Category Archives: Second Amendment

A fusillade of amicus briefs has now been filed in support of affirmance of the Fifth Circuit's decision invalidating the federal ban on possession of a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). While no one countenances the alleged behavior of respondent Zackey Rahimi, the various amici persuasively argue that the federal law 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) facially violates the Second Amendment.

In this post, I'd like to identify some of the briefs that I thought to be extraordinary. All of the briefs are easily accessible in the docket on the Supreme Court's website.

But first I'd like to mention the Brief of Respondent, filed on behalf of Mr. Rahimi. Lead counsel is Matthew Wright, Office of the Federal Public Defender, N.D. Tex. The brief covers all of the bases of text and history, as mandated by the Court in NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, and in particular does a thorough job of recording how the founding generation responded to interpersonal and domestic violence. That generation responded in numerous ways, but never by banning possession of arms. Contrary to myth, numerous men were jailed for spousal abuse in the new nation.

Public defenders are underappreciated, but they do God's work by providing counsel to indigents. Kudos to Mr. Wright's team for their professionalism.

Disclosure: I filed a brief on behalf of the National African American Gun Association. It focuses on the purported historical analogues relied on by the United States, such as bans on arms possession by "Greasers," "tramps," and "vagrants," which were traps for involuntary servitude. The government also cites the confiscation of arms by oppressive British monarchs, seizure of the arms of Loyalists by our own patriots in the Revolution (there was a war going on after all), and wholly irrelevant laws against gun sales to children and intoxicated persons.

The government also argues that the development of repeating arms after the Founding justifies 922(g)(8) as warranted by "novel modern conditions." However, technological innovation in arms did not increase domestic violence, given the prevalent use of knives, blunt instruments, and bare hands by abusers.

Now on to the high points in some of the other briefs, in no special order.

In states like California and New York, DVROs are handed out like beads thrown from floats at Mardi Gras. Judges routinely sign on the dotted lines with little pretense to due process. These practices are detailed in the briefs of the Alameda County Public Defenders et al. and The Bronx Defenders Union and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Is domestic violence something new that was unknown to the Founders, necessitating novel firearm restrictions? The brief of historian Angus Kirk McClellan has the obvious answer: No. "Domestic violence was a serious social problem at the founding and throughout the nineteenth century." Did English and early American law tolerate cruelty by abusive husbands to wives? The answer is also no, as McClellan demonstrates. For instance in 1687, in the colony of Pennsylvania, wife Hannah Overton brought evidence of husband Thomas Tunneclif's abuse toward her and their children. The court ordered him to give a good behavior surety which could be levied against his property. Had he not done so, he would have been jailed. McClellan also details the Founding-era surety system, which was the historical, common-law way of addressing threats of interpersonal violence. It did not involve disarmament.

On 922(g)(8)'s failure to provide due process protections, check out the gold-star brief by Dan Peterson on behalf of Law Enforcement and Firearms Rights Groups. The federal law provides no standard of proof for issuance of a DVRO under state law, such as the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, in order to trigger 922(g)(8)'s possession ban. Nor does it require the right to counsel or to a live hearing, where evidence can be proffered, witnesses can be cross-examined, and other procedures necessary to fundamental fairness can be followed.

A return to a "reasonableness" test to determine the validity of restrictions on the Second Amendment is advocated not just by amici for the United States, but also by some supporters of the right. But, as Cooper & Kirk's brief on behalf of the Center for Human Liberty demonstrates,

that is "obviously an invitation to the very type of untethered judicial policymaking rejected in Heller and Bruen." This brief also systematically rebuts the government's case, showing that 922(g)(8) cannot be reconciled with the history of firearm regulation in this country, particularly because it disarms individuals who have not been found to present an imminent threat of violent criminal conduct.

As to the arguments by amici for the United States to "convert long-rejected invidious discrimination into modern constitutional precedent," David Kopel's brief on behalf of Professors of Second Amendment Law demonstrates how they "overlook the arms-related constitutional enactments repudiating the invidious laws. The right to arms is governed by constitutional enactments, and not by abuses the enactments were designed to stop."

Rahimi preserved the argument that, aside from the Second Amendment, Congress has no power under Article I, 8, of the Constitution to restrict mere possession of arms. The brief of the Firearms Policy Coalition explains how no such power exists under either the Militia Organizing Clause or the Commerce Clause to prohibit possession of firearms. The Justices could avoid the Second Amendment arguments altogether by holding that the Framers of our Constitution plainly gave Congress no authority to regulate non-economic, intrastate matters like the relationship between intimate partners and the mere possession of a firearm in the home.

These are some of the highlights, and there are other fine briefs. David Kopel will also be blogging about the various briefs.

Meanwhile, the United States has filed a cert. petition in Garland v. Range. In that case, the Third Circuit held en banc that the federal ban on possession of a firearm by a felon is invalid as applied to a person who was not convicted of a violent felony and is not dangerous. The government suggests that the Supreme Court hold the petition until Rahimi is decided, and then dispose of the petition as appropriate. I will provide an update on the case when Mr. Range has filed his response

Here is the original post:
Second Amendment Roundup: Fusillade of Amicus Briefs Filed in Rahimi - Reason

In a legal battle that made national headlines, the governor of New Mexico last month sought to unilaterally suspend the right of residents to bear arms in public.

This insanely unconstitutional measurewhich courts fortunately brought to a quick haltwould be troubling on its own, given the Supreme Courts clear defining of the right to keep and bear arms in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

However, the move by New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, is merely the most recent in a long parade of attacks by gun control activist politicians seeking to thumb their noses at the Supreme Court and undermine the Second Amendment.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, just signed into law 23 new gun control measures, despite the fact that his state already faces myriad legal challenges to its existing restrictions.

Earlier this summer, Newsom proposed a 28th Amendment to enshrine gun control in the U.S. Constitution.

Since the Supreme Courts Bruen ruling, Maryland has gone to such great lengths to impose restrictions on concealed carry permit holders that even an Obama-appointed judge was willing to find that the state crossed constitutional lines.

Massachusetts, meanwhile, is trying to ban the sale or future possession of millions of commonly owned semiautomatic firearms.

Its important to understand what these laws all have in common. Rather than protecting Americans by addressing very real problems such as rogue prosecutors and lack of accountability for repeat violent offenders, these politicians are focused on depriving as many peaceable Americans as possible of their natural right of self-defense.

And thats a problem.

Almost every major study has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between500,000 and 3 milliontimesannually, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged. In 2021, the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the issue concluded thatroughly 1.6 million defensive gun usesoccur in the United States every year.

For this reason,The Daily Signalpublishes a monthly article highlighting some of the previous months many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missedor that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accountsherefrom past months and years. You also may follow@DailyDGUon Twitter for daily highlights of defensive gun uses.)

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in September. You may explore more using The Heritage Foundations interactiveDefensive Gun Use Database.(The Daily Signal is Heritages news organization.)

As these examples make clear, peaceable Americans routinely rely on their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves and others from criminals.

With crime rates spiraling out of control, law-abiding Americans deserve better than desperate attempts by gun control activists to blame and jeopardize their right to keep and bear arms. This constitutional right remains an important last line of defense against anyone who would threaten life, liberty, or property.

The correct response to criminal violence is to crack down on violent criminals, not to threaten potential victims who merely want to defend themselves when the government cant or wont protect thema scenario that, unfortunately, is becoming increasingly common.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please emailletters@DailySignal.comand well consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular We Hear You feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

View post:
12 Defensive Gun Uses Bare Absurdity of Attacking Gun Rights - Daily Signal

The killing of innocent Israeli civilians is a brutal and bloody reminder of the importance of the Second Amendment in America.

Hamas fighters carried out a devastating sneak attack in Israel several days ago that resulted in the evil slaughter of hundreds of innocent men, women and children. Dozens more were captured as hostages and taken to Gaza. Their fate is in the balance.

The chilling videos show Hamas terrorists roaming the streets gunning down and killing people on sight. They also went into neighborhoods that look similar to the suburbs in America, going door-to-door looking for Jewish families to murder. At least 260 innocent people mostly on the younger side were slaughtered at a music festival as the attack began.

All of this horror is an important reminder of why civilians have fought to keep their right to bear arms in the USA.

What happened in Israel would be significantly harder to pull off in America for one simple reason:

Our country is flooded with private gun ownership, and people have access to weapons similar to what the military and police have.

While gun ownership isnt banned in Israel, it is heavily restricted compared to America and there is no individual right to gun ownership.

One of the first things Israel did after the horrifying terror attack was to loosen its gun laws to get as many weapons into civilian hands as possible. Its the same thing Ukraine did as the Russian invasion unfolded. The Ukrainian government handed out rifles to anyone in Kiev who could get their hands on one.

The logic is simple. Armed people are harder to kill than unarmed people. Bullets flying in both directions giving bad guys something to consider before attacking.

However, here in America, there is a long track record of armed people killing bad guys, including in religiously targeted attacks. If none come to mind for you, thats because the media in general doesnt like to spotlight anything that validates how important civilian gun ownership is.

But to cite just a couple:

Stephen Willeford used an AR-15 to engage a gunman who was carrying out a massacre at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. The first line of defense wasnt a police officer. It was Willeford an armed civilian firing rounds on the murderer to put an end to the carnage. If he had not intervened and engaged the shooter, the killing spree would have continued much longer.

Sutherland Springs wasnt the only shooting in Texas an armed civilian put an end to. A man entered the West Freeway Church of Christ in 2019 and killed two people. Jack Smith, another armed civilian, unholstered his weapon and killed the shooter. How many more people would have died if Smith hadnt been there? Its hard to say for sure, but it definitely would have been more than two.

Its not a surprise that my assessment of the critical role the Second Amendment plays is backed up by the NRA and Gun Owners of America. NRA spokesman Billy McLaughlin told me, Crime can happen anywhere and at any time. That is why the NRA believes it is prudent for law-abiding people who choose to have an effective means of defending themselves and their loved ones to be able to do so. As we are reminded daily, being an instant responder to atrocity is ones best chance of survival.

GOA senior vice president Erich Pratt, The conflict in Israel demonstrates the truth found in the Second Amendmentthat the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state. Ironically, gun control advocates in this country were calling for gun restrictions here, at the same time Israel began slashing its. This underscores the perennial problem with gun control: firearms restrictions never stop criminals from possessing guns, and they put good people at the mercy of heinous terroristsboth foreign and domestic.

A lot of people who pay attention to history certainly agree with the NRA and GOA on the issue.

While the IDF and Israeli police did the best they could to beat back and kill the Hamas terrorists during the heinous surprise attack last Saturday, the simple fact of the matter is the more guns in the hands of good, law-abiding people, the safer we all are.

While some states like New York and California have restrictive gun laws and bans on many popular semi-automatic firearms, there are still civilian gun owners in those states.

In states like Florida or Montana, people are locked and loaded across the board. My brain cant even comprehend 100 terrorists roaming through a Florida community and not being chewed to pieces by armed civilians.

Its believed there are more than 24 million AR-15s in private hands in America, its estimated roughly one million Glock handguns are sold annually in the USA, and theres a total of 76 million rifles and 64 million shotguns in private circulation. In addition, its believed more than 22 million Americans carry weapons on their body outside of the home. That figure doesnt include states where no permit is needed for concealed carry.

It would be Red Dawn in the streets if a terrorist organization or foreign army ever showed up looking to kill innocent people, and the Second Amendment is the reason why.

The fact is also that bad people dont want to shoot up places where theyre likely to meet armed resistance. They choose schools, music festivals and other soft targets where few, if any, guns are likely to be found. Do people attempt mass shootings at gun stores or gun shows? No, because they wouldnt get far at all.

The Nashville mass shooter even scoped out a different school, but opted to not target it because of its security measures.

Bad guys dont want bullets coming their way. They want defenseless and easy targets.

While I wont get into specifics, it wouldnt take long to arm a lot of people very quickly in the event of an emergency.

I know many people who could hand out guns in a matter of minutes if not seconds if they looked out their window and saw terrorists roaming the street killing people.

The Hamas terrorists in Israel went door-to-door executing innocent civilians and taking hostages. Breaking into a house in America is a great way to end up dead.

As the famous saying goes, God made man. Samuel Colt made them equal.

Look at the areas where the riots in 2020 did the most damage in America. It was mostly in areas with strict gun laws like Washington D.C., New York, Portland and other liberally controlled areas. A violent mob tried to burn Kenosha, WI to the ground and Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people.

Another great example is the 1992 riots in Los Angeles. Koreans took to the streets and rooftops armed with weapons and beat back the rioters. Without those weapons, who knows how many might have died.

The bad guys tested their resolve, the Koreans opened fire and stood their ground. Again, bad guys dont like being shot at.

Some people seem to hate the Second Amendment and the fact that millions of Americans are armed, but their attitude will quickly change if they need help. If anyone ever tries what happened in Israel here in America, theyre going to immediately learn why the Second Amendment exists. Thats something Im very grateful for.

See more here:
Horrific Attack In Israel Shows Critical Importance Of Second Amendment In America | David Hookstead - Outkick

Published 5:08 pm Wednesday, October 11, 2023

By Rep. Wayne Sasser

Rep. Wayne Sasser

Constitutional rights are not conditional. They are not applied differently to Americans depending on their race, gender, religious beliefs and especially not based on their state of residence. For example, while different states may have different rules and regulations in place that govern their elections, the Nineteenth Amendment protects womens right to vote in every corner of the nation.

The Second Amendment is no different. The fundamental right to keep and bear arms must be protected for all Americans, wherever they live. Unfortunately, threats to the Second Amendment are on the rise. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham launched one of the latest assaults on Americans freedoms by declaring through executive fiat a public health emergency in her state due to gun violence. This declaration empowers the New Mexico Department of Health to temporarily prohibit the open or concealed carry of firearms in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County.

This sets a dangerous precedent if you dont like something, simply declare it a public health emergency, and suddenly, you have a free pass to ignore the Constitution. There are reasonable ways that states can and do go about implementing guardrails in the system to keep dangerous criminals away from firearms while ensuring that law-abiding citizens rights are not trampled. But these solutions must be kept within the scope of the law and not bend the rules to fit an end goal.

Instead, what were seeing in New Mexico is a government overreach that twists the law to implement an agenda.

While a federal judge has already blocked portions of Grishams order temporarily, lawmakers cannot sit idly by while threats to the Constitution persist. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) recently stood up against this abuse in sending a letter, along with other Republican senators, to the Department of Justice urging them to intervene to protect the rights of the citizens of New Mexico. He also co-sponsored legislation that would prevent the president and other government officials from using such arbitrary public health orders as a means to implement gun control measures.

The developments out of New Mexico reflect a broader effort in parts of our country to tamper with our Second Amendment rights. In fact, other states have already made similar pushes to crack down on basic freedoms through public health declarations.

For example, recent legislative sessions in Connecticut have seen efforts to declare gun violence a public health emergency. At a federal level, some lawmakers are even calling for a national public health emergency declaration on gun violence through the Department of Health and Human Services.

At all levels, we are seeing more and more attempts to abuse emergency declarations to fast-track a crackdown on our right to bear arms. If the decision by New Mexicos governor is left unchecked, countless other government officials would feel empowered to follow suit and a threat on the other side of the country would soon be felt closer to home in North Carolina. This is especially pressing if action is taken at the federal level.

Tillis is right to call on other lawmakers and the DOJ to make it clear that these kinds of actions wont stand. This isnt only a defense of the Second Amendment. If we pick and choose when and where we stand up for basic rights, the foundations of our democracy will crumble. Our nations leaders must rise above politics and see Grishams abuse of power for what it is.

The freedoms of all Americans are at stake.

Wayne Sasser represents the 67th District in the North Carolina House of Representatives.

See the rest here:
OPINION: Second Amendment rights deserve protection - The ... - Stanly News & Press

This commentary is by Noel Hudson, a lawyer who lives in Montpelier.

Self-proclaimed militias have been an increasingly visible part of the American scene since the 1990s, so far culminating in their leading role during the storming of the capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The movement has manifested locally in Vermont with the worrisome antics of Daniel Banyai and his Slate Ridge militia training facility in Pawlet.

During its most recent legislative session, Vermont responded by joining the many other states that have prohibited, with varying degrees of severity, the formation and training of private militias. Public reaction to militias, both locally and nationwide, often is confused regarding the constitutional principles at stake. This confusion understandably focused on the importance of a well regulated militia in the Second Amendment is both misplaced and unnecessary.

Simply put, there are no Second Amendment-related rights at issue in suppressing private militias, nor has any significant court decision ever recognized any.

The Second Amendment often reads mysteriously to contemporary Americans, mostly because it comes down emphatically on one side of a debate that Americans stopped having nearly two centuries ago. The question was: What type of military force can be maintained by a stable republic? A professional army, or a citizen militia?

For a large portion of colonists and subsequent early Americans, the answer was, in no uncertain terms, a citizen militia. The prevailing republican ethos that fueled Americas revolution, imported and nurtured by various British dissidents and Cromwellian republican refugees, viewed a professional army (a standing army in the lingo of the period) as inevitably fatal to republican government, a virtual guarantee of a return to monarchy or some other form of tyranny.

The danger stemmed precisely from the armys professional nature: Paid soldiers were economically dependent on following orders, no matter how extra-legal, unjust or tyrannical those orders might be, rendering them mercenaries in all but name. A government in possession of such power, as all European monarchies were, could never resist the temptation to use it.

On the other hand, a militia composed of armed citizens would respond only to orders that were just and legitimate. With the military function in the hands of the citizenry, a would-be tyrant would have no effective fighting force at his disposal, and republican government would be sustained.

The ideal of the republican militia survived the American Revolution, but the events of the war complicated matters. As the colonial legislatures became independent shadow governments organizing against the British empire, striking the first blows in Lexington and Concord in the spring of 1775, faith in the citizen militias was strong. But the reality of the fighting in and around Boston that year was that the British force involved was small and inexperienced.

Such favorable conditions wouldnt last, and by the end of 1776, a massive army of the Crowns best redcoats and a large contingent of battle-hardened German mercenaries had annihilated the combined militias of New England and roamed the mid-Atlantic almost at will. General Washington, long a militia skeptic, finally had room in the wake of the catastrophe to demand authorization for a professional army, shorn of the colonial militias democratic command structure and complete with pay, imported drill masters, and harsh military discipline.

It was this far more effective but ideologically deviant Continental Army that won the war, with no small help from the uber-monarchical French army and navy.

Even waning ideologies can be durable, and the wartime lessons were of small effect. There was little appetite in early America to move on from the militia, a disposition helped by the public memory of the wars first year, and which settled into an iconography that lasts to this day.

The Continental Army was disbanded promptly upon victory, and the prevailing assumption through the confederation period and among the Constitutional Congress formed in 1787 was that the state militias would be the principal military force of the states and of the United States. Our Constitution as drafted in 1787 reflects that assumption in the militia clauses of Article I.

But the recent war and the judgment of its most illustrious veterans, Washington and Alexander Hamilton, led the Constitutions drafters also to include in Article I a provision for a professional federal army. For several decades, the requirement that the federal army and its funding be formally reauthorized by Congress every two years ensured that it remained a nominal force compared to the state militias.

Nevertheless, the mere possibility that the new Constitution would facilitate the establishment of a standing army provoked an enormous storm of protest. Attachment to the militias remained of fundamental importance to a critical mass of the citizenry, among several points of debate that nearly prevented the Constitution from being ratified.

When the recalcitrant anti-federalists succeeded in agitating to amend the Constitution with a Bill of Rights, the Second and Third Amendments were aimed squarely at preserving the states citizen militias and preventing a federal standing army. State constitutions already had parallel militia and arms-bearing clauses, ensuring that state governments were constrained from establishing professional military forces as well.

The first Congresses and President Washington duly complied with the Constitutions command to regulate the militias, passing the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Militia Act of 1795.

While Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the founding-era state constitutions, and the federal Militia Acts of the 1790s are hardly obscure documents, they specify and implement the original meaning of the Second Amendment and its militia clause in ways that can seem discordant, fantastic, even alien to people steeped in contemporary rhetoric. So it is worth looking squarely at the complex brew of rights and obligations that the anti-federalists attempted to cement immovably in place with the Second Amendment.

Firstly, a well-regulated militia meant universal conscription, every man a soldier as a duty of citizenship and for no compensation. With few exceptions, every free white male between ages 17 and 45 was permanently enrolled and semi-mobilized in times of peace (and, implicitly, fully mobilized during war), including that large contingent of men who did not own land and therefore did not even have the right to vote.

These militiamen were required to serve for their entire adult lives. The average life expectancy of the time was 35 years; as a practical matter, there was no retirement age. Federal law specified at length the type of firearm, ammunition and other supplies that every militiaman was required to buy and maintain for militia duty; functionally, this was an onerous tax in addition to being a draft.

The militiamen answered to an officer corps appointed by their state governments and a chain of command that ended with each states governor. At the election of Congress, all state militias could be put under command of the U.S. president. By 1795, the president did not even need Congress to act in order to take command of the state militias; he could do so on his own authority. A libertarian paradise early America was not, but the alternative was a large professional army that few people wanted and many dreaded.

As decades passed and early Americans endured the heavy burden of militia service, however, that alternative looked better and better. Disillusionment with the militias accelerated after the War of 1812, when their poor performance in battle led again to disasters that finally started to seem predictable.

By the end of the 19th century, hardly anyone complained about Americas permanent professional military and professional law enforcement officers displacing the state militias. By the end of the 20th century, hardly anyone remembered accurately what the state militias were.

But it is worth remembering what they were, as our contemporary world is full of internet-fueled nonsense about what a well-regulated militia was and how it worked. Legions of contemporary firearms enthusiasts insist with equal parts confidence and ignorance that well-regulated had nothing to do with government regulation at all, and that our Constitution enshrines the right of independent bands of armed men to make fundamental decisions about what our laws mean and whether we live in a state of peace or war, all while answerable to no one but themselves. This belief appears to be widespread, passionately held, and often put forth with deliberate menace.

Vermonts Legislature and Gov. Scott should be commended for taking a step against this dangerous vision. It has no redeeming value, no practical promise, and no serious basis in our nations history or law.

Continue reading here:
Noel Hudson: What, exactly, was the well-regulated militia? - VTDigger

The state House Ways and Means Committee heard testimony from citizens, guns rights groups, firearms trainers, district attorneys, Catholic clergy, anti-gun groups and others during a public hearing for what has become a lightning rod of a sweeping gun-related bill on Tuesday.

The bill, HD.4607, An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws, has sparked opposition in the Berkshires, with the Cheshire Select Board, Police Department and town leaders going so far as to send a letter to state Rep. John Barrett III, D-North Adams, asking him not to support HD.4420, the original iteration of the bill.

The bill proposes another step to apply for a gun license namely, an interview with a police officer. It also proposes additional license qualification criteria: applicants cannot have a harassment prevention order against them, nor can they pose a risk to public safety/themselves. The bill would also essentially ban ghost guns, or untraceable, homemade firearms.

The bill further regulates the states assault weapons ban, training for owners and where people are allowed to carry guns.

Signs dotting Berkshire lawns imploring people to stop bill HD.4420 and to contact your state rep, bear the numbers of the originally proposed law, and not the current proposal. The House released amended language last week, with changes where serial numbers are required on guns to combat "ghost guns," and updates a list of banned firearms.

Vicki Zacharewicz of Pittsfield, a volunteer with the Massachusetts chapter of Moms Demand Action, said that shes had conversations with people in Pittsfield and all over Berkshire County about the new proposed laws, and shes heard support.

The response has been overwhelmingly positive, she said. Ive met with members of the District Attorneys office as well as the Pittsfield Police Department, and they support efforts to strengthen gun safety measures.

Second Amendment supporters, as well as Cheshire officials, have argued that the bill doesnt allow possession of commonly used guns. The revised bill seeks to limit that concern by grandfathering in guns already legally owned that will be regulated by the proposed law.

The proposed law says that people must obtain permission to carry a gun before entering a private commercial or residential space its still up to businesses whether to allow firearms. It also would implement a uniform statewide training regimen.

Zacharewicz said Pittsfield Police gave Moms Demand Action 100 gun locks, and the organization has given away more than a third of them in a few months.

Even in this beautiful rural area which I live, it is not difficult to find stories about unsecured firearms in childrens homes, she said.

Zacharewicz noted that Mount Greylock Regional School District and Pittsfield Public Schools adopted secure storage resolutions that commit the schools to disseminate this information to parents on an annual basis.

Anne Thalheimer spoke to the committee in support of the proposal, and evoked the tragic 1992 shooting at Bard College at Simon's Rock in Great Barrington, when a student killed 18-year-old student Galen Gibson and 37-year-old professor Nacunan Saez.

The killer, Wayne Lo, also wounded four others with a semiautomatic assault rifle. Thalheimer said if the proposed law were in place, it would have prevented the shooting.

Among opponents, Michael Harris of the Gun Owners Action League was the first of many to decry what he called disdain from the government toward gun rights. Others said they felt like they were being treated as second-class citizens for owning a gun.

Multiple people who spoke in opposition to the bill were more militantly opposed, stating succinctly, I will not comply. Several opponents took to yelling, one even swore at the committee.

Thomas Swenson of Fitchburg said he believes that the motivation behind the legislation is retribution against the Second Amendment community following the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling in the Bruen case. That ruling struck down a New York state law requiring persons seeking a license to carry a concealed weapon to show "proper cause" that it was necessary for their protection.

Multiple opponents to the bill made frequent references on Tuesday to violence in inner-city neighborhoods, and said the bill does nothing to stop gang violence.

Members of the Black and Latino Caucus stated their strong support for the bill, arguing that the reason for Massachusetts comparatively low level of gun deaths is because of the states stringent laws.

Still, state Rep. Bud Williams, D-Springfield, pointed out more has to be done: In Springfield in 1999 there were seven murders in the whole city. Fast forward to 2023 and theres 27. Thats way too much.

Domestic violence survivor advocates said the bill goes a long way in keeping guns out of the hands of violent/potentially violent partners. One speaker, Jody Marchand, who was in support of the bill, recalled her husbands killing of their 17-year-old daughter in 2010 following a domestic dispute.

More than 160 people were signed up to speak at the beginning of the hearing, which ran into the evening. A House vote and debate on the bill could come as early as this month.

Read more:
Berkshire residents and officials join the debate at the statehouse ... - Berkshire Eagle

This week amicus briefs were filed in United States v. Rahimi, the only Second Amendment merits case currently before the Supreme Court. The docket page for the case is here. I will be blogging later about various briefs in the case. This post describes the amicus brief that I filed, available here.

The case involves the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. sect. 922(g)(8), which imposes a federal prison sentence of up to 15 for persons who possess a firearm while subject to certain state-issued restraining orders. The amici are several law professors, including the VC's Randy Barnett, the Second Amendment Law Center, and the Independence Institute, where I am Research Director. My co-counsel on the brief was Konstandinos T. Moros, of the Michel & Associates law firm, in Long Beach, California.

The bottom line of the brief is that subsection 922(g)(8(C)(i) does not infringe the Second Amendment; it restricts the arms rights of individuals who have been found by a judge to be a "credible threat" to others. In contrast, subsection 922(g)(8(C)(ii) does infringe the Second Amendment, because it does not require any such judicial finding. The brief addresses the question of "who" may be restricted in the exercise of Second Amendment rights; the brief takes no position on questions of "how"such as what due process is required, or whether the severity of 922(g)(8) ban is comparable to historic laws restricting the exercise of arms rights.

The main purpose of the brief is to describe what sorts of historic laws can serve as precedents or analogues for modern gun control laws. The brief agrees with the Solicitor General that modern laws against persons who have been proven to be dangerous are supported by the common law and by historic statutes against persons who carried arms to terrorize the public or threatening to breach the peace.

However, several amici in support of the Solicitor General, as well as the Department of Justice in cases in lower courts, also rely on old laws based on invidious discriminationsuch as against Catholics, slaves, free people of color, and so on. The modern attorneys who cite old discriminatory statutes as precedents in favor of gun control always make a disclaimer that they don't agree with the old laws, but the attorneys then claim that these laws still guide the current meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.

The amicus brief explains the error of such thinking. Arms rights discrimination has been obliterated by constitutional enactments. It is the constitutional enactments that define our constitutional right to arms. The right is not defined by the old abuses that the constitutional enactments were designed to stop:

As legal historian Sir Henry Maine observed, "the movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from Status to Contract." Henry Maine, Ancient Law 182 (1861). Similarly, the progress of the right to arms has been constitutional enactments to repudiate unjust exclusions.

Here is the Summary of Argument:

This brief addresses "who" may be deprived of the right to arms. Some lower courts have had difficulty discerning lessons to draw from historical laws disarming various groups.

Constitutional enactments about the right to arms have added specificity to the right. When a constitutional enactment forbids depriving a particular group of the right to arms, the prior laws targeting that group are repudiated as legitimate precedents from which modern gun control analogies may be drawn.

The 1689 English Bill of Rights, which is part of the British Constitution and was applicable in America, repudiated deprivation of arms rights because of peaceful political disagreement or because of adherence to a Protestant denomination that was not the established Church of England. The 1689 enactment allowed some restrictions based on economic or social class, and did not protect non-Protestants.

The 1788 United States Constitution rejected arms restrictions for persons whose religious scruples did not allow them to "swear" an "oath."

The 1791 Second Amendment rejected arms rights limitations based on religion or class/income. Therefore, the short-lived 1756 anti-Catholic laws in two colonies have no validity as post-1791 precedents for limitations on Second Amendment rights.

The 1865 Thirteenth Amendment abolished all the "badges and incidents" of slavery. Being disarmed is an incident of being enslaved. Hence, the Thirteenth Amendment obliterated the precedential value of earlier statutes forbidding slaves to have arms or allowing possession only with a discretionary license.

All four clauses of section one of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment finished the work. Prior statutes imposing arms restrictions on free people of color were thereafter negated as precedents for arms restrictions.

During the American Revolution, some "Loyalists" still considered themselves "subjects of the King of Great Britain," and not "the people of the United States." Textually, Second Amendment rights inhere only in "the people" of the United States.

Similarly, when the Constitution was ratified, Indians were members of foreign nations. Their relations with the United States were governed by treaties ratified by the Senate. Later, Indians became citizens of the United States, with the right to keep and bear arms. The colonial and Early Republic arms laws about Indians who were members of other nations are valid precedents today for arms laws applying to citizens of foreign nations.

The precedents about members of foreign nations are not useful here, because Mr. Rahimi is a U.S. citizen, and hence one of the people of the United States.

However, as accurately catalogued in the Solicitor General's brief, there is ample original meaning precedent for limiting an individual's arms rights based on a judicial finding that the person poses a danger to others. Therefore, state statutes addressing the same subject as 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8)(C)(i) can comply with the Second Amendment.

While subsection (C)(i) requires finding of "a credible threat," subsection (C)(ii) does not, and therefore is an infringement. The problem could be solved by changing a single word between 922(g)(8)(C)(i) and (ii): "or" to "and." Making (C)(i) and (C)(ii) conjunctive instead of disjunctive would remedy the infringement in (C)(ii).

See the original post:
Old gun controls that were constitutionally repealed are not precedents for modern gun control - Reason

The most grotesque example came in, where else, Texas, where so much of the right-wing constitutional litigation originates. Zackey Rahimi went on a shooting spree in 2020 and 2021, firing his gun in several incidents in Arlington, Texas. While he was doing this, he was subject to a protective order due to domestic violence against his girlfriend. And theres a federal law that prohibits people under such orders to own guns.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, seated in New Orleans and now the countrys most aggressively MAGA-fied, struck down the federal law. Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendments guarantees, all other things equal,the opinion read. Back then, after all, there were no laws against domestic violence. It was a feature, not a bug.

The ruling was widely criticized, and when it was appealed to the Supreme Court, the justices took the case. That is noteworthy. Four justices must vote to hear an appeal. It took a decade after Heller before the court would even consider a major Second Amendment case, and now it is wading back into the controversy less than two years after Bruen. What gives?

See the original post here:
Rahimi: The Case That Might Turn the Court Even More Extreme on Guns - The New Republic

WASHINGTON, D.C.Last week, U.S. Sen. Mike Braun, R-Indiana, and 20 other Republican senators introduced a bill that, if passed, would prevent the president and secretary of Health and Human Services from declaring a public health emergency to impose gun control. The governor of New Mexico did so earlier this month.

The Protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act is cosponsored by senators from Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Braun previously introduced this idea as a bill in 2021 and also as an amendment in July 2023. Braun reasoned that this bill was necessary in the initial press release by saying gun control organizations were encouraging the Biden Administration to administratively restrict your right to keep and bear arms. Sixteen of the cosponsors for the 2023 measure also supported the measure in 2021. U.S. Sen. Todd Young, R-Indiana, supported a similar bill in 2021 but is not currently listed as a cosponsor of this version.

U.S. Sen. Mike Braun, R-Indiana.

This latest attempt comes after Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, D-New Mexico, instituted a public health emergency for part of her state earlier this month, placing a 30-day ban on the right to open or conceal carry firearms in public. When announcing the temporary ban, Lujan Grisham said it was to curb gun violence and illegal drug use in Albuquerque and Bernalillo counties.

Lujan Grishams ban sawbipartisan backlash from the police tasked with enforcing the ban and lawmakers who questioned the constitutionality of the order. The ban drew lawsuits from gun-rights groups as soon as it went into effect. Some lawmakers even went so far as to call for her impeachment.

Many said that public health emergencies would not be abused to impose gun control, but after we saw the vast expansion of executive power during COVID and the New Mexico Governor use a public health emergency to effectively suspend the 2nd Amendment in her state, no one can doubt that this needs to be addressed, Braun said in a press release. We need to set into law that no one can remove the right to defend ourselves and our families with the stroke of a pen.

Lujan Grishams order comes after more that a year of gun-control activist groups calling for the Biden administration and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra to do so at the national level. The groups began urging Biden to make an emergency declaration on gun violencemore persistently after the Robb Elementary School shooting in Ulvade, Texas, in May 2022.

Recently, The Washington Post reported insider scoop on the Biden administrations plans to create a new office to address gun violence.

Greg Jackson, the executive director of the Community Justice Action Fund, and others in gun violence prevention groups could have key roles in the office, according to the Posts sources.

Gun violence is currently the leading cause of premature death in the U.S., with guns killing more than 38,000 people and causing nearly 85,000 injuries each year, according to the American Public Health Association. The American Medical Assocation declared gun violence a public health crisis in 2016 after 20 years of continued gun violence was attributed as a major cause of death in the U.S.

In the press release, Braun raised the potential for the Biden administrations new office to have gun-control activists in these roles as a ploy to declare a public health emergency and impose gun control.

In the press release about the bill, U.S. Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-North Dakota, said, Its simple: terrorist attacks are national emergencies, and pandemics are public health emergencies; gun are neither.

Using legitimate presidential power as a backdoor to violate the Second Amendment is disingenuous at best and diminishes the gravity of real emergencies, he said.

U.S. Sen. Thoms Tillis, R-North Carolina, said in a press release, The illegal action by the Governor of New Mexico to suspend the 2nd Amendment through a public health emergency should be concerning to every American.

I am deeply concerned that this stunt might be replicated on the national level by a left-wing politician in an effort to enact gun control, and Congress must take action to prevent that from ever happening, Tillis said.

After Braun introduced the bill on behalf of himself and the 20 cosponsors in the first congressional session on Sept. 21, the bill was referred to the Senates Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Link:
Second Amendment proponents fear public health emergencies ... - The Statehouse File

The University of Georgia Students for Socialism, Young Democratic Socialists of America and Young Democrats of UGA and Athens-Clarke County voiced their support for the Second Amendment to protect oppressed individuals at the political showdown in the Zell B. Miller Learning Center Thursday night.

Georgia ranks sixth highest in registered weapons, with 304,124 individuals in ownership of a registered weapon in 2021, according to Statista.

Hampton Barrineau, the selected speaker for Young Democratic Socialists of America, responded first. He said that YDSA believes this time of political violence makes it important to ensure that Americans have a protected right to own a firearm.

Ultimately I think it makes sense that communities of color, communities such as trans folks, would want to have some means of self defense in these times, Barrineau said.

Trey Holloway, one of the two representatives for Students for Socialism, voiced a concurring opinion to YDSA. He clarified that while the right to own a firearm for some should be protected, there should also be increased gun control for those who could potentially pose a threat to society, such as domestic abusers.

I think there are certain forms of gun control, of course, that are sensible and should be implemented and most likely would be implemented under a socialist government, Holloway said.

Yasmine Sabere of Young Democrats of UGA and ACC also stated her group's general support of the Second Amendment. She also emphasized their belief that the U.S. must halt firearm manufacturing to allow fewer guns to circulate the market, take away power from gun lobbying groups that fund politicians who vote against gun control policies and increase non-discriminatory background checks.

Gun violence is the leading cause of death amongst children today, which I think is absolutely disgusting and something that we all need to fight against, Sabere said.

Beyond gun control, the three groups also discussed four pre-selected topics: housing, voting, facism and capitalism. They agreed that the lack of rent control in Georgia worsens the housing crisis state-wide and locally.

According to Sabere, with the increase in luxury housing construction in Athens, rent will continue to increase. This could uproot previous residents who cannot afford the new cost of living.

Barrineau stated that while there have been few socialist politicians in office, socialists are slowly making progress in winning public approval, with 60% of voters in support of The Green New Deal and69% of Americans in support of Medicare for all.

While we have not made any major wins yet, we have made small concessions, and we have momentum and never before strength, Barrineau said.

Holloway said that in the wake of the Jan. 6 riots, the need for a working class alternative and a new social system has never been clearer. He said the fight against fascism cannot be separated from the movement of rent control, debt cancellation, universal healthcare and many more demands.

Student Kyndal Coleman decided to come to the debate to hear different perspectives of students on the left.

I think these conversations are really important to have just to know that people are having them or just to know that this space exists, Coleman said.

The event was sponsored by two local aid groups, Lemonaid, a mutual aid group dedicated to feeding unhouses individuals in Athens and Planned Parenthood Generation Action, an organization which advocates for reproductive rights for students at UGA.

Go here to see the original:
UGA political groups debate the Second Amendment at political ... - Red and Black