Category Archives: Second Amendment

Just over 12 months ago, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (Royal Commission) delivered its Final Report entitled 'Care, Dignity and Respect' to the Governor General (Final Report). The Final Report was tabled in the House of Representatives on 1 March 2021. But just over a year later, how have the recommendations and the sector progressed?

The Government responded to the Final Report on 11 May 2021, accepting the vast majority of the Royal Commission's 148 recommendations, either in whole or in part. In addition, record funding of $17.7 billion was allocated in the Federal Budget in May 2021 to support 'once in a generation reform to aged care to deliver respect, care and dignity to our senior Australians'. The government's response recognised the need for wide-ranging reforms, including a new, right-based Aged Care Act centred around the support and care needs of older Australians, their right to access high quality and safe aged care and the need for a new aged care program.

A further $632.6 million was allocated to 'improve aged care for senior Australians' in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which included a range of funding targeted at improving aged care governance and sustainability. Although the detail around many of these reforms continues to take shape, the direction of the reforms is clear.

Reflections: one year on since the Final Report

In the year that has passed since the Final Report was delivered, significant legislative change has occurred. Reform efforts continue in the aged care sector, notwithstanding the significant impact of COVID-19.

The Serious Incident Response Scheme (SIRS) commenced on 1 April 2021, putting in place new arrangements and obligations on approved providers to identify, report, manage and resolve serious incidents which alleged to have occurred, in residential aged care. The SIRS is set to be expanded to home care settings from 1 July 2022.

The Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 1) Act 2021 (First Amendment Act) passed Parliament on 24 June 2021. It significantly reformed the obligations on approved providers in relation to the use of restrictive practices. The First Amendment Act implemented protective measures through the need for restrictive practices to only be used as a last resort. The First Amendment Act also implemented a new home care assurance scheme, designed to increase oversight of the delivery of home care services and made minor amendments concerning the Aged Care Financing Authority.

The Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Act 2021 (Second Amendment Bill) introduced to the Senate on 22 November 2021 however, is yet to be debated, or passed by the Senate. The Second Amendment Bill was designed to implement significant reforms including:

The first part of the Second Amendment Bill was intended to commence on 1 March 2022, which would have coincided with the one year anniversary of the Final Report. However, due to delays in the Senate, it is now unclear when the Second Amendment Bill will pass into law, or when it will commence.

New Aged Care Act

On 1 March 2021, the Government announced that work had commenced on a new Act. This was a key recommendation in the Final Report.

Little is known about the new Act at this stage other than that it will be 'consumer-focused' and is planned to come into effect on 1 July 2023 'subject to parliamentary processes'. The Government has noted that key to the development of the new Act will be 'consultation with senior Australians and other stakeholders'. To facilitate consultation, the Government has launched an Aged Care Engagement Hub.

Throughout 2021 and into the first months of 2022, approved providers have had to rise to the challenge of adapting to changing legislation and policy settings and grapple with the complexities of increased regulatory oversight. This challenge has been complicated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and the specific challenges that the aged care sector has faced in keeping residents safe whilst also meeting the expectations of the broader community. Although the challenges of COVID-19 will start to shift, it seems likely that the regulatory landscape will continue to evolve, with the implementation of sector reforms.

The aged care sector going forward

Short term legislative reform

The future of the Second Amendment Bill is uncertain as it remains before the Senate, but will require further amendment as the anticipated commencement dates have already passed. It is notable that an amendment proposed by the Greens proposing a range of amendments to the Second Amendment Bill was recently made in the Senate. However, beyond this activity, there has been limited legislative progress with respect to the Second Amendment Bill.

New Aged Care Act

Recently, former Royal Commissioner Lynelle Briggs AO publicly stated that an exposure draft of the new Act would need to be published by the second half of 2022, in order to be passed by the July 2023. It is unclear if the government is working towards this timeframe. However it would seem likely that for the government to meet its planned implementation date for the new Act, that we will see an exposure draft in coming months.

The new Act is the centrepiece of the Government's reform agenda. It will embed a human rights approach and is focused on ensuring timely access to safe, high quality care, that is based on assessed need. It seeks to integrate care services enabling consumers to seamlessly transition across the care continuum to access the care and services that meet their needs, regardless of the care setting.

While the scope of the duty is yet to be defined, the characteristics of 'high quality care' have been articulated in the recommendations of the Royal Commission and include care that is:

'High quality care' must adopt a human rights, person-centred approach and be designed to respond to the needs and aspirations of those receiving care.

High quality care shall:

This proposed statutory duty contains elements that are both subjective the wishes and aspirations of the person receiving care and objective care that is safe and based on clinical assessment.

Whilst the detail is yet to be articulated, the scope of this new duty is a shift from the existing common law duty owed by providers.

The government has also flagged that a number of other significant measures, including:

2022-2023 Budget

With the 2022-2023 Budget approaching later this month, it is possible that further funding may be announced for aged care. In an election year, it is possible that the government may take the step to provide more funding in key areas such as workforce and even further funding for home care, particularly given the recent media attention on aged care.

Election season

With the upcoming federal election, significant uncertainty remains concerning the legislative reform. The stated position of the Morrison Government on planned reform to the aged care sector is clear from the government's response to the Final Report.

The position of the Opposition is less clear. At the time of writing, the Opposition's 'policies and commitments' section of its webpage is silent as to policies relating to the aged care sector. The Opposition does however state in the ALP National Platform, as adopted at the 2021 Special Platform Conference (National Platform) that the view of the Australian Labor Party is that the Royal Commission found that older Australians' 'care has been neglected in a system in crisis' and that 'the Royal Commission's recommendations threaten to leave older Australians without the quality care they desperately need'. There are two alternative conclusions that can be drawn from this. First, it could be said that reform in the aged care sector has bipartisan support, and accordingly, if there were a change in government, the planned legislative reform would be implemented without change. Alternatively, it could be argued that the Opposition has indicated in its National Platform a view that the Royal Commission recommendations do not go far enough to 'fix' aged care sector, and should there be a change in government, the upcoming legislative and regulatory reform could deviate from the roadmap set forward by the Royal Commission. However, we note that the Australian Labor Party has not yet released its aged care policy but has committed to doing so closer to the federal election.

It is difficult to know which of these alternatives will eventuate, creating a degree of uncertainty for the aged care sector until after the upcoming election.

What's next for the aged care sector?

Much like the last year, the next year promises to be as significant, with a number of initiatives in the pipeline.

'User pays' and co-contributions

While not specifically addressed by the Royal Commission, it is noteworthy that a number of large providers have meaningfully contributed to the debate on co-contributions and introduction of a 'user pays' model. There have been calls for a greater balance between the capacity of individual's to contribute towards their accommodation and other living expenses in residential aged care and those care recipients who are genuinely in need and unable to fund their care. However, neither the Royal Commission nor the government has indicated a willingness to consider a 'user pays' model. A continuation of the current funding structures is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Star rating system

The Department of Health recently announced the commencement of interviews for the consumer experience component of the new star rating system for residential aged care. This star rating system which is due to commence in April 2022 will include quality indicators, including service compliance, staff care minutes and consumer experience components. The findings from these interviews will be detailed in consumer experience reports to be published on My Aged Care. These reports will also feed into the facilitys consumer experience and overall star rating. This initiative implements recommendation 24 of the Royal Commission's final report and is anticipated to be live late 2022.

Regulatory integration with adjacent sectors

Late last year, the government announced that work to align 'regulation across the aged care, disability and veterans care sectors' had commenced and '[would] significantly improve quality and safety for participants and consumers'. We have seen this come through in a number of recommendations in the Final Report. This effort to achieve regulatory alignment was subject to a consultation period and is aiming to, amongst other things, 'cut red tape and make it easier for service providers and workers to deliver the highest levels of care and support'. While this initiative appears to be an example of the implementation of recommendation 25 of the Royal Commission, to deliver an integrated approach to care, the exact implications remain to be seen.

Workforce Strategy

Over the last year, many providers have struggled to attract and retain workers. The workforce challenge has been exacerbated throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly given the closure of our borders and furloughing of staff. While the Royal Commission called for the government to 'urgently establish a scheme to improve the quality of the current aged care workforce', a comprehensive aged care workforce strategy has not yet been articulated. Last month, the government announced an 'aged care workforce bonus' of up to $800 for eligible aged care staff in home care and residential aged care (Bonus). Whether this Bonus will be sufficient to effect tangible change in the aged care workforce is yet to be seen. However, some in the sector have criticised this Bonus initiative as 'inadequate'.

Fair Work Commission work value case

In a joint submission to the Fair Work Commission, the Health Services Union and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation continue to seek a 25% increase in wages for more than 200,000 aged care workers (Joint Submission). While the government has not made a submission, the Australian Labor Party has confirmed that, in the event that they are elected, that a Labor government would support the Joint Submission. The Fair Work Commission is due to hold a hearing with respect to this matter later this year, with a decision due shortly thereafter.

Reform in the aged care sector is ongoing, and at this stage, much of the way forward is uncertain. We'll continue to provide updates as the situation evolves. Please contact us for advice on preparing for the upcoming changes.

See original here:
Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety - one year on - Lexology

On the first day of October 2021, two Dodge Chargers circled the 1200 block of North Mason Avenue in Chicago around 10:30 a.m. Three individuals then leaped from the vehicles and opened fire at a brick house in which members of a rival gang were sheltering. The gang members inside the building soon started shooting back.

In the end, 70 shell casings were recovered from the crime scene; one man was killed, two more were wounded and five were arrested for murder and aggravated battery.

Despite allegedly possessing guns that were illegally modified into machine guns, according to reporting by the Chicago Sun-Times, all five of the men arrested were released back onto the Chicago streets without charges.

Kim Foxx, the states attorney for Cook County, Ill., dismissed the battle as mutual combat, a broad legal term used to describe a fight that two parties willingly engage in; the county also cited a lack of evidence despite the shootout having been caught on video.

Yes, you heard that right: these dangerous gang members who blatantly opened fire and murdered in broad daylight were back on the streets three days later without having to face any charges.

In December, Amy Swearer, a fellow at The Heritage Foundation, attempted to draw attention to this claim of mutual combat to avoid prosecuting these gang members. But, as she testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) interrupted her.

Ms. Swearer, I read your testimony, Durbin said. And I believe in all fairness, since we did not invite Cook County States Attorneys office that you shouldnt really zero in on any particular individual.

Swearer tried to again talk about this case, but Sen. Durbin again interrupted her. He clearly didnt want this horrifying example of criminals not being prosecuted, even when someone is killed, to get more public attention. Hed rather people werent informed that Foxx was backed by anti-Second Amendment billionaire George Soros or that Foxxs progressive agenda has let violent criminals right back onto the streets where they can put even young children in danger.

Instead, Sen. Durbin preferred once again to blame guns for the actions of violent criminalsbad guys whom people like Foxx would rather not prosecute.

It seems that Durbin was more interested in using Chicago residents as political pawns than in understanding why Chicagos criminals feel free to shoot whomever they want without fearing consequences, Swearer later wrote in an article for The Daily Signal. One important factor driving this violence is the failed leadership of Chicagos mayor and city council, particularly their general lack of support for the Chicago Police Department. Chicagos progressive prosecutors have exacerbated this problem by routinely allowing violent offenders to run amok without any meaningful consequences.

Thus, rather than acknowledging the abysmal failures of Chicagos anti-policing and anti-gun efforts, Durbin repeated the stale misinformation that gun sales and even the Second Amendment are to blame; he says this even though Chicago is among the cities with the strictest gun laws.

Durbin, of course, has long been pushing an anti-Second Amendment agenda.

In the United States, mass shootings are almost a daily occurrence, said Durbin in a press release in April 2021. Americans worry that they and their loved ones may be targets when they are going to school, sitting in movie theaters, attending concerts, shopping in grocery stores or just walking in their neighborhoods. It is long past time to take common-sense steps to reduce the toll of gun violence in America, including limiting the civilian use of high-capacity magazines that can inflict mass violence in a short time.

Isnt locking up violent criminals common sense? Apparently not to Sen. Durbin, who seems to regard only lawful conduct as dangerous. He doesnt seem to care that in 2021 more than 57 defendants committed violent crimes while they were out on felony bail in Chicago, according to CWB Chicago.

Chicago, of course, is hardly alone when it comes to violent crime and rising violence. FBI statistics show that homicides jumped by 30% in 2020, with Pew Research Center noting that it was the largest spike since 1905; however, instead of investigating defund-the-police efforts, prisoner releases and other policies that are most likely behind these spikes in violent crime, Pew reported that it could offer no comprehensive explanation for the increase; however, Pew did go out of its way to point out that guns were involved in 77 percent of the murders.

Pew, meanwhile, didnt note that, in each case, an individual actually pulled a trigger.

A National ProblemAt the end of 2021, the national murder rate was at about 6.5 homicides per 100,000 people, which is the highest it has been since 1997, though still below historic highs of the early 1990s; however, the rate in cities is often much higher.

Actually, in 2021, several cities set new records for the number of murders. Philadelphia, Pa., Portland, Ore., Louisville, Ky., and Albuquerque, N.M., all had their deadliest years on record last year. Philadelphia, for example, had 562 homicides, which surpassed its previous high of 500 set in 1990. Philadelphia is one of the jurisdictions that put a moratorium on arrests amid the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which massively reduced proactive policing.

New Yorkers also lament the escalating crime figures. According to Robert Boyce, retired chief of detectives for the New York Police Department, Nobody is getting arrested anymore. People are getting picked up for gun possession, but they are just let out over and over again.

Blaming American freedom is convenient for the far Left. Rather than take responsibility for their bad policies, they find it easy to blame freer areas of the country for crimes.

Meanwhile, as this was being written, it remained nearly impossible for average, law-abiding citizens of New York City to acquire a concealed-carry permit.

Also, it should be noted that violent criminals havent just been emboldened in a few big cities. Consider, for instance, Kern County, located north of Los Angeles. The homicide rate in 2020 increased to 12.7 per 100,000 residents in Kern County. This caused an outcry from residents that Californias soft-on-crime ethos, which includes recent laws changing certain felonies to misdemeanors, is impacting the entire state. More than one-third of the homicides in Bakersfield, Calif., the most-prominent city in Kern County, were caused by shootouts between gang members.

Freedom is Not to BlameWhile this is going on, politicians, such as Sen. Durbin, continue to invoke the absurd argument that law-abiding gun owners and legal gun sales are somehow responsible for the violence plaguing the nation.

For example, anti-gun activists in Austin, Texas, falsely attribute the fact that the city is at the end of its deadliest year on record on what both authorities and community leaders say is easy access to guns, says CNN.

This blame-American-freedom tactic is politically convenient for the far Left. Its far easier for them to point to freer regions and blame legally armed citizens than it is to acknowledge that their policies are making things worse.

Chris Harris, a member of the community-led Austin Justice Coalition, for example, has said that the accessibility of guns across America is a leading factor for the rise in violence. Similarly, in Philadelphia, Daniel Semenza, a Rutgers-Camden University criminal justice professor, says the swelling ranks of gun owners over the last two years has likely made the stolen-gun problem worse.

Clearly, it is simply more politically convenient for those who despise the Second Amendment to accuse lawful gun owners of contributing to rising crime, in spite of there being no evidence to support such a claim.

It isnt difficult to figure out what is happening. If it is less risky for criminals to commit crimes, they will commit more crimes. All across the country, because of COVID, we have seen a large number of criminals released early from jail, said John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, when interviewed for this article. Over half the inmates have been released from jails and prisons in many places. Many of these criminals are violent criminals.

Additionally, Lott points out that some police departments have seen their budgets cut while increasing regulations and other restrictions on law enforcement are making their jobs more difficult.

If someone is already facing many years in jail and you release them with low or no bail, there is little incentive for them to stop, Lott said. And the arrest rate for murder in Chicago is only about 20%.

Before the start of the pandemic in 2020, the onset of civil unrest and the implementation of justice reform, violent crime had decreased by more than half between 1991 and 2019; this happened while some estimate that the number of privately owned firearms doubled during the same time period. Clearly, guns owned by law-abiding citizens are not the issue.

Many from the far Left seem to believe that the only real victims in the system are the defendants themselves, said Rania Mankarious, CEO of Crime Stoppers Houston, a non-profit focused on public safety, when interviewed for this article. They have been working on these changes to the system for the last few years. We are seeing the results of these changes now. Crime now pays in cities across America. Families are experiencing the impact. Local neighborhoods, businesses and more are all experiencing the effects. The same political figures who are anti-gun still push to decriminalize criminal activity where guns are at the heart of the crime.

Amy Swearer

This issue shouldnt be political, says Lott. People have seen that crime is rising, and police too often arent allowed to do their jobs. People have realized that they are ultimately responsible for their own protection. Gun-control advocates see the increase in crime and gun sales, but they refuse to acknowledge the role that progressive policies on law enforcement play in this increase in crime and why people have bought guns after the rise in crime, Lott said. The solution is simple: make it risky for criminals to commit crimes. Increase the arrest and conviction rates. It shouldnt even be a political question.

At that U.S. Senate hearing, Amy Swearer did get a moment to reply to Sen. Durbins attempt to shut her up. Senator, I do in fact respect that this is something that were looking at from a federal level, said Swearer. However, when were talking about what is actually happening in Chicago we need to look at how do things like not charging five individuals who shot up a residential neighborhood on a Friday, none of which were charged and were released on Monday. How does that impact the feeling of confidence?

A tweet from Heritage with a video of this testimony soon went viral and Swearer went on Fox News Fox & Friends to discuss the attempt to control the gun-control narrative by Sen. Durbin.

Its infuriating, Swearer told Fox News. If this is not the time, place and manner to talk about some of these underlying problems in Chicago, when is?

Go here to read the rest:
Busting the Gun-Control Narrative | An Official Journal Of The NRA - America's 1st Freedom

Frank Barefield| Holland

In a March 5 column (Why are we trying to forget our nations racist past?) I argued that racism has been a part of us since Europeans first settled the Americas and denial of this history or suppression of current theories about it is dishonest. However, human affairs are seldom clear-cut, black and white affairs, and honesty also requires that we not over-attribute to racism the motives for individual behavior or the shape that our institutional structures take.

Sometimes racist motives are obvious as when Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man, was killed by three white men and racial prejudice was explicit in messages they had posted on the Internet. One post expressed a wish to shoot Black people described as monkeys and another that someone should drive a car into a group of Black Lives Matter demonstrators. A line from Bob Dylans ballad, The Death of Emmitt Till, still rings true 65 years after Tills murder: The reason that they killed him there, and Im sure it aint no lie / Cause he was born a black skinned boy, he was born to die.

More: My Take: Why are we trying to forget our nation's racist past?

More: My Take: How do we justify outrage, threats over something so simple?

More: My Take: Marlena is no hero

But motives are not always so obvious and claims about motives can look like fishing expeditions that bait a hook, throw it into the river, and call anything pulled out a fish. Sportscaster Jim Kaat, during an October baseball game. praised the skill of a player from Cuba and added that his team would benefit from a 40-acre field full of players like him. A minor media storm followed, claiming the 40-acre metaphor was an insulting reference to the unkept post-civil war promise to give 40 acres and a mule to every freed salve. However, the expression back or north or whatever forty is a common colloquialism in rural America that apparently originated in 1832 when 40-acres was set as the standard tract for selling government land as an incentive for settlers to move west, not after 1865 when land promised to former slaves was instead returned to the white, pre-Civil War owners.

Childrens author Dr. Seuss has been criticized for promulgating racist prejudices: the Grinch spreads antisemitism because stealing Christmas presents is similar to Medieval stereotype of the Christian-hating Jew and The Cat in the Hat portrays Black people as blackface minstrel stereotypes who are sources of entertainment not deserving of basic respect due to everyone. The trouble with this analysis is that seeing these characters as metaphors for racial stereotypes requires that the reader assume the characters are symbols and then interpret them as modern metaphors for historical events about which few children would have any knowledge.

Carol Anderson, author of "The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America," professor of history at Emory University, provides a more serious example. During a June 2, 2021, NPR interview about her book she said that James Madison, to get support for the Constitution, added the second amendment to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts.

Subscribe: Get unlimited access to our local coverage

Her website says this book shows that the Second Amendment is not about guns but about anti-Blackness, shedding shocking new light on another dimension of racism in America. Her claim is true but incomplete. Like most important events, the structure of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights was influenced by multiple factors. Putting down rebellions, slave and otherwise (e.g., Shays Rebellion) was one concern. Citizen militias also provided security from external threats to the new union while avoiding the establishment of a professional army under federal control which states feared. Keeping Black people in their place is a major part of our past, but the history of the Second Amendment is too complex to reduce it to the one issue of race.

Efforts across the country to suppress the discussion of race and fishing expeditions to find racist motives where only the thinnest connection can be made are equally misguided. The Buffalo Springfield song, For What Its Worth, seem to apply today as much as they did during the culture wars of the 1960s: Theres battle lines being drawn / And nobodys right if everybodys wrong.

Even those with whom we have basic disagreements are not likely to be wrong about everything, but both ends of the political spectrum seem more interested in painting the world the way they want it to be rather than making efforts to see the world as it is. False narratives, whether supporting liberal or conservative causes, provide a poor foundation for forming the more perfect union promised to us by our Constitution.

Frank Barefield is a resident of Holland.

Read more:
My Take: Both ends of the political spectrum are failing us - HollandSentinel.com

Congressional lawmakers on both sides are the aisle are already filing proposed amendments to a bill that would federally legalize marijuana thats up for a House floor vote this week.

Some of the proposals are related to researching the impacts of the policy change, though others would add restrictions on cannabis products. Meanwhile, one Democratic-led measure from a lawmaker who has previously voted against legalization would maintain certain federal marijuana penalties.

The House Rules Committee meeting where the amendments will be either blocked from further consideration or advanced toward votes by the full body was originally scheduled for Monday, but thats now been pushed back to Wednesday. So far, several amendments have been introducedbut its possible that more will be filed in the days to come.

The Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), already passed the House in 2020, but it did not advance in the Senate. It cleared the sponsors panel again this session in September.

Leadership confirmed late last week that the House would again hold a vote on the measure this week, and majority and minority leaders of the Judiciary Committee then released a nearly 500-page report on what the legislation would accomplish and outlining arguments for and against the reform.

Now, with a floor vote imminent, lawmakers are seeking changes. Heres a description of what the proposed revisions would do:

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) filed an amendment that would require the transportation secretary and attorney general to develop and publish best practices for the recognition and testing of drivers impaired by marijuana before any provision of the legalization bill could take effect, according to the text.

That last component is important, as its the only amendment so far that would make legalization contingent on the completion of a study.

Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA), one of just six Democrats to vote against the MORE Act last session, introduced three proposed changes.

The first would require the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to conduct a study on the impact of the legalization of recreational cannabis by states on the workplace and develop best practices for use by employers that are transitioning their policies related to the use of recreational cannabis, prioritizing the development of best practices for employers engaged in federal infrastructure projects, transportation, public safety and national security.

The second would mandate that the secretary of education conduct a study on the impact of the legalization of recreational cannabis by states on schools and school-aged children and develop best practices for use by educators and administrators to protect school-aged children from any negative impacts of such legalization.

The third would maintain enhanced federal penalties for distributing more than five grams of marijuana to a person under the age of 21 and for distributing more than five grams of marijuana within 1,000 feet of a school, college, playground or public housing authority, or within 100 feet of a youth center, public swimming pool or arcade.

A proposed revision from Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), who did vote in favor of the MORE Act last round, seeks to provide $10 million for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to conduct research on technologies and methods that law enforcement may use to determine whether a driver is impaired by marijuana.

Rep. Pete Pete Stauber (R-MN) filed an amendment to make it so immigrants could be deported for driving under the influence of marijuana.

Rep. Tiffany Thomas (R-WI) introduced two amendments. Her first would create a civil penalty for manufacturing or distributing cannabis products with any constituent, ingredient or artificial or natural flavor additive (other than marijuana), including a fruit, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, candy, confectionaries, menthol or coffee.

Thomass second amendment would require that marijuana products be sold in packaging that is designed or constructed to be significantly difficult for children under 5 years of age to open or obtain a toxic or harmful amount of the substance contained therein within a reasonable time and not difficult for normal adults to use properly. It would also mandate that cannabis products be labeled with a warning that states: The Surgeon General has determined pregnant women should not use marijuana, which affects the developing fetus, and is associated with adverse outcomes for newborns including lower birth weight, poor cognitive function, hyperactivity and other long-term consequences.

When House leaders posted the MORE Act on the calendar late last week, it contained several revisionsmostly non-substantivefrom the version that was introduced.

There was one change to the text that some advocates are cheering, as it seemingly would give additional leeway to businesses that would be required to get a federal permit to operate a marijuana business.

While the earlier version said a permit could be rejected if a prospective businesss premises are not adequate to protect the revenue generated from legalization, the new language says the rejection can be made if officials determine the premises will not be adequate.

It seems like a minor revision, but the practical effect could be to make it so small businesses would have more flexibility to obtain a permit as they take steps to build out their operations while applications are pending.

Nadlers MORE Act would deschedule marijuana by removing it from the list of federally banned drugs under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). However, it would not require states to legalize cannabis and would maintain a level of regulatory discretion up to states.

Marijuana products would be subject to a federal excise tax, starting at five percent for the first two years after enactment and rising to eight percent by the fifth year of implementation.

Nobody could be denied federal public benefits based solely on the use or possession of marijuana or past juvenile conviction for a cannabis offense. Federal agencies couldnt use past or present cannabis or marijuana use as criteria for granting, denying, or rescinding a security clearance.

People could not be penalized under federal immigration laws for any cannabis related activity or conviction, whether it occurred before or after the enactment of the legalization legislation.

The bill creates a process for expungements of non-violent federal marijuana convictions.

Tax revenue from cannabis sales would be placed in a new Opportunity Trust Fund. Half of those tax dollars would support a Community Reinvestment Grant Program under the Justice Department, 10 percent would support substance misuse treatment programs, 40 percent would go to the federal Small Business Administration (SBA) to support implementation and a newly created equitable licensing grant program.

The Community Reinvestment Grant Program would fund eligible non-profit community organizations to provide a variety of services for individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugsto include job training, reentry services, legal aid for civil and criminal cases (including for expungement of cannabis convictions), among others.

The program would further support funding for substance misuse treatment for people from communities disproportionately impacted by drug criminalization. Those funds would be available for programs offering services to people with substance misuse disorders for any drug, not just cannabis.

While the bill wouldnt force states to adopt legalization, it would create incentives to promote equity. For example, SBA would facilitate a program to providing licensing grants to states and localities that have moved to expunge records for people with prior marijuana convictions or taken steps to eliminate violations or other penalties for persons still under State or local criminal supervision for a cannabis-related offense or violation for conduct now lawful under State or local law.

The bills proposed Cannabis Restorative Opportunity Program would provide funds for loans to assist small business concerns that are owned and controlled by individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs in eligible States and localities.

The comptroller general, in consultation with the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), would be required to carry out a study on the demographics of people who have faced federal marijuana convictions, including information about the age, race, ethnicity, sex, and gender identity.

The departments of treasury, justice and the SBA would need to issue or amend any rules, standard operating procedures, and other legal or policy guidance necessary to carry out implementation of the MORE Act within one year of its enactment.

Marijuana producers and importers would also need to obtain a federal permit. And they would be subject to a $1,000 per year federal tax as well for each premise they operate.

The bill would impose certain packaging and labeling requirements.

It also prescribes penalties for unlawful conduct such as illegal, unlicensed production or importation of cannabis products.

The Treasury secretary would be required to carry out a study on the characteristics of the cannabis industry, with recommendations to improve the regulation of the industry and related taxes.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) would be required to regularly compile, maintain, and make public data on the demographics of marijuana business owners and workers.

Workers in safety sensitive positions, such as those regulated by the Department of Transportation, could continue to be drug tested for THC and face penalties for unauthorized use. Federal workers would also continue to be subject to existing drug testing policies.

References to marijuana or marihuana under federal statute would be changed to cannabis. Its unclear if that would also apply to the title of the bill itself.

The move to hold another vote on the cannabis legalization bill comes weeks aftercongressional Democrats held a closed-to-press session at a party retreatthat included a panel that largely centered on the reform legislation.

Meanwhile, advocates and stakeholders are eagerly awaiting the formal introduction of a separate Senate legalization bill thats being finalized by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues. Schumerrecently said the plan is to file that billtheCannabis Administration & Opportunity Act (CAOA)in April.

Also in Congress, a separate bill to tax and regulate marijuana is also in play this session. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) is sponsoring that legislation, and she said in a recent interview that shes received assurances from Democratic leaders thather States Reform Act will receive a hearingfollowing the MORE Act floor vote.

Meanwhile, on the same day that it was announced that the MORE Act would be heading to the floor again, the Senate unanimously approveda bipartisan bill meant to promote research into marijuana, in part by streamlining the application process for researchers who want to study the plant and to encourage the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop cannabis-derived medicines.

Nearly 500-Page House Report On Marijuana Legalization Bill Previews Democratic And Republican Arguments

Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.

See more here:
Bipartisan Lawmakers File Amendments To Federal Marijuana Legalization Bill Up For House Vote This Week - Marijuana Moment

Next week, three separate policy committees will hear firearm-related bills as they move along the legislative process. Please use the Take Action buttons below to contact committee members and get involved in protecting our Second Amendment rights in California.

Assembly Public Safety Committeeat 9:00AM on March 22nd

Pro-gun Assembly Bill 2033, introduced by Assembly Member Thurston Smith (R-33), extends the duration that a California concealed firearm license is valid, from two years upto five years. This legislation helps ease the administrative burden on the issuing authorities while simultaneously easingthe financial strain on permit holders.

Please click this button to ask the Assembly Public Safety Committee to SUPPORT AB 2033.

Senate Public Safety Committeeat 1:30PM on March 22nd

Senate Bill 918, introduced by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25),increases the fee on eligibility checks for precursor firearm parts and ammunition sales. While consumers who pay for basic eligibility checks on ammunition currently, and precursor parts beginning July 1st, won't notice a price hike, they should. This is because CA DOJ has been charging above the statutory maximum for more than two years as a result of their efforts to utilize creative legislative drafting to raise the cost of background checks on firearm transfers. While CA DOJ continues to overcharge consumers, they are utilizing this legislation to authorize the current, and unlawful,fee structure.

Please click this button to ask the Senate Public Safety Committee to OPPOSE SB 918.

Senate Education Committeeat 9:00AM on March 23rd

Senate Bill 906, introduced by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25),makes it mandatory that parents of students disclose firearm ownership status to the schools their children attend, including how they are stored. It requires that these questions be placed on the forms used to register or enroll students, and these forms may be made available to law-enforcement under certain conditions. This is one more attack onthelaw-abiding citizens of California, amounting to a major invasion of privacy and potential harassment.

Please click this button to ask the Senate Education Committee to OPPOSE SB 906.

On March 15th,Assembly Bill 1869failed to pass the Assembly Public Safety Committee, but it has been granted reconsideration. AB 1869 increases penalties for violating Californias law on serializing home-built firearms and buying, disposing, possessing, etc., any firearm with the manufacturer name, model designation, or serial number altered or obliterated, from misdemeanorsto felonies. The existing California law already goes above and beyond federal law in regulating markings on firearms. These penalties are for mere possession, which can cause otherwise law-abiding citizens, without any criminal intent, to permanentlylose theirSecond Amendment rights.NRA will keep you updated on AB 1869.

Again, please click the buttons above to contact the committees and make your voice heard.

See more here:
California: Fee Hikes and Privacy Invasions to Be Heard in Committee Next Week - NRA ILA

Montpelier gun banners worked their way around the Governor's veto of S.30 and advanced a newgun bill, S.4,that incorporated the Governor's suggested change. This essentially put a band-aid on a catastrophe. S.4 is still a horrible bill, and underscores what anti-gun majoritiesin theVermont Statehouseview as theirpriority.

S.30originally began as a location restriction for hospitals but evolved into an Omnibus Gun Control Bill. One of the focal points of the legislation expanded NICS delayed background checks indefinitely. It also expanded the states red flag law. After the Governor vetoed the bill and called for the indefinite wait on NICS delayed checks to be amended to 7 days, the Legislature quickly responded withS.4. They took an existing bill on another subject and did a "strike all" to address the Governor'slonegrievance with the bill.The Senatealso voted to override the Governor's veto, but they did not have the votes for an override in the House. As a result, the House passed S.4 on Thursday on a 90-42 roll call vote that was largely along party lines. Having now passed both chambers, S.4 advances to Gov. Phil Scott for consideration.

Anti-gun legislators have proven they aremore interested in pushing their political agendasrather than working on any number of other serious, real-world problems. They have devoted an extraordinary amount of time this session to pushing gun control, and the agenda will not change until the lawmakers are changed. Elections have consequences, and gun owners need to remember this in November. Theirbrazen moves in an election year underscore that they will notbe deterred until they are sent a message at the ballot box. NRA will continue to fight against all infringements on the Second Amendment and stand up for Vermont gun owners.

Read the original here:
Vermont: Gun Bill Redux Advances to the Governor - NRA ILA

The trial in the kidnapping plot of Governor Gretchen Whitmer wrapped up a short week Friday in Grand Rapids.

The day may have featured the key witness to the entire trial, the militia member that turned to police when the discourse within the group turned even too violent for him.

The FBI used him as an informant to build their case.

The informant, known as Dan, is a former Army sergeant who joined the Wolverine Watchmen to keep his military skills fresh and to support the Second Amendment. After a few weeks, once the pandemic hit, the discourse in the group turned to hunting down and killing police. That was too much for Dan and he went to a police officer friend who notified the FBI.

Dan gave the feds the inside look they needed to build their case, specifically with Adam Fox. Dan was in on several meetings and trainings held during the planning stages.

This included rallies, like the one on June 18, 2020 where Dan says the militia was ready to attack the Michigan State Capitol building, if enough numbers showed.

He was on both recon missions to scope out the governors lake house, the first during the day in August. This is when Fox showed excitement for finding the correct house and scoping the place from across the water.

He was also in on the nighttime mission where more men were let in on the plan and details squared away for a water exit after potentially snatching Governor Whitmer from the home.

The prosecutions questioning took up the entire day and will continue Monday and then the defense had little to say afterward except that there is more to Dan than shown so far.

Well were going to to get up on Monday and cross examine him, Said Josh Blanchard, Barry Crofts attorney, Well get to hear the rest of the story on Monday.

Their biggest criticism is just how reliable Dan is.

I think thats for the jury to decide but I think youll hear more about that Monday, said Blanchard.

Dan said the FBI didnt pay him to be an informant but did reimburse a large amount of his expenses and his influence will be a key point in the argument for entrapment by the defense.

They paid Big Dan to do an awful lot and were gonna talk about that on Monday, said Blanchard.

This was by far the longest testimony we have seen so far and it seems like Dan is the biggest witness for everyone, cross examination expected to take all day Monday. The belief is one of the two men who flipped on the group and took a plea deal.

More:
FBI Informant Takes The Stand in Whitmer Kidnapping Plot Trial - 9 & 10 News - 9&10 News

Questions for SCOTUS hearing

Hearings on the confirmation of Judge Jackson to be a justice of the Supreme Court will begin soon. I sent the following to all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and hope she will be asked:

James L. Eliason |Storm Lake

I am grateful for the courage of area residents, including Alan Lopez, Angie Snyder and Pastor James Roland, for their voices of clarity regarding immigration issues and the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) program. Their voices and the stories and editorials shared in recent issues of The Storm Lake Times, need to be heard by our elected officials.

Rev. David Halaas |Sioux City

A couple years ago I protested at the capitol in Des Moines. If we had done one- tenth of what happened in D.C., Im sure Id be in prison and it wouldnt take months for convictions.

History wont be kind to the radical right wing base of the Republican Party, the gullible base who will believe anything one person says (without proof) that leads to a riotous attempt to overthrow the government. With truth you only have to tell it once, but with a lie, you have to keep telling lies to cover up. According to Factcheck.org, the instigator of the riot lied 30,573 times in four years an average of 21 a day. The first year started six lies a day but by the fourth, it was 39 a day. So you see about lies covering lies. Nine people died as a result of that riot.

After being attacked, one police officer died of multiple strokes the next day and another four officers committed suicide. That shows how traumatic it was. The base calls it a tour and my question to them is, how many people usually die on tours? The last time an orator incited crowds of violence 50 to 56 million died in WWII, the most costly ever. Does book banning sound familiar? The Civil War cost 750K lives and with the same ratio today would be seven million.

Maybe we should all be put on suicide watch because what we should be doing is saving the planet. Since were overpopulated Mother Nature seems determined to thin us out. Mother Nature can usually heal herself but we wont let her. People think more about money than the environment. Money is not the root of all evil but the love of money is; greed will be the death of us.

Dave Haynes |Duncombe

As we watch the horror of yet another war overseas (started under a Democrat administration by a foreign tyrant) we are reminded of the brilliance of our Founding Fathers by including the Second Amendment in our U.S. Constitution.

Remember, boys and girls, that to give up a little freedom for a little security produces neither of those situations.

Here is another brilliant thought by our Founding Fathers: the Second Amendment protects the First Amendment.

God bless America through these difficult times!

Jeff Myers |Newell

Read more:
Letters to the Editor - The Storm Lake Times

March 17, 2022

In this issue: Former Minneapolis Council member challenges Ilhan Omar and a hypothetical matchup poll shows Kathy Hochul and Andrew Cuomo about even

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) faces Republican and independent challengers in the states top-two primary. Politicos Jeremy B. White said the attorney general race could be the most consequential contest in the deep-blue state a bellwether of Democratic voters commitment to criminal justice reform.

White wrote that two of Bontas primary opponents, Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert (independent) and former U.S. Attorney Nathan Hochman (R), have sought to connect Bonta to two California district attorneys facing recall efforts this year: Los Angeles County D.A. George Gascn and San Francisco D. A. Chesa Boudin.

White said, District attorneys wield far greater influence than the attorney general over whom to prosecute and what sentences to seek. But Schubert and Hochman argue Bonta should have used the power of his office to rein in progressive prosecutors.

The Boudin recall is on the June 7 ballot, and signature gathering is underway in the Gascn recall effort. Organizers of the recall campaigns allege that each D.A.s policies led to an increase in crime. Bonta endorsed Gascns D.A. bid and worked with Boudins office on legislation when Bonta was in the General Assembly.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) appointed Bonta in 2021 after Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) became U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services. Bonta served in the General Assembly from 2012 to 2021, where his record included co-writing bills to end cash bail and requiring the attorney general to investigate fatal police shootings of unarmed people.

Bonta says he holds those who break the law especially those in positions of power accountable and that in his first 100 days as attorney general, he won a settlement for families harmed by opioids, defended an assault weapons ban, and prosecuted major polluters.

Hochman says he will protect our neighborhoods, get fentanyl off our streets, get tough on crime, and find compassionate solutions to homelessness.

Schuberts campaign slogan is Stop the chaos. She says shell step in and take over cases from district attorneys when those district attorneys are not protecting Californians.

Republican Eric Early is also running. He says, It is time for someone new, an outsider who supports law enforcement and wants a California with low crime, good schools, thriving businesses, secure borders, fair elections, a strong Second Amendment, and government overregulation out of our lives.

California has had Democratic attorneys general since 1999.

Former Minneapolis City Council member Don Samuels announced his Democratic primary bid for Minnesotas 5th Congressional District. Samuels says incumbent Rep. Ilhan Omar (D) has demonstrated shes out of touch with the residents of Minneapolis in the last election, referring to her support for a 2021 ballot measure to replace the citys police department with a Department of Public Safety. Voters rejected the measure 56%-44%.

Omars campaign said in a fundraising email following Samuels announcement, [Samuels] was one of the most vocal opponents of a ballot amendment in Minneapolis that would have established a public safety system rooted in compassion, humanity and love, and delivering true justice. We cant let him win and put a stop to all our work for progress.

Samuels was part of a group of residents who sued the city in 2020 alleging it did not have enough police officers to meet the city charters requirements. A Hennepin County judge ruled in favor of the group in 2021, ordering the city to hire more officers. On Monday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the decision, stating that the mayor is responsible for determining police staffing levels.

Samuels also criticized Omars vote against the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. Omar was one of six Democrats to vote against the bill. Samuels said, Too many D.C. politicians find their success through the division and purity politics that have defined our era, and, unfortunately in this case, Rep. Omars position was quite literally my way or the highway, a position that fails to recognize the tremendous infrastructural needs of our community.

Omar said in November, I have been clear that I would not be able to support the infrastructure bill without a vote on the Build Back Better Act. Passing the infrastructure bill without passing the Build Back Better Act first risks leaving behind childcare, paid leave, health care, climate action, housing, education, and a roadmap to citizenship.

The Star Tribune reported that Joe Radinovich, who managed Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Freys successful re-election campaign last year, is managing Samuels campaign.

Samuels served on the city council from 2003 to 2014. He then served a term on the Minneapolis Board of Education from 2014 to 2018. Omar was first elected to the U.S. House in 2018. She served in the state House of Representatives from 2017 to 2019.

U.S. Reps. Sean Casten and Marie Newman are both running in Illinois 6th Congressional District Democratic primary as a result of redistricting. Both have garnered endorsements from members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), of which Newman is a member and Casten is not.

Most recently, Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.), deputy chair of the CPC, endorsed Casten. CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal has endorsed Newman.

In addition to Porter, 14 U.S. representatives have endorsed Casten, including four CPC members. Seven U.S. representatives in addition to Jayapal have endorsed Newman, six of whom are CPC members. The Progressive Caucus PAC endorsed Newman.

Forty-one percent of the newly drawn 6th Districts population comes from the old 3rd District, which Newman currently represents. Twenty-three percent comes from the old 6th District, which Casten represents.

Casten was first elected to the House in 2018 and won re-election in 2020 by 7 percentage points. Newman was first elected in 2020, defeating then-U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski in the Democratic primary by 3 percentage points before winning the general election by 13 percentage points.

The primary is scheduled for June 28.

As of the end of Februaryeight months before the general election45 members of the U.S. House had announced they would not seek re-election. At the same time in the 2020 election cycle, 34 representatives had announced they wouldnt seek re-election. That number was 46 in 2018.

Emerson College and The Hill released a poll showing that in a hypothetical primary matchup, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) had 37% support and the incumbent she replaced, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), had 33%. The poll had a +/- 4.3 percentage point margin of error.

U.S. Rep. Tom Suozzi had 7%, New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams had 4%, Paul Nichols had 2%, and 16% were either undecided or voting for someone else.

Cuomo resigned during his third term last August after New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) released reports on investigations into Cuomos handling of the coronavirus in nursing homes and accusations of sexual harassment. Cuomo made his first public remarks since leaving office on March 6, saying that no legal charges were brought against him. A week later, Cuomo released an ad in which he says, I havent been perfect, Ive made mistakes, but I also made a difference. Ive never stopped fighting for New Yorkers, and I never will.

AdImpact reported on Tuesday that Cuomos campaign committee had spent $2.4 million on ads since he left office, including a new buy to run from March 16 to March 25. Cuomo has not made any announcements regarding another run for political office.

Emerson College/The Hill also asked respondents who theyd vote for between current gubernatorial primary candidates, which showed Hochul at 42%, Williams at 10%, Suozzi at 7%, Nichols at 5%, and 36% either undecided or voting for someone else.

The poll surveyed 504 registered Democratic voters and was conducted March 9-10.

The filing deadline is April 7, and the primary is scheduled for June 28.

On March 8, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) endorsed Val Applewhite, who is challenging incumbent state Sen. Kirk deViere in the Democratic primary for Senate District 19. Cooper said Applewhite isnt afraid to stand up to Right Wing Republicans.

DeViere said, This primary challenge is a direct result of putting my community over partisan politics and not being a rubber stamp.

DeViere, first elected in 2018, was one of four Democrats who voted for a version of the 2021 state budget that the Republican majority supported. Among the items other Senate Democrats, along with Cooper, disagreed with Republicans on were raises for teachers and noncertified school employees. Cooper called for 10% teacher raises and a $15 minimum wage for noncertified employees. The Senate budget called for 3% teacher raises and a $13 minimum wage for noncertified employees. All four Senate Democrats who supported that version of the budget served on the committee responsible for negotiating a final budget with Cooper.

DeViere and Applewhite were candidates in the nonpartisan election for Fayetteville mayor in 2013. Applewhite finished first in the primary with 44% and DeViere was third with 20%. Applewhite lost the general election to Nat Robertson 50.5%-49.4%.

Ed Donaldson is also running in the Democratic Senate District 19 primary. The primary is scheduled for May 17 and will be open to registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters only.

Original post:
Heart of the Primaries 2022, Democrats-Issue 14 Ballotpedia News - Ballotpedia News

The meaning and scope of the Second Amendment has long been one of the most hotly contested constitutional issues in the United States. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the amendment protects the rights of individuals to have and use guns for legal purposes. At the same time, however, the Court clearly said that the Second Amendment right isnt unlimited. Since that decision, other courts in the country have upheld mostbut not allfederal, state, and local gun control laws.

The long-running argument over the Second Amendment largely stems from its language, especially at the beginning: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. For decades, many scholars and courts interpreted the amendment as preserving states authority to keep militias, which would mean that the right to have firearms was linked to militia service. But in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court opted for a broader interpretation, finding that the Second Amendment gave individuals a right to have gunsunconnected to any militia serviceand to use them for traditionally legal purposes like self-defense.

The Supreme Court said that the law involved in Heller was unconstitutional because it essentially banned all handgunsthe most popular type of gun Americans choose for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. It also kept people from using their guns to defend their families and property by requiring them to keep all firearms trigger-locked or dissembled, even in the home.

Like most constitutional rights, the Second Amendment rights is not unlimited.

What about other kinds of guns and other reasons for having them? Like most constitutional rights, the Heller Court explained, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. In the years since that decision, theres been a flood of legal challenges to federal and state gun control laws. According to one study, in 94 percent of those cases, courts have found that reasonable gun regulations didnt violate the Second Amendment. Theyve mostly relied on the Heller Courts explanation that its ruling shouldnt cast doubt on several longstanding gun restrictions, including bans on gun ownership by certain individuals (like felons), prohibitions on some types of dangerous and unusual weapons, limits on carrying firearms in certain public places, and requirements for gun sales. Although federal law covers some of these restrictions, most gun control is a patchwork of state and local laws and regulations. That means it can be wildly different from place to place.

Federal law outlaws the possession of firearms or ammunition by several categories of people, including:

(18 U.S.C. 922(g).)

Many states prohibit or restrict gun possession by other groups of people, such as stalkers and people subject to other kinds of restraining orders, minors, juvenile offenders, and those convicted of alcohol- and/or drug-related crimes.

Several states also allow courts to order some people to give up their guns temporarily if they pose an immediate risk to themselves or others (under so-called "red flag laws").

Under federal law, its illegal for civilians to have fully automatic weapons (referred to as machine guns in 18 U.S.C. 922(l)). In a rule that became effective in March 2019, the federal government outlawed "bump stock" devices (which attach to semiautomatic weapons to produce automatic firing with one pull of the trigger) by defining them as machine guns for purposes of federal law (27 C.F.R. 447.11).

Another federal law that banned assault weapons (semiautomatic firearms with certain features) expired in 2004, and attempts to renew it have failed so far.

Still, a handful of states and local governmentsincluding California, New Jersey, and New Yorkhave their own prohibitions or restrictions on assault weapons that have withstood court challenges. And although the Heller Court ruled out blanket bans on handguns, many states regulate handguns by requiring permits to buy them.

As the Supreme Court recognized in Heller, guns have traditionally been prohibited or restricted in certain public places under federal, state, and local laws. These sensitive places include schools, government buildings and courtrooms, public transit facilities, airports, and polling stations.

A U.S. appellate court has held that the Second Amendment doesnt protect carrying a concealed weapon in public (Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2013)). Most states require a concealed-carry permit, but the conditions vary a lot from state to state. The strictest laws allow authorities to deny a permit when the applicant doesnt have a good moral character or a good reason for carrying a gun in public. The most lenient require authorities to issue the permit to anyone who applies, with little or no discretion. Nearly all states restrict concealed weapons in some places, such as bars, hospitals, and public sporting events. But several states allow concealed weapons on public college campuses, under legislation or state court rulings that overturned longtime bans.

Finally, some states have open carry laws that ban or set conditions on openly carrying certain types of guns in public or in private cars.

Licensed gun dealers have to meet several requirements under federal law, including performing background checks, keeping records of sales, and reporting multiple sales of handguns to the same person (18 U.S.C. 923). But those requirements dont apply to private sellers, including those at gun shows. Some states have stronger laws, and a few require licensing for the sale of all guns.

If you believe that a local law or regulation infringes on your Second Amendment rights as a gun owner, you might want to speak with a civil rights attorney about your options for challenging the restriction. And if youve been charged with a crime related to owning, carrying, or using a gun, you should strongly consider consulting with a criminal defense lawyer. The circumstances in each case are unique, and the laws vary in different states and localities. An attorney whos experienced in this area can explain how the relevant laws apply in your situation and what defenses you might have.

See the original post here:
The Second Amendment: What Are the Limits on the Right to ...