Category Archives: Second Amendment

WASHINGTON U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson took aim this week at a proposed federal regulation that targets pistol stabilizing braces. Hudson led a Capitol Hill news conference Tuesday drawing attention to the issue.

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives proposed the rule in June. The news conference encouraged people to submit comments to the bureau opposing the rule.

"The Biden administration's ATF is attacking our Second Amendment and attacking our veterans," Hudson said. "Crime is up, and Republicans are prepared to address that. But Democrats are determined to go after law-abiding citizens and our Second Amendment."

Stabilizing braces are designed to enable disabled military veterans to exercise their Second Amendment rights, Hudson said. "This regulation turns law-abiding citizens, including our combat veterans, into felons."

Under the regulation introduced June 7, an individual could face felony charges unless he turns in or destroys a firearm with a brace, destroys the brace, or pays a tax, according to a news release from Hudson's office.

Hudson and 140 U.S. House colleagues sent a June 14 letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Acting ATF Director Marvin Richardson. The representatives urged the U.S. Department of Justice to withdraw the proposed guidance. Forty-eight senators sent a similar letter on June 24.

One of the original designers of stabilizing braces helped Hudson make his case. U.S. Army veteran Rick Cicero was injured in combat in Afghanistan in 2010. An improvised explosive device caused significant damage to his right arm and leg.

"Stabilizing braces gave me the ability to get back out and shoot things that I never expected I would be able to again, and my life changed drastically," said Cicero. "Since then, I have been traveling across the country teaching veterans how to shoot again. That brace is the foundation of everything I do because I can take someone who has limited strength in their hands or is missing digits and give them confidence and the skills and capability to grasp a firearm again and get them back to the things that were such a part of their life."

"If this overreach is allowed, it would make a majority of law-abiding veterans and first responders criminals overnight," said U.S. Army veteran Pablo Cadena, who was injured in Iraq in 2008. "These are the people who answered the call of our great nation."

"This regulation is wrong," said U.S. Marine veteran Anson Roberts, who was injured in Iraq in 2007. "It's taking away the self-defense right for me, for my family or some other person in America who is disabled. I don't have the same strength in my hands or my arms or my legs anymore. Using this device helps me protect my family."

Hudson had support from congressional colleagues. "It is perplexing to see how the Biden administration is trying to take away the Second Amendment rights of our disabled veterans," said Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana, at Hudson's news conference. Scalise holds a top House post as Republican Party whip. "I would urge every American who wants to stand with our disabled veterans and any other American who believes in the Second Amendment, and the ability for every law-abiding citizen to be able to exercise those rights, to go online now and oppose this rule by the Biden Administration."

"But more than anything, we call on the Biden administration to stop this attack on our veterans and just withdraw the rule," Scalise added. "Lets allow veterans to exercise their Second Amendment rights since they risked so much in preserving our rights."

Another news conference speaker, Rep. Mike Bost, R-Illinois, serves as the top Republican on the U.S. House's Veterans Affairs Committee. "The ATF proposal could hurt thousands of law-abiding, gun-owning veterans simply because they use a stabilizing brace," Bost said. "Disabled veterans have given their country enough. The last thing they should be subject to is absurd fines and government overreach."

Attacks on stabilizing braces aren't new. In December 2020, Hudson helped fight a similar ATF rule proposal. Following a letter signed by Hudson and 90 members of Congress, in addition to widespread feedback during a public comment period, ATF revoked the rule on Dec. 23, 2020.

People can comment about the latest ATF regulation through Sept. 8. Hudson is offering a link to submit comments at Hudson.House.Gov/Issues/2a.

View post:
Hudson bashes proposed new federal gun regulation - The Richmond Observer

From Henry v. County of Nassau, decided today by the Second Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Steven Menashi, joined by Judges John Walker and Susan Carney:

In 2014, the daughter of Plaintiff-Appellant Lambert Henry commenced an ex parte proceeding against Henry in Nassau County Family Court.{Henry's daughter alleged that she and Henry were having a discussion when Henry blocked her from leaving a room and "put [her] in a headlock and squeezed," causing her to "fear for [her] safety." Henry, for his part, characterizes the case as arising out of an argument about his daughter's grades in school.}

The Family Court issued a temporary order of protection against Henry that, under the policies of the Nassau County Police Department, triggered an immediate suspension of his pistol license. Members of the Nassau County Police Department subsequently arrived at Henry's residence to confiscate his pistol license. They also confiscated all firearms in Henry's possession.

Five months later, the temporary order of protection was dissolved and the Family Court matter was dismissed, but the County did not reinstate Henry's pistol license or return his firearms. The Nassau County Police Department then formally revoked Henry's pistol license and informed Henry that he is prohibited from possessing any firearms.

Henry appealed the revocation. Approximately a year and a half later, Henry was informed that his appeal was rejected based on a record of domestic incidents at his home, including allegations by his ex-wife that Henry had been violent with her; his having been the subject of other, since-dissolved orders of protection; and his failure to report to the Police Department the domestic incidents, the protective orders, and his son's diagnosis of depression and admission to a medical center, as the appeals officer understood to be required by Nassau County's Pistol License Section Handbook.

Henry denied all allegations of domestic violence and included with his appeal affidavits from his daughter and ex-wife in support of the reinstatement of his pistol license and ability to possess firearms. Henry will become eligible to apply for a new pistol license in 2023, seven years after his license was suspended, but the standard for granting a new license appears to be the same as the standard under which the County revoked his existing license. In any event, Henry remains barred from owning any firearms at least until that time.

Henry sued, and the District Court held his "claims did not lie at the core of the Second Amendment and therefore were subject to intermediate scrutiny because Henry did not 'actually alleg[e] in his complaint that Nassau County has implemented a policy banning all firearm ownership for all people.'" The Second Circuit disagreed:

As an initial matter, the district court's scrutiny analysis was flawed because "the Second Amendment confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms." Henry was therefore not required to allege "a policy banning all firearm ownership for all people" to state a claim at the core of the Second Amendment. We would never hold that a plaintiff failed to state a claim at the "core" of the First Amendment because the plaintiff alleged only that the government prohibited him from speaking but did not ban "all" speech for "all" people. Because the Second Amendmentno less than the Firstsecures an "individual right" that "the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty," the district court erred in holding that Henry failed to state a claim at the core of the Second Amendment merely because he does not allege that the County enacted a complete ban on firearm ownership for all people.

Moreover, contrary to the district court's assertion that "the restrictions [Henry] complains of are not as severe a burden on the [Second Amendment] right as [Henry] makes them out to be," there is no doubt that Henry has alleged a substantial burden on his Second Amendment rights. Here, Henrywho has not been convicted of any crimealleges that the County has left him with no means of acquiring firearms for any purpose for a period of at least seven years.

Because Henry has alleged a substantial burden on his Second Amendment rights, whether strict or intermediate scrutiny applies to Henry's claims depends on whether he has stated a claim at the "core" of the Second Amendment. That determination turns on whether there is a reliable basis for concluding that Henry is not law-abiding and responsible. As we discuss below, the complaint plausibly alleges that the evidence on which the County based its decisions was not reliable. Therefore, we cannot determine at this stage whether strict or intermediate scrutiny applies. Even assuming that intermediate scrutiny applies to Henry's claims, however, we conclude that Henry has stated a claim for a violation of the Second Amendment.

"To survive intermediate scrutiny" under the Second Amendment, the government "must show 'reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence' " indicating "that the [state action is] substantially related to the governmental interest" in "public safety and crime prevention." The County's alleged confiscation of Henry's firearms and revocation of his license do not meet that standard.

The complaint alleges that the County immediately suspended Henry's pistol license and confiscated all of Henry's firearms based on the issuance of an ex parte order of protection and that Henry has since been barred from owning any firearms.

It may be that the issuance of an ex parte order justifies a temporary license suspension and firearm confiscation to allow the County to investigate whether the subject of the order poses a threat to the safety of others. But Henry alleges that the County's ban on his right to own firearms persisted even after the court that issued the order of protection allowed it to expire. In fact, the County continued to prohibit Henry from owning firearms for a year and a half after the order's dissolution without providing any justification for the prohibition besides the prior issuance of the ex parte order of protection.

Such actions do not withstand intermediate scrutiny because ex parte orders of protection issue without adversarial testing. The Family Court's order against Henry was based solely on his daughter's allegations. Under New York law, the order did not constitute "a finding of wrongdoing." And because the order was issued ex parte, Henry had no opportunity to contest his daughter's allegations in the Family Court proceeding or to demonstrate to the Family Court, before the order issued, that he was not dangerous. In light of these procedural limitations, the ex parte order of protection did not provide the "substantial evidence" that intermediate scrutiny requires to support the conclusion that barring Henry from owning firearms for an extended period is "substantially related to the achievement of governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention."

The complaint also plausibly alleges that the County's eventual revocation of the pistol license and the appeals officer's decision to uphold that decision do not withstand intermediate scrutiny. According to the allegations of the complaint, the County revoked Henry's license without conducting a bona fide inquiry into whether "substantial evidence" supported a finding that Henry was too dangerous to possess firearms.

Henry plausibly alleges that the County relied on evidenceincluding the prior issuance of dissolved orders of protection against Henry, unsubstantiated allegations of abuse, and Henry's purported failure to report potential disqualifications to the policethat had limited probative value in establishing Henry's dangerousness. With respect to the dissolved orders of protection, such orderseven if numerousdo not necessarily provide substantial evidence that Henry poses an ongoing danger to his family. In revoking Henry's license, the County did not explain why it found Henry's evidence and arguments responding to its concerns to be unpersuasive, and, at this stage of the litigation, it is not even clear that the County considered Henry's evidence at all.

With respect to Henry's failure to report the alleged incidents of domestic violence, the issuance of orders of protection, or the fact that his son was diagnosed with and received treatment for depression, the complaint plausibly alleges that Henry again did not have an opportunity to respond to the allegations that he failed to meet reporting conditions of his pistol license. Moreover, these alleged reporting failures, standing alone, do not necessarily provide "substantial evidence" that barring Henry from owning any firearms is "substantially related to the achievement of [the County's] interests in public safety and crime prevention," such that the issue can be decided on a motion to dismiss.

The County's review, leading to its decision to revoke Henry's right to own firearms, was allegedly conducted without affording Henry the opportunity to submit evidence in support of his position. And even when he took his appeal, it is plausible that, as Henry alleges, the appeals officer did not conduct a genuine inquiry into whether Henry actually posed a danger to others.

According to the complaint, the appeals officer credited Henry's ex-wife's allegations and failed to consider whether the evidenceincluding the ex-wife's more recent affidavit in favor of his ability to own firearmssupported a finding of dangerousness. Because Henry plausibly alleges that the County's decision was not based on a reliable determination that he posed a danger to others, Henry has stated a claim for a violation of the Second Amendment even if his claims are subject only to intermediate scrutiny.

The court concluded, though, that Henry had not introduced enough evidence that he was discriminated against because he was black, and thus affirmed the dismissal of the discrimination claim:

"A plaintiff alleging racial discrimination must do more than recite conclusory assertions. In order to survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must specifically allege the events claimed to constitute intentional discrimination as well as circumstances giving rise to a plausible inference of racially discriminatory intent." While Henry has alleged that the County's firearm policies have a discriminatory purpose and effect, he has not pleaded any facts supporting an inference of discriminatory intent. Henry alleges only that "White communities" within Nassau County appear to have a higher rate of pistol ownership than "Hispanic" or "Black" communities. But Henry does not allege facts supporting the inference that these purported disparities are the result of discrimination.

View post:
The Second Amendment and Vacated Ex Parte Domestic Protection Orders - Reason

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring proposes using $2.5 million in federal COVID-19 relief funding for intervention programs.

NORLINA, N.C. Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring is urging the General Assembly in its special session next week to take on the issue of gun violence.

"It's really critical that we do everything we can to address the gun violence problem that we have in our country," he said.

Herring is proposing that $2.5 million from the American Rescue Plan be used for his staff to implement what he calls "proven-effective" intervention programs with law enforcement agencies and local community organizations.

"What it does is provide funding for community-based intervention to break the cycle of violence," he said. "We know gun violence has a ripple effect all through a community. It's traumatic."

Herring said previous violence reduction efforts led by his office have worked.

His team worked with local law enforcement, Commonwealth's Attorneys, and gun violence prevention advocates to reduce gun violence and other violent crime through a combination of outreach, prevention, intervention, and evidence-based practices.

He says Norfolk saw a 19 percent reduction in violent crimes and a 25 percent reduction in homicides.

Herring is confident this idea will not be opposed by Second Amendment supporters.

"This is different," he said. "It's really aimed at crime prevention and violence reduction through intervention, outreach, and enforcement. This should not create resistance from strong supporters of the Second Amendment. It does not restrict anyone's firearms rights that they might otherwise have. What it does is bring community-based strategies to break the cycle of violence."

Go here to read the rest:
Attorney General Herring aims to break the cycle of gun violence - 13newsnow.com WVEC

(Iowa City, IA) -- The Iowa Board of Regents has approved tuition increases starting this fall. Tuition was frozen last year during the coronavirus pandemic, but a loss of state funding brought on the change. The approval was given Wednesday afternoon. Students at the University of Iowa and Iowa State will see their tuition charges increase by almost 300 dollars. At the University of Northern Iowa tuition will go up by 115 dollars.

(Winterset, IA) -- Two more Iowa counties have become Second Amendment sanctuaries. Tuesday votes by the Board of Supervisors at both Cedar and Madison counties mean there are now four Iowa counties where sheriffs offices wont be enforcing state or federal gun laws that conflict with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Adams County is also considering a similar resolution at its August 2nd meeting, but all that is pending is a discussion, so far.

(Iowa City, IA) -- A Waucoma-based pork dealer that does business nationwide has been sanctioned by federal regulators for a second time. Lynch Livestock is accused of illegal buying practices that cheated hog sellers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Iowa dealer has been ordered to stop recording false weights for the hogs at its buying stations. Lynch will pay a civil penalty of 445 thousand dollars. The U-S-D-A had ordered the company to stop the same improper practices four years ago.

(Des Moines, IA) -- Des Moines police are reporting a man who was running from officers Tuesday stopped and shot himself to death. Officers were responded to a call from a woman who said she was being threatened by a group of men. As they pulled up, the 18-year-old man began to run. When he finally stopped, officers say he took a handgun out of his pocket and pointed it at his head. All efforts to de-escalate the situation failed and he shot himself. First aid was provided, but he died before he could be rushed to a hospital. The mans name hasnt been released.

At KMA, we attempt to be accurate in our reporting. If you see a typo or mistake in a story, please contact us by emailing kmaradio@kmaland.com.

Visit link:
Iowa News Headlines Thursday, July 29, 2021 | Regional - KMAland

As part of 101.9 FM WDETs Book Club,were invitingthe Detroit region to examine and discuss the textthat impacts every resident of the United States: The Constitution. Whether youre revisiting the documents or reading them for the first time,join us in reading alongand engaging in civil conversations with yourcommunity.

Get your free pocket Constitution

Actual tangible items are largely missing from the Bill ofRights.

While speech, press, assembly and religion are crucial concepts, they are just concepts; you cant go to the speech store and buy some speech. The rightto throw soldiers out of your house or protection against search and seizure are important, but stillconcepts.

Arguably, the most tangible right in the Bill of Rights is the SecondAmendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not beinfringed.

Curious that 27 words have sparked so much conflict, but no matter what side of the debate youre on, you cant deny the impact of the right to bear arms on ourculture.

There are tons of guns in popular music. In fact, after love and sex and cars, guns turn up in American songs with alarming frequency. But its something that dominates our culture, so its no surprise it dominates musical culture aswell.

WDET strives to make our journalism accessible to everyone. As a public media institution, we maintain our journalistic integrity through independent support from readers like you. If you value WDET as your source of news, music and conversation, please make a gift today.

Donate today

Continue reading here:
The Right to Bear Arms and Rock Out: The Second Amendment's Influence on Music - WDET

Media top headlines July 23

In media news today, The Washington Post and The New York Times ignore the Biden admin admitting a crucial error, Washington Post reporter Felicia Sonmez sues the paper and top editors, and Biden and Don Lemon get roasted for performances during CNN town hall

"The View's" Sunny Hostin and Meghan McCain clashed Friday over the Second Amendment in a segment focused on gun violence in America.

During the discussion, Hostin suggested the Second Amendment had racist roots and was "designed to protect slavery." McCain described the right as the "cornerstone" of what she believed "America should be."

CRUZ AND 24 SENATE REPUBLIOCANS FILE AMICUS BRIEF DEFENDING SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CARRY

"I think its a cultural problem and for decades the NRA has pushed legislation that not only supported a lot of gun ownership and the proliferation of guns, but also stifled the study and spread of information about the causes of gun violence," Hostin said after co-host Joy Behar asked what she thought was at the heart of "America's gun problem."

"I'm reading an incredible book called 'The Second' by professor Carol Anderson, and she describes that the right to bear arms was designed to protect slavery because our founding fathers, and others, wanted to be able to empower a local militia group to basically put down a slave revolt and protect plantation owners," Hostin added.

Hostin went on to claim that gun ownership was on the rise within the Black community because of a fear of White supremacy, the pandemic, and police violence. She insisted it was more about feeling unsafe than about a rise in crime in the streets.

LIBERALS REJOICE OVER MEGHAN MCCAIN LEAVING THE VIEW: ITS ABOUT TIME'

"Well, what makes me feel unsafe is rising crime," McCain retorted, before confirming an earlier claim on the show that gun violence was on the rise in Arizona, her home state.

"But you aren't seeing people fleeing Arizona. In fact, Arizona is gaining a new congressional seat because so many people from California want to come over to Arizona because of the different kind of laws," McCain added. "You arent seeing people flooding to places like New York City, youre seeing them flood to places like Florida and Texas and thats because of the crime spikes and other things that happened post-pandemic."

McCain cited recent shootings in Washington, D.C. and called on mayor Muriel Bowser to tackle the increasing crime in the District. "This is getting worse and worse in different areas," she said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"I'm a gun owner, I'm an NRA member, I'm proud to be both," McCain added. "I think I never want to be lectured to by people who dont own guns, who didnt grow up in gun culture, who dont understand why women like me want to be armed Its a very hard thing for people to understand that dont believe in it But going forward I will always vote for any person and any party that continues to defend the Second Amendment no matter what happens. It is the cornerstone of who I am and what I believe America should be."

Continue reading here:
'The View' hosts clash over Second Amendment: 'Designed to protect slavery' or 'cornerstone' of America? - Fox News

About a decade ago, there was a movement among some sheriffs to elevate themselves above their actual authority, calling themselves constitutional officers with additional powers and duties, Finer said.

The National Association of Sheriffs wrote an article at the time addressing the idea.

Lately, there has been much discussion about the Oath of Office taken by any elected sheriff and the legal significance of that oath of office, the article reads.

The article acknowledges sheriffs offices have unique duties because they are the only law enforcement agency that reports directly to an elected official, the sheriff, before saying sheriffs offices are bound by judicial review.

In short, an individual sheriffs oath of office does not contain any additional or unique language conferring special duties, powers or responsibilities on any Office of Sheriff, the article reads. As a result, an individual sheriffs oath of office is the same or identical oath of office conferred on and taken by all of these other public local, county and state officials.

Finer said he is concerned the signed letter tries to add additional powers.

The pledge adds new words to the job description, namely that sheriffs will do all in their power to steadfastly protect the Second Amendment from what or whom we need to protect the amendment goes unstated, Finer said. The pledges promise to use all power is new; this is not in the oath of any elected official. The sheriffs have added a special, new provision and they did so on their own.

Continued here:
Washington sheriffs sign letter vowing to uphold Second Amendment, but some question their messaging - The Columbian

33609481_H26296055

Washburn Municipal Building. (David Marino Jr. | Star-Herald)

Washburn Municipal Building. (David Marino Jr. | Star-Herald)

The town of Washburn is planning to hold a public hearing on a resolution that would designate the town a second amendment sanctuary, to be held at a yet-to-be determined date.

WASHBURN, Maine The town of Washburn is planning to hold a public hearing on a resolution that would designate the town a second amendment sanctuary, to be held at a yet-to-be determined date.

The Washburn town council voted July 12 to set a date for the resolution hearing. But the actual hearing itself may not take place until the fall, according to Town Manager Donna Turner.

We were hoping it was going to be in August, but I dont think were going to be able to do it probably until September, Turner said. Im right in the middle of tax commitments and getting tax bills sent out. Thats my number one priority right now.

The resolution had been brought forward to the town by a small group of residents who presented the resolution to the town. It follows a string of other recent resolutions that had been passed by other northern Maine towns in recent months, beginning with Fort Fairfield back in February. Piscataquis County has also passed the resolution, with a proposed resolution for Aroostook County also set to be discussed.

Although mostly symbolic, the second amendment sanctuary resolutions affirm the towns commitment to keep and bear arms, which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled includes the individuals right to own firearms. The Administration of the U.S. President Joe Biden has vowed to tackle gun violence in the country, leading to concerns about potential firearms restrictions.

Turner said the original resolution brought forth by the Washburn residents had to be reworked before the town could officially vote on having the public meeting.

It was presented to us as if the council board would be deciding this, and its not, it has to be a town wide decision. Turner said. So they had to go back to the drawing board a little bit.

Thank you for reading your 4 free articles this month. To continue reading, and support local, rural journalism, please subscribe.

See original here:
Washburn to hold public hearing on 'Second Amendment Sanctuary' resolution - The County

Walla Walla County Sheriff Mark Crider and Columbia County Sheriff Joe Helm were among the 37 sheriffs statewide who recently penned and signed a letter affirming a commitment to the Second Amendment.

Washington state has 39 sheriffs.

The message was written because of increasing public concern to safeguard constitutional rights, according to the letter from the Washington State Sheriffs Association.

Crider, who is the secretary and treasurer for the association, signed the letter and posted it on his departments Facebook page with an endorsement.

I am proud to a part of such a great moment when our constitutional rights are being challenged, Crider wrote.

Helm also took to his departments Facebook page to acknowledge his signing and approval of the document.

As sheriff of Columbia County, I am sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, Helm wrote.

The only two counties without signatures were Kitsap and King counties.

Interim Kitsap County Sheriff John Gese told the Kitsap Sun he would have some motivation to go ahead and sign it if he were to be appointed sheriff.

King County Sheriff Mitzi Johanknecht didnt sign the letter and did not respond to multiple requests for comment, according to the Spokesman Review.

The letter does not specifically state any particular law or ordinance related to gun rights or gun ownership.

Grant County Sheriff Tom Jones, who is president of the association, said there was no specific legislation that prompted the letter, according to iFiber One News.

Jones told the Spokesman Review the letter was inspired by a similar letter signed by Utah sheriffs and was primarily prompted by numerous people asking the sheriffs about their Second Amendment rights being protected.

The letter made the rounds on social media and immediately sparked a firestorm of comments, both for and against it.

At issue for some commenters was the vocabulary used in the message, including calling the Constitution divinely inspired.

We understand the destructive influences currently existing in our country will only relent when women and men everywhere genuinely care for each other, the sheriffs wrote. We must rely on Providence and care deeply about preserving the Constitution and its freedoms in order to be a strong and prosperous people.

Others online raised questions about how the sheriffs would address a law passed in 2018 that bans the sale of certain guns to people under 21 and puts added responsibilities on gun owners.

Crider declined to make specific comments about the contents of the letter, but said the document was drafted to assure citizens that the elected sheriffs of Washington will stand by their oath to uphold the constitutions of the U.S. and the state of Washington.

We just want to reiterate that we want to be guided by our oath of office, Crider said. And thats what were gonna use to drive our decisions.

See the article here:
Walla Walla, Columbia County sheriffs sign letter affirming 'commitment to the Second Amendment' - Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

Treasure Coast Newspapers

July 13 was a historic day as Indian River County became the 45th Florida county to approve a resolution designating IRC a "sanctuary" for the Second Amendment, a public expression of their unequivocal support for the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. With enthusiastic support from Sheriff Eric Flowers and most of the commissioners, Moss consented with her silence by "not objecting."

Given Moss's apparent disdain for her constituents, her lackluster "support" of the resolution was no surprise. Moss was the only commissioner who has repeatedly disrespected her constituents by missing scheduled meetings. In May or June, we scheduled meetings with all five county commissioners on the same day to discuss our resolution, and to present to them nearly 1,500 signatures from IRC residents, gathered over the previous year in support of the resolution. Moss must be busier than the rest of the commissioners since she was the only no-show.

No explanation or apology was offered by Commissioner Moss. Not wishing to embarrass her publicly, I refrained from mentioning her lack of decorum at the public meeting on July 13, and in good faith offered to show her the signed petitions, which she had not previously witnessed due to her own malfeasance. When she insisted on keeping them overnight, I reluctantly obliged, explaining that the petitioners did not wish their information to be shared or made public. When she said Wednesday was too soon, I offered to pick them up on Thursday, to which she agreed.

After repeated attempts to reach Moss, she has not responded or returned the now 1,600 petitions, lent to her in good faith. What is her motive?

Laura Moss has demonstrated by her elitist attitude that she deserves neither respect, nor our trust.

Lamarre Notargiacomo, Vero Beach, supports the Indian River County 2nd Amendment Defense Coalition.

Recently, I had a spirited discussion with a perpetually disgruntled conservative. During our conversation, the subject of critical race theory arose. I challenged him to define CRT, anticipating his answer: Its a liberal attempt to turn children against one another. While this is the conservative definition of CRT, its as simplistic as it is wrongheaded.

Simply stated, CRT is a decades-old academic theory proposing a new approach to examine perpetual racism and exclusion. (Note: Initially, CRT was, in part, a repudiation of liberal responses addressing racist legal practices. It had nothing to do with public school instruction.)

Flustered by my response dismissed by right-wing operatives whove turned CRT into a divisive political strategy he blurted, Youre the laughingstock of the neighborhood (because I challenge right-wing fabrications). CRT has encouraged scholarly conversation about the impact of racism on U.S. history. (Few things frustrate conservatives more than scholarly investigations, which emphasize objective analysis over subjective opinion and political propaganda.)

Furthermore, CRT has led to critical investigations into other cultural issues, including the effects of internalized shame on marginalized minorities. (If youre a privileged white male, youve no idea how destructive that kind of constant, inescapable shame feels.) Unfortunately, CRTs opponents invoke their enormous misunderstanding to frame liberals as unpatriotic buffoons who want to incite white guilt among school-age children. This is demagoguery in its most pernicious form.

In a recent salute to Americas Fourth of July celebrations, NBCs Harry Smith said, Our history is both woeful and wonderful (and) our stories should be shared (and) owned. It endangers no one to understand the sins of our past.

The poet William Blake wrote, The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, (which) breeds reptiles of the mind.

This is what truth looks like.

Cray Little, Vero Beach

Editor'snote: The following two letters are being rerun in their entirety due to an inadvertentprinting erroron July 22.

Florida is falling into the clutches of another COVID-19 wave and where is our illustrious governor Ron DeSantis? Why, at the border in Texas. He has sent a 50-member troop of law-enforcement officials to the border in support of Texas Gov. Greg Abbots plea for help protecting the border. DeSantis followed to show his support, or maybe get a photo-op with his idol Donald Trump.

Our state is falling into the ravages of this plague and our leader is off the reservation. Please tell me what he can do there as opposed to as what he can do here?

He cares more for showing his and Trumps minions what they want to see than doing what it will take to finally bring this plague to an end. He has abused his powers by selling T-shirts and political material using anti-Fauci slogans.

When will he finally resign himself to care about the people of his state? Both DeSantis and his wife have been vaccinated and have never fostered the same for his constituents. Trump could have put an end to non-vaxxers, as De Santis could have, but both chose to turn their backs.

If more citizens do not get vaccinated, then only non-vaccinated individuals will get sick, and possibly some will die.

Policis must be left out of this pending disaster.

Joseph De Phillips, Stuart

So a political action committee connected to Gov. Ron DeSantis is now selling Dont Fauci My Florida merchandise. Wow. Considering the governors record on COVID-19 I can only say Please America, dont DeSantis my cemetery any more than he already has.

Stephen Osiecki, Vero Beach

Read more:
Letters to the Editor: July 23, 2021 - TCPalm