at military commissaries to cover payment of the interchange fees.

Their proposed first amendment to the NDAA was essentially the same legislation as the credit card competition bill they introduced in July. A second amendment called on the U.S. Defense and Treasury departments to issue a report on how much veterans pay in credit card surcharges and which companies benefit from those fees.

The senators argued that Visa and Mastercard process about 83% of general-purpose credit cards in the U.S., with $3.49 trillion transacted through the two companies in 2021. They also have said the fees paid by U.S. merchants for use of the networks are among the worlds highest, with $77.48 billion in fees paid in 2021.

But there has been plenty of opposition to the bill, namely from the banks that issue the cards and interest groups that represent card interests.

We were able to keep the harmful Credit Card Competition Act and the interchange issue out of the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in the Senate today, National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions CEO Dan Berger said in a statement Tuesday. This is a big win for credit unions, but we need to continue the fight to make sure lawmakers fully comprehend the damage this bill would have on the financial services industry and American consumers.

Merchant supporters remain optimistic the bill will advance. This is just the beginning of debate over the NDAA and there are many senators who are very concerned about the impact of high swipe fees on veterans who have bravely served their country,National Association of Convenience Stores General Counsel Doug Kantorsaid in a statement.We look forward to seeing senators address this issue during floor consideration of the bill. Kantor is also an executive committee member for the Merchants Payments Coalition.

Durbin, who has been campaigning for years to inject more competition into the card industry,successfully pushed through passage of a similar amendment for routing debit transactions as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Both proponents and opponents of the proposed legislation suspected the sponsors would use a similar maneuver for this bill.

The House has already passed its version of the NDAA and didnt include the credit card legislation, but if its attached in the Senate it could win approval when the chambers reconcile their two versions.

A House version of the proposed Credit Card Competition Act was introduced last month.

Go here to read the rest:
Durbin credit card amendment hits speed bump - Payments Dive