Category Archives: Second Amendment

WASHINGTON The Justice Department on Friday charged a Texas man with publicly calling for the assassination of Georgias election officials on the day before the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

The case is the first brought by the departments Election Threats Task Force, an agency created last summer to address threats against elections and election workers. Federal prosecutors accused the man, Chad Christopher Stark, 54, of Leander, Texas, of calling for Georgia Patriots to put a bullet in a Georgia election official the indictment refers to as Official A.

Mr. Stark, according to the three-page indictment, made the threat in a post on Craigslist, the online message board, while then-President Donald J. Trump and his allies were putting public pressure on Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state who certified Mr. Trumps defeat in Georgia to Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Georgia Patriots its time for us to take back our state from these Lawless treasonous traitors, Mr. Stark wrote, according to the indictment. Its time to invoke our Second Amendment right its time to put a bullet in the treasonous Chinese [Official A]. Then we work our way down to [Official B] the local and federal corrupt judges.

Mr. Stark was charged with one count of communicating interstate threats.

The Craigslist posting came at a moment of intense political pressure against election officials in battleground states. Mr. Trump had phoned Mr. Raffensperger on Jan. 2 last year and demanded that he find nearly 12,000 votes to overturn Mr. Bidens victory in Georgia. The posting was published on Jan. 5, a day before a Trump-inspired crowd attacked the United States Capitol in an effort to block Congress from certifying Mr. Biden as the next president.

On Thursday, a district attorney in Atlanta asked a judge to convene a special grand jury to help a criminal investigation into Mr. Trumps attempts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. If the investigation proceeds, legal experts say that the former presidents potential criminal exposure could include charges of racketeering or conspiracy to commit election fraud.

Mr. Raffensperger on Friday did not confirm if he was among the election officials targeted.

I strongly condemn threats against election workers and those who volunteer in elections, he said in a statement. These are the people who make our democracy work.

Kenneth A. Polite Jr., the head of the Justice Departments Criminal Division, said on Friday that the task force is reviewing over 850 reports of threats to election officials and has opened dozens of criminal investigations.

During the 2020 election cycle and in its immediate aftermath, election workers came under unprecedented verbal assault for doing nothing more than their jobs, Mr. Polite told reporters Friday. As the attorney general and deputy attorney general have both emphasized previously: We will not tolerate the intimidation of those who safeguard our electoral system.

The task force, created last June by the deputy attorney general, Lisa O. Monaco, developed a system to log and track all reported threats to election workers and F.B.I. agents, and federal prosecutors were trained to take in, assess and investigate the allegations. Mr. Polite said the task force has prioritized finding ways to enhance security for state and local election workers.

The Texas case represents the task forces first indictment and arrest. Mr. Polite declined to elaborate on what Mr. Stark may have planned to do.

The communication here speaks for itself, Mr. Polite said, referring to Mr. Starks Craigslist post, which offered $10,000 and called for Patriots to exterminate these people.

In addition to the two Georgia election officials, Mr. Starks Craigslist post also threatened a third Georgia official.

Ivanka Trump. The daughter of the former president, who served as one of his senior advisers, has been asked to cooperateafter the panel said it had gathered evidence that she had implored her father to call off the violence as his supporters stormed the Capitol.

Mark Meadows. Mr. Trumps chief of staff, who initially provided the panel with a trove of documents that showed the extent of his rolein the efforts to overturn the election, is now refusing to cooperate. The House voted to recommend holding Mr. Meadows in criminal contempt of Congress.

Scott Perry and Jim Jordan. The Republican representatives of Pennsylvania and Ohio are among a group of G.O.P. congressmenwho were deeply involved in efforts to overturn the election. Both Mr. Perryand Mr. Jordanhaverefused to cooperate with the panel.

Big Tech firms. The panel has criticized Alphabet, Meta, Reddit and Twitterfor allowing extremism to spread on their platforms and saying they have failed to cooperate adequately with the inquiry. The committee has issued subpoenas to all four companies.

Roger Stone and Alex Jones. The panels interest in the political operative and the conspiracy theoristindicate that investigators are intent on learning the details of the planning and financing of rallies that drew Mr. Trumps supporters to Washington based on his lies of a stolen election.

Michael Flynn. Mr. Trumps former national security adviser attended an Oval Office meeting on Dec. 18 in which participants discussed seizing voting machines and invoking certain national security emergency powers. Mr. Flynn has filed a lawsuitto block the panels subpoenas.

Phil Waldron. The retired Army colonelhas been under scrutiny since a 38-page PowerPoint documenthe circulated on Capitol Hill was turned over to the panel by Mr. Meadows. The document contained extreme plans to overturn the election.

John Eastman. The lawyer has been the subject of intense scrutiny since writing a memothat laid out how Mr. Trump could stay in power. Mr. Eastman was present at a meeting of Trump allies at the Willard Hotelthat has becomea prime focus of the panel.

He wrote: militia up Georgia its time to spill blood . we need to pay a visit to [Official C] and her family as well and put a bullet her behind the ears.

An aide to Stacey Abrams, the Georgia Democrat who is running for governor, said he did not know if Ms. Abrams was Official C.

Threats against Georgias election officials continued well after the state finished counting and recounting the votes in its 2020 presidential contest. Two low-level workers whom Mr. Trump and his allies in the right-wing media falsely accused of counting fraudulent votes have sued the Gateway Pundit website, One America News Network and Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trumps lawyer, for spreading lies about their conduct.

Mr. Raffensperger, a Republican, has faced substantial blame from Trump allies for certifying Mr. Bidens victory. He faces a primary challenge this year from Representative Jody Hice of Georgia, who has adopted many of Mr. Trumps false claims about the election.

Mr. Stark could not be reached for comment. His initial court appearance was in Austin, Texas, on Friday afternoon, and the judge appointed the federal public defenders office to represent him. He was released on bond and his arraignment was set for Feb. 4 in Atlanta. Mr. Stark faces up to five years in prison if convicted.

Katie Benner contributed reporting. Kirsten Noyes contributed research.

Read more from the original source:
Texas Man Charged With Threatening to Kill Georgia Election Officials - The New York Times

As he begins a second term or, as he's described it, the fifth year in an eight-year journey Gov. Phil Murphy has committed to lowering New Jersey taxes.

While he says his administration's focus on the Garden State's high cost of living is not new, it's certainly amplified especially as weary New Jersey taxpayers eye the start of the pandemic crisis' third year.

It also follows Murphy's close call at the polls in November, when Jack Ciattarelli, his Republican challenger, came within striking distance of upending Murphy's plans for a second term. Ciattarelli's campaign, while dogged by the shadow of former President Donald Trump, still made inroads with voters because of his focus on what he has called New Jersey's "affordability crisis."

The progressive framing of the Murphy agenda may well be a thing of the past.

In a wide-ranging conversation that followed his State of the State and second inaugural addresses,Murphy contended that the emphasis on lowering property taxes in 2022 is far from new.

"Affordability is not something that we just came up with last week. This has been something that we've been on from moment one. It's possible, I think perhaps, that we're emphasizing affordability and opportunity ... maybe with brighter lights than we had been," Murphy said. "We've had four of the lowest property tax increase years on record in New Jersey. I mentioned yesterday that's good, but it's not good enough. We want to see them go down."

Citing tax rebates "of hundreds of millions of dollars"distributed last year,efforts to stimulate shared services, the state's commitment to expanding school subsidies and investment in infrastructure as progress, the governor still acknowledged that addressing high taxes will take a process as complicated, perhaps, as the efforts NASA scientists took to guide a wounded Apollo 13 mission back to Earth in April 1970 a pathway to affordability has lots of twists and turns.

"I don't think there's one magic wand as it relates to affordability, so we've been pulling a lot of different levers," Murphy told me. He went on to note that, of course, the state does not set property taxes school districts do. The state's role, Murphy said, will likely be to continue to invest in funding New Jersey's public schools.

The complexity of the task ahead acknowledged, Murphy pledged that his administration would continue to examine any avenue that could allow New Jersey to become more affordable.

"We want to underscore that we've been on affordability from day one, but I want to triply underscore today that we will stay on it and we will," he said.

We will be watching for signs of progress.

'Mission is not yet done':What Murphy said about second-term plans at his inauguration

On his relationship with the Legislature, Murphy was honest about the time it took his administration to build in the first term and his partnership with the now-departed state Senate President Steve Sweeney.

"We've had a good relationship on both sides of the aisle," he said. "Of our first four years,for the past two-and-a-half or three years in particular we all had to get to know each other in that first year or year-and-a-half, but that's long in the rearview mirror."

Murphy also noted that he's counting on his relationships with new Senate President Nick Scutari whom Murphy credited for getting him over the line on legal cannabis as a social justice issue and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin,and that he's working to build relationships with Republican leaders like state Sen. Steve Oroho and Assemblyman John DiMaio.

Column continues below the gallery

When asked about his efforts to contrast what he characterized as the relative functionality of Trenton with the challenges on the national political scale which some observers have suggested was a hint of his potential presidential aspirations Murphy said voters in New Jersey expect progress from their elected leaders.

"We're not always going to agree, but we're getting stuff done," he said. "I think folks, when they elect somebody, they want them to get stuff done."

I asked Murphy about what's to come on a number of other issues:

Murphy mentioned sports betting and cannabis as future revenue drivers for New Jersey in his inaugural remarks.

Sports betting, Murphy said, "is not a big money-spinner on the budget this is still a double-digit-million [industry] by the way, we'll take it."

Murphy forecast recreational cannabis to "go live" in a matter of monthsand said he anticipated that its impact on state revenues would be significant eventually.

"That has the potential not in this budget ... that's probably a multi-hundred-million state revenue business. ... God knows we need it, and we'll put it to good use."

Charles Stile: Murphy faces reality: Emboldened GOP and disorderly Dems in the Legislature

Murphy said the racial reckoning that began in 2020 after the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and others remains a top priority for his administration. He specifically applauded police efforts to build better relationships with their communities, but acknowledged "we have work to do."

Gun control at a time when many New Jersey cities face spikes in shooting crimes and fatalities was among the governor's priorities. Legislation he's called Gun Safety 3.0 is pending, and Murphy said he's eager for its passage and the opportunity to sign it.

"They make a difference," Murphy said of the effort. "This is not abstract. On the one hand, they don't impair your Second Amendment rights. On the other hand, they make us one of the safest gun states, if not the safest, in America."

More work, too, must be done to improve police-community relations, Murphy said.

Gun reforms, no new taxes:Here's what's on Murphy's agenda for 2022

New Jersey's 2021 election was far from smooth, especially in terms of vote counting. Voting by mail and early voting disabled county structures for vote counting. The election's results including Murphy's win took days to determine.

Our 21 counties have different methods of conveying election results, and they do so at different times. As a consequence, the traditional notion of election night is essentially dead. We're now in a reality in which voters can expect major contests to take days to call. Standardizing reporting across the 21 counties is, in my view, the next frontier in election reform.

When asked if the state would standardize vote reporting, Murphy said he would consider early counting of ballots, with steeper penalties for leaking trends something New Jersey allowed in the 2020 general election cycle.

"That's something a lot of us want to look at," he said.

Ed Forbesis a senior editor for the USA TODAY Network's Atlantic Group, overseeing opinion for news organizations inNew York,New Jersey,Pennsylvania,Delawareand Maryland.To get unlimited access to his insightful thoughts on how we live life in the Northeast,pleasesubscribe or activate your digital account today.

Email:eforbes@gannett.com

Twitter:@edforbes

Continued here:
Phil Murphy begins a second term. Here's what he revealed about his agenda | Forbes - NorthJersey.com

Letters to the Editor| The Columbus Dispatch

Deborah Lind, in her Jan. 17letter, "Claim that police see Black people as the enemy' is ludicrous,'"arguesthat the claims of police officers seeing Black people as enemies is ludicrous.

More: Pastor: Police believe Black people are 'the enemy' due to 'warrior mindset'

By coincidence, on that very same day, on the very samepage of the Dispatch, a column by Rashawn Ray titled, "The scary stats about Black men, police," appeared.

More: Researcher: Goodson killing reflects 'disturbing statistics' about Black men and police

I suggest thatLind read thatcolumn with an open mind to see that the claims of police officers' mistreatment, often violent to the point of murder, are hardly

ludicrous.

Of course, there are kind and honest officers. I have metseveral.

But, as the saying goes, "One rotten apple spoils the wholebarrel."

Neelam Soundarajan, Dublin

We are now in a situation where the U.S. Supreme Court is putting citizens personal liberties over the health and well-being of other citizens. The court overturned President Joe Bidens mandate that companies with 100 or more employees require that these employees be vaccinated OR submit to Covid tests on a weekly basis.

More: Some large Ohio employers pause vaccine requirements pending legal battle over Biden rule

Vaccination naysayers amongst any of these employees would not have to get a vaccination.

All they would have to do is be tested.

This would be critical to their health and the health of others around them. How difficult could this be?Conservative politics played a big rolein the courts decision.

More: Ohio attorney general, sheriffs sue Biden administration over COVID-19 vaccine mandate

Lets come together on the COVID issues, America.

Most Americans claim to be caring individuals. Im starting to doubt this when it comes to issues facing this nation.

Wayne Branfield, Columbus

Why are Ohio lawmakers unwilling to make or keep regulatory gun laws that protect law-abiding citizens from themselves?What about all the unintentional deaths resulting from weak gun laws?

Poor James Williams of Columbus (Canton Repository, Jan. 7, "Widow: They just shot him'"), a law-abiding, upstanding human being who was fatally shot by a police officer after he was firing his wifes AR-15 into the air in celebration on New Years Eve.

More: Widow: "They didn't say, 'Police.'They didn't say, 'Freeze.' ... They just shot him."

I grieve for him and his loved ones for this senseless tragedy.

James would be alive today, if tighter gun regulations would have kept James from handling his wifes gun irresponsibly.

James didnt have a permit.Why should those people be allowed to own guns?Clearly they are not using them for protection, as stated in the Second Amendment.

More: Ohio Senate Republicans pass bill eliminating need for concealed carry permits

Stronger gun regulations might make law-abiding citizens take guns more seriously and therefore act more responsibly with this freedom to bear arms, that they so desperately feel entitled to.

More: Letters: Use sanity. Don't fire your gun off on New Year's Eve.

The fact of the matter is, the less guns out there, the less gun deaths.

Whats wrong with having restrictions on gun ownership to protect these law-abiding citizens from their own irresponsible acts which lead to unintentional shooting deaths?

Susie Stan, Columbus

President Joe Biden had an extremely difficult first year, but he has been down before and has popped back up.

More: Is President Biden sleepy or building nation back better? Let's talk about it.

Remember the presidential primary, when he was on the ropes with no money and few supporters and yet he came back and won?

Never count old Joe out. America loves a comeback story and Joe Biden may provide one.

Michael Oser, Columbus

Continue reading here:
Letters: Nothing 'ludicrous' in saying Black men are police enemy. Gun regulations would have saved man - The Columbus Dispatch

On January 6, 2021, in the minutes before the storming of the Capitol, I was sending a welcome message to my new class of criminal-law students while keeping an eye on Congresss certification of the Presidential election. During the next few hours, a violent mob invaded the building, overwhelmed law enforcement, and drove lawmakers to halt the certification process and hide or evacuate. At the end of that semester, I included a new question on the final exam for my criminal-law students, one about the previously little-known crime of seditious conspiracy, which includes conspiring by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.

In the past year, we have seen charges filed against more than seven hundred people for offenses related to the events of last January 6th, ranging from disorderly conduct and assault to conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. So far, more than a hundred and seventy people have been convicted through guilty pleas, most of them for misdemeanors. On the eve of the insurrections anniversary, Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that the Justice Department was moving to resolve more straightforward cases first, and promised that the actions we have taken thus far will not be our last. In other words, the more serious or difficult charges were forthcoming. Last week, eleven people, including Stewart Rhodes, the leader and founder of the far-right group the Oath Keepers, were indicted by a grand jury. The most serious of the charges they face is seditious conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of twenty years in prison.

The indictment describes some Oath Keepers belief that the federal government has been coopted by a cabal of elites actively trying to strip American citizens of their rights. That Rhodes, the leading defendant, graduated from one of the countrys most lite law schools, Yale, is more than just a fun fact. He developed his views on the Constitution as a law student eighteen years ago, and won a school prize for the best paper on the Bill of Rights. His paper argued that the Bush Administrations treatment of enemy-combatants in the war on terror was unconstitutional. Rhodes wrote that terrorism is a vague concept, and that we need to follow our Constitutions narrow definition of war and the enemy. The argument would have found much support in liberal legal-lite and civil-liberties circles. Liberal attorneys, including at the A.C.L.U., have fought the government on behalf of alleged terrorists arguing just thatwith some successes.

Today concerns about terrorism have shifted from foreign to domestic threats. This month, the Justice Department is launching a new domestic terrorism unit, and Rhodes and his co-defendants face federal conspiracy charges, which foreign terrorists have faced. We might wonder how this lawyer strayed so far as to end up leading a group to attack the Capitol on January 6th. The answer may lie in his belief in defending the Constitutionand that, in turn, may even point to a potential vulnerability in the governments case.

The indictment starts with a recitation of federal law on the process for the transfer of Presidential power, namely the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments to the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act. It alleges that Rhodes planned with his co-defendants to oppose that lawful process by force. But, in order to convict the defendants of seditious conspiracy, the government will have to prove that they planned their storming of the Capitol with the purpose of opposing the lawful transfer of Presidential power.

That might seem straightforward, given the groups intent to stop Congress from certifying the Electoral College votes. The question of Rhodess purpose, though, is complicated by the likelihood that he and his co-conspirators believed that the election was stolen, and that Congress was acting unconstitutionally to install an illegitimate usurper as the President. In other words, the defendants subjective purpose may have been to fight against the subversion of law, not to prevent its execution. Thus, the big lieand the troubling fact that much of the country appears to believe it is the truthis at the core of the seditious-conspiracy charge. The question in this case is whether an act can be deemed seditious if its purpose, in the defendants mind, was to protect the law rather than to oppose it.

Rhodes, who joined the Army out of high school, founded the Oath Keepers in 2009, with a mission to resist unlawful exercises of government power. His estranged wife has stated that he envisioned himself as the next George Washington and called the group he founded the libertarian version of the ACLU. The Oath Keepers have focussed their recruitment on members of the military and law-enforcement communities. Extrapolating from the soldiers vow to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, Rhodes has fixated upon the idea that there is an obligation to disobey unconstitutional orders. Members of his organization vow to resist such orders, including gun-control laws that they believe violate the Second Amendment and unconstitutional searches and seizures by the police.

Days after the November, 2020, election, Rhodes sent his followers a message: We arent getting through this without a civil war. Too late for that. Prepare your mind, body, spirit. He urged the leaders of his group, We must now do what the people of Serbia did when Milosevic stole their election. - Refuse to accept it and march en masse to the nations Capitol. On January 6th, having breached the Capitol grounds, he wrote, Hey, the founding fathers stormed the governors mansion in MA and tarred and feathered his tax collectors.... Thats where we are now. Rhodess seeming belief that his plan for January 6th was resistance to an unconstitutional process may seem wholly unreasonable, because it was based on the false idea that the election was stolen and that the certification of its result was unlawful. But, if the case goes to trial, the jury will be drawn from a cross-section of the community, a substantial portion of which may share the false belief or find it not unreasonable. Some jurors may find it difficult to convict Rhodes and others of seditious conspiracy if they find that sincere views about reality informed the defendants purpose.

Former President Donald Trump has called the insurrectionists patriots who were there for one reasonthe rigged election. Any trial on the seditious-conspiracy charges will be a proxy fight over the legitimacy of those words: whether it is reasonable to believe, as both Trump and Rhodes claim to, that on January 6th Congress was doing something deeply unlawful. This raises the question of whether false beliefs about our democracy will determine the enforcement of our laws; a jury could decide that Rhodess conviction that the election was stolen is reasonable enough to mean he didnt commit seditious conspiracy. Such an outcome might have the effect of adding legal legitimacy to the big lie, and it would underscore troubling questions about the future of American democracy. Now that talk of potential civil war occurs not only among extremist groups but in the mainstream press, a public trial of alleged seditionists will showcase the central fissure that could lead us there.

View post:
The Case Against the Oath Keepers - The New Yorker

The Freedom Amendment will go before voters on the November 8th ballot, after passing the last two Iowa General Assemblies. Iowa is one of only six states that does not have a right to bear arms in its constitution.

DES MOINES, Iowa (KWWL) - Iowa is one of six states whose constitution does not include a right to bear arms. Supporters of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are working to change that.

They will be gathering at the Capitol on February 24th for "Second Amendment Day" to show their support of a referendum that will go before voters on the November ballot.

The proposed amendment to add a right to bear arms passed the last two Iowa General Assemblies, as required by law before it can go to the voters.

The Iowa Firearms Coalition is bringing speakers to the event to educate supporters and opponents alike on what is called the Freedom Amendment.

Both of the speakers gained national attention for thwarting gunmen.

Stephen Willeford stopped a mass murder in progress when he fired shots at a gunman who killed 26 people at a Texas church in 2017. And retired police officer Greg Stevens, who stopped the first ISIS-inspired terrorist attack at theCurtiss Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, was later awarded the Presidential Medal of Valor by President Barack Obama.

Michael Ware is a board member of the Iowa Firearms Coalition. He says the speakers will share their stories and personal responsibility with firearms.

"That's going to be part of the speaker that are offered that day. I'm sure legislators will want to address the crowd," Ware said. "They'll be some things like that discussed. But, the primary focus will be surrounding the Freedom Amendment and trying to help people understand what it is and what it isn't."

The language of the Freedom Amendment passed with bi-partisan support.

"We had republican and democrat votes pushing that forward, which I thought was very good. You don't see as much of that today as what we've seen in the past," Ware said.

Nationwide, there has been a push for Second Amendment Sanctuaries over the last two years.

One year ago in Iowa, there were no Second Amendment Sanctuary counties but on January 3rd, the Cherokee County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution to make their community a Second Amendment Sanctuary County. It was the first countyin Iowa to pass such a resolution in 2022 and the 31stcounty in Iowa to pass one in the past few months.

"That should be a clear indicator to people of the direction and used as a litmus test of what's going on in culture," Ware said.

Nebraska was the last state to add the right to bear arms to its state constitution in 1988.

North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were the first to add the right to bear arms provision to their constitutions in 1776.

Read more here:
Iowans push to add a right to bear arms to the state constitution - kwwl.com

Yesterday, the Senate Law and Justice Committeeheld a public hearing to consider an extreme "assault weapons" ban, Senate Bill 5217, and anti-preemption legislation, Senate Bill 5568. An executive session is scheduled forThursday where these bills are expected to receive a vote. There is still time tocontact committee members and strongly urge them to OPPOSE Senate Bill 5217 and Senate Bill 5568.

During yesterdays public hearing, the Committee heard from10,732 individuals regarding the slate of firearms related legislation. Of those who engaged with the committee, about 90% staunchly opposed the looming gun control policies - 91.9% of Washingtonians opposed the "assault weapons" ban and 87.5% opposed the anti-preemption measure. The overwhelming number of voices that asked the committee to oppose Senate Bill 5217 and 5568 cant be overlooked. If these measures continue to progress after such a showing it is only proof that these legislators do not care about the majority of their constituents opinions, and only want to appease the anti-gun elite and the gun control organizations that they fund.

Senate Bill 5217arbitrarily classifies many popularly-owned semi-automatic firearms as so-called assault weapons and bans their possession, manufacture, transfer, etc. These firearms are widely used for self-defense, recreational shooting,and hunting,and have now been vilified due to cosmetic features. It is extremely important that NRA Members and Second Amendment supporters contact their lawmakers in opposition to SB 5217.Senate Bill 5568deals with the states preemption laws. SB 5568 will expand gun free zones and permit municipalities to ban the open carryof firearms. These types of measures result in a complex patchwork of gun laws across the state that ensnare otherwise law-abiding gun owners, turning them into criminals.

Again, please contact members of the Senate Committee on Law and Justice, and ask them to strongly OPPOSE Senate Bill 5217 and Senate Bill 5568.

Here is the original post:
Washington: Public Hearing Overwhelmingly Echoes with Opposition to Anti-Gun Measures - NRA ILA

As the U.S. Supreme Court decision on President Joe Bidens vaccine mandate shows, the nations highest court has a full docket of important issues this term. Justices will weigh in on cases that could affect peoples right to an abortion, their possession of firearms outside their home, and their free exercise of religion.

The high court last week ruled on President Joe Bidens vaccine mandatesa case that had garnered much attention in recent weeks as the omicron variant reignites the COVID-19 pandemic. The court on Thursday blocked one of Bidens private sector vaccine mandates, implemented amid a rise in COVID-19 cases, while allowing another requirement to stand.

There were two requirements in question, one overseen by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the other through the Department of Health and Human Services and its Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The former, which the high court struck down, required that all companies with more than 100 employees enforce a rule that their workers get the vaccine or else be tested on a weekly basis.

The latter, which the court let stand, requires health-care workers at facilities that get Medicare or Medicaid funding be vaccinated.

Here are the other cases experts are keeping a close watch on this year.

The Mississippi abortion-ban challenge

Atop the list is a challenge to a restrictive abortion law enacted by Mississippi in 2018, Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization. The law bans most abortions after 15 weeks.

Daniel Urman, director of hybrid and online programs in the school of law, and director of the law and public policy minor. Photo by Matthew Modoono/Northeastern University

The Supreme Court has indicated that it may roll back constitutional protections established by its 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed in 1992 in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Roe v. Wade upheld abortion rights and prohibited states from banning abortions before fetal viability, which is roughly 23 weeks. The court heard oral arguments in the case on Dec. 1, but a decision is not expected until later this year.

Everyones waiting for Dobbs, says Dan Urman, who teaches constitutional law and the modern U.S. Supreme Court at Northeastern, but actually theres two other areas that are very important: the courts continued expansion of religious liberty claims; and the federal governments ability to require vaccines in certain sectors of the workforce during a pandemic.

A major Second Amendment case

The Supreme Court also will be taking up a major Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which deals with a New York law that limits a persons ability to carry concealed guns. Specifically, the law requires that applicants show proper cause for a license to possess and carry a handgun outside the home. The courts have since clarified proper cause to mean that an applicant must demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.

At issue is whether the states denial of two petitioners applications to carry a handgun on the grounds that they lacked proper cause violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Its a closely watched case, Urman says, because it has been over a decade since the Supreme Court weighed in on the Second Amendment.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the high court ruled on the question of whether individuals have a right to keep and bear arms inside the home. In 2010, the court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the finding extended to all states.

But what the court did then was in some ways more limited than the public thought, Urman says. The court held that individuals had a right to protect themselves inside their home with a handgun.

Urman says that since 2011, theres been no Supreme Court case that clarified whether those same rights exist outside of the home, and if so, what limits the government may set.

Religious liberty claims

Questions surrounding religious freedom and the separation of church and state also are on the docket this term in Carson v. Makin. In this case, several families are challenging a law in Maine that forbids families from applying for state tuition assistance if those funds would be used to pay for a students secondary school education at a school that, in addition to providing academic instruction, taught religion.

In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that states do not have to provide public funding for private schools, but if they do, they cannot discriminate based on the religious status of the institution. At issue in Carson v. Makin is the question of whether public funding can be denied to schools that provide religious, or sectarian, instruction.

Decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen and Carson v. Makin are not expected until later in 2022.

For media inquiries, please contact media@northeastern.edu.

See the rest here:
Abortion, Guns, Religion: The Major Supreme Court Cases of 2022 - News @ Northeastern - News@Northeastern

Dr. King died by the gun. He was assassinated on April 4 1968, nearly 54 years ago. He is one of the most famous American victims of gun violence. At the time of his death, he was an avowed pacifist who evolved his stance on gun ownership in the face of overwhelming threats of violence and death directed at him, his family, and all who worked with him in the Civil Rights Movement.

Years before his assassination, Dr. King was a fearful gun owner desperate to protect himself and his family. But over time he understood that fear was both a tool of the oppressor and a deeply internalized trait of white supremacy, against which he would fight until his dying breath.

This not-so-famous quote from King signals a critical point in his evolution on the subject of gun ownership for self-defense:

I was much more afraid in Montgomery when I had a gun in my house. When I decided that I couldnt keep a gun, I came face-to-face with the question of death and I dealt with it. From that point on, I no longer needed a gun nor have I been afraid. Had we become distracted by the question of my safety we would have lost the moral offensive and sunk to the level of our oppressors.

Dr. King believed in his right to own guns in order to defend himself and his home. But after his Montgomery, Alabama home was fire-bombed, he had to come to terms with the vitriolic levels of violence to which he and his family were directly exposed. There is not a handgun in the world that can defend against a bomb attack.

RELATED: A timeline of how Philly helped shape Martin Luther King Jr.

What is most striking about this particular King quote are the implicit insights on his own fear and why he ultimately had to situate his personal security within the almighty context of his Christian faith. Kings fear when he owned gunsand by some accounts he owned an arsenal had everything to do with what he faced daily in terms of threats against his life. He was in the belly of the American racial beast, and it was clear then that he had no intention of backing down.

King was well aware of the data on guns in homes, that mostly, people who keep guns in their homes use them on themselves and/or their family members. It was the same then as it is now. People shoot themselves, or their loved ones, intentionally or accidentally, far more regularly than they do intruders, tyrannical governments, or even hateful white supremacists.

Kings need for self-defense was not theoretical, and in this sense, it was much more difficult for him to idolize the Second Amendment.

His fear then, was as much about what was at stake for him and his family in that moment, a moment that literally exploded like a bomb in his home. From that point forward, Dr. King knew that his personal security was no longer a mundane phenomenon. He also knew that there was only one way that his life would end: in violence.

Kings application for a concealed carry permit in Montgomery Alabama was famously denied by the local sheriffs office. He was deemed unsuitable; that is, he was a Black person who wanted to defend himself and his family from the violence of racism and white supremacy.

RELATED: On the anniversary of MLKs assassination, we recall the words of Robert Kennedy, bemoaning a murderous time of shame and sorrowmuch like our own

Herein lies an important distinction for King. He was a warrior for equal protection under the law and a racially equitable arrangement for American citizens. But his need for self-defense was not theoretical, and in this sense, it was much more difficult for him to idolize the Second Amendment.

King embraced the Second Commandmentthou shall have no other gods before meas he foresaw the national consequences of Americas embrace of the Second Amendment. The Second Commandment is complex, but in short it forbids the worship and idolization of man-made things, as if they were gods. There are plenty of man-made idols in America, but none have reached the level of false divinity that guns and gun culture have in our national consciousness.

RELATED: Maj Toures Black Guns Matter flips the script on guns in urban areas

Second Amendment advocates often push the narrative of self-defense against the tyranny of government or the unchecked criminal elements amongst us. But Kings desire for self-defense was more specificmore targeted, if you will. Dr. King knew who was trying to kill him. There was no amorphous boogey man driving his need for self-defense and protection. Racist white power and privilege were the monsters prepared to cut his life short, and ultimately those forces did just that.

Having a permit to carry a concealed weapon would not have saved Kings life. Plenty of supporters around Dr. King were gun owners and many people engaged in the Civil Rights movement believed that gun ownership was a critical right for those folks who were directly engaged in the war against white supremacy. There are not enough good people with guns, perfectly placed in each iteration of American gun violence to ward off the carnage associated with our national gun-love affair.

King died a hero to many and over time he has become Americas perfect martyr. His national holiday has been sanitized to such a degree that Fortune 100 companies can claim social justice victories by giving their employees one day off for community service, once a year. But observers of Dr. Martin Luther King Day would do well to remember that although the man who assassinated King lived some part of his life in infamy, he too was seen as a hero to too many Americans than we might be willing to admitback then in 1968 and maybe even now in 2022.

King was not born a pacifist. How he evolved on gun ownership and that evolution warrants much more exploration and skepticism.

Dr. King was an exceptional American who gave his life in the service of dismantling the contradiction of American exceptionalism. Two things are becoming more and more clear as the image of Dr. King and the MLK holiday become cleaner and more palatable.

First, King was not born a pacifist. How he evolved on gun ownership and that evolution warrants much more exploration and skepticism. His pacifism has defined almost every movement for equal rights that followed the Civil Rights Movement. And maybe, just maybe, it is time to revisit and rethink pacifism and/or non-violence as governing principles of organizing against oppression.

RELATED: A Mastery high school principal says the civil rights leader may have begun with integrationbut thats not where he landed

And this bleeds directly into a second issue that has been clarified in the proximity of January 6 to the national King holiday. The contemporary attempt to overthrow American democracy may have just been a practice run. For too many Americans, the events of that day in 2021 have been overblown by the current administration and overplayed by the American media.

But what January 6 represents is an important counter narrative to the pacifist approach to organizing in the struggles for (or against) democracy. The entities that organized January 6 are the enemies of Dr. Kings lifes work. They are the ideological descendants of those same Americans who aligned themselves with Kings assassin.

In the end, reducing Kings legacy has always created pitfalls along the path of the universes arc. But that arc cant bend towards justice without more intention and maybe more force from those who seek to extend the life of Americas democratic experiment.

RELATED

Lets Make Every Day A Day of Service

Theres Enough King To Go Around

Listen: Philly Under Fire Podcast

Guest Commentary: We Need To Do This

The Mission is Preventing Violence

Read more:
Between King and Guns - The Philadelphia Citizen

A little over a year after the violent attack on the Capitol, threats targeting lawmakers have only increased alongside a surge of violent speech shared online and even inside the building.

Threats against lawmakers have reached an all-time high of 9,600, according to U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) data shared in a hearing last week, outpacing 2020 figures.

The risk was brought to the forefront just Thursday, when USCP officers arrested a Michigan woman who they said showed up outside the department's headquarters with multiple guns seeking to talk about the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol.

On the anniversary of that attack, a memo from the Department of Homeland Securityobtained by The Hillwarned that calls for violent action against lawmakers were picking up steam online. That includes a video calling for lawmakers to be hung in front of the White House that has now been viewed more than 60,000 times.

Some of the violent rhetoric is coming from within Congresss own walls.

Rep. Paul GosarPaul Anthony GosarLawmakers coming under increased threats sometimes from one another McCarthy says he'll strip Dems of committee slots if GOP wins House Should we expand the House of Representatives? The Founders thought so MORE (R-Ariz.) was censured and removed from committees after posting an animated video of him killing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezLouisiana Democrat running for US Senate smokes marijuana in campaign ad Lawmakers coming under increased threats sometimes from one another Maryland Democrat announces positive COVID-19 test MORE (D-N.Y.).

Rep. Marjorie Taylor GreeneMarjorie Taylor GreeneGOP efforts to downplay danger of Capitol riot increase The Memo: What now for anti-Trump Republicans? Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says she's meeting with Trump 'soon' in Florida MORE (R-Ga.)last week suggestedusing Second Amendment rights to defend against Democrats.

The Second Amendment gives us the ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government, she said. And I hate to use this language, but Democrats, they're doing exactly what our founders talked about when they gave us the precious rights that we have.

Tim Roemer, a former Democratic lawmaker and 9/11 commissioner, said comments like that have put some lawmakers on edge.

Too often, and much too sadly, Members of Congress appear to be going through a nasty and vengeful divorce with each other. Theres little trust and no respect, which are the foundations for making laws, he told The Hill, calling for bipartisan efforts to repair the legislative branch.

People feel like their own safety is not assured. Some members feel like other members want to attack them it's not just threats coming from a constituency, it's coming directly from inside Congress, he continued.

Roemer said personal bodyguards for members have become prolific while COVID has left members off put by those refusing to wear masks.

Add all these together and you get an atmosphere of severe dysfunction with high potential for further volatility.

The House has now spent a year with metal detectors lining the entranceways to the floor, with members required to be screened before proceeding to vote.

While many lawmakers grumbled at the process, and several have faced fines for walking past and flouting the security measure, most have adjusted, even as they call for fixes to expedite votes.

Still, Rep. Mark AmodeiMark Eugene AmodeiLawmakers coming under increased threats sometimes from one another Nevada lawmakers approve maps giving edge to Democrats GOP lawmakers introduce measure in support of Columbus Day MORE (R-Nev.) said the House may need to invest in better equipment to speed the process so it doesnt look like a TSA operation.

I'm really looking forward to an update on how we're going to restore a little bit of decorum to just the act of walking into the chambers and making sure that nobody's carrying, he told the Capitol Police Board on Tuesday.

Democratic lawmakers are growing increasingly frustrated with leadership on the other side of the aisle for not doing more to condemn alarming speech from its members.

Were past the point of concern. Stoking anger as a means to campaign cash and political stardom presents a clear and present danger to colleagues and their families and not just Democrats, Rep. Dean PhillipsDean PhillipsLawmakers coming under increased threats sometimes from one another Jan. 6 brings Democrats, Cheneys together with GOP mostly absent In their own words: Lawmakers, staffers remember Jan. 6 insurrection MORE (D-M.N.) told The Hill.

In the absence of self-regulation, I believe the Ethics Committee must begin to play a meaningful, non-partisan role in holding members accountable for their behavior. Otherwise partisan punishment will only create a vicious cycle as the pendulum of power swings back and forth.

Other lawmakers suggested Capitol Police could play a role.

I am concerned about the mental health of my colleague from Georgia and would like @CapitolPolice to address her dangerous threats in my workplace, Rep. Haley StevensHaley Maria StevensLawmakers coming under increased threats sometimes from one another Tlaib announces run in new Detroit district with Lawrence retiring Four states to feature primaries with two incumbents in 2022 MORE (D-Mich.)tweetedabout Greene.

Just as we would in any school or job site, we cannot let calls for gun violence go unchecked.

Rita Katz, executive director of the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors the online activity of white supremacist groups and other extremists, said comments like Greenes reverberate online.

Some lawmakers are indeed a source of threats. Comments from figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene are regularly shared and converted into rallying cries for some segments of the far-right, she said in an email to The Hill.

Attorney General Merrick GarlandMerrick GarlandA new Bureau of Prisons director gives administration a chance to live up to promises Lawmakers coming under increased threats sometimes from one another The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Democrats see victory in a voting rights defeat MORE reviewed some of the intensifying threats in a speech to mark the anniversary of the attack on the Capitol.

A member of Congress was threatened in a gruesome voicemail that asked if she had ever seen what a 50 caliber shell does to a human head. Another member of Congress, an Iraq war veteran and Purple Heart recipient received threats that left her terrified for her family, he said.

These acts and threats of violence are not associated with any one set of partisan or ideological views. But they are permeating so many parts of our national life that they risk becoming normalized and routine if we do not stop them. That is dangerous for peoples safety. And it is deeply dangerous for our democracy.

House Sergeant-at-Arms William Walker told members of the House Appropriations Committee last week that he thinks there should be more resources allocated for lawmaker security.

Walker said that in a best-case scenario, each House district would have two law enforcement coordinators to help mitigate threats to lawmakers and their families. He also said Congress should pour money into securing residences with equipment like motion sensors and video doorbells to detect intruders.

When a threat arises, Capitol Police must consider means, and capability, and motive to act, Walker said, before they can pursue prosecution, but he said such threats dont typically get the same attention as those targeting the president or a member of the Cabinet, which are covered under a special statute and carry enhanced penalties.

If members of Congress could somehow be elevated to have that kind of status, I believe that would go a long way in stopping these individuals from making these reckless threats, he said.

Scott Wong and Cristina Marcos contributed.

Here is the original post:
Lawmakers coming under increased threats sometimes from one another | TheHill - The Hill

The Warren City Council has asked the planning commission to review regulations regarding the wholesale storage of ammunition and the presence of arsenals within the city limits.

Zoning ordinance changes, City Manager Nancy Freenock said, first go to the citys Planning Commission for consideration where the commission makes recommendations to council.

She said Mayor Dave Wortman proposed the review of this specific element of the citys zoning ordinance.

Councilman Maurice Cashman cut to the crux of the matter when he asked whats the real issue here if I may ask?

This is a pretty broad paragraph, Mayor Wortman said.

This particular ordinance is incredibly vague, Councilman Joe Michaels explained.

Two specific elements of the code are up for review. Both are part of a list of prohibited uses and defined in the code as commercial ammunition manufacturing or wholesale storage of ammunition and arsenal.

I look at this (as) defense of supplies needed for Second Amendment protections, Michaels said, and also prohibiting an industry from operating in our city in a time when we are looking for jobs.

My concern with arsenal, he added, is because (of the) complete vagueness of this ordinance. There is no definition of arsenal in this ordinance.

He argued that definitions of the word can include personal reserves and said while campaigning that he saw plenty of citizens (whose) collections could easily be described as arsenals.

Freenock said the entire zoning ordinance is going to be re-written as part of the comprehensive planning process within the next year.

She said Police Chief Joe Sproveri advised her that we are also going to have to check with ATF (the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and have the solicitor check state law. (I) have no idea if these are regulated by any other law or are a blanket prohibition in the citys zoning ordinance.

I dont know enough to answer that, she said.

Michaels argued that he does not think its our duty as a city to enforce state and federal mandates.

I think this issue should at least be considered, Councilman John Wortman said. If this is just something that has been added to the city code, any economic regulation we have not required by state or federal law is something we should get rid of.

The main issue is whether a business can store ammunition, Councilwoman Wendy McCain said. Theres a particular business that were interested in.

Cashman noted he certainly wouldnt want a fireworks manufacturer being in the middle of the city. These are explosive devices.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the rest here:
Planners asked to review ammunition storage, arsenal regulations - timesobserver.com