Category Archives: Second Amendment

A recently enacted Delaware law that bans guns described as assault weapons violates the U.S. and state Constitutions, according to a new lawsuit.

Delaware House Bill 450 bans the sale and manufacture of dozens of guns labeled as assault weapons. It also forbids transporting such guns into the state.

Those who violate the law face a felony charge for each violation.

However, the U.S. Constitutions Second Amendmentguarantees the right of the people to keep and bear Arms andArticle I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution states, A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use, which means that the new law is illegal, according to the suit, which was filed bythe Delaware State Sportsmens Association, a National Rifle Association (NRA) affiliate; several gun clubs; theDelaware Association of Federal Firearms Licensees; and five individuals.

Plaintiffs and their members have a constitutional right to make use of common firearms, deemed assault weapons under the Regulatory Scheme, for effective self-defense and not to be disarmed by the Regulatory Scheme and its enforcement by Defendants, the 92-page federal court filing reads.

In addition, state lawmakers ignored rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Delaware Supreme Court that peoples right to self-defense includes the right to possess guns both inside and outside their homes, the plaintiffs say.

The passage of the new law amounts to defiance of this established and unassailable authority, they say.

We promised our members and the people of Delaware that if HB 450 ever became law, we would challenge that law and today, we kept that promise, Jeff Hague, president of the Delaware State Sportsmens Association, said in a statement.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to block state officials from enforcing the law.

Delaware Gov. John Carney, a Democrat who signed the legislation, and theDelaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security declined to comment to The Epoch Times.

While signing the legislation and other gun restriction laws, Carney said previously that we have an obligation to do everything we can to prevent tragedies like weve seen around the county from happening here in Delaware.

We are not waiting to do whats rightto take steps that will make our state safer, he said.

Delaware Senate President Pro Tempore Dave Sokola, another Democrat, said hes proud of my colleagues for standing strong against the lobbying effort of the NRA to do whats right for the safety of our families.

Follow

Zachary Stieber covers U.S. and world news. He is based in Maryland.

Visit link:
New Delaware 'Assault Weapon' Ban Infringes on Second Amendment Rights: Lawsuit - The Epoch Times

A day after the U.S. House of Representatives backed a ban on high-powered weapons, Rep. Sean Casten said the fight against gun violence should focus on addressing the vast number of guns already in circulation and how the Second Amendment is interpreted.

The Downers Grove Democrat hosted a virtual town hall meeting Saturday with activist Fred Guttenberg, whose 14-year-old daughter, Jaime, was killed in the 2018 mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida.

About 180 people joined the virtual meeting, which lasted about an hour and had a Q&A.

"Ultimately, we have to judge ourselves as members of Congress ... as Americans by when our time is done here, is the world safer or more dangerous than when we got here?" Casten said after the town hall meeting. "As long as we're unhappy with that answer, we've got more work to do."

Casten did not express much hope that a ban on some semi-automatic guns would pass the Senate, where it could be held up by filibuster.

Guttenberg, who has attended the death penalty trial of the shooter who killed his daughter and 16 others at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School, encouraged people interested in addressing gun violence to vote in the November election.

"This is the election of a lifetime," Guttenberg said. "America has the ability to reduce gun violence. We can seriously reduce this."

Casten said that while weapons bans, expanded background checks and other restrictions can help prevent gun violence, eventually the number of guns already in circulation, which he estimated was about 20 million, must be addressed.

"We have done the things that are popular," he said alluding to various restrictions. "We have to have a really hard conversation ... that says, what do you do about the fact that we already live in a country with 400 million guns? We have more guns than people in the United States."

Additionally, Casten said how the courts have interpreted the Second Amendment also must be addressed.

"We have to have a much more honest conversation about what our founders intended with the Second Amendment," he said. "The court system is the primary agent of a lot of death in this country."

Casten said he supports local efforts, such as Naperville's proposed ban on high-powered weapons and high-capacity magazines, and Illinois' strict gun laws. However, he said, those gun laws can do little if neighboring states have more lax laws.

See the original post here:
'Is the world safer or more dangerous': Rep. Sean Casten asks, saying there's more work to do on gun violence - Daily Herald

With control of Congress and 36 governorships up for grabs, the 2022 elections are shaping up to be transformational. In some states, voters will get their say on hugely consequential issues lower down the ballot, in direct-democracy initiatives on various hot-button issues, ranging from abortion to gun rights to labor and tax policy. And given recent news, were likely to see more such initiatives in coming elections.

The Supreme Courts Dobbs decision, overturning Roe v. Wade, has elevated the debate about abortion initiatives in five statesthe most in any year to this point. In two states, Kentucky and Kansas, voters will choose whether to amend their respective state constitutions to deny explicitly that any language in their founding documents implies a right to an abortion. The amendments respond to a series of state court rulings in places like California, Minnesota, Illinois, and New Jersey that resemble Roe v. Wade in holding that state constitutions guarantee abortion rights. After the Kansas supreme court issued one such ruling in April 2019, the Republican majority in the Kansas legislature tried to create an initiative for voters to amend the constitution in 2020 but could not muster the two-thirds vote needed to get the issue on the ballot after five Republicans voted against it. All five have subsequently left the legislature or been defeated in GOP primaries, and the legislature has since voted successfully to place the measure on the ballot in an election taking place in early August. The measure has received strong support from religious organizations, including the Catholic Church in Kansas, which has donated some $750,000 to the political campaign for it. Leading the opposition is the ACLU, which has so far contributed some $235,000 to defeating it.

In Kentucky, religious organizations want to add a clause to the constitution like the one proposed in Kansas, explicitly denying any right to abortion. Voters in four other states (Alabama, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Louisiana) have already passed such amendments. Conversely, Vermont voters will get their say on a Right to Personal Reproductive Autonomy Amendment, which would enshrine the right to abortion in that states constitution. The measure is being promoted by the states ACLU and Planned Parenthood chapters and opposed by religious groups and Vermonters for Good Government, which fears that the passage of the amendment might make taxpayers responsible for funding abortions, fertility treatments, gender-transformation surgeries, and other procedures related to reproduction. The California legislature, meantime, has placed an initiative on the ballot that would explicitly add language to its constitution guaranteeing a right to abortion. In Montana, voters will decide on a law declaring that infants born alive during an abortion procedure are persons and must receive medical care. Supporters placed the law on the ballot after the states Democratic governor, Steve Bullock, vetoed a similar measure in 2019.

Unionization is on the ballot in Illinois and Tennessee, albeit in different ways. In recent years, a wave of right-to-work legislation has swept the country. Four states bordering Illinois (Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Kentucky) have adopted laws giving workers the right to opt out of unions. Alarmed, union allies in the Illinois legislature have now placed on the states ballot a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to collective bargaining in both the private and public sectors. The proposed amendment not only gives workers the right to bargain but also explicitly states that Illinois may not pass laws restricting unions ability to negotiate over wages and benefits, as well as other terms and conditions of employment. While the amendment has gained the support of many unions in Illinois, the expansive nature of the language in the ballot initiative has sparked opposition from employer groups, including the Illinois Association of School Boards, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, and the Illinois Manufacturers Association.

Tennessee, meantime, was one of the first states to adopt right-to-work, shortly after Congress gave states that option in the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act. Bolstered by research showing that right-to-work states have vastly outperformed required-unionization states on private-sector job growth over the last two decades, Tennessee now wants to join nine other states that have enshrined right-to-work protections in their constitutions. The state has been particularly effective at grabbing new manufacturing jobs and winning business relocations from unionization states like California in recent years.

The unexpectedly robust rebound in tax revenues after the Covid-induced economic lockdowns has left many states flush with cash. A ballot initiative in Colorado will give voters a chance to cut the states income-tax rate to 4.40 percent, from 4.55 percentan estimated $500 million reduction in revenue. This would be the states second voter-approved cut in two years: in 2020, Colorado residents approved a reduction from 4.63 percent to the current level, and Democratic governor Jared Polis backed the initiative. Are Colorado voters in the mood for more? Maybe. Polis recently said that the state should aim to eliminate its income tax and find better, less economically painful, ways to raise revenues.

Massachusetts Democrats want to take their state in a dramatically different direction. Local Democrats have approved a state ballot initiative that seeks to raise taxes by $2 billion. Voters will get to weigh in on the issue this November, amid increasingly good news on state finances. In April, Massachusetts collected $2 billion more in tax revenues from its residents than anticipated, and Republican governor Charlie Baker has been negotiating for tax cuts, even as Democrats ask voters for a whopping hike.

The right to bear arms is never out of the news for long. The Supreme Courts recent Bruen decision has kept a spotlight on gun rights, and citizens of several states will have their chance to vote on Second Amendment issues this fall. In November, Iowa citizens will vote on a constitutional amendment to keep and bear arms. Currently, 44 other states have similar reinforcements of the Second Amendment in their constitutions (California, New York, and Maryland are among the six that do not). One Iowa legislative supporter of the initiative said that the amendment is an attempt to set up obstacles for liberal judges who are willing to just take away your right to keep and bear arms. Democrats have opposed the amendment on grounds that it might make it harder to modify the states gun laws.

Given the long lead time necessary to place a referendum on the ballot in most states, this years initiatives are the result of momentum created before our current news cycles. But given timely policy debates over issues like abortion and gun rights, it seems likely that what voters in some states will decide over the next few months will set the stage for more direct-democracy campaigns.

Steven Malanga is the senior editor of City Journal and the George M. Yeager Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Read the rest here:
States Take the Initiative - City Journal

From today's article in the Washington Post (Peter Jamison) (reprinted, without a paywall, in the Philadelphia Tribune), documenting a trend that I generally very much favor:

Like many Black women in [the D.C. area] , [Patrice Parker had] viewed guns for most of her life as the root of the violence that had wrecked countless lives in her community.

That changed, paradoxically, after her son was shot to death in a parking lot not far from her home. Exasperated with the police response and in despair over the sheer number of weapons on the streets, Parker decided there was only one way to protect what remained of her family. And that was to pick up a gun herself.

"I always felt like you needed to take the guns off the street. But the way things are now . I don't feel safe anymore," she said. "You can't trust nobody."

Across America, Black women are taking up arms in unprecedented numbers. Scarredsometimes literallyby the firsthand consequences of gun violence and disenchanted with decades of urban gun-control policies that they regard as largely ineffective, some Black women in D.C. and other cities are embracing a view long espoused by Second Amendment activists: that only guns will make them safer.

As a child growing up in Southeast Washington during that era, Keeon Johnson learned to fear the weapons that routinely ended the lives of her neighbors.

"I wasn't into guns at all," Johnson said, "because we were told that guns were bad."

Decades later, serving as the Democratic chairwoman of an Advisory Neighborhood Commission in Ward 8, Johnson began to wonder whether her faith in her party's repeated promises of stricter gun control was misplaced. [Eventually, s]he and her husband, Frenchie Johnson, became NRA-certified instructors last year. Now they teach classes, catering specifically to Black people from D.C. and Prince George's, out of their home in White Plains, Md.

One of their first students was Janae Hammett, 37, who had gone to elementary school with Johnson in D.C. and whose children's father was shot to death in 2010. Given that history, Hammett said she was initially "on eggshells" around guns. But her comfort level increased the more she shot, and eventually she joined Johnson in forming the Second Amendment Sista Society, a club for Black women in the Washington region who are interested in guns.

Hammett said her transformation was driven, fundamentally, by desperation. Illegal guns, it seemed, were everywhere. If she couldn't count on anyone else to protect her, why shouldn't she legally own a gun to protect herself?

"I don't think the government, police or anybody will ever get a hold of the illegal guns," she said.

As a woman in a dangerous place, she had always feared she would be unable to defend her family. Her son's killers were still out there. But with a gun, Parker felt less vulnerable, especially with the knowledge she had gained at the Choppa Community [a local gun range].

"They took the fear out of me," she said.

Parker was waiting for the paperwork to come through on her concealed-carry license, and in the meantime she was trying to share her revelation with others.

The article cites two experts who argue that gun possession undermines safety rather than promoting it, but none who argues the contrary (and there certainly are prominent criminologists, such as Gary Kleck, who have indeed argued that gun possession generally tends to make the possessor safer). But in any case, I thought it was noteworthy that the article documented this thread, and took a generally positive tone on it.

Continue reading here:
"Black Women Who Once Hated Guns Are Embracing Them as Crime Soars" - Reason

Delegates at the United Auto Workers 38th Constitutional Convention in Detroit decisively voted down a proposed amendment banning the negotiation of hated multi-tier wage structures.

At the same time, the convention approved another motion, by a wide margin, to increase the salaries and pensions of UAW international officers by 3 percent.

With the working class facing an unprecedented crisis, delegates were subjected to an almost nonstop barrage of self-congratulatory happy talk. The complacency evident among the majority of delegates and union officials stands in sharp contrast to the sentiment in the plants, where anger over decades of UAW-imposed concessions is boiling over in the form of massive contract rejection votes.

Even as UAW President Ray Curry and other executives exchanged high fives at the convention, yet another UAW official was sentenced to jail for embezzling millions of dollars in workers dues. Timothy Edmunds, financial secretary of UAW Local 412, was sentenced to 57 months in prison Tuesday for embezzling $2.1 million in union funds. He pleaded guilty to the charges in March. The federal monitor overseeing the UAW had accused the UAW leadership of covering up its investigation of corruption in violation of a court order.

The same day, General Motors CEO Marry Barra implied that the automaker was preparing job cuts in the wake of a sharp fall in profits in the second quarter. According to the Wall Street Journal, GMs second quarter net income fell 40 percent from the previous year. Barra stated that the company is cutting discretionary spending and limiting hiring, and is prepared to tighten costs even further if economic conditions worsen.

Neither Curry nor Vice President Cindy Estrada, who presided over much of the proceedings Tuesday, took any note of this.

In a letter to delegates sent Tuesday afternoon, UAW presidential candidate William Lehman, a 34-year-old rank-and-file worker at Mack Trucks, noted that the layoffs at GM and previously announced cuts at Ford and Stellantis were only the beginning.

Loading Tweet ...

Workers know what [Barras statement] means: Massive job cuts and demands for further concessions, he wrote. And everyone knows that the UAW apparatus will agree to everything that the companies demand.

The keynote speaker at the convention Tuesday morning, Democratic Michigan Congressman Debbie Dingell, set the tone for the rest of the days speeches with a nationalist rant directed at China. Predictably, Dingell, herself a former GM executive, had nothing to say about the job cuts or the auto companies record-breaking profits in the midst of a pandemic that has killed scores of autoworkers and more than one million people throughout the US.

Spouting the nationalism long promoted by the unions, Dingell declared it was timeto bring back our supply chain back to America. She complained that 80-90 percent of medicines were produced in China, along with computer microchips and other critical components. I am not going to let China beat us at anything. America is going to lead the world, she said.

This takes place as Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi prepares a provocative visit to Taiwan, a move calculated to further ratchet up tensions with China and greatly increase the risk of war between nuclear powers.

Other featured speakers Tuesday included AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler and the Reverend Wendell Anthony, president of the Detroit branch of the NAACP. Outside of ritualistic paeans to the trade unions, both focused their remarks almost entirely on the need to get out the vote for the Democratic Party in the upcoming November elections.

However, amidst her feigned optimism, Shuler nervously acknowledged the breakdown in support for all the capitalist state institutions, including the Democratic Party. Dont think negative, dont give up, fight back! she exhorted.

The main conference business of the day was the debate and vote on resolutions and constitutional amendments. The group Unite All Workers for Democracy attempted and failed by wide margins to get several changes to the constitution adopted. One amendment called for UAW retirees to be permitted to run for International Executive Board positions in the first direct vote for top officers in the union. The second amendment would have banned the negotiation of multitiered wage structures in future contracts.

Bill Parker, former president of UAW Local 1700 at the Stellantis Sterling Heights Assembly Plant, introduced the motion on the amendment to ban tiered wages in negotiations. The resolution was largely pro forma, since it would do nothing to eliminate the hundreds of concessionary contracts already in place at virtually every UAW-represented workplace. However, even a verbal pledge to end tiers was too much for the UAW executives.

The resolution banning tiers had been among scores submitted to the UAW Constitution Committee, staffed entirely with appointees of the Curry leadership, but the committee had arbitrarily decided not to bring it to a vote.

While the supporters of the amendment won the right to bring the resolution to the floor by mustering support from 15 percent of the delegates, it was quickly clear that it would be easily voted down.

In the discussion, speakers for the administrative caucus argued that a ban on tiers would tie the hands of the union in negotiations. Estrada then tried to quickly end discussion and force a vote, a flagrant violation of the rules, as one delegate pointed out, since Parker had not even been allowed to speak in favor of his own resolution.

In his letter to delegates, Lehman wrote that the corruption scandal that has engulfed the UAW is merely one expression of the complete integration of the UAW apparatus into corporate management, the obliteration of all distinctions between the company and the union.

Lehman appealed to delegates to nominate him on Wednesday, stating that his campaign is aimed at developing a movement of the rank and file to end the dictatorship of the apparatus over the workers and create the conditions for a real fight of workers against exploitation and inequality.

Stay informed. Sign up to our Autoworker Newsletter.

More here:
UAW convention rejects amendment opposing tiered wage system, approves wage increase for top officials - WSWS

The Allahabad HC on Thursday ruled that, when an amendment application is filed at a very belated stage, it is required to be seen as to whether it has been filed with clean hands, bonafide intention or only with the intention to delay the proceedings and if the second one is found, no interference is required.

The bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari stated that petitioner himself has filed writ petitions for early disposal of suit and on the other hand, he has taken chance to linger on the proceeding by filing amendment application at a very belated stage.

In this case, the petitioner has filed an Original Suit along with an interim injunction application in the year 1993 for the cancellation of the sale deed, which was rejected. Against the said rejection order, the petitioner preferred an Appeal.

During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an amendment application for amending the plaint. The said appeal as well as the amendment application was rejected. Again, both orders petitioner filed Writ Petition which was rejected.

Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, while rejecting the amendment application, it is required on the part of the Court below to see as to whether it is filed with ill intention or with clean hands.

Shobhit Saxena, Counsel for the respondent submitted that the intention of this Court was very much clear that the suit has to be decided at the earliest, but without any reason, after a delay of more than three years, the petitioner has filed an amendment application again.

The issue for consideration before the bench was:

Whether in light of Order VI Rule, 17 of CPC, up to what stage, amendment application may be allowed and what would be the consequences of delay in filing of amendment application?

Join LAW TREND WhatsAPP Group for Legal News Updates-Click to Join

High Court after relying upon the case of B K Mittal vs. Sakya Centre Society and others stated that the Apex Court has taken a consistent view that amendment application may be allowed at the second appellate stage, Court is required to take a liberal view and further amendment application would not be rejected on the ground of delay, in case delay is bonafide without any ill intention.

High Court opined that once the Court has granted liberty to file a second amendment application, there is no occasion for the petitioner to wait for three years when the suit was listed for final hearing. In fact, it is nothing but an attempt to linger on the proceeding by filing such an amendment application.

The bench stated that the petitioner himself has filed writ petitions for early disposal of suit and on the other hand, he has taken chance to linger on the proceeding by filing amendment application at a very belated stage. Therefore, while dealing with such a situation where an amendment application is filed at a very belated stage, it is required to be seen as to whether it has been filed with clean hands, bonafide intention or only with the intention to delay the proceedings and if the second one is found, no interference is required.

In view of the above, High Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Braj Bhushan Lal Awasthi v. Smt. Urmila (Since Deceased) And 11 Others

Bench: Justice Neeraj Tiwari

Citation: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 115 of 2022

Read the original here:
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC | Upto What Stage Amendment Application May be Allowed & What would be the Effect of delay? Explains Allahabad HC - Law...

My whole life Ive always believed that our freedom and our rights, as laid out in the Constitution, were absolute and unexpireable. Now as an adult in my early 30s, nothing has shocked me more than to discover the fragility of our rights and our freedom.

The famous Ronald Reagan quote rings exceptionally true today: Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. We didnt pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

We live in a time when people, unfamiliar with history, call to trade our rights in exchange for safety or a greater good. Benjamin Franklin warned of such perils by saying They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

We see this in the Covid-19 pandemic within our own state holding onto emergency powers up through present day for our safety emergency powers that move power away from our representatives, being the voice of the people, up to a singular governor which can act more autonomously.

This can also be evidenced in the ongoing Second Amendment debate where rights are being chiseled away under the guise that it will prevent ill-doers from committing heinous crimes. We didnt follow the science with covid and we dont follow that data with gun control. We dont follow these things because its not about solving these issues its about control.

Ive come to the realization that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution we were dealt a full deck and ever since then we have been giving cards away, each generation having less freedoms then their fathers.

I worry about what freedoms will be left when my children are grown. Did I let any go on my watch? It is each generations job to preserve these freedoms for the next. Weve gotten so far away from the Constitution and the spirit in which it was written that we now only know what truths are evident within our lifetime and neglect to look back at the history that these rights were derived from. Perhaps this is by design.

Were falling victim to a group our founding fathers were deeply concerned about referred to as a majority faction. In Federalist 10, James Madison expressed concern that a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

A minority faction was a lesser concern due to not having a majority to affect legislative change. The majority faction was of grave concern because at the expense of others rights they could affect legislative change. Thats where the Supreme Court comes in as a safeguard to the Constitutional rights of that minority group that was more or less trampled on by the majority.

It greatly concerns me that in present time this majority faction has taken aim at the Supreme Court which is the last defense in protecting our rights. Our government was designed as three separate branches to check and balance each other and ensure our rights were protected. To threaten an entire necessary branch to serve this passion or interest is a tremendous threat to our freedom.

I often ask myself what can be done to steer us back onto the course that our founders had planned out for us. I believe I have some solutions. We need a few terms of a truly limited government, a government as outlined in the Constitution. Our government was essentially designed as an insulator to our Bill of Rights, its sole job being protecting those rights. The government could legislate any laws it wished as long as those laws served to protect the citizens rights.

Commonly it is thought that main purpose of our government is defense and that is not outwardly true in that its a specifically enumerated right, but in so that it is necessary in our ability to protect our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The point is that we dont need to trade our rights for safety, but we need to bolster and strengthen them for our safety under the umbrella of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We can do this by electing representatives in government who truly represent our interests and by holding accountable those who dont.

We can bring American/Constitutional history back into education and shift the culture back to one that has a vested interest in preserving our rights. By learning from the past and actually understanding our rights we can wake people up to the importance of them.

We can eliminate woke social justice curriculum in our classrooms that teach division instead of unity curriculum which makes us fight with each other instead of working as a collective; curriculum that teaches and encourages abstract thinking instead of telling you what to think. These proposed actions will be gradual and take time, but we can still turn this ship around and save what we are so blessed to have.

America is the only place that this experiment of a constitutional republic could take place. It was a vast unclaimed land, the product of individuals escaping a tyrannical government. This scenario could not again take place in both physical space (because there is no more unclaimed land) or circumstance (a group of secessionists starting over in said unclaimed land).

Lets not ruin this incredible opportunity weve been afforded. Ronald Reagan: If we lose freedom here there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

Michael Rapetski lives in Cheshire.

Read the rest here:
Opinion: In CT and beyond, we must work to preserve freedoms - The Connecticut Mirror

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

It always was and remains anindividualright.

Chris Powell is a columnist for the Journal Inquirer.

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