Category Archives: Second Amendment

He's sitting out on his front porch in the late afternoon with a can of beer. Bothering no one.

We speak to him as we walk by; we always do. He has complimented our dogs before; we know each other by sight, but we've never had a conversation of consequence before.

But today he has something to say. "They shot up my house, you know."

We didn't, and I guess our faces expressed some surprise.

"Yeah, the other night I was sitting there in the front room, where I work on trains, and one came through the wall to the left of me and another, higher, to my right."

It was the gangs, he said, who park in the alley alongside his house and play their music loud and smoke crack. He says they've been doing that since the alley was opened up. When it was a dead end, he didn't have the problem.

"They hide back there so the cops can't see them," he says. "Like the cops look for anything besides donuts around here."

But the police responded to his call. Found the brass casings in the street.

"They weren't good shots," he says, meaning, I guess, that they didn't hit him. "I told the cop I was going to get a gun. And that when they came back I was going to kill them. He said, 'You have to defend yourself.' "

Our friend seems to take the police officer's words as an endorsement of his plan. I think the officer may have been warning him that there had to be a reasonable threat present for him to employ deadly force. But I wasn't there, so I refrain from offering any legal advice.

We commiserate for a few more moments, then continue on our way. As we start to walk off, our neighbor wryly observes that some people just think they're safe.

I don't disagree with him.

Bad things happen in our dangerous world all the time. If you live in it, you're going to catch your share of flak. Sometimes it's cancer, sometimes it's a stray bullet. No matter what precautions you take, there's still risk. Sometimes the ways we defend ourselves are inadequate. Sometimes things just break wrong for you.

Still, it's prudent to lock your doors, to wear a seat belt, to mask up and to be vaccinated. To wear a bike helmet. Some people think having a handgun and a concealed carry permit make them safer, though statistics don't seem to bear this out. It's a choice you have to work out for yourself.

Most of the gun owners I know are highly responsible; they lock their weapons up in safes and only take them out when they mean to give their full attention to the activity involving their rifle or handgun. They don't harbor fantasies about taking out bad guys, they don't post looney paranoid screeds on Facebook.

Most of them understand that what passes for the gun-rights debate in this country is hyperbolic silliness. No serious person wants to take away their guns; the Second Amendment probably doesn't give everyone the right to own a grenade launcher.

Even most NRA members favor background checks and more stringent enforcement of existing gun laws. That's because they're adults who understand that most of the noise about so-called gun control is generated in the service of fundraising.

In a way, America's gun problem is like climate change. There's not much we can do other than nibble at the periphery of the problem. We're not rolling back the years. Guns are like the poor; they'll always be with us, fundamental totems of our culture for better and for worse.

Sometimes I think that if I didn't fool around with golf clubs and guitars, I could really get into guns. I admit that I'm fascinated by the tech and have a weakness for tools that are machined to close tolerances. If and when this pandemic ever lets up I might sign up for a woodworking class, to learn to use routers and how to allow for the kerf.

I like gear and avoid standing too long before the showcase counters in the sporting goods stores. I could be drawn into the .357 Magnum versus 9 mm revolver versus semi-automatic pistol debate; I am nerd enough to care about the nuances of gunsmithing.

But then, more than most, I've seen what damage people can inflict on one another, and how that damage is multiplied by weapons. I've seen people who have been shot dead and know how it feels to be shot at. (It was nothing personal, the bullets were meant for the undercover detectives in the car.)

And I know how erratic and misguided people can be, and how we all are susceptible to trusting our fallible instincts. The best of us will at times fail to do what we ought to do, and we all struggle to live with our mistakes. I understand why my neighbor whose house was shot up would want a gun, yet am not sure that his having one will solve anyone's problems.

But he has to defend himself.

Some police officers will tell you that, despite the slogan, their job is not to protect the public. They don't proactively prevent crime; they interact with victims. Their visible presence on the streets might or might not deter a criminal. It depends on whether the criminal is able and willing to be rational.

We understand some crime is committed by desperate people without much hope of recovering their place in society. Encountering these people is dangerous, and maybe the best we can do is to stay alert and hope our luck holds. But crimes of opportunity can and are prevented by the rational measures we take. We lock our doors, we encrypt our files. Some of us buy a gun and hope we never have to use it.

Some of us buy a gun and just hope somebody tries us.

I don't mind people having guns. But I don't delude myself into thinking it makes the world safer. It just adds another variable. People think it clarifies things when it just further complicates the world. Five pounds of pressure pulls the average trigger; if you hot-rod your weapon maybe it only takes two pounds.

You don't have to be strong to pull a trigger.

You don't have to be right, either.

pmartin@adgnewsroom.com

Read more at

http://www.blooddirtangels.com

Read this article:
My neighbor and his gun - Arkansas Online

Gene Policinski

By GENE POLICINSKIFreedom Forum

Americans deeply value their First Amendment rights to freely worship and to freely voice their views, but we are deeply divided on how to apply and regulate those freedoms, anewly released survey discloses.

Therein is the 21st century challenge: Balancing long-protected freedoms against shortcuts through the First Amendment in the name of combatting societys ills or protecting individual beliefs.

The First Amendment: Where America Standsis a survey commissioned by the nonpartisan Freedom Forum. The survey sampled a representative group of more than 3,000 Americans on their attitudes and values about the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.

For those who see these five freedoms as essential to democracy, there are welcome results in the survey: 94% of respondents see the First Amendment as vital and 63% would keep the 45 words of the amendment as adopted in 1791.

But no surprise in our polarized society 23% of all those polled would make some changes. A smaller group, 15% of respondents, said our core freedoms go too far.

The results reflect a time when Americans are much more active in testing both the protections of and limits on our freedoms. Were engaged in court battles over how broadly religious liberty protects individual choices when those choices run counter to social movements. More of us have taken to the streets in recent years than in decades, but that resurgence has produced a conservative backlash in more than 40 state legislatures that threatens to chill the democratic principles of freely speaking truth to power that Americans prize.

For example, 36% percent of us would add new limits on free speech to battle hate speech raising the deep challenge that what some see as hateful speech may be seen by others as simply the expression of a deeply held view or belief.

Some results may forecast a lessening of support for the five freedoms: 45% of people say they have not expressed an opinion for fear of negative reaction, with younger Americans more likely to say they have self-censored. The survey found 49% never have shared a political opinion on social media.Just three percent say the right of petition to publicly seek change in government policies or laws is the First Amendment freedom they value most; 69% of us never have participated in a rally, protest or march.

In an echo ofFreedom Forum surveys since 1997, the new Where America Stands found many of us lack fundamental understanding of the First Amendment. About one in five (18%) couldnt name one freedom in the amendment. Of those who could name at least one: 78% could identify free speech, followed by 49% naming religion, 39% assembly, 34% free press and 14% the right of petition. Just nine percent correctly identified all five.

There were some freedoms that respondents mistakenly thought are in the First Amendment: 18% percent said it protects the right to bear arms, which is the Second Amendment. Others said the right to vote (17%). Voting is considered the ultimate expression of the right of petition, but its not explicitly mentioned in the amendment. Some named the right to due process (15%), which is established by the Fifth and 14th Amendments.

Some findings are more in the vein of wishful thinking than practical suggestions which doesnt mean we should ignore the sentiments. The survey found that 72% would outlaw political ads that misrepresent the truth. In an era of constant battles with misinformation, particularly online, thats certainly a worthy goal. But the sentiment raises a multitude of conflicting questions: What is truth? How can we apply such laws without raising the specter of partisan censorship?

Then there is public opinion regarding a free press. A majority 58% see the news media as an essential watchdog on government, one of the core reasons the nations founders provided such strong protection for independent journalism even the highly partisan newspapers and journals of their time.

But only 14% of respondents expressed strong trust in the news media of today, with public broadcasting rated highest. The survey also confirmed widespread polling in recent years that shows a majority of us live in so-called news bubbles just 38% of respondents look to news outlets with different perspectives than their own.

More than two-thirds of those responding to the survey (69%) said social media companies should be responsible for whats posted on their sites. But that desire raises the likelihood that in holding Twitter, Facebook and others accountable we will prompt much tighter restrictions by those companies on what we are able to post with some predicting the death of social media as we know it and the installation of cumbersome government regulations and processes.

More than any other, that social media quandary typifies the survey findings. New technologies and deep political and social divides challenge our traditional shared notions of freedoms. We have heavy debate and momentous decisions ahead.

But the survey shows far too many of us lack basic knowledge about the First Amendment to debate and decide in an informed way.

When it comes to our core freedoms, ignorance is not bliss, particularly when combined with fear and lack of engagement that can drive hasty actions and prompt political opportunists.

Ignorance about our rights is dangerous for democracy.

Find the full survey results atWhereAmericaStands.org.

. . .

Gene Policinski is a Freedom Forum senior fellow for the First Amendment.You can reach Gene Policinski at[emailprotected].

Originally posted here:
FIRST 5: Survey says we like 1st Amendment rights, whatever they are - Salina Post

The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) President Taylor Eighmy recently announced that the university would no longer use the phrase Come and Take It in any official capacity.

Why? Eighmy wrote that he made this decision because the phrase has become increasingly affiliated with cultural and political issues beyond its traditional historical context.

Though he largely dances around the issue at hand and refuses to name any specific groups that use it, the phrase itself is largely synonymous with standing up to overbearing authority and oppressive forces. Though popular among many Second Amendment supporters, a search shows its use is not limited to any specific political outlook or causethis is a concession Eighmy is forced to make in his letter.

As for UTSAs use of the phrase, it was initially suggested for use in 2011, and the schools football team began formally using it in 2016, when then-head coach Frank Wilson introduced it as a new tradition for the Roadrunners. With this tradition also came a flag, featuring the UTSA mascot along with the phrase.

Traditions at athletics events are essential to the fan experience, UTSA Associate Vice President/Director of Athletics Lynn Hickey said at the time. The Come and Take It flag has already been adopted by our fans and this new tradition will help elevate our home field advantage entering the fourth quarter. Its a show of support by our fans that were not backing down. Were very excited to see this take off.

A few years later, a former UTSA professor started a petition to have the phrase removed, claiming that the phrase is steeped in racist ideology and racist history, according to local media. That petition, which garnered fewer than 1,000 signatures, referenced the Battle of Gonzales, which took place not too far from where UTSA is located and was the advent of the Texas revolution.

In 1835, Mexican forces dispatched 100 troops to the small town of Gonzales, Texas, to confiscate a small cannon originally given to the townsfolk by Mexico to help defend against raiding forces. In response, the townspeople said, Come and take it, via a flag with an image of a cannon and the phrase. The Mexican forces were later forced to retreat to San Antonio, and this event kick started the Texas revolution.

Of course, the phrase actually long predates the Battle of Gonzales; it goes all the way back to the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., when the Spartan King Leonidas rebuked Xerxes and the much-larger force of the Persian Empire after Xerxes demanded the Spartans surrender their weapons.

So despite the phrases obvious history as a rallying cry of standing up to tyranny and oppression, the school nonetheless decided that it must go to appeasewhat?

This is a ridiculous and unconvincing copout, as similar things could be said about virtually any common symbol, image or phrase, including the American flag itself, wrote the NRA Institute for Legislative Action after the decision.

Read the original here:
University Removes Phrase Come and Take It - America's 1st Freedom

WASHINGTON (WV News) Congresswoman Carol Miller (R-WV) has offered four amendments related to the Biden Administrations withdrawal from Afghanistan to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Congresswoman Miller spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives urging their passage.

Congresswoman Carol Miller (R-WV) spoke on the House floor introducing four amendments to the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act to hold the Biden Administration accountable for its disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and honor the 13 service members killed in Kabul in August 2021.

Learn more about Congresswoman Miller on:

Website: https://miller.house.gov/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RepCarolMiller/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/RepCarolMiller

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/repcarolmiller/

The first amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress a briefing on the status of Afghan women and girls under Taliban rule, compared to the last decade, as a result of America's pull out of Afghanistan.

The second would hold the Biden Administration accountable by ensuring a complete report to Congress on the total amount of money and classified materials left behind during the hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The third would block any taxpayer dollars from being used to work with the Taliban. It would also block funding for military cooperation and intelligence sharing between the United States and the Taliban.

The fourth would direct the Department of Defense to construct a memorial honoring the 13 U.S. service members who lost their lives protecting Americans and our allies at the Hamid Karzai International Airport on August 26, 2021. All four of Congresswoman Miller's amendments as well as the NDAA passed with bipartisan support.

The following are the remarks the Congresswoman made in support of her ammendments:

I rise in support of this bill, and the four amendments Ive submitted. My first amendment will require a report on the status of women in Afghanistan. The rights we had fought to secure for them are in dire peril.

"My second amendment will hold the administration accountable by requesting a report on the amount of money and materials left behind in Afghanistan during the withdrawal.

"The third ensures no taxpayer dollars are wasted working with the Taliban and blocks any funding for intelligence sharing. With the deadly events at the airport in Kabul, the Taliban proved they cant be trusted.

"My final amendment will establish a memorial for the thirteen service members who perished securing the airport.

"These brave men and women lost their lives protecting Americans and our allies. This memorial would ensure they are never forgotten for their sacrifice, Miller said.

See the rest here:
West Virginia Congresswoman Miller offers amendments to National Defense Authorization Act in response to Biden Administration's handling of...

Lansing Gun rights advocates gathered outside the Capitol Thursday for an annual Second Amendment rally that occurred undernovel circumstances this year.

Amid cold, windand rain, individuals were not allowed inside the Capitol while openly carrying their weapons a new policy that advocates said they plan to challenge.

Open carry advocates could be filing a challenge in the next six months of the open carry ban implemented in January by the Michigan State Capitol Commission, said Skip Coryell, founder of Thursday's Second Amendment March.

Coryell said the ban is unconstitutional and believes it was a reactionary measure to individuals who intimidated state legislators during an April 30, 2020 pandemic protest, when several peopletauntedlawmakers from the Senate gallery while fully armed and attempted to gain access to the House floor.

"They abused their Second Amendment rights," Coryell said. "That's the way gun legislation works. Anti-gun laws you have one person who abuses their right, does something wrong and then they'll pass something against them. Who suffers? Everyone who obeys the law."

As of late Thursday morning, none of the participants had attempted to enter the Capitol while openly carrying, said Michigan State Police First Lt. Darren Green.

Organizers on Thursday touted their success last November in blocking a directive from Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson that would have banned the open carry of firearms at polling locations.

"There's never been an incident at the polling places here in Michigan," said Brenden Boudreauof Great Lakes Gun Rights. "...It's government officials taking advantage of instances to push an agenda. They're not even going through the Legislature. They're doing it dishonestly through executive fiat."

Other advocates criticized Michigan's permitting rules for concealed carry, which they said are some of the most burdensome in the nation.

Joe and Faith O'Brien of Grand Rapids attended Thursday to show support for gun rights and make sure state leaders understandtheir opposition to legislation limiting those freedoms.

"It's something that supports all of the rest of our rights," Joe O'Brien said. "It's an important right that's kind of unique to our country."

eleblanc@detroitnews.com

View original post here:
Second Amendment march returns to Capitol amid new limits on open carry - The Detroit News

The mainstream media is beginning to notice something President Joe Bidens (D) team refuses to see.

All his life, Jabril Battle was anti-gun. Then came the pandemic, the lockdown, the shortages and a feeling that at any moment, things could blow. Battle bought a Beretta.

The Washington Post

Six months ago, Svetlana Kim was so scared of guns, she couldnt even look at an image of one without feeling anxious . That all changed when something scarier came along. Months into the pandemic, people who looked like Kim were being shoved and kicked to the ground, punched, stabbed and slashed, while doing everyday activities like walking around the neighborhood, shopping and riding buses and trains . On March 3, Kim went from being a really anti-gun person to the new owner of a Springfield Armory handgun. Time

This, of course, isnt the sudden change the media is pretending it is. Anyone who has traveled a littlemaybe competing in some type of shooting sportknows gun ownership is and has been diverse. It just seems to be getting more so. What these Left-leaning media outlets are reacting to is the startling factto them, not to the members of the NRAthat more of the voters who usually swallow their brand of politics are buying guns for self-defense.

The numbers outlining this trend are compelling.

A survey of 104 retailers covering the first six months of 2020, done by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), found that gun sales to Black men and women were up 58%, compared to the same period in 2019. Also, gun sales in the first six months of 2020 to Hispanic customers were up 47% and sales to Asian Americans were up 43% during the same timeframe.

Incredibly, about 40% of these sales were to first-time buyers, according to the NSSF data. In all, the NSSF says over eight million new gun owners entered the market in 2020 alone.

This growth in the practical use of this constitutional right begs the question: Are these new gun owners now more likely to vote for their freedom? To answer this question, we looked into the data and reached out to people who are close to this issue, includingKevin Jackson, a best-selling author and documentary filmmaker, for his insights into the continued growth of the use of this constitutional right.Stay tuned for a video interview with Jacksoncoming soon at A1F.com.

Despite the identity politics now being played by so many, the Second Amendment makes no distinction about a persons race, ethnicity or gender. The Second Amendment is a restriction on government. The Second Amendment therefore is apolitical. Standing for freedom isnt and never should be a partisan issue in America.

The fact that the mainstream media is beginning to notice that more Americans of all backgrounds are embracing this right is hopefully a sign that the media is realizing they need to drop the partisan attacks on law-abiding gun owners. Maybe, just maybe, this means that someday well see honest discussion about this right in the mainstream media. Then, imagine this, instead of blaming the peoples gunsbought and carried for self-defensewed all be focused on stopping the violent criminals in our society.

Continue reading here:
The Second Amendment Isn't Partisan - America's 1st Freedom

Second Amendment

By Amanda Robert

September 23, 2021, 9:29 am CDT

State and local governments have long had the right to tailor firearm regulations to their own judgments about how best to protect public health and safety, the ABA told the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

In an amicus brief filed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the ABA noted that governments consider population density, access to first responders and other characteristics of their communities when creating concealed-carry regulations. Governments also weigh potential risks, including whether minor incidents could escalate into life-threatening situations and whether criminals and other people who should not have guns could gain increased access to them.

The association additionally said many states use concealed carry regulations to protect victims of domestic violence who could potentially be harmed in public spaces.

In the ABAs view, it would be disruptive to centuries of settled practiceand deleterious to the protection of human lifeto revoke state and local governments flexibility to balance these interests in fashioning concealed carry regulation, according to its brief.

The Supreme Court agreed in April to decide whether the state of New York violated the Second Amendment when it denied applications for concealed-carry permits for self-defense.

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and two individuals sued a New York licensing officer and the superintendent of the New York State Police in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York after the individuals were not granted unrestricted firearm-carry licenses.

The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, and according to an ABA press release, said clear precedent of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New York showed the states handgun licensing law did not violate the Second Amendment. The appeals court had upheld New Yorks regulations in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester in 2012.

The 2nd Circuit issued a summary order upholding the district courts decision in the present case last year.

In asking the Supreme Court to affirm the 2nd Circuit, the ABA said respecting State and local government reliance interests is fully compatible with the Second Amendment.

The association cited the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court held that while the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm and to use it for self-defense within the home, the right is not without limits.

Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms, the Supreme Court wrote in Heller.

The ABA said in its brief it has studied firearm regulation for more than a century and began debating and issuing policies related to firearms after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

In a resolution adopted in 2011, the association said it supports laws giving law enforcement and other authorities broad discretion to determine whether concealed-carry permits should be issued in jurisdictions that allow the carrying of concealed weapons.

Oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen are scheduled for Nov. 3.

Originally posted here:
New York and other states have the right to limit concealed weapon permits, ABA says in amicus brief - ABA Journal

Ahmedis have continuously been under threat in Pakistan since the second constitutional amendments passing in 1974

Whoever has needed to get their Pakistani passportmade or renewed may know that in order to start the process, Muslims must, as part of the paperwork, declare Ahmadis non-Muslims. To challenge this bigotry, a Pakistani citizen, Hareem Sumbul, recently set out to appeal to the Passport Office in Lahore to waive this section off from her application form.

Her argument,one that I support, is even thoughPakistans constitution says that Ahmedisarenon-Muslims, it does not necessarily mean citizens have to do the same. Why then, are citizens required to fill out a highly discriminatory section within the passport application form?

Ahmedis have continuously been under threat in Pakistan sincethe secondamendment was passedin 1974. They face trouble when it comes to acquiring passports and other documents related to identification. Furthermore to hold any governmental office they are supposed to condemn Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect. In addition, they are prohibited from calling themselves Muslims and not allowed to call their place of worship a mosque nor are they allowed to say the first kalma.

The anti-Ahmadi influence within Pakistani culture is heavily supported by the legislation, which leads to them being rejected by a majority of the Muslim population. Ahmadis not only face cultural isolation but they are also vulnerable to extremist violence. For example, in addition to many Ahmadis being prosecuted regularly, their mosques in Faisalabad have been attacked in 2018. The most recent attack was earlier this year which left many people dead and injured.

Unfortunately, Pakistans growing religious polarity and lack of tolerance towards other existing sects and religions has no doubt made the environment around here severely dangerous. Many people, even Sunni Muslims who are perhaps the most protected community in the country are fleeing to other parts of the world in order to build a freer life for themselves.

Sumbul has so far been made to run in circles and no positive outcome has come out of her stand till now. Her passport renewal fee was refunded and she was advised to send her passport to Islamabad. She has written necessary emails and we can only hope that she is able to pull something that is not entirely impossible but quite a feat regardless, to get a passport without signing the declaration. It has been done before just last year, with another citizen successfully getting the section cut off from her application before she signed it.

In order to prevent the image of Pakistan from being tainted, our government needs to address unfair and discriminatory conditions put on Pakistans minority groups while making sure that all of its citizens are treated equally. Pakistan needs to ensure that people are given the freedom to practice their religion, as the Constitution of Pakistan also promises in Article 20. Not only will such moves help our minorities breathe easier but it may also help us gain more respect in he international community.

Read the original:
The second amendment and its impact on religious harmony - The Express Tribune

Orange County Fair & Event Center officials have decided to back off on attempts to soften the economic blow of a state Senate bill that, if signed into law by the governor, would end gun shows at the O.C. fairgrounds.

Board members earlier this month considered sending a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom urging him to veto SB 264, a piece of legislation intended to enact a statewide ban on the sales of guns and ammunition on state-owned properties but was later amended to apply only to the Costa Mesa fairgrounds.

That property has hosted gun shows operated by Utah-based Crossroads of the West for more than 25 years, earning millions for the 32nd District Agricultural Assn. and drawing up to 70,000 visitors annually.

To help prevent the loss of as much as $1 million in income next year should SB 264 pass, board members were also considering pre-approving a 2022 contract with Crossroads before the bills Jan. 1 effective date.

But those plans were halted Thursday in a meeting during which the bills author, Sen. Dave Min (D-Irvine), several public speakers and even some board members challenged the necessity of a state-operated entity involving itself in firearms sales.

The nine-member panel decided 5-3 (Director Newton Pham was absent) to refrain from sending the letter and, in a second vote, tabled talks of a Crossroads contract until January 2022.

Min told board members in a public comment SB 264 was written to get California out of the business of selling guns, even if only at a single fairground site. He vowed to introduce new legislation to widen his scope once more to include all such properties.

While I respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, there is no requirement that the state of California has to be an accessory to, has to profit off, the sales of guns when we know this will invariably lead to more gun violence and the astronomical, moral social and economic costs, he said.

OCFEC Chairwoman Natalie Rubalcava-Garcia maintained it was the responsibility of board members, as governor-appointed policy makers, to remain fiscally solvent and viewpoint neutral. She said she supported sending the letter to create a public record about the negative economic impact SB 264 would have on center finances.

But Director Nick Kovacevich said if the letter wouldnt help recoup the lost funds, hed prefer to hold off on appealing to Newsom, especially when the governor has previously spoken in favor of gun sale bans on state-owned properties in the past.

Im a believer in picking your battles, he said. I dont see the merit or the fruit this letter would yield.

In the discussion of whether to pre-approve a 2022 contract with Crossroads of the West, which some speakers said would be an outright circumvention of SB 264s mandates, some board members favored the move.

This is about the financial impact to the 32nd DAA, said Director Robert Ruiz. I would be in favor of approving this for the sole reason that now I know [the revenue] is going to go away. And this would buy us time, another year at least, for us as a board to come up with another solution to replace the money that were going to lose.

Newly appointed Board Member Melahat Rafiei took a different view.

This would be a hyper-political move to try to fast forward these contracts for something thats clearly not going to be moving forward otherwise, she said. So, Im going to not support us signing these contracts.

The board voted 6-1 to table the contract.

Support our coverage by becoming a digital subscriber.

See the article here:
OC Fair & Event Center board stands down from plan to fight bill aimed at ending gun shows - Los Angeles Times

BOSTON Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey joined 19 attorneys general in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that the Second Amendment does not prohibit states and local governments from regulating the public carry of firearms in their jurisdictions, as they have done for hundreds of years.

The brief, filed Tuesday in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, supports Kevin Bruen, the New York State Police Commissioner, and the states law regulating when individuals can obtain a license to carry firearms in public. It specifically argues that the Second Amendment does not provide Americans with an unrestricted right to carry firearms in virtually all public places, as the petitioners are seeking, but instead, in keeping with centuries of tradition, allows states to enact policies regulating public carry that are tailored to local public safety concerns.

Here in Massachusetts, we know that strong gun laws save lives, AG Healey said. Ensuring that our state and local officials have the ability to enact policies and regulations related to the carrying of firearms in their own communities is critical to protecting public safety.

The brief argues that throughout the history of this country, public carry regulations have varied from region to region. That tradition goes backmore than 700hundredyears in England and pre-dates the founding of the United States.Regulations today and centuries ago varied substantially between and within the Statesthe result of accountable policymakers enacting regulatory schemes tailored to local needs and conditions.A one-size-fits-all approach to regulating public carry would take away the ability of state and local officials to address the particular public safety needs of their residents.

Under Massachusetts law, individuals are required to have a license to carry a firearm in order to carry a firearm in public. Massachusetts police chiefs have the authority to issue firearm licenses based on the suitability of the applicant to carry a firearm. Police chiefs also have discretion to set conditions on firearms licenses, including restrictions around the licensees ability to carry a firearm outside of the home.

Massachusetts has among the strongest gun laws in the country, and as a result, among the lowest rates of gun-related deaths. Research has shown that states with more stringent restrictions on public carry have significantly lower rates of gun-related homicides and other violent crimes.

Joining AG Healey in filing the brief are the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

###

See the rest here:
AG Healey Urges Supreme Court to Uphold the Right of State and Local Governments to Regulate the Public Carry of Firearms - Mass.gov