Category Archives: Second Amendment

In response to Lee Santas letter (June 17, 2021) entitled "The Second Amendment is a racist document," I did a little research and learned from a 2017 study that 30% of Americans do own guns, and 36% percent of the rest could see themselves owning one. The same study shows that 24% of African Americans are proud owners of firearms.

The five main reasons for ownership are protection, hunting, sport shooting, collecting, and use on the job. As of April of this year, gun ownership among African Americans is up 58.2% according to the Guardian, US Edition. Apparently the Second Amendment is for everyone.

There is a process by which this nation can limit or broaden the Second Amendment, but to resort to someones narrow study as a cause for inclusion in the Bill of Rights should not be part of the debate.

STEVE HATCHER

Clark Fork

Go here to see the original:
Study proves Second Amendment is for everyone - Bonner County Daily Bee

When Vice President Kamala Harris kinda, sorta visited the Mexican border last week she at least made it to the El Paso airport where she was greeted by a Texas Democratic congresswoman who declared El Paso was the new Ellis Island.

And that seems to comport with the Democrats plan to turn America into a sanctuary country.

But most of America is now a sanctuary for gun owners.

Last week the pro-Second Amendment website SanctuaryCounties.com reported that 1,930 of Americas counties, or 61 percent of the total, are considered safe spaces for gun owners.

More than half that number 1,137 are counties that have taken it upon themselves to pass Second Amendment Sanctuary laws, the website notes.

The remainder seems to fall under the 21 states that have adopted Constitutional Carry laws, which allow gun owners to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

The idea of an ever-increasing number of Americans being allowed nearly unfettered ability to carry guns or be free of government regulation of them is happening in a media vacuum, according to Lee Williams, a pro-Second Amendment gun policy columnist.

The mainstream media has missed one of the biggest trend stories ever the massive surge in Second Amendment sanctuaries at the state, county, and local levels, Williams noted.

He wrote that last month when the number of sanctuary counties was 1,459.

Williams also pointed out that this movement seemed to take off after Democrats seized control of the Virginia state government and began a crackdown on guns.

Youd be hard-pressed to get half of America to agree that beer is good, or that steak should be served medium rare, Williams wrote. Yet millions of Americans have forced their elected officials to erect a legislative wall around their communities to protect their gun rights.

Despite the skyrocketing trend, Williams added, stories about the Second Amendment sanctuary movement are scarce unless theyre anti-gun.

Case in point: The media last week quickly picked up Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, vetoing a bill authorizing constitutional carry.

Williams further noted, There has been very little of the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth over this nationwide trend from anti-gun groups, which could indicate they realize the scope of what theyre up against.

Some cable TV news actors have referred to Second Amendment sanctuaries assymbolic, [emphasis original] in what can be seen as an attempt to downplay or trivialize the movement, Williams concluded. When a half of the country supports an issue any issue theres nothing symbolic about it.

Maybe thats even more so now that the sanctuary movement has hit 60- percent and keeps rising.

Android Users,Click Here To Download The Free Press AppAnd Never Miss A Story. Its Free And Coming To Apple Users Soon.

Support journalism byclicking here to our gofundmeor sign up for ourfree newsletter by clicking here

Related

Original post:
Second Amendment Sanctuary Movement Secretly Growing, Mainstream Media Ignores It - The Free Press

Judge Benitez: Miller v. Becerra, AR15 Rifles ARE Protected by Second Amendment!

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On June 4th, 2021, in the Southern District of California, Judge Roger T. Benitez found the complex regulatory scheme of California gun laws that outlaw the ownership of Assault weapons, particularly semi-automatic clones of the AR-15, are unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment on their face.

From the decision:

Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR-15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs challenge a net of interlocking statutes which impose strict criminal restrictions on firearms that fall under Californias complex definition of the ignominiousassault weapon. Hearings on a preliminary injunction were consolidated with a trial on the merits pursuant to F.R. C.P. Rule 65(a)(2). Having considered the evidence, the Court issues these findings of fact and conclusions of law,1 finds for the Plaintiffs, and enters Judgment accordingly.

This is the opening salvo in a tightly worded and beautifully constructed 94 page decision by Judge Roger T. Benitez. This correspondent will lead the reader through a modest sampling of the decision, so those who do not wish to read the entire decision will not need to do so. Reading the entire decision is highly recommended.

Judge Benitez demolishes the argument that AR-15 style rifles are unusual on page 2:

This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned assault weapons are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed assault weapons are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.

He shows how silly it is to ban a rifle for features that make it more accurate on page 8:

The mechanical design features that identify a rifle as a California assault weapon, it is argued, tend to help a person shoot the rifle more accurately under pressure. The Plaintiffs make the point that this is a better condition for all lawful uses, i.e., a more accurate gun is better for everyone. After all, responsible gun-owners worry about the ending point of every round fired. If shooting in self-defense, a home defender wants every round to hit only attackers.

In contrast, the Attorney General argues that better accuracy makes it a more dangerous weapon.

The Judge cites the Caetano decision, where the Supreme Court unanimously held the Second Amendment protects modern weapons on page 10L

The Second Amendment protects modern weapons. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, 412 (2016). The firearms banned by California Penal Code 30515 and deemed assault weapons are modern weapons. They are principally AR-15 type rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Plaintiffs and others refer to them as modern sporting rifles although they are clearly useful for more than just sport.

He shows the clear inclusion and protection of militia weapons by the Second Amendment on page 11:

Although the Attorney General sees it differently, the Supreme Court also recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantee includes a right to keep and bear firearms that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Miller, 307 U.S., at 178. Miller implies that a weapon that is commonly owned and that is useful for the common defense for a militia member is also protected by the Second Amendment.

Judge Benitez shows how common modern rifles are in the United States on page 15:

Nationally, modern rifles are ubiquitous. In 2018 alone (the most recent year with data), 1,954,000 modern rifles were manufactured or imported into the United States. Over the last three decades, 19,797,000 modern rifles have been manufactured or imported into the United States and the numbers have been steadily increasing.

He shows the California assault weapon ban was flawed from the start on pages 24-25.

Moving through the trial record here, it becomes clear that AWCAs assault weapons ban-by-prohibited-features was not designed to address a real harm, and even if it did, does not alleviate the harm in a material way. Guiding the intermediate scrutiny path are some checkpoints.

On page 26, he shows it is the government which bears the burden of proof when it attempts to limit a fundamental Constitutional right:

The presumption in favor of rightfully possessing a citizens arm was made during the adoption of the Second Amendment. The government may carry its burden in a myriad of yet undefined ways, but it is the governments burden to bear.

On page 28, he shows the idea that some weapons can be banned because others are allowed, is a flawed and silly argument with no stopping point:

The problem is that the alternatives-remain argument has no limiting principle and would justify incremental firearm bans until there is only a single-shot derringer remaining for lawful self-defense. The same argument that a handgun ban might be justified because government-approved alternatives are available was rejected in Heller and it is rejected here.

Judge Benitez unequivocally shows AR-15 rifles are used for defense on page 34:

Without question, there is clear evidence that AR-15 rifles are and have been used for self-defense.

He shows the state contradicts itself in its claims about accurate fire on page 39:

Accuracy is very important for self-defense because a civilian is accountable for every round he fires. If he misses the attacker, he will hit something he did not intend to hit, which may be an innocent bystander.61 The State does not dispute the importance of accuracy alone for self-defense.62

Does the state want rifles that are less accurate? No and yes . The State wants rifles that are less accurate during rapid firing because rapid firing, it is claimed, correlates with criminal use. And there is no need for rapid firing for self-defense, according to the Attorney General.

On page 44, Judge Benitez explains the state cannot restrict a right merely because some arms are used more commonly in some crimes:

In other words, if modern rifles are misused in crime(even disproportionately), government must deal with those wrongful acts directly; it may not deal with the problem by suppressing the rights of law-abiding citizens to have modern rifles for lawful uses. Thus, disproportionality is not a valid constitutional concern. Common ownership by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes is the test. Moreover, there is little evidence that modern rifles are used disproportionately in crime.

Then, in a series of arguments starting on page 47, he shows how the claim that AR-15 rifles are more commonly used in a crime is not correct:

Koper concludes, while some surveys suggest that ownership and, to a lesser extent, use of AWs may be fairly common among certain subsets of offenders, the overwhelming weight of evidence from gun recovery and survey studies indicates that AWs are used in a small percentage of gun crimes overall.76 Kopers conclusions comport with the ATF firearm tracing report from 2019.

Recall that to pass intermediate scrutiny, AWCA must have at least been designed to address a real harm and alleviate the harm in a material way.Turner II, 520 U.S., at 195. The evidence described so far proves that the harm of an assault rifle being used in a mass shooting is an infinitesimally rare event. More people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California. Even if a mass shooting by assault rifle is a real harm, the evidence also shows that AWCAs prohibited features ban has not alleviated the harm in any material way.

On page 53, Judge Benitez shows how useful a modern rifle is, merely by its presence:

On the other side, a fully loaded modern rifle is surely a powerful psychological criminal deterrent. Simply brandishing such a weapon may cause an intruder to flee precisely because it appears to be dangerous and fully loaded. It is difficult to imagine the same psychological effect on a home invader (or two invaders) from brandishing a 2-shot derringer.

On page 59, the Judge shows how other firearms were used in the vast majority of the crimes the state claims would be reduced by banning AWs.

Analyzing the list of 161 national events, Allen finds that 78% of mass shooting events did not involve an assault weapon. Put differently, across the U.S. only 22% did involve an assault weapon.115 Her opinion comports with other evidence in the record. Professor Mark Gius reports even less frequent use of assault rifles in mass shooting events.116 Gius says, [c]ontrary to popular belief, however, assault rifles were not the predominant type of weapon used in these types of crimes. In fact, according to a recent study, handguns were the most used type of firearm in mass shootings (32.99% of mass shootings); rifles were used in only 8.25% of mass shootings.117

On page 60, he shows how the ban in California is a failure:

From Allens list of mass shooting events, it is reported that in California there have been 25 mass shooting events over approximately 40 years.118 How well has the California ban on assault weapons worked? Before AWCA, twice in a decade, an assault weapon was used in a mass shooting. On average, since AWCA, twice a decade, an assault weapon was used in a mass shooting.119 The assault weapon ban has had no effect. Californias experiment is a failure.

On page 64, he notes that AR-15 type rifles are lower-powered than many common rifles:

A modern rifle like the AR-15 platform rifle typically uses lower power cartridges than either military rifles or hunting rifles.

On page 69 the judge states what has become obvious from the research:

Put simply, the evidence indicates gun bans are in effective at reducing gun crimes.

Then Judge Benitez starts taking apart the wrong decisions in other circuits which have been hostile to the Second Amendment, on page 70:

In the past, Second Amendment cases were wrongly decided by following a majority of circuit courts down the wrong path.

He shows how the California government has infringed on Second Amendment rights on page 75:

Today, the Attorney General goes beyond N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol and suggests that intermediate scrutiny should permit a class-wide ban on extremely popular assault rifles, assault shotguns, and assault handguns, in addition to an existing ban on buying any handgun not found on a shrinking list under Californias handgun roster of safe handguns, because some alternatives remain. This is too far.

On page 77, he explains how the other circuit decisions do not apply because they were deficient in various ways:

None of the out-of-circuit decisions comfortably fit this case. None of the cases went to trial. None of the cases had substantial evidence that AR-15 type rifles are useful and used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes like home-defense and sporting competition. None of the cases considered an AR-15s militia use. None of the cases scrutinized a statute like Californias 30515 that bans assault rifles, assault shotguns, and assault pistols, while at the same time prohibiting the sale of all potentially alternative handguns not included on the States shrinking handgun roster.

He shows there is no logic to the AW ban. It has to have a real purpose to restrict Second Amendment rights, yet the ban does not make sense, on page 80:

The point is that most of what the Attorney General says are dangerous features on a prohibited modern rifle are also features on a Second Amendment-protected semiautomatic pistol. The Ruger Mini 14 is not banned by AWCA but it is capable of shooting the same ammunition, at the same speed, with the same type of large capacity magazines, as an AR-15.

On pages 80-81, he puts forward the reasons the AR-15 type rifle is protected as a militia weapon:

Banning the Ideal Arm for Militia Use Fails Intermediate Scrutiny

The Attorney General does not address or acknowledge whether the ban also imposes a burden on the Second Amendment right to own a firearm that is the ideal weapon for use in the militia. If the modern rifle is the ideal weapon, which it is according to the testimony of General Youngman, then the ban forces a choice of a less-than-ideal weapon for militia use.

On page 84-85, the expert testimony for the militia argument is explained:

Youngmans testimony is uncontroverted. Youngman is very well qualified to opine on the usefulness of an AR-15 for militia use. He has served in the regular army and the army reserves. He served as Kentuckys Adjutant General commanding the states national guard. He is a firearms trainer and armorer. He was a member of the bar and worked as a prosecutor. His opinion that an AR-15 is an ideal firearm for use in a militia is unequivocal and uncontested. Of the prohibited features in 30515(a), most are important for militia use.

On page 85, the protection of militia weapons is directly tied to Supreme Court precedent in the Miller case from 1939:

But Miller held that it is precisely this type of firearm a firearm that has a reasonable relationship to militia service that is protected by the Second Amendment. It is a principle that Heller grasped. This holding [of Miller] is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia).

On page 87, he categorically declares the AR-15 in particular, and militia weapons in general, are protected by the Second Amendment:

The evidence is clear, however, that the AR-15 type of modern rifle bears a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency, as well as the effectiveness, of a modern well-regulated militia. It is therefore categorically protected by the Second Amendment.

On page 92, Judge Rodger T. Benitez sums up the rationale for the Second Amendment as valid today as it was in 1791. It is beautifully done:

There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens are better. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes. In early America and today, the Second Amendment right of self-preservation permits a citizen to repel force by force when the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent that injury. Heller, 554 U.S., at 594. Then, as now, the Second Amendment may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. Id. at 606 (citation omitted).

This is a remarkable and long-awaited Second Amendment decision. It will now be appealed to a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit.

It is impossible to know how they will respond.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Read the original here:
Judge Benitez: AR15 Rifles ARE Protected by Second Amendment! - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

The Wisconsin Senate on Wednesday passed a bill aimed at exempting the state from federal gun laws.

The state Senate passed Assembly Bill 293by voice vote, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.Supporters of the legislation say it would make the state a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Under the bill, a firearm that is owned in the state of Wisconsin and does not leave the state would not be subject to federal regulation, according to its text.

The measure also prohibits a person from enforcing a federal act, law, statute, rule, regulation, treaty, or order that bans semi-automatic weapons, requires registration of firearms, regulates capacity of magazines or requires confiscation of a firearm.

The legislation also prohibits state agencies and local governments fromusing resources to confiscate firearms that are lawfully possessed in the state.

The state Assembly passed the bill on June 9, according to records on the state legislatures website.

The bill now heads to Gov. Tony EversTony EversThousands sent to emergency rooms every year due to violent police encounters: investigation Wisconsin governor signs bill banning police chokeholds Wisconsin GOP spent more than M on lawsuits since 2018: report MOREs (D) desk. But as the Journal Sentinel notes, Evers has pushed for more oversight of guns, as opposed to less.

The bills passage came the same day that President BidenJoe BidenSchumer vows to advance two-pronged infrastructure plan next month Biden appoints veteran housing, banking regulator as acting FHFA chief Iran claims U.S. to lift all oil sanctions but State Department says 'nothing is agreed' MORE outlined efforts tocombat crime, with a focus on addressing gun violence.

The president has repeatedly called for Congress to pass gun reform in the wake of several high-profile mass shootings and has previously unveiled legislation aimed at the issue.

According to a report from The Associated Press, Second Amendment sanctuaries took off in 2018, when states were considering gun laws in the following the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 dead.

About 1,200 local governments across the U.S. have enacted such resolutions, according to AP. Arizona Gov. Doug DuceyDoug DuceyGOP sees critical race theory battle as potent midterm weapon Arizona is 'building back better' by reshoring critical technology Arizona reporting spike in coronavirus cases MORE (R) has signed a proposal into law.

Follow this link:
Wisconsin Senate passes 'Second Amendment sanctuary' bill | TheHill - The Hill

WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Tom Cotton (R-AR), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) recently sent a letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms(ATF)and Explosives raising alarm overtwo of their newly-proposedgunrulesthat could threatenAmericans Second Amendment rights.

The rules, 2021R-05 and 2021R-08, would require the retention of firearms transaction records forever, paving the way to a national gun registry, and clamp down on pistol braces and other devices possessed by thousands of law-abiding gun owners.

These measures are concerning enough on their face. But more alarming is ATFs apparent willingness to unilaterally make important firearms policy determinations wholly apart from Congress,wrote the Senators.Americans rights to keep and bear firearms are safeguarded by the Second Amendment, and the responsibility for implementing those constitutional protections rests with elected lawmakersnot unelected federal bureaucrats.

Read the full letterhere.

###

Read more:
Tillis Raises Alarm Over Proposed Rules Jeopardizing Americans' Second Amendment... - Thom Tillis

John Lott, a pro-Second Amendment activist, lashed out after being duped into speaking at a fake high school graduation in a ploy by a little-known gun control group.

On Wednesday, Change the Ref, an organization aiming to raise awareness about mass shootings, released a video titled "The Lost Class," which showed Lott speaking to a chorus of empty chairs on June 4, an event he thought was a rehearsal for a prominent institution's graduation commencement. The footage featured clips of Lott talking about gun background checks as the group panned over the empty chairs and insisted thousands of high school students die from firearm violence annually, a number Change the Ref says would be improved by more laws regulating gun sales.

The Change the Ref ploy also included a speech from former National Rifle Association President David Keene, who now serves as the editor-at-large for the Washington Times. Keene may have been subject to the same misinformation from the organization.

BIDEN ATF NOMINEE SAYS SOME LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS MAY COMMIT 'VIOLENT CRIMES'

"If they feel that they have a strong argument, why is it necessary to take video and take things so completely out of context?" Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, told the Washington Examiner in a phone interview on Wednesday. "I mean, why is it necessary to do that?"

"If they had confidence in their claims, they wouldn't have to do stuff like this, they wouldn't have to lie, [and] they wouldn't have to go and take things out of context," he added. "I'm disappointed and upset."

He also blasted the footage for being "very selectively edited" and "out of context." As a result, he said, it missed his main arguments that background checks are subject to large numbers of "false positives" and have adverse effects on minority males.

On May 14, Lott said he was contacted by a man claiming to be Jordan Simon, the board chairman of a fictional school called the James Madison Academy, to be its keynote speaker. At the time, the unidentified person who worked for Change the Ref, crafted a fake website for the institution, JamesMadisonAcademy.net, which no longer displays on a web browser.

Story continues

The man claiming to be Simon told Lott he would receive the "Keeper of the Constitution Award" for showing "exceptional dedication to preserving the 2nd Amendment," according to emails provided to the Washington Examiner.

"It was a pleasure speaking to you on the phone earlier. As I mentioned, I am the Board Chairman with James Madison Academy, a private, online high school in Las Vegas," the May 14 email read in part.

It continued: "On Saturday, June 5th, we will be holding a special in-person graduation ceremony in Las Vegas. We'd be thrilled to have you accept the award at the ceremony and give a 5-10 minute speech addressing the graduating class, focusing on the importance of the individual liberties given to us in our 'Bill of Rights' especially the 2nd Amendment."

At first, Lott, who said it was "a bit of an honor to go and give a talk to such a large group of high school students," was reluctant to bring politics into a high school commencement. He voiced these concerns to the fake school, though they insisted he talked about background checks. He eventually agreed.

"I said, 'Look, you know, it seems inappropriate to me to give a political discussion at a high school commencement,'" Lott said in his interview. "I wanted to go and give them basically the talk that I give my kids, and that is, 'If you're going to work hard, work hard in the beginning of your life. You try to pick a job that's not a job because if it's something you really enjoy, you'll be a lot more successful.'"

The Second Amendment activist said he was promised $1,000, which he received in cash, and $496 for travel, though he has yet to recoup that portion of the pay. On June 3, Lott began the 1,000-mile trek from his home state of Montana to Las Vegas by car after he was instructed to arrive one day early for a "practice" session in front of empty chairs.

Lott, who gave a talk somewhere else on June 3, was inconvenienced by the news and offered to give the "practice" session by phone, though the man claiming to be Simon insisted he arrive as soon as possible, according to text messages obtained by the Washington Examiner.

"If I can give the practice talk on the phone, it would really make my life a lot easier," Lott told the unnamed man. "I have given lots of talks to large audiences. I guess that it would really make life much easier."

To which "Simon" responded, "Unfortunately, my hands are tied. Everyone participating will have to be there on Friday for rehearsal."

Lott then rushed through the night to Vegas and was subsequently stopped and ticketed by a police officer at around 1 a.m., texts between the pair showed.

"I drove until 1 AM last night," Lott wrote. "Was doing better on time until the police pulled me over."

The man claiming to be Simons responded, "Oh no! Did you get a ticket?"

"Yes," Lott answered.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

When June 5 arrived, Lott was told the "live-version" of the commencement was canceled due to "threats of violence," and organizers claimed the police were generating leads on the supposed perpetrators. He was sent on his way without performing the "actual" ceremony.

When he tried to contact the man posing as Simons to follow up on what he thought was a disturbing development, the phone number was disconnected.

Neither Keene nor Change the Ref immediately responded to requests for comment from the Washington Examiner.

Washington Examiner Videos

Tags: News, Second Amendment, Gun Control, Las Vegas, Schools, Firearms, Background Checks, National Rifle Association

Original Author: Jake Dima

Original Location:

Second Amendment activist 'disappointed and upset' after gun control group dupes him into speaking at fake graduation

Go here to read the rest:
Second Amendment activist 'disappointed and upset' after gun control group dupes him into speaking at fake graduation - Yahoo News

Missouri State 6th District Rep. Ed Lewis| Moberly Monitor-Index

Note: The following Capitol Report is from Missouri House District 6 Representative Ed Lewis from Moberly during a time when the state legislature is not in regular session for the week of June 21-25. Rep. Lewis can be reached by calling 573-751-6566 or email at: Ed.Lewis@housemo.gov.

-------- ---------- --------

Lawmakers took action during the 2021 legislative session to protect the Second Amendment rights of Missourians against an overreaching federal government. This week Gov. Parson signed the legislation approved by the General Assembly to create the Second Amendment Preservation Act (HBs 85 & 310).

The act is meant to protect law-abiding gun owners from potential gun control legislation that could be passed in Washington, D.C. It states that laws and other actions that prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition within Missouri exceed the powers granted to the federal government. It also declares that all federal laws, acts, and orders that infringe on Missourians second amendment rights are invalid in the state.

Gov. Parson said the bill draws a line in the sand and demonstrates our commitment to reject any attempt by the federal government to circumvent the fundamental right Missourians have to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their property.

The bill prohibits state and local cooperation with federal officials that attempt to enforce any laws, rules, orders, or actions that violate the Second Amendment rights of Missourians. Additionally, the bill is an acknowledgment that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental and inalienable, and that the nation's federalistconstitutional structure limits the federal government's authority over states.

Under the bill, any person or entity who knowingly deprives Missouri citizens of their right to bear arms - as protected by state and federal constitutions - will be liable for redress and monetary damages of $50,000 per occurrence. Local law enforcements ability to assist federal officials in other instances remains unchanged under the new law.

Parson said the bill puts those in Washington D.C. on notice that here in Missouri we support responsible, law-abiding gun owners, and that we oppose government overreach and any unlawful efforts to limit our access to firearms.

Legislation to Improve Local Government Accountability and Transparency Signed into Law (HB 271)

Gov. Parson recently gave his stamp of approval to legislation approved by the General Assembly to ensure greater accountability and more transparency on the local government level.

One provision of the bill createstheMissouri Local Government Expenditure Database,which creates an easy to use, downloadable databaseallowingtaxpayers to search expenditures and payments received and made by counties and municipalities. The new database will behoused on the Missouri Accountability Portal.

The bills sponsor said the database will make it easier for taxpayers to hold local officials and governments accountable for spending decisions. When we shine a brighter light on how government spends the peoples money, it leads to betteroutcomes for Missouri taxpayers, he said.

Another provision added to the bill is meant to provide oversight for the ability of local health officials to close businesses, churches, and schools during an emergency. Under the bill, political subdivisions may only issue public health orders that directly or indirectly restrict access to businesses, churches, schools, or other places of assembly for 30 calendar days in a 180-day period when the governor has declared a state of emergency. Orders may be extended more than once with a simple majority vote by the local governing body.

In signing the bill, Parson said it requires local leaders to be more transparent in their reasoning and accountable for their decisions when it comes to public health orders.

The legislation also bans so-called vaccine passports so that Missourians do not have to show proof of vaccination in order to access public transportation or other public services. It ensures that no county, city, town, or village receiving public funds can require an individual to provide documentation of a COVID-19 vaccination in order to access a public transportation system, services, or any other public accommodations.

Parson said, while we encourage all Missourians to get vaccinated against COVID-19, it is not the government's job to force them.

New House Committee Launches Effort to Improve Broadband Access

A newly-formed committee is taking on the challenge of finding ways to improve access to broadband internet in Missouri. Formed by House Speaker Rob Vescovo, the Interim Committee on Broadband Development will spend the next several months gathering data and testimony as it works toward policy recommendations that will make high speed internet more available and affordable.

The chair of the committee said, As we are all well aware, the recent pandemic demonstrated that high-speed, broadband internet can no longer be considered a luxury, it has become a necessity, a necessity that far too many Missourians have done, and continue to do, without.

He added that the committee will study where we are as a state in 2021, where we need to be, and what steps we will need to take as policy makers and appropriators to ensure that broadband internet is readily available to every Missourian who wants it. He said the committee plans to examine three core areas: access, speed, and affordability.

During its first hearing on June 10, committee members heard from the director of the Office of Broadband Development, which works to expand and accelerate broadband deployment in Missouri. The director noted there are 392,000 Missourians who lack high-speed internet, either because its not available or they cant afford it. Right now Missouri ranks in the bottom five for access to low-cost internet with only 55 percent of Missourians having access to a low-cost internet plan.

The committee will continue to meet each month throughout the interim to gather information from subject matter experts, Federal officials, statewide associations, internet providers, and from the general public. The committee will take written testimony, live testimony and remote testimony between now and December 1. Based on the information gathered, the committee will prepare a report and generate policy options and appropriations requests before the end of 2021.

Pandemic-Electronic Benefit Transfer Program Returns

Families with children who qualify for free or reduced priced meals can once again apply for Pandemic-Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT) benefits. The benefits are meant to help cover food costs experienced by families while their student was not doing in-seat learning due to the pandemic.

We heard from Missouri families how last years P-EBT benefit helped with the extra household food costs and I am very pleased Missouri can once more make the benefit available, said the acting director of the Missouri Department of Social Services.

Its important to note the P-EBT 2020-2021 program is very different from last years program.

Highlights of the changes include:

All families must apply to get the P-EBT benefit, regardless of whether they receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/Food Stamp benefits.

Families do not need to apply for P-EBT benefits for children under age six. Families who receive SNAP with an eligible child under age six will automatically get a P-EBT benefit for that child added to the households existing EBT card.

A child may be eligible for P-EBT if the school was closed, not doing in-seat learning, or had reduced hours at least five school days in a row due to COVID-19.

P-EBT benefits are available for the months of September 2020 through May 2021.

The P-EBT benefit is based on the schools report of how much of the month was not in-seat learning. If most of the schools month was not in-seat learning, the monthly P-EBT benefit amount is $129.58. If only some of the schools month was not in-seat learning, the monthly P-EBT benefit amount is $77.75.

Each eligible student will get an EBT card in his or her name with the lump sum P-EBT benefit amount for the 2020-2021 school year. Ineligible families will receive a denial letter.

Families can download theapplication at the following link: https://dss.mo.gov/covid-19/pdf/P-EBT-Application%20-%20English.pdf.

Families can directly email the application to FSD.MOPEBT@dss.mo.gov or mail the P-EBT application to: Family Support Division,615 E. 13thvStreet, Kansas City, MO 64106.

All applications must be received by July 31, 2021.

Go here to read the rest:
Capitol Report: 2nd Amendment rights, broadband internet, pandemic family benefit transfer program - Moberly Monitor Index

TREMPEALEAU COUNTY (WQOW) - A resolution to oppose any legislation that would infringe upon the right to bear arms was voted down Monday by the Trempealeau County Board of Supervisors.

The resolution has caused controversy, and last month a county committee meeting on the measure brought dozens of community members in to speak their mind.

Related Story: Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution spurs controversy

The board did not hold public comment during Monday's meeting but many board members spoke on the issue, and all who spoke said why they were against the measure. Some said it doesn't make sense to create a resolution responding to a law that doesn't exist. Others, like board member representing District 3, Sally Miller, said the county going over the federal government if they did create a gun law would in itself be government overreach.

"Because if this month we do this, what issue do we take on next month and decide what we get to do overreach on? What group comes to us next month and says 'please ignore the law on this,'" Miller said. "I am not at all comfortable trying to decide what is constitutional or not, but I am even more uncomfortable with the idea of committing government overreach of exceeding my authority."

The resolution, had it passed , would have been a symbolic measure to protect community members right to bear arms should a government body ever try and revoke that right.

Before a vote took place, they also voted on an amendment that would have put the question to a referendum on April's ballot. If it had gone to a referendum, that vote would have been advisory and the question would again be up to the county board in the spring. This measure was voted down.

The vote on making the county a 2nd Amendment sanctuary was 4 in favor of the resolution, 12 against and one abstention.

Read more:
Board votes against making Trempealeau County a 2nd Amendment 'sanctuary county' - WQOW TV News 18

June 17, 2021 | Austin, Texas | Press Release

Governor Greg Abbott today signed seven pieces of legislation into law to protect Second Amendment Rights in Texas. The Governor was joined for the bill signing ceremony by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, Speaker Dade Phelan, Senators Donna Campbell, Brandon Creighton, Charles Schwertner, and Drew Springer, Representatives Giovanni Capriglione, Cole Hefner, Tom Oliverson, Matt Schaefer, David Spiller, and other members of the legislature, as well as representatives of the National Rifle Association.

"Politicians from the federal level to the local level have threatened to take guns from law-abiding citizens but we will not let that happenin Texas," said GovernorAbbott. "Texas will always be the leader in defending the Second Amendment, which is why we built a barrier around gun rights this session. These seven laws will protect the rights of law-abiding citizens and ensure that Texas remains a bastionof freedom. Thank you to the Texas Legislaturefor gettingthese bills to my desk."

Senate Bill 19 (Schwertner/Capriglione) prohibits any governmental entity from contracting with any business that discriminates against firearm and ammunition businesses or organizations.

Senate Bill 20 (Campbell/Hefner) allows guests to store firearms in their hotel rooms.

Senate Bill 550 (Springer/Spiller) removes the shoulder or belt holster requirements, allowing Texans to carry firearms in whatever kind of holster they choose.

House Bill 957 (Oliverson/Springer) repeals the criminal offense of possessing, manufacturing, transporting, or repairing a firearm silencer. It also ensures that any firearm suppressor manufactured in Texas, and that remains in Texas, will not be subject to federal law or federal regulation.

House Bill 1500 (Hefner/Creighton) prevents any government entity from prohibiting the sale or transportation of firearms or ammunition during a declared disaster or emergency.

House Bill 1927 (Schaefer/Schwertner) authorizes Constitutional Carry in Texas, meaning law-abiding Texans can legally carry a handgun without a license to carry.

House Bill 2622 (Holland/Hall) makes Texas a Second Amendment Sanctuary State by protecting Texans from new federal gun control regulations.

See the rest here:
Governor Abbott Signs Second Amendment Legislation Into Law - Office of the Texas Governor

When a federal judge in California struck down the states 32-year-old ban on assault weapons in early June 2021, he added a volatile new issue to the gun-rights debate.

The ruling, by U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez, does not take effect immediately, because California has 30 days to appeal the rejection of its assault weapons ban. Most coverage has focused on Benitezs provocative analogy between an AR-15 and a Swiss army knife. But the case raises troubling questions about the meaning and proper role of militias under the Second Amendment.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that Californias assault weapons ban unconstitutionally restricted citizens Second Amendment rights by preventing them from using assault weapons for home defense and other legal purposes. Californias defense was that assault weapons are more dangerous than other firearms and therefore subject to additional restrictions.

In his ruling, Benitez asserts that citizens have a right to own a private assault weapon not just for defense of a gun owners home, but also for citizens militias engaged in homeland defense.

If the founders were alive today, I believe they would be very concerned because the Constitution is clear that the only militias protected by the Second Amendment are well-regulated units authorized and controlled by state governments, not a private citizen militia.

The preamble to the Second Amendment mentions service in a militia as a reason citizens have the right to keep and bear arms: 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 be infringed.

In his ruling, Benitez builds on the 2008 Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller. In that landmark case, the Supreme Court held, as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, that the amendment protects a right to possess a firearm unconnected to military service and that individuals are free to use such weapons for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Benitez accepts this individual right, including to own assault weapons, but he adds what he calls citizen militias to the mix, which he defines as an informal assembly of able-bodied, ordinary citizens acting in concert for the security of our nation. The AR-15, he says, is an ideal arm for such purposes.

While distinguishing a citizen militia from a state-organized militia, the judge is vague about what, exactly, a citizen militia is. The examples he offers include the armed partisans led by Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, and the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents. Although Benitez surely knows that the United States has a long history of vigilantism and mob violence, he doesnt say which informal groups of armed citizens in this country might qualify and which would not.

That lack of specificity is a problem. Does a citizen militia include the protesters who occupied the Michigan State Capitol during the spring of 2020, posing with assault weapons slung over their shoulders? What about the activists who in the summer of 2020 briefly created Seattles Capitol Hill autonomous zone, where guards armed with AR-15s stood watch at the entrance and patrolled the streets? Kyle Rittenhouse, on trial for killing two people with a Smith & Wesson rifle in Kenosha, Wisconsin, allegedly viewed himself as part of a militia and claimed to be helping the police.

The biggest problem with Benitezs ruling is that the Second Amendment sanctions a well-regulated militia, not an informal assembly of armed citizens. As the founders knew, a well-regulated militia was one authorized, trained and with growing frequency during the American Revolution armed and provisioned by state governments.

After the American Revolution, the purpose of these state militias was clearly laid out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution: so Congress could use them to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

Today, the militia in all 50 states is the National Guard. In California, as Benitez notes in his opinion, the militia also includes the State Guard, a force trained and equipped by the government. There is nothing informal about it.

Having lived through the Revolutionary War, the founders knew why the words well regulated mattered. They had seen what happened when people took the law into their own hands.

After the Boston Massacre in 1770, when British soldiers opened fire on a crowd that had been pelting them with rocks and ice, John Adams defended the soldiers during their murder trial, worried that a guilty verdict could lead to mob rule.

In 1775, the Colonial Minutemen who stood their ground at Lexington and Concord served in units authorized by the Massachusetts legislature. Although taking up arms against their king and his soldiers, they fought as members of a well-regulated militia.

Naturally, not all early Americans accepted such distinctions. During the so-called Whiskey Rebellion from 1791 to 1794, which occurred after the Constitution and Second Amendment had been ratified, armed insurgents near Pittsburgh forcibly resisted a new federal tax on distilled spirits, mustering in military-style formations, tarring and feathering federal excise officers, and threatening secession. President George Washington responded in 1794 by marching west at the head of 12,950 federalized state militiamen. By the time the Western Army reached the Ohio River, most of the rebels had gone home. The nations first president made clear that in a democratic republic, the way to make your voice heard is through the ballot box, not the muzzle of a gun.

The right to own a gun is not unlimited, as Justice Scalia wrote in 2008. For that reason, the Supreme Court held that state and federal authorities can bar firearms from schools and public buildings, while the people remain free to prohibit what Scalia called dangerous and unusual weapons.

The AR-15 may no longer be unusual, but Californias decision to appeal Benitezs ruling shows that the state still thinks it is dangerous. If the rifle really is Benitezs ideal weapon for a citizen militia, then perhaps the state is right.

[Insight, in your inbox each day. You can get it with The Conversations email newsletter.]

Read more:
Why the Second Amendment protects a 'well-regulated militia' but not a private citizen militia - The Conversation US