Category Archives: Second Amendment

The Second Amendmentis one of most fundamental provisions of the Bill of Rights, and one of the most fiercely debated. Since it was first put to paper, legal scholars, gun owners and anti-gun activists have engaged in an endless discussion over the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment, and for most of that time, gun owners have been on the losing side of the argument.

Time and again, the pro- and anti-gun factions of American society have appealed to the Supreme Court, the last judge of the law, for a resolution of their differences. Except in its earliest ruling on the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court held that American citizens had no inherent right to bear arms. According to the highest court in the land, the Second Amendment only protected the states right to maintain a militia, not an individuals right to possess firearms.

Gun owners were not the only ones affected by the Supreme Courts earliest interpretation of the Second Amendment. Under the same ruling that allowed states to restrict gun ownership, states were also allowed to pass laws to favor certain religions, ban certain kinds of speech and outlaw certain kinds of assembly. By restricting the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court left the First Amendment seriously weakened for many years. In a very real way, the right to bear arms is the guarantor of all other rights, and any threat to the Second Amendment endangers the entire Bill of Rights.

It was only in 1925 that the Supreme Court ruled that states had to respect the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. It would take nearly another century for the Supreme Court to protect the Second Amendment from the states and to guarantee an individuals inviolable right to keep and bear arms for hunting and self-defense.

As a gun owner and an American citizen, you have a duty to defend your rights. Simply exercising your right to gun ownership is not enough. Its also imperative you learn the history of landmark Second Amendment Supreme Court cases that have decided and will continue to decide the scope of our gun rights in the years to come.

Originally posted here:
The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment: Understanding ...

In the movieTrue Grit, federal marshal Rooster Cogburn is asked if the gun that he brandished at a crime scene was loaded. Cogburn, played by John Wayne, dryly responds,A gun thats unloaded and cocked aint good for nothing.Something similar might be said of a Supreme Court docket, particularly when there is a Second Amendment case that could prove one of the most impactful decisions of the term.

The court will soon take upNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, more than a decade after its last major gun rights decision. The case promises to be a showdown between the Supreme Court and lower courts, which have been chipping away at the high court's prior Second Amendment rulings.

In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. Two years afterHeller, inMcDonald v. City of Chicago, the court ruled that this right applied against the states.

The new case concerns concealed-carry restrictions underN.Y. Penal Law 400.00(2)(f) that require a showing of proper cause. Lower courts have upheld the New York law, but there are ample constitutional concerns over its vague standard, such as showing that you are of good moral character. The case presents a single short, direct question whether New Yorks denial of petitioners applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

The high court has been carefully waiting for just the right case to address states and cities that have sought to limit gun rights. Indeed, just this week, the courtturned down a challengeof a Wisconsin law imposing a lifetime ban on gun ownership for former felons, including cases involving nonviolent crimes. That and other cases seemedtailor-made for Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote a strong defense of the Second Amendment in a similar case as an appellate judge.

It often is difficult to determine which side of the court supplied the votes to grant review in a case. That is not the situation here. The New York case was clearly accepted by conservative justices with a mind toward reversal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the2nd Circuit.

The selection of a New York case is particularly poignant. Some of the justices were none too pleased with the Big Apple last year when city officials suddenly sought to withdraw a case on the courts docket.New York politicians had passed a law that many of us viewed as unconstitutional, with its imposition of burdensome limits on the transportation of lawful guns from homes. Those politicians publicly thumped their chests about going to the Supreme Court with the law and limiting the Second Amendment precedent; professing absolute confidence, they litigated the law, and, again, the2nd Circuit supported the dubious statute. The Supreme Court accepted the case for review and was expected to overturn the law until New York suddenly changed the law and then quietly sought to withdrawits case before any ruling.

The courtultimately dismissed the casebut did so over the objections of three dissenting justices. It was a rare instance in which the court resisted such a mootness ruling after a party sought to withdraw but, then, few litigants have had the temerity to do what New York did. Justices Samuel AlitoSamuel AlitoA politicized Supreme Court? That was the point Locked and Loaded: Supreme Court is ready for a showdown on the Second Amendment The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Altria - Jan. 6 panel flexes its muscle MORE,Neil GorsuchNeil GorsuchLocked and Loaded: Supreme Court is ready for a showdown on the Second Amendment Justices weigh request for information on CIA's post-9/11 torture program Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over DC representation in Congress MOREandClarence ThomasClarence ThomasA politicized Supreme Court? That was the point Locked and Loaded: Supreme Court is ready for a showdown on the Second Amendment Two conservatives resign from Biden's Supreme Court commission MOREspecifically called out New York for manipulating the docket by withdrawing an unconstitutional law just before a final opinion. Justice Brett KavanaughBrett Michael KavanaughLocked and Loaded: Supreme Court is ready for a showdown on the Second Amendment Why Latinos need Supreme Court reform Feehery: A Republican Congress is needed to fight left's slide to autocracy MORE joined in the condemnation and added menacingly that some federal and state courts may not be properly applyingHellerandMcDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

The court then did precisely that, by accepting a case with the very same plaintiffs:New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.On this occasion, however, the court is unlikely to tolerate another bait-and-switch by state officials trying to withdraw the case at the last minute.

If those four justices are still intent on pushing back on lower courts, they need only Chief Justice John Roberts or Barrett to hand down a major ruling in favor of gun rights.

The briefs filed in the case include groupssuch theCato Institute,which directly confronted the court about it being legally absent without leave on gun rights for more than a decade. Cato has argued that judicial inaction has contributed to the Second Amendments demise. Its no secret that many federal courts have engaged in systematic resistance toHellerandMcDonald.

Many point to the courts statement inHeller,which acknowledged that like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It then listed possible sensitive places for denying permits to former felons. Lower courts limiting gun rights have repeated those lines like a mantra, and the high court appears poised to bring clarity to that ambiguity.

Bruenhas many of the same elements asHeller, including a rich historical discussion of what gun ownership has meant through history. Notably, English subjects in the American colonies were the first to receive written guarantees of the right to bear arms for self-defense;settlers of the Virginia colony in 1607 and the New England colony in 1620 were subjects under royal charters recognizing that right. In England, the right to bear arms was formally declared in the 1689 Declaration of Rights that stated that the right to arms was among the subjects true, ancient and indubitable rights.

That history will weigh heavily in the court defining the right of people to carry weapons in self-defense outside of the home. In many ways,Bruenis the shot not taken last year inNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York.Now the same plaintiffs are back, and New York has supplied another perfect case for the expansion of gun rights. So if you are wondering ifBruenis loaded, at least four justices are likely to agree that a Second Amendment case thats unloaded and cocked aint good for nothing.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter@JonathanTurley.

Go here to read the rest:
Locked and Loaded: Supreme Court is ready for a showdown on the Second Amendment | TheHill - The Hill

By TCR Staff | October 20, 2021

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant has been asked by several gun owners to issue a temporary restraining order blocking a novel ban on non-serialized, unfinished, untraceable firearms known as ghost guns signed into law by San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria law, which is set to go into effect Oct. 23, 2021, and may violate state law allowing gun owners to assemble their own weapons, reports the Courthouse News Service. The Second Amendment proponents are suggesting San Diegos ban criminalizes legal conduct rather than preventing untraceable weapons from getting into the wrong hands.

Attorneys for the gun owners argued San Diegos ordinance was an outlier in California, where those who want to DIY assemble their own firearms must apply for and receive a California Department of Justice-issued serial number to engrave or permanently affix to their firearm within 10 days of assembling it. According to the mayors office, in 2020 San Diego saw a 169 percent increase in the number of ghost guns retrieved and impounded compared to the previous year.

Read the original post:
Second Amendment Backers Want San Diego Ban on Ghost Guns Reversed - Crime Report

Following my piece in the Northwestern Law Review, the last post compared the individual accountability and understanding of responsibilities of gun owners and civil jurors. In this post, I turn to the second major difference between the Second and Seventh Amendments: the distinction between substantive and procedural rights.

Here some definitions are in order. For purposes of this argument, what is a substantive or a procedural right? The meaning of the terms "substance" and "procedure" are not always obvious. The line can be blurry. There will always be some degree of arbitrariness in drawing any legal line, including a line between substance and procedure. Also, a line between categories may be drawn in different places for different purposes.

For purposes of this framework for constitutional rights, substantive rules govern primary conduct outside litigation. That primary conduct may be either the citizen's or the government's. Clear substantive rules provide better guidance about what conduct is permitted and what is not. They improve knowledge of the law, and predictability of the system.

Procedural rules, by contrast, regulate the means by which government adjudicates certain disputes. Separate rules of procedure allow the procedural system to focus more precisely on efficiency and accuracy of adjudication. Again, this enhances knowledge of consequences and predictability. In short, the distinction between substance and procedure is important to the rule of law.

Not everything in the U.S. Constitution is a substantive or procedural right. The vast majority of the provisions of the U.S. Constitution are structural provisions; they set out the rules for establishing and running the federal government and its relations to the states and to foreign powers. Substantive and procedural rights are not structural in this sense.

Applying this distinction between substance and procedure, here is a table setting out the division among the provisions of the first eight amendments to the U.S. Constitution:

Division Among the Provisions of the First Eight Amendments to theU.S. Constitution

Some classifications in this table may seem surprising. Two special notes are in order. First, the Eighth Amendment bans on excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments are classified as substantive rights. The punishment that may be imposed for crime has traditionally, and rightly, been understood as part of substantive criminal law, not procedure. In contrast, the method of sentencing is procedural.

Second, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the first clause of the Fourth Amendment, is a substantive right. But, to a large extent, the U.S. Supreme Court has transformed that substantive right into a procedural right. This happened in the decision to require the exclusionary rule as a constitutional matter. Instead of the focus being on the substantive rightwas a search or seizure unreasonable?the focus is on whether evidence will be excluded from a criminal trial. But the U.S. Supreme Court has been slowly peeling away the procedural right of exclusion, so there is hope for a more substantive emphasis.

To elaborate further on the distinction between substantive and procedural rights, a "substantive" right does not purport to require a particular procedure in the legal system, and it is compatible with a variety of possible legal systems, including adversarial and inquisitorial systems. In contrast, a specific "procedural" right attempts to ensure the availability of a particular practice to an individual in a legal proceeding, or to require a government official in a legal proceeding to follow a particular practice. These provisions are not compatible with a wide variety of legal systems. They shape a legal system.

In this framework, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is clearly a substantive right. It's compatible with a variety of legal systems, and does not affect the means of adjudication. On the other hand, the Seventh Amendment right to civil jury trial is not compatible with various legal systems and very much affects the means of adjudication. It's a procedural right.

At the end of Federalist No. 83, Hamilton issued a strong warning against constitutionalizing a right to civil jury trial. Concerning the civil jury, he explained, there was need for flexibility to accommodate "the changes which are continually happening in the affairs of society." England, as well as the American states, had reduced the use of civil jury trial, which suggested that its previous extent had been "found inconvenient." There was reason to suspect, he wrote, that this process of limiting the use of juries would continue. In the case of civil jury trial, Hamilton wrote, "I suspect it to be impossible in the nature of the thing, to fix the salutary point at which the operation of the institution ought to stop; and this is with me a strong argument for leaving the matter to the discretion of the legislature." It was better to rely on the structure of government for permanent effects, rather than particular rights. "Particular provisions, though not altogether useless, have far less virtue and efficacy than are commonly ascribed to them ."

But the Anti-Federalists rejected Hamilton's warnings about piecemeal rights and insisted on a constitutional right to civil jury trial. To avoid what he saw as a real danger of a second constitutional convention, James Madison drafted a series of amendments to the new Constitution that included a right to civil jury trial, in what became the Seventh Amendment. (See Rene Lettow Lerner, The Failure of Originalism in Preserving Constitutional Rights to Civil Jury Trial, 22 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 811, 827-828 & n. 96 (2014).)

The danger that Hamilton warned aboutof putting a straitjacket on legislatures and blocking useful reformis powerful but subtle with respect to procedural rights. Substantive rights have a core that can be meaningfully interpreted and protected. They can exist independently of a particular government or a particular legal system. Thus the addition or subtraction of a substantive right does not alter the legal system, the means of adjudicating cases, as a whole. But procedural rights are different. Procedural rights do not have such an independent core because they are necessarily embedded in a whole system of legal procedure. They alter that system, and they depend on that system for their meaning.

The next post demonstrates that specific procedural rights are not compatible with all legal systems; they block reform. The U.S. Supreme Court's struggles over incorporation of federal constitutional provisions against the states reflect these problems with procedural rights.

Excerpt from:
The Second Amendment vs. the Seventh Amendment: The Distinction Between Substantive and Procedural Rights - Reason

In yesterday's post, I laid out two fundamental differences between the Second and Seventh Amendments that I discuss in a piece in the Northwestern Law Review. In this post, I address the first difference: I compare the individual responsibility and understanding of responsibilities of gun owners and civil jurors.

Successful public policy depends on paying close attention to the accountability principle. Who is accountable, and how is that accountability enforced? Incentives matter. Gun owners and users have considerable incentives to behave responsibly; civil jurors have very few.

Incentives and knowledge of gun owners and users

Gun owners and users have direct, individual responsibility for their actions. They have an incentive to be careful because of concern for the safety of their families and friends. And if they do something foolish or malicious with a gun, they are individually liablenot just liable under civil law but also criminal law. They may be sued or prosecuted for what they do. Such individual liability has a way of focusing the mind.

This individual responsibility seems to influence behavior. Proponents of gun-carry bans predicted mayhem in the streets after Florida passed a permissive concealed-carry law in 1987. But these dire predictions have not come to pass. Permissive concealed-carry laws appear to have had no adverse effect on public safety. In 1995, the New York Times admitted that "Florida's experience has generally provided strong arguments for proponents of the right-to-carry bills . Even those who opposed the measure said it had not led to the increase in violence they had feared. [H]andgun-related homicides in Florida dropped by 29 percent from 1987 to 1992 ." (Sam Howe Verhovek, States Seek to Let Citizens Carry Concealed Weapons, N.Y. Times, Mar. 6, 1995, at A1, A14.)

The most solid data available on crime rates for legal gun owners in the United States concern holders of concealed-carry licenses. States generally keep track of how many licenses are issued, and the crimes that holders of these licenses commit. John Lott has made calculations using such data; I have followed his general method, but have used different data. There may well be differences between the crime profiles of carry license holders and those of other legal gun owners. But for now, the best data we have concerns carry permit holders.

The data show that concealed-carry permit holders are remarkably law-abiding. And there are a lot of them. According to statistics through April 30, 2021, Florida alone had 2,363,898 valid concealed-carry license holders. For the period from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020, Florida revoked 1,546 concealed-carry permits. Using these numbers, which are close in time, this is an annual revocation rate of just under 0.068%hundredths of a percent. Florida requires revocation of these licenses for all felony convictions and certain misdemeanor convictions, and there is an option to revoke in certain instances such as mental or physical incapacitation. To provide some comparison, in 2019 the rate of violent crime in Florida as a percentage of the population was 0.382%.As I explain in the Northwestern Law Review article (pp. 282-83), the crime rates of carry-permit holders are low in otherstates as well. They may even be lower than that of police officers.

The data therefore suggest that legal gun owners and users are careful to obey the law. Furthermore, the legal responsibilities that gun owners and users have are relatively simple and readily understood by ordinary persons. It doesn't require an advanced degree to understand the notion of reckless endangerment, or the possible consequences of a toddler getting hold of a loaded gun. To be sure, certain requirements that governments impose can be precise, such as storing guns in a locked container unless they are equipped with certain safety devices. But again, these requirements are not difficult to understand.

This ability to understand, together with concern about consequences, affects not only crime rates, but accident rates. Gun accidents are extremely rare, except among a small, identifiable subset of the population. As Gary Kleck put it in his 1997 book Targeting Guns, p. 321, "Gun accidents are generally committed by unusually reckless people with records of heavy drinking, repeated involvement in automobile crashes, many traffic citations, and prior arrests for assault." Notwithstanding these reckless folks, accidental firearms deaths have been falling for the past four decades, including for children, and are today at an all-time low. (Nicholas J. Johnson, David B. Kopel, George A. Mocsary & Michael P. O'Shea, Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy 18, 22-25 (2d ed. 2018).)

Civil jurors: collective decision-making and confusion

Contrast the individual responsibility of gun owners and usersand their ability to understand their responsibilitywith that of civil jurors. Juries are designed precisely to avoid individual responsibility. English high court judge and criminologist James Fitzjames Stephen pointed out that the traditional number of jurorstwelveis enough to preclude any notion of individual responsibility. The modern move to six jurors focuses responsibility somewhat more, but still leaves individual jurors with cover. The traditional requirement of unanimity further shields jurors from individual responsibility. Unless the parties agree otherwise, federal civil juries are still required to be unanimous. And jury deliberations occur in secret. Jurors do not give reasons for what they do.

Not only do jurors engage in purely collective, secret decision-making, they are entirely shielded from the consequences of a faulty decision. If a jury completely misunderstands the evidence, or the instructions on the law, or is improperly swayed by the emotional arguments of counsel, or flagrantly disregards the law or the evidence, there is no consequence to the jurors whatsoever. The judge congratulates the jurors on reaching a verdict and thanks them profusely for their service, regardless of whether they have botched the decision.

The consequences of civil jurors' lack of individual responsibility for their decisions are legion. One of the most salient has to do with giving away other peoples' money. Studies have consistently shown that the area of greatest disagreement between judges and jurors is damages. (See my Northwestern piece at p. 284, note 31.) Judges do have some individual responsibility for their decisions. Judges are named as the decision-makers, either alone or in a small group; must generally give reasons for their decisions; usually care about reversal by appellate courts; and often are concerned about their reputations among other judges and lawyers. Jurors lack almost all these characteristics. There is therefore some constraint on judges in awarding damages that there is not on jurors. Jurors are prone to the typical effects on most humans of spending others' money on someone else, with no accountability. The problem is well illustrated by the 2009 tweet of an Arkansas civil juror: "I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money!"

But even if a juror is soberly trying to do his or her level best, the task is daunting. Civil cases today are often complicated. Many studies have shown that jurors have trouble understanding the judge's instructions on the law, especially concerning damages. (See my Northwestern piece at p. 284, note 31.)

Jurors also can have difficulty understanding the facts. Much evidence today concerns complex transactions or advanced technology, and is in scientific or mathematical form. These topics and forms of evidence do not play to the strengths of ordinary jurorsparticularly when one side has great incentive to remove anyone educated from the jury. And dueling partisan expert witnesses can add to juror confusion. Jurors are often baffled. As a result, litigators presenting a case to a jury go to great lengths to reduce the case to simple terms. In the process, the issues can be hopelessly distorted. For example, a litigant at trial in an intellectual property case might strongly emphasize a trade dress claim because that is easier for jurors to understand, and thus hope to win jurors' favor on a complicated patent infringement claim, which is really the most important issue in the case.

Unlike gun owners, civil jurors lack individual responsibility and have difficulty understanding the tasks that they are assigned. This lack of accountability and confusion were why civil juries were controversial at the time of the founding.

The next post dives into Alexander Hamilton's critique of the civil jury and concern about constitutionalizing such a right. This leads into the second major difference between the Second Amendment and the Seventh: the difference between substantive and procedural rights.

Follow this link:
The Second Amendment vs. the Seventh Amendment: Accountability and Understanding of Gun Owners and Civil Jurors - Reason

The Sheridan City Council considered second reading of ordinance 2238 that changes the Citys current sign code in order to be in compliance with a Supreme Court ruling in 2015, Reed vs. the Town of Gilbert, Arizona. Prior to Councils unanimous approval at their meeting Monday night, two amendments to the ordinance were approved. City Attorney Brendon Kerns explains the first amendment states that signs will be presumed to be on private property if located seven feet from the curb or two feet from the sidewalk or placed on a structure or fence.

The second amendment that was approved removes the 90-day limit on temporary signs.

Council also approved a resolution for cessation of the recoupment agreement process and received a presentation from City Treasurer Karen Burtis on the latest sales and use tax numbers and the Citys quarterly financial report. Well have more from the Council meeting in future stories.

Read this article:
Sign Ordinance Approved on Second Reading With Amendments - Sheridan Media

VALE The Malheur County Court is expected to send a letter to Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum regarding its status as a Second Amendment Sanctuary, which has been in place since the court adopted an ordinance deeming it so in 2015.

Malheur County Sheriff Brian Wolfe on Oct. 6 urged members of the court to lend their support after learning that Rosenblum had just filed lawsuits against Yamhill and Harney counties regarding their resolutions passed in order to protect Second Amendment rights.

The Attorney General has asked circuit court judges in those counties to order that state gun safety laws remain fully in force and fully enforceable, stating that rules in those counties allow a person to sue or seek prosecution of officials who enforce state gun laws.

Wolfe said he was very disappointed in the attorney generals decision to do that and stated that he would like to see the County Court take a leadership role in addressing it in a letter expressing the need for local control on these types of things.

The demographics of Malheur County are sure a lot different that in Western Oregon, Wolfe told the court. Our way of thinking is different. Our way of life is different. There is definitely a cultural divide between the two.

Neighboring Baker County passed a sanctuary status rule in 2018, and the Nyssa City Council did the same in 2020.

Rosenblum acknowledged that other county commissions have enacted similar illegal ordinances. She did not state whether she intended to pursue lawsuits against them, but stated that she hoped the lawsuits against Harney and Yamhill counties send the message, adding that county commissions dont get to override state law.

Malheur County Stephanie Williams was expected to reach out to Harney and Yamhill counties to see how they are addressing the lawsuit.

We have a sanctuary ordinance, Williams noted. We believe in it.

Commissioner Ron Jacobs stated that he was in favor of sending a letter to Brown and Rosenblum to express our desire to have more local control.

County Court members agreed to have Williams draft up a letter so they could keep marching forward on the matter.

The courts next meeting is at 9 a.m. Wednesday.

Excerpt from:
Malheur County Court to tell state it stands firm on local control of gun rights - KPVI News 6

There are six countywide proposals and a handful of local propositions needing voters yeas or nays on the flipside of this elections ballot come Tuesday, November 2. The biggest worry for supporters of ballot propositions is that voters will forget that those questions always get printed on the other side of the paper.

This year the countywide questions include five amendments to the constitution of the state, and another about modifying the charter of the county. All of the legal language is available in an online guide prepared under the supervision of Ashley Dittus, a Democrat, and John Quigley, a Republican, the countys two election commissioners, appointed by their respective parties. For that reason, while Quigley and Dittus agree on what these propositions mean, they do not entirely agree on which ones are good ideas.

Amending the state constitution is a slow process: it requires a statewide referendum, which must be approved in two successive legislative sessions. That takes three years to accomplish, and now there are five referenda on the ballot for consideration. The other way to change the constitution is through a convention, and question of calling one is required to be on the ballot every 20 years. Voters turned that idea down in 2017.

Proposition 1: Enact redistricting reform

The first amendment would set the number of senators in the state at 63, and would also make changes to the process of redrawing legislative district lines, most notably by counting state prisoners based on their last residence before being incarcerated, and striking language that prevents aliens from being counted at all. If the amendment passes, rules for how new congressional and state legislative districts are drawn will remove requirements that the independent commissions co-chairs be members of different parties, for one thing. Passing the amendment would be changing a process that was approved in 2014, and hasnt yet been used, though Ulster County utilized that method in its last local redistricting after the 2010 census.

I think [Democrats] are worried about if they lose control, said Dittus.

How congressional district are drawn in the state matters nationally. Lawmakers are being asked to shore up Democratic districts . . . The amendment is not making it more independent, she said, and it preserves the clause that would allow legislators to draw the lines if they fail to pass the independent proposals. Dittus noted that this is opposed by the League of Women Voters, a group that only infrequently offers a position; county Democrats, on the other hand, maintain that it will remove the partisan bias.

Quigley questions how this amendment would make the process of drawing district lines more independent from lawmakers. Packing the number of senators in with this apportionment proposal is pure politics, the commissioner believes.

Proposition 2: Provide the right to clean air, water, and a healthful environment

The second amendment would create the right to clean air and water and a healthful environment. This would open the door to people go to court to assert that right.

Propositions 3: Allow same-day voter registration

Following this are questions that impact my ability to do my job, said Quigley. The third proposal is to eliminate the rule that a citizen must be registered ten days before an election to vote, making it possible to pass a law allowing for same-day registration.

Proposition 4: Allow no-excuse absentee voting

The fourth amendment removes the need to provide a reason when asking for an absentee ballot. Dittus believes that more young people would vote if they could register at the poll site, and more generally that removing barriers to voting leads to fairer results. Quigley has hesitation around this idea, saying, At the moment, there has not been enough discussion or clarity as to the implementation of these proposals.

Pandemic worries may have increased interest in voting by mail, and Dittus said that there has been a lot of confusion around whether the pandemic was a valid reason. Ballots can be challenged based on that reason, and Dittus said, I would love to put those lawyers out of work. Dittus predicted that if this passes and more voters use the mail, it could lead to ballots being sent automatically. This amendment would not itself change that, however, as absentee ballots must still be requested.

Quigley is indifferent on dropping of excuses, and admits that this is a departure from the party line. Quigley is more interested in being able to confirm the identity of people registering online, as no signature is required in that process. If we can solve verification, it shouldnt matter why you requested it.

Proposition 5: Increase the amount of claims allowed to be heard in New York City Civil Court from the current $25,000 to $50,000

A statewide referendum is required to change the dollar limit of cases heard in the civil courts. Passage of this proposition could reduce some backlog in higher courts by shifting it to the lower.

Proposition 6: Utilization of funds designated for payroll expenses within the County budget

An Ulster County Charter amendment would limit certain types of budget transfers in the county.

Local propositions

The Town of Marlborough will ask voters if the term of office of the Superintendent of Highways should be increased from two years to four years.

Town of New Paltz voters will vote on whether to increase the operating budget of the Elting Memorial Library by $100,000 to the sum of $656,000 annually.

New Paltz Village voters will decide if the New Paltz Volunteer Firefighter Service Award program should be increased from $700 per qualified active volunteer firefighter to $1200 per vol for each calendar year.

In the town of Olive, voters are asked if the yearly operating budget of the Olive Free Library Association should be increased from $148,142 to $168,142.

Shandaken voters will have their say on a proposition asking if the towns annual contribution for the Morton Memorial Library should increase by $10,000 to $54,750 annually and if the operating budget for the Phoenicia Library should also increase y $10,000 to $182,000 annually.

Town of Ulster voters will decide if the town should create an Office of Town Comptroller.

And Woodstock voters will decide if the town should undertake a project to renovate, construct and make improvements to its town offices by spending $2,990,000 and if it should partially finance the project by borrowing (bonding) for $1 million. The balance would come from an already existing Capital Fund.

Vote early

Early voting in Ulster County runs Saturday, October 23-Sunday, October 31, and all registered voters may cast ballots during this period at one of six locations:

1. American Legion in Shokan, 26-28 Mountain Road, Shokan, 12481

2. Midtown Neighborhood Center, 467 Broadway, Kingston, 12401

3. Ellenville Public Library, 40 Center Street, Ellenville, 12428

4. SUNY New Paltz Student Union, 1 Hawk Drive, off S. Manheim Blvd/32N, New Paltz, 12561

5. Marlborough Town Hall, 21 Milron Ruenpike, Milron, 12547

6. Saugerties Senior Center, 207 Market Street Saugeties, 12477

The hours vary by day. Its 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on the weekend days at the beginning and end of the period. During the week, its 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday, Wednesday and Friday; noon to 8 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday. Voters who prefer to wait until November 2 will have been sent a postcard with the address of that polling site.

For more information, see elections.ulstercountyny.gov.

Here is the original post:
Local voter's guide to every ballot proposition in Ulster County - Hudson Valley One

Scott Wiggam| Guest columnist

Ohio has a chance to put an end to corporate entities benefitting from taxpayer-funded contracts while at the same time using that money to deny Ohioans their Second Amendment rights.

It is time for Ohio to enact the Firearm Industry Nondiscrimination (FIND) Act.

More: Ohio bill to ban gun store closures, firearm confiscation during emergencies moves forward

House Bill 297would deny corporations the ability to benefit from taxpayer-funded state or municipal contracts while at the same time holding policies that discriminate against firearm-related businesses.

This legislation wouldnt dictate that corporations cant hold antigun policies. It would simply say those corporations wouldnt be able to profit from state and local municipal contracts and then turn around and spend that money to deny law-abiding citizens their constitutionally protected God-given rights.

It is wrong that taxpayer dollars help to fund those working against their rights.

It is time for Ohio to take a stand.

This proposal wont be without opposition. Big banks especially will howl.

They will point out the billions of dollars they hold in municipal bonds for everything from transaction services with state agencies to projects to build roads and bridges. They will tell lawmakers that this is impossible, that theyre too big to stand up to.

Thats because they have forgotten that it was the taxpayers including Ohios taxpayers that paid the $700 billion bailout in 2008. Now those same banks, including Bank of American and Citigroup, get rich while they impose restrictions on gun companies and fund gun control groups. Those corporate banks are eating away Americas fundamental rights through woke boardroom corporate activism.

Ohio can stand up to these bank bullies. Our lawmakers already have a blueprint to do it too. In 2016 many states, including Ohio, passed nearly identical measures requiring that state contracts not be granted to companies that boycott Israel.

Earlier this Summer, Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott signed the Texas FIND Act. Big banks railed against the proposal, but Texas lawmakers stood strong against corporate special interests and extreme gun control groups that have gotten fat off of taxpayer-funded contracts. They said enough was enough.

More: Mothers of Columbus homicide victims march through streets to call for end to gun violence

Texass law doesnt force the state to end contracts with corporations. It simply requires corporation that seek to do business with the state and local municipalities to certify that they hold no policies discriminating against firearms or ammunition and wont hold those policies while the state contracts are in force.

Corporations that have contracts can continue to compete for them. They just have stop unfairly discriminating against an industry that provides the means for Second Amendment rights.

If those banks and other corporations that provide services to the states dont want to abandon their discriminatory policies, there will be new business opportunities for local entities. Big banks threatened Texas lawmakers that no one could handle the billions in assets they provide to the states.

They forgot about the little guys the state and regional banks. The Independent Bankers Association of Texas said the law wasnt an obstacle, but a business opportunity. Corporations unwilling to abandon their campaign of imposing woke policies could easily be supplanted by local businesses. That keeps taxpayer money flowing to local businesses. For Ohio, that would mean Ohio tax dollars benefit Ohio businesses and dont get carried off to fill fat cat wallets on Wall Street.

Thats not just smart policy. Thats smart business.

In Ohio, over 12,000 jobs are tied to the firearm and ammunition industry. Those jobs pay over a half a billion dollars in annual wages and generate $1.7 billion in economic activity. These businesses paid $202 million in federal and state taxes and an additional $32.7 million in excise taxes that benefits wildlife conservation, including right here in Ohio.

Yet these businesses are targeted by woke corporations because they despise what they represent. They provide firearms that law-abiding gun owners use every day. Firearm-related businesses are especially in the crosshairs of these discriminating corporations because they provide the means to gun owners to exercise their Second Amendment right to lawfully use firearms for recreational shooting, hunting, and self-defense.

Ohio needs its own FIND Act. Ohios lawmakers must make this a priority. Bring Ohio values to the Buckeye State and stop importing woke corporate activism that denies our states citizens their rights.

Scott Wiggam is the State Representative for the 1st Ohio House District, which encompasses all of Wayne County.

See the original post:
Ohio must stand against companies that deny 'constitutionally protected God-given rights' to firearms - The Columbus Dispatch

Attorney General Josh Stein speaks at the Emergency Operations Center in Raleigh. Photo via N.C. Dept. of Public Safety

RALEIGH At the end of September, North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein joined 20 other Democratic attorneys general in defense of a Pennsylvania law that would grant conceal carry licenses only to persons 21 years or older.

The other states were California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia,

According to a press statement, Stein filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that states have the right to enact reasonable, age-based gun protections to keep people safe and prevent gun violence. The brief was filed on Sept. 29.

North Carolinians have become too familiar with school and college shootings, Stein said in a news release. We must protect our kids and our communities from rising gun violence and keep guns out of the wrong hands. Im filing this brief to ensure that North Carolina and other states can continue to take commonsense steps to protect the public.

The case in question,Lara v. Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police,is working its way through the Third Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. The case was brought against Col. Robert Evanchick, commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police, by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition.

Weve filed this action because the situation in Pennsylvania smacks of discrimination against young adults in the 18-20-year age group, SAF founder and executive vice president Alan M. Gottlieb said in a statement. Young adults can join the military, where they might be assigned to carry firearms all over the world. They can get married, start businesses, enter into contracts and yet they are not considered mature enough to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Thats nonsense.

The text of the Second Amendment makes clear that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and nothing in Americas history or tradition supports Pennsylvanias laws banning carry by young adults, wrote Adam Kraut, FPCs director of legal strategy and co-counsel for the plaintiffs. Pennsylvanias statutory scheme unconstitutionally and impermissibly denies young adults their fundamental, individual right to bear arms outside the home. Through this case, we seek to vindicate our clients rights and restore individual liberty for millions of young adults.

Steins release says that North Carolina has a similar law. North Carolina concealed-carry permits are also restricted 21 years and older.

That Attorney General Josh Stein would again argue for curtailing civil liberties is no surprise, Grassroots North Carolina President Paul Valone told North State Journal in an email.

Grassroots North Carolina is the states largest firearms advocacy and education group.

If he was truly interested in age-based safety measures, he would advocate raising the minimum age for a drivers license to twenty-one, since vehicle deaths among teens vastly outnumber gun-related deaths, Valone said. He does not because his goal is not safety, but rather increased control over citizens.

Follow this link:
NC attorney general joins other Dem AGs' move to limit concealed carry to 21+ - North State Journal