Category Archives: Second Amendment

President Joe Biden last weekwithdrew his nominationof prominent gun control activist David Chipman to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Bidens move came aftermonths of bipartisan concernover Chipmans advocacy of severely restrictive gun control measures, his controversial statements appearing to mock new gun owners, andallegations of racist conductduring his time as an ATF agent.

Many gun control advocacy groups lamented Bidens decision, but the withdrawal of Chipmans nomination is a big step toward ensuring that the Second Amendment is protected from anti-gun bureaucrats who treat it as an antiquated, second-class right.

The reality is that the right to keep and bear arms is vital in a free republic where the government cant or wont always be there to enforce citizens individual rights against criminals.

Almost every major study on the issue has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between500,000 and 3 million timesa year, according to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an 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 accountsherefrom 2019, 2020, and so far this year.)

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in August. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundations interactiveDefensive Gun Use Database.

Government officialsespecially unelected, unaccountable bureaucratsought not to be in the business of restricting Americans enumerated rights and mocking those who choose to exercise those rights for the first time.

Broadly imposed and highly restrictive gun control measures such as those supported by Chipman would not make a single innocent person in the circumstances above any safer from violent threats to their lives and liberties.

But Chipmans preferred policies and government-sanctioned scorn for their gun ownership may well have acted as barriers to the one thing that actually kept them safethe lawful exercise of their Second Amendment rights.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

Go here to see the original:
11 Examples of Defensive Gun Use That Bid Good Riddance to Biden's ATF Nominee - Heritage.org

The Supreme Court will grapple with the right to bear arms outside the home during the upcoming term in a case court watchers are calling significant because its been more than a decade since the justices weighed the limits of the Second Amendment.

Democrats are concerned the 6-3 conservative majority on the high court will curtail the governments ability to impose regulations and requirements on gun ownership.

Justice Amy Coney Barretts presence on the bench shes one of the three Supreme Court picks former President Donald Trump made during his one term in office especially worries progressives because of a pro-gun opinion she wrote while serving as a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court for the Seventh Circuit.

Gun rights advocates are hoping that her addition will make five justices who are more willing to take a more active role and start striking down what most people consider gun safety rules, said Elliot Mincberg, senior fellow with People for the American Way.

While on the 7th Circuit, Justice Barrett authored a dissent, disagreeing with her colleagues over bans on convicted felons possessing firearms.

In the case, a nonviolent felon challenged the restriction on Second Amendment grounds. Justice Barretts position was that legislators have an interest in stripping violent felons from owning guns not nonviolent felons.

Her dissent was lauded by gun rights supporters.

But in the New York case, the justices will consider New Yorks scheme on granting a license to carry to applicants.

Two men and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association are challenging the states law requiring anyone who wants to carry a handgun outside the home to apply for a license and show proper cause for the need to carry the gun.

Robert Nash was denied his license despite pointing to a string of robberies in his neighborhood and verifying that he had taken an advanced firearm training course.

Brendan Koch, similarly, applied for a license, noting his extensive experience with handling firearms in a safe manner.

But New York officials denied both men their licenses, saying they did not show a proper cause for carrying a gun in self-defense.

The men and the New York gun rights group argue courts have split rulings over a states discretion in denying the right to keep and bear arms outside the house.

Despite the wealth of authority confirming that the Second Amendment guarantees the peoples right to keep and bear arms for self-defense outside the home, several courts of appeals continue to resist that conclusion, leaving the law in a state of chaos and the fundamental right to carry a firearm dependent on where one lives, they argued in court papers.

But the state of New York contends the Second Amendment right is not unlimited and that the state has had laws regulating the carrying of firearms in public since 1913. They said its not impossible to meet the proper cause requirement.

This flexible standard, which numerous New York residents have successfully satisfied, generally requires a showing that the applicant has a nonspeculative need for self-defense, the states court filing read.

The lower courts ruled for New York officials, upholding the states licensing scheme. But the men took the case to the high court and at least four of the justices voted to hear the legal conflict, announcing in April they would review the case.

Lawyers for both sides will present oral arguments in person before the justices on Nov. 3.

A decision is expected by the end of June next year. The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin P. Bruen, superintendent of New York State Police.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, said strict licensing schemes for carrying a gun outside the house are a problem across the country not just in New York.

It really has to do with the overlap of the open carry and closed carry laws that work together to make it impossible for individuals to have a gun in any sense outside their home, she said. That is something that is going to have an impact much further than New York.

But she views the conservative majority on the high court as encouraging, saying there are justices who will protect constitutional rights.

Its been about a decade since the justices grappled with the limits of the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the high court ruled 5-4 that it was unlawful for D.C. officials to restrict the possession of firearms inside the home.

At the time, the makeup of the high court was much different. Five of the justices who took part in considering the Heller case are no longer on the bench.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Justice Stephen G. Breyer were all on the court at that time and they still remain on the bench. All but Justice Breyer ruled against the District of Columbias restriction.

Daniel Goldberg, legal director for the Alliance for Justice, said its deeply concerning that the new 6-3 conservative majority with Mr. Trumps three appointments will now weigh the right to carry firearms outside the home.

President Trump backed by the NRA made clear that one of his litmus tests was justices that would turn back the clock when it came to the ability of the state and local governments to protect citizens from gun violence, Mr. Goldberg said.

I hope I am wrong, but I think these justices the ultraconservative justices on the court are on the court with the backing of the NRA, and I think are teed up to handcuff the ability of local officials to keep their citizens safe, he added.

More:
Supreme Court to weigh New York's limit on carrying a handgun - Washington Times

SECOND AMENDMENT TO

CHICO'S FAS, INC. OFFICER SEVERANCE PLAN

AND

SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION

Pursuant to the authority granted under Section 7.01 of the Chico's FAS, Inc. Officer Severance Plan and Summary Plan Description (as amended and restated effective January 1, 2020 and as amended by the First Amendment on March 31, 2020) (the "Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended as set forth below, effective on September 14, 2021 (the "Effective Date").

1. Replace Article 13 of the Plan with the following:

ARTICLE 13

PLAN FREEZE AND REINSTATEMENT

The Plan was frozen effective March 31, 2020 through September 13, 2021, so that no Employee shall be eligible to participate in the Plan on and after March 31, 2020 throughSeptember 13, 2021. If you are an Employee and your employment with the Company is involuntarily terminated on or after March 31, 2020 and before September 14, 2021, you are not eligible to participate in or receive any Benefits under the Plan. If you are an Employee and your employment with the Company is involuntarily terminated on or after September 14, 2021, your eligibility under the Plan will be determined under Article 3 and other applicable provisions of the Plan. This Article 13 overrides all other inconsistent provisions in the Plan.

2. Replace Subsection (b) of Section 5.02 of the Plan with the following:

(b) Your reemployment or other employment or service as provided in Section 5.03;

3. Replace Section 5.03 of the Plan with the following:

Section 5.03 Reemployment with or Other Service to Sponsor or Affiliate or Other Employment or Service. If you are reemployed with the Sponsor or an Affiliate, or otherwise provide services to the Sponsor or an Affiliate as an independent contractor or consultant, prior to the payment or receipt of all of the Benefits under the Plan, the Plan Administrator may in its sole discretion reduce or forfeit any Benefits not yet paid under the Plan. If you are employed with or otherwise provide services as an independent contractor or consultant to a company other than the Sponsor or an Affiliate (other than services which would be a violation under Section 5.02(d) which would result in immediate forfeiture) (the "Other Services"), the Plan Administrator may in its sole discretion reduce the Benefit Amount payable under the Plan, dollar-for-dollar, by the amount of base salary, consulting fees or actual hourly compensation (without reduction for any withholding amounts or deferrals) that you receive from the Other Services (the "Other Income"). You are required to notify the Sponsor's Director, Executive

Compensation of the amount of theOther Income within five (5) business days of accepting the Other Services. Also, during the Severance Period, you are required to certify monthly to the Company that either you do not have any right to receive Other Income or the amount of Other Income. You will be notified of the certification process following your termination of employment. If you fail to provide timely certification or provide inaccurate information, the Plan Administrator may in its sole discretion immediately terminate all further payments under the Plan. In such event, you will forfeit all rights under the Plan.

4. Replace Appendix A of the Plan with the following:

APPENDIX A

Section 1:

Benefit Amount and Bonus Payable under Sections 4.01(a) and 4.01(b) other than with respect to a Terminated Employee whose Employment Termination Date occurs within twenty-four (24) months following a Change in Control (subject to all eligibility provisions in the Plan):

Benefit Amount

A Terminated Employee shall receive the following cash severance Benefit Amount payable in installments in accordance with normal payroll practices during the applicable period below:

Terminated EmployeeBenefit Amount

Chief Executive Officer 24 Months of Annual Base Salary

Executive Vice President 12 Months of Annual Base Salary

(includes titles of President

(alone or of a group or brand), CHRO,

CFO, and COO or variations thereof)

Senior Vice President 9 Months of Annual Base Salary

Vice President 6 Months of Annual Base Salary

Bonus

A Terminated Employee shall receive the Bonus, calculated based on actual performance during the fiscal year, that would have been payable to the Terminated Employee had the Terminated Employee not terminated employment with Sponsor or Affiliate only if the Terminated Employee's Employment Termination Date is on or after the last day of the applicable fiscal year upon which the Bonus is calculated.

Otherwise, a Terminated Employee shall have no right to the payment of the Bonus.

Section 2:

Benefit Amount and Bonus Payable under Sections 4.01(a) and 4.01(b) with respect to a Terminated Employee whose Employment Termination Date occurs within twenty-four (24) months following a Change in Control (subject to all eligibility provisions in the Plan):

Notwithstanding (and in lieu of) Section 1 above, in the event a Terminated Employee's Employment Termination Date occurs within twenty-four (24) months following a Change in Control of Sponsor, the Terminated Employee shall receive the following combined Benefit Amount and Bonus in a single lump sum payment:

Terminated EmployeeBenefit Amount and Bonus

Chief Executive Officer 24 Months of Annual Base Salary

plus Bonus at Target

Executive Vice President 18 Months of Annual Base Salary

(includes titles of President plus Bonus at Target

(alone or of a group or brand), CHRO,

CFO, and COO or variations thereof)

Senior Vice President 12 Months of Annual Base Salary

plus Bonus at Target

Vice President 9 Months of Annual Base Salary

plus Bonus at Target

5. All other provisions of the Plan not inconsistent with the above shall remain in effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Second Amendment to the Plan is hereby adopted on this 14th day of September, 2021, to be effective as provided above.

CHICO'S FAS, INC.

By: /s/ Kristin Gwinner

Title: Chief Human Resources Officer

Disclaimer

Chico's FAS Inc. published this content on 20 September 2021 and is solely responsible for the information contained therein. Distributed by Public, unedited and unaltered, on 20 September 2021 20:11:08 UTC.

Read this article:
Chico FAS : Second Amendment to Chico's FAS, Inc. Officer Severance Plan and Summary Plan Description effective September 14, 2021 (Form 8-K) -...

NEW YORK, September 21, 2021 Everytown for Gun Safety, the nations largest gun violence prevention organization, today filed an amicus brief in the U. S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a case challenging the constitutionality under the Second Amendment of a New York law regulating the concealed carry of firearms in public. Everytowns brief explains the constitutionality of the law by:

In this latest attempt to force their dangerous views on the Second Amendment on the rest of the country, opponents of strong gun laws are relying on a distorted telling of history, said Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law, the litigation team affiliated with Everytown for Gun Safety. The last time this NRA affiliate argued before the Supreme Court, just two years ago, it was unsuccessful in advancing its extreme and dangerous position. While the courts makeup has changed since then, the Second Amendment has not. As communities across the country grapple with increased gun violence, its particularly important that the high court get this case right, too.

Everytown Law is representing Everytown for Gun Safety in this matter along with the law firm Gupta Wessler PLLC. The Everytown Law attorneys on the brief are Eric Tirschwell, Janet Carter, William Taylor, Lisa Ebersole, and Carina Bentata.

Key quotes from the brief:Public-carry laws like the one at issue here enjoy an almost singularly impressive historical lineage among firearms regulations.Herenot only is there a long tradition of regulating public carry, but even the uncontested history is longstanding: The petitioners do not dispute that dozens of states and cities from the mid-19th-century to the early-20th century enacted laws that were at least as restrictive -4- as New Yorks law. When this unrebutted history is added to the long tradition of public-carry regulations, there can be no doubt that New Yorks law is constitutional.

To set aside the body of historical evidence in this case, while claiming the mantle of originalism, would only serve to diminish itreducing the methodology to little more than an exercise in picking out ones friends in a crowd of historical sources.

About Everytown Law Everytown Law, the litigation arm of Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, is the largest team of litigators in the U.S. working full-time on advancing gun violence prevention in the courts. Everytown Law fights for the right of every individual to live free from gun violence, including challenging dangerous gun laws, defending gun safety laws against Second Amendment and preemption challenges, and representing survivors of gun violence seeking accountability and reform from the gun industry. Learn more about Everytown Law at http://www.everytownlaw.org.

Everytown Law regularly posts commentary and analysis on firearms litigation issues and developments at https://medium.com/everytown-law.

About Everytown for Gun Safety Everytown for Gun Safety is the largest gun violence prevention organization in the country with nearly six million supporters and more than 375,000 donors including moms, mayors, survivors, students, and everyday Americans who are fighting for common-sense gun safety measures that can help save lives. Learn more at http://www.everytown.org and follow us @Everytown.

The rest is here:
Everytown to Supreme Court: NRA Affiliates Case Rests on Distorted Telling of History - YubaNet

New Jersey

Acting Attorney General Andrew J. Bruck announced on Tuesday that New Jersey has joined a multi-state coalition in filing an amicus brief in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that defends the constitutionality of state laws that require those who seek to carry a concealed firearm in public to show a particularized need to do so.

In the press release, Attorney General Andrew Bruck said at issue in the caseNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, No. 20-843 (U.S.)is a New York law that requires applicants for a concealed carry permit to show an actual and articulable - as opposed to merely speculative or specious - need for self-defense.

"We will always defend our state's common-sense gun safety laws,"Governor Phil Murphy said."Concealed carry can and does lead to unnecessary violence and brings more firearms to our town and city streets. We have worked hard to make New Jersey one of the safest states in the nation and have done so with the help of New Jersey's longstanding gun safety laws.

Residents and their families deserve to feel comfortable in public and not fear that anyone on the street can easily turn a dispute into an armed confrontation. I look forward to seeing Acting Attorney General Bruck's success in upholding our concealed carry restrictions."

"New Jersey residents should be able to go to a shopping mall or sporting event without having to worry about whether the person behind them is secretly carrying a firearm for no good reason,"said Acting Attorney General Bruck.

"The Second Amendment has always allowed states to adopt common-sense restrictions on carrying a concealed firearm in public to protect their residents. A Supreme Court decision striking down reasonable firearm licensing laws would pose a significant risk to public safety."

TheBruencase centers on the denial of concealed carry permits to two men who applied for them in New York, citing a generalized desire to protect themselves by carrying a concealed firearm.

Upon being denied, the men, joined by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, filed a lawsuit alleging the denial represented a violation of their Second Amendment rights.

A U.S. District Court judge dismissed their complaint, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit subsequently upheld the dismissal. The Supreme Court has now agreed to hear the case.

New Jersey's concealed-carry statute prevents private persons from obtaining a license to carry a firearm outside the home unless they meet the criteria for an exception under the law or show a specific, individualized need.

Specifically, New Jersey's law requires written certification of "justifiable need" to obtain a concealed-carry permit and makes public carry of a handgun without a state permit a second-degree crime.

In support of the states' legitimate interest in regulating public carry of firearms, the multi-state amicus brief filed today observes that "States with the most permissive public carry laws, which generally allow most residents to carry in most places, experience higher rates of violent crime than those who do not."

The brief points to several studies that have linked less restrictive "right to carry" laws with increases in violent crime. One of those studies reported a 13-to-15-percent increase in violent crime, while another reported nearly an 11-percent rise in the rate of homicides committed with guns.

The press release said Tuesday's brief asks the Supreme Court to reject a misguided ruling that would confer an "almost unfettered right ... to carry loaded firearms in virtually any public place at virtually any time, based solely on a stated desire to be armed for purposes of self-defense."

The brief argues that the plain text of the Second Amendment contains no such requirement and that laws like New York's are consistent with an extensive history and tradition of individual States regulating firearms in public spaces in accordance with their own concerns and considerations, including protection of public safety.

More:
NJ Files Brief with SCOTUS Defending Common-Sense Limits on Concealed Carry of Firearms - RLS Media

The absurdity and dysfunction of the Biden Administration have become so pervasive that its easy to become numb to it all. But some things it does are still so outrageous and inconceivable touching on the very identity of the nation itself that it is worth pausing to take stock of just how far the U.S. has fallen as a country in the short time Joe Biden has occupied the White House.

The latest example comes from the National Archives, the federal entity entrusted with preserving Americas most significant records and documents, including those which established the United States as an independent nation. Images of those original documents which include the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are now displayed on the National Archives website with a Harmful Language Alert. This advisory warns the content in the documents may, among other things, be outdated, offensive, racist, and discriminatory.

The alert was placed on the website by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), a collection of D.C. bureaucrats who obviously believe they are smarter, more enlightened, and morally superior to those whose genius, vision, and courage led to the formation of the United States itself. NARAs explanation of the alert even suggests they will improve upon the output of the founders and of their predecessor archivists through a process of self-examination and constant revision to root out any hint of what they consider biases, prejudices, and harmful language in their own work product.

Of course, theres nothing wrong with choosing ones words carefully, taking into account a broad range of perspectives. And the individuals who work for NARA are surely entitled, in their private capacities, to hold whatever view of Americas constitutional republic and founding ideals they want.

But its difficult to imagine how a sovereign nation can continue as such if the very government-appointed guardians of its history presume to apply their own political, cultural, and esthetic sensibilities to critique and criticize, in their official capacity, the countrys most fundamental and enduring precepts.

After all, the signature moment in the career of the governments most powerful officers is when they are sworn into office by taking an oath, sometimes with a hand placed on a sacred religious text, promising to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Its particularly telling that the bureaucrats at NARA believe themselves to be over and above that document, which after all, established the form of government that eventually led to their own existence and that allows such existence to be sustained at the publics expense. This may be the most breathtaking example of arrogance and biting the hand that feeds you the American public has ever seen from any government officials.

In response to a media inquiry about the alert (which reported the advisory was created in July 2021), NARA defended itself by claiming the Harmful Language Alert is not connected to any specific records, but appears at the top of the page while you are using the online National Archives Catalog.

In other words, it seems that NARA is claiming the advisory while still applicable to the nations founding documents wasnt necessarily or exclusively written for those documents and that, really, all of recorded American history could be considered offensive and harmful to right-thinking people.

Thats hardly an improvement, especially coming from the functionaries whose most important official duty is to ensure preservation of the records that literally make America America.

Yet NARA has, however unwittingly, provided Americans with an important public service by illustrating in as clear and profound a way as possible the anti-American rot that infests all levels and departments of the Executive Branch under Biden and the disdain with which it holds Americas highest aspirations.

It doesnt seem like too much of an exaggeration to say their objective appears not so much to run the government as to transform it into something the founders would find unrecognizable, a nation founded not on enduring and universally-applicable principles but on the shifting whims of entrenched elites.

To be sure, such deranged minds must find the ideas in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights deeply offensive, outdated, and harmful. They cannot conceive that there should be any limits to their own designs for government rule or that they should be considered merely part of the undifferentiated mass of common people who make up the U.S. population and subject to the same rules that apply to them.

Yet, ironically, the answer to this dismal state of affairs is still found in those very documents and in the processes they establish for electing and holding government officials accountable and in the fundamental rights none of those officials may transgress.

Patriotic Americans need to take heed and engage in those processes and assert those rights.

Because if the government can haughtily superimpose derogatory warnings over the written records that delineate and limit their own authority and that empower the people they represent, then the day may indeed come when those records wont be worth the parchment on which they are written.

Read more from the original source:
The Second Amendment Now Comes with Government-Issued Harmful Language Alert - NRA ILA

An NRA instructor described as "the Lefts worst nightmare" helped train thousands of minority women from Detroit on how to safely protect themselves with guns "to ensure theyre never victims."

"The left thinks the Second Amendment wasnt made for people who look like us. They said the same thing during the Jim Crow era too," NRA instructor Rick Ector, who is black, said in a video published by the NRA on Thursday morning.

Ector held a two-day annual event at the end of August where he helped train 4,000 minority women from inner city Detroit on gun safety and use, explaining that Americans deserve to use their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves as gun crimes continue to increase.

PSAKI: GUN CONTROL A 'PRIORITY,' BIDEN 'NOT AFRAID OF STANDING UP' TO THE NRA

"If simply taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens was the answer, Detroit would be the safest place on earth. Instead, its seen a 53% increase in shootings in 2020 alone," Ector said. "In fact, last weekend, Ive trained 4,000 lovely women to ensure theyre never victims. And this isnt about politics for me its about common sense."

Detroit was among cities across the nation last year that saw a sharp increase in shootings, with Motor City notching a 19% increase in homicides in 2020 over 2019, and a 53% increase in nonfatal shootings.

"There's a wave of criminal violence sweeping across all big cities in America, fueled by politicians hellbent on dismantling the police, releasing criminals onto the streets, and failing to enforce the gun laws on the books. Instead of protecting their constituents, these politicians continue to push their extreme gun control agenda," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told Fox News.

"Law-abiding Americans are going out in droves arming themselves and getting trained because they know a gun is the best way to protect themselves and their loved ones."

The women of Detroit who Ector trained echoed LaPierres comments, expressing they are grateful for the courses amid the increase in gun crimes.

BIDEN ANNOUNCES SLATE OF GUN CONTROL ACTIONS, CLAIMS 'PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS'

"In Detroit, yeah, the crime is increasing and you know, we just need something to protect ourselves," one woman who Ector trained said in the video.

Another woman added: "I just moved out so I'm kind of living on my own, and I sometimes work nights, and I be out at night. No one wants to walk alone at night and feel unprotected. Especially in this society and what happens today."

26 GOP AGS FILE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF SECOND AMENDMENT, CONCEALED CARRY LAWS AT SUPREME COURT

"Our focus is to push our message out across America to all law-abiding citizens that firearms education and safety are important no matter where you are or who you are," the NRAs second vice president, Retired Lt. Col. Willes K. Lee, added of the two-day event.

As for Ector, he said that after being "brainwashed" that gun ownership was "bad," he one day found himself being robbed at gunpoint in his own driveway. He was able to get the suspects to flee by telling them a "whopping lie" that he had a house full of guns and trained gun users.

"They fled," Hector said. "On that day, I made a promise to myself that I would never look down the barrel or be defenseless ever again, and I would use my experience to help others."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Rick is the embodiment of the NRA's spirit of volunteerism that prevails among our millions of members. For years, he has led a crucial and substantive effort to help make Detroit a safer place. We are proud to have Rick as an NRA member, instructor, and member of our Outreach Committee," LaPierre added in his statement.

Read this article:
NRA instructor trains thousands of inner city women 'to ensure theyre never victims' - Fox News

The United States is a relatively young country, but we have the oldest written national constitution. On this Constitution Day, we honor this incredible document, which has persisted for over two centuries and inspired a host of other constitutions around the world.

Today marks the 234th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. Our Constitution has endured for so long thanks to a combination of unique features. As I discussed last year, one of the most important features is the way the Constitution divides power both among the three branches of the federal government and between the federal government and the 50 states. Another key feature is its protection of individual rights. Several prominent members of the founding generation believed that no legitimate law of the land could exist without specific, written guarantees of individual liberties. Their conviction eventually inspired the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights begins with the First Amendment, which enshrines rights that are most fundamental to a free society, among them the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech. By protecting these essential liberties, the First Amendment affirms the right of every citizen to worship God in accordance with his conscience and to freely speak his mind.

The Second Amendment, which recognizes the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, enables the American public to protect the rights spelled out in the First Amendment and in all the other amendments that come after it. As George Mason, one of the principal advocates for a federal bill of rights, explained in 1774, an armed and capable citizenry is necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from tyranny. Historys most brutal dictators all rose to power while presiding over unarmed subjects: neither Stalin, nor Hitler, nor Mao, faced significant armed civilian resistance. By guaranteeing American citizens the right to defend themselves, the Second Amendment ensures that our nation will always have a check against despotism, both foreign and domestic.

The next eight amendments in the Bill of Rights list additional protections of individual freedoms. For example, the Fourth Amendment guards the right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizures, and the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. And the last of the original amendments, the 10th, protects both individual citizens and the states in which they live from federal overreach. It accomplishes this by affirming that any powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

These protections of liberty are among the most remarkable in the world. But we must not take them for granted. As history shows us, merely codifying rights on paper is not enough. Libyas constitution, for example, guarantees its citizens numerous human fundamental rights and freedoms, including equal civil and political rights, yet Libya remains plagued by an active slave trade, pervasive governmental corruption, and a litany of other human-rights abuses. North Korea has its own bill of rights, which rings equally hollow.

The reason Americas guarantee of rights has succeeded where others have failed is because our Bill of Rights is reinforced by a strict separation of powers, a federalist structure containing fifty sovereign states, and the liberty-loving spirit of the American people. As long as we hold fast to these principles and maintain our defense of liberty, we will be able to celebrate Constitution Day for centuries to come.

Jay Mitchell is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama

View post:
Constitution Day 2021: Celebrating the Bill of Rights - Yellowhammer News

On Monday, Sept. 20, Dare County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing about adding a permitted use to the C-3 commercial zoning district.

The proposed text amendment is to add package distribution and delivery services to the list of permitted uses.

The request comes from United Parcel Service, which is seeking to expand its facilities at 321 Etheridge Road on Roanoke Island. The UPS property is zoned I-1, Industrial-1. The zoning code permits uses in the C-3 commercial district be used in the I-1 district with those uses conforming to the dimensional requirements set out in the C-3 commercial district.

The UPS property is adjacent to the Dare County Regional Airport and surrounded by properties zoned I-1 industrial zoning.

If the use is added to the C-3 district, UPS will be able to access a higher lot coverage of 60%.

The UPS request comes with a favorable action recommendation from the countys planning board.

Look for more planning action later in the year at the Dare County Board of Commissioners meetings.

On Sept. 13, 2021, the countys planning board reviewed a special use permit for Jeffery Aiken to build a commercial fish house and docking facility on Back Creek, 57162 Altona Lane in Hatteras village. The 5,625 square foot building will process, package, distribute and sell seafood to meet the growing demand for sustainably-sourced North Carolina seafood.

Conditions address lighting, driveways, parking and fencing abutting residential use. The hours for the retail sales operation are 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days a week.

The planning board reviewed the conditions set out by staff, found them to reasonable and asked that the conditions be considered by the commissioners.

Joe Thompson, founder of Koru Village in Avon, filed two requests: one amendment concerns food trucks and the other deals with buffer requirements in the travel trailer and campground ordinance.

In 2018, the countys zoning ordinance was amended to allow mobile food units with certain conditions, such as one mobile unit per location on a site with an existing commercial business.

Thompson requests operating multiple food trucks in one location, to create a food court.

The planning board discussed and reviewed staff suggestions to go forward and agreed on the following:

A maximum of five mobile food units on a site with an existing business

Units are to be separated by 10 feet for safety

Portable toilets shall not be used to meet a requirement for restrooms if outside seating is provided.

A maximum of eight outdoor seats for each mobile food truck.

If existing business parking cannot be used, then 10 parking spaces for the food court plus no more than two additional spaces for each unit is required, but can be waived by planning staff.

Hours of operation are 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week.

With those determinations, the planning board recommended Board of Commissioners approval for an amendment to the ordinance to permit food truck courts.

A second amendment concerned buffers required by the Travel Trailer and Campground ordinance. The current ordinance permits only vegetative buffers.

Thompson asked for flexibility in an already approved 20-site campground at the Avon Pier. One perimeter adjoins a septic system which will be harmed by growing vegetation. Another other area is between parking for the Avon Pier and the campground sites.

Thompson wants to install a six-foot privacy fence between the pier parking and campground and to leave the septic system area grassed.

The planning board proposed flexibility in buffer standards, permitting six-foot high fencing with a finished side to the public side and permitting vegetation or solid fencing for the buffer. Buffers are not required along estuarine or ocean shorelines.

The planning board finally approved the Roger Hosfelt subdivision, accessed off Lighthouse Court in Hatteras village. Three lots will be developed on 2.48 acres. No parking is allowed on the easement to the subdivision. The submitted plat was revised to address the surveying concerns raised by board member Michael Barr.

READ ABOUT MORE NEWS HERE.

RECENT HEADLINES:

Golden tilefish recreational harvest closes Monday

Duck Jazz Festival postponed until next year

Read the original:
Dare County Planning Board reviews several items; hearing set for commissioners meeting - The Coastland Times | The Coastland Times - The Coastland...

Judge J. Michael Luttig (via YouTube)

Judge J. Michael Luttig was one of the most conservative voices on the federal judiciary. His jurisprudence was rated consistently conservative by an early 2000s study conducted by political scientists, placing him somewhere between Attila the Hun and J. Harvie Wilkinson III. In fact, when John Roberts was ultimately appointed to the Supreme Court, conservatives were none too happy that Bush had overlooked the more reliably conservative Luttig.

Which is all to say that when Luttig, who left the judiciary in 2006, weighs in on a legal issue, hes not coming at it as a firebrand liberal. He puts on his Chick-fil-A bib with two hands just like the rest of them.

Luttig joined with Sidleys Carter Phillips, and former Acting AGs Peter Keisler (also of Sidley), Stuart Gerson (of Epstein Becker & Green), and 13 other prominent legal minds in an amicus brief supporting New Yorks gun regulations in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. The brief is, as one might expect from a conservative luminary, drenched in textual and originalist analysis. Part II is just a deep dive into the litany of Founding-era state laws regulating public gun possession putting the lie to the idea that the Second Amendments original public meaning signaled the Framers vision of America resembling a Fortnite arena.

A lot of people forget that the original sources conservative jurists have relied upon for the current gun regime were written over four score and seven years after the Founding. If youre wondering why they settled on a body of not-so-original testimony, its because they really did look into the original public meaning of the Second Amendment and learned that the reality of that legitimate originalist inquiry offended GOP lobbyists.

But the amici remember:

The writings of some 19th-century lower court judges and commentators decades after 1791 do not, and must not be allowed to, supersede the democratic judgments and decisions embodied in these founding era statutory restrictions.

Say what you will about interpreting the Constitution by channeling the ancients, at least its an ethos. For anyone who claims to adhere to an originalist judicial philosophy, this brief shouldnt be controversial and given the history clinic the authors put on should force some frank concessions from conservatives over the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Just kidding, theyre just going to drag the amici for their parents getting killed by gun violence!

Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal wrote of the brief, also on the brief is former Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Gun violence touched his family in 1994 when his father, John Luttig, wasfatally shot in a carjacking.

In response, Josh Blackman took to the Volokh Conspiracy to write:

The implication here is that their legal views on the Second Amendment were affected by their personal experiences. On balance, I think this interview reduces the effectiveness of the brief.

Yeah, the fact that his dad was killed is definitely why Virginia and Massachusetts had laws banning public carry in the 1790s. This isnt some Brandeis brief citing gun violence statistics, its an exploration of the original public meaning of the Second Amendment that finds, completely unsurprisingly, that the one pushed by the gun lobby is ahistorical nonsense like another staunch conservative pointed out years ago.

Before we get any further, lets dispense with the inevitable weak sauce response: well, Joe, this isnt really dragging Judge Luttig because of his fathers killing. Yes it is. The post says the Luttigs legal analysis is now suspect because of what happened to his father. How is that anything but an attack on him as a lawyer based on his personal life? An aspersion that his lived experience makes him bad at evaluating the law?

The idea that society is governed by law and not passion means legal arguments beat emotions, not that living outside a hermetic bubble renders all legal analysis void. That gun violence prompted his research doesnt invalidate that research. This is just a sly ad hominem that the only real gun arguments can come from people whove never even tangentially run afoul of a firearm. Which certainly tracks because this is the same movement that thinks the only real voting rights arguments can come from people whove never been denied a ballot and the only real womens health arguments can come from people whove never had a vagina.

But thats all these FedSoc guys have. As the brief explains:

Petitioners do not cite a single item of persuasive contrary founding era evidence that counters the historical support for public-carry restrictions provided by the founding era statutes. They do not cite anyone or any source that contemporaneously opposed or even criticized any founding era statutory restriction as infringing the right to carry. Neither do they cite any proponent or opponent stating that the Second Amendment was codifying a right that would nullify any existing or prior statutory restriction in any state or city. Nor do they cite a state constitutional provision from the founding era that nullified such a restriction. This silence in the face of these founding era proscriptions and limitations confirms that carrying loaded guns in most public places was not a matter of right, but rather was a matter intended by the Framers to be left for debate and decision within the legislative arena.

This isnt even touching the textualist point that the contrary view pushed by the right-wing renders well-regulated superfluous. In any actual legal discussion the gun lobby has bupkis.

But theyve got 6 partisan hacks and thats enough.

Joe Patriceis a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free toemail any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him onTwitterif youre interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

More here:
Conservative Drags Right-Wing Legal Legend Because His Dad Was Murdered - Above the Law