Category Archives: Second Amendment

What if the Second Amendment isnt really about guns at all?

Historian Carol Anderson believes the right to bear arms was designed to keep Black people enslaved and powerless. Her new book, The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America, lays out the historical context for the Second Amendments passage. She builds the case that militias at the time of our countrys founding were primarily about protecting slavery, and that white supremacy is embedded into the bedrock of the right to bear arms.

Last week, host Kerri Miller talked about soaring gun sales and gun violence. This Monday, at 9 a.m., shell add to the conversation by talking with Anderson about the racial threads woven through gun rights in America.

Guest:

Subscribe to the MPR News with Kerri Miller podcast on: Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify or RSS.

You make MPR News possible. Individual donations are behind the clarity in coverage from our reporters across the state, stories that connect us, and conversations that provide perspectives. Help ensure MPR remains a resource that brings Minnesotans together.

Donate today. A gift of $17 makes a difference.

See the article here:
A fresh look at the intent of the Second Amendment - Minnesota Public Radio News

The Los Angeles Times editorial page is less a journalistic enterprise than it is a partisan grievance noticeboard. The editorial boards descent into trivial activist messaging was on full display in a pair of recent pieces lamenting the federal judiciarys recognition of the Second Amendment. In both, the editorial board denied the core rulings in the U.S. Supreme Courts opinions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago that recognized the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. In neither piece did the would-be jurists at the L.A. Times offer evidence or argument as to their incorrect position or why the legal analysis of self-important regime press agents should carry any weight whatsoever.

The first editorial was published on April 26 and titled, The Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could mean more guns in public. The item took issue with the U.S. Supreme Courts decision to grant cert to NRA-backed case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett. The case challenges New Yorks concealed carry licensing scheme and could prompt the Court to recognize that the right to keep and bear arms extends outside the home.

Lamenting the Courts cert decision, the editorial board wrote,

The case the court accepted Monday (New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. Inc. vs. Corlett) follows the courts controversial 2008 Heller decision, which for the first time enunciated a right to own a firearm in the home for self-protection, breaking with historic perceptions that the right was conferred only to members of state militias. From our perspective, it was an errant reading of the Constitution, but unfortunately the nation is stuck with it.

The second editorial was published June 7 and titled, The judge is wrong: Californias assault-weapons ban must stand. This piece complained about the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in Miller v. Bonta. The decision, by Judge Roger Benitez, found that Californias ban on commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms violated the Second Amendment.

Benitezs ruling on the California ban was the result of a faithful interpretation of the Heller and McDonald decisions. We can be certain of this because Heller author Justice Antonin Scalia signed onto a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, a case concerning a local ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, that stated as much. The dissent noted,

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

Defending Californias unconstitutional ban, the L.A. Times editorial board whined,

Even the Supreme Courts controversial 2008 Heller decision, which for the first time recognized (wrongly) an individual right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense, also said that the government has an interest in regulating firearms and that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

In addition to its rejection of the Heller ruling, the editorial board did not even get the basic history correct when it contended that Heller recognized the individual right protected by the Second Amendment for the first time. As Scalia explained in Heller, the Courts ruling in the 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.

After their defeat in Heller, the more sophisticated gun control advocates abandoned their discredited collective right messaging on the Second Amendment. In fact, some gun control organizations have explicitly told activists in their messaging guides not to Attack the Second Amendment or gun owners in general.

In 2016, anti-gun group Americans for Responsible Solutions (now Giffords) conducted a gun control rebranding effort based on poll and focus-group data. The resulting messaging booklet warned supporters not to Attack the NRA or the Second Amendment. An earlier gun control group messaging guide from 2013, titled, Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging told readers to acknowledge Yes, there is a right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. Moreover, it told gun control activists, dont re-litigate the courts rulings.

There is good reason for the anti-gun groups advice. Aside from the fact that the outmoded collective interpretation of the Second Amendment is indefensible, that false reading is wildly unpopular.

A February 2008 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted prior to the Heller decision asked respondents, Do you believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, or do you believe it only guarantees members of state militias such as National Guard units the right to own guns? The response was unambiguous; 73-percent responded that the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, while a mere 20-percent limited that right to state militia members

A Quinnipiac University poll conducted shortly after the Heller decision, in July 2008, mirrored these results. This poll asked respondents, Would you support or oppose amending the United States Constitution to ban individual gun ownership? 78-percent opposed such a measure, while only 17-percent were in favor.

In May 2009, CNN and ORC conducted a similar poll that asked Which of the following comes closer to your interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? In addition to addressing the need for citizen-militias, it was intended to give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. It was only intended to preserve the existence of citizen-militias, and does not give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. Once again, the American public made their position clear; with 77-percent choosing individual gun ownership to 21-percent answering only citizen-militias.

With the individual right to keep and bear arms firmly established by the U.S. Supreme Court, in April 2018 Quinnipiac asked respondents Would you support or oppose repealing the Second Amendment, also known as the right to bear arms? An overwhelming 79-percent opposed repeal.

The vast majority of the general public, the federal government, the U.S. Supreme Court, both major political parties, and even some of the major gun control groups have all acknowledged or reluctantly acquiesced to the fact that the Second Amendment means what it says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The L.A. Timess intransigence is symbolic of an increasingly radical and detached media elite who would rather nurse their own prejudices than accept reality or provide any meaningful reporting or informed commentary.

More here:
LA Times Still Denying the Second Amendment - NRA ILA

SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISMThe article youre about to read is from our reporters doing their important work investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers businesses have been impacted. Thats why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insiders program here. Thank you.

JOIN NOW

DICK PARSONS, San Clemente

There has been much banter the last month about our Second Amendment rights, pro or con. I, for one, am a strong supporter of those rights, as I believe are the majority of Americans.

I also favor the laws that are currently enforced to ensure that we protect our citizens from those who should not have firearms, including felons, criminals and those with mental health issues.

If new laws are required to close loopholes that may exist such as additional background checks, I would be happy to participate in those discussions.

The recent city council activities around a non-binding proposal put forth by several members took and is taking an inordinate amount of time away from other more important issues facing our city, and wasting tax dollars.

Since a non-binding resolution is simply a feel good statement, it is basically worthless, and tends to aggravate many people in our community. Lets stop wasting time going back and forth on this and focus on more important issues.

For example, just about every year, bulldozers come to T-Street and build up the sand bank to protect from winter high tides. Instead of doing this last fall, they came a couple of week ago before the Memorial Day holiday and took up all the sand and left beachgoers nothing but rocks to sit on.

Why? Who thought this was a good idea? Visitors were shocked to see nothing but stones on what was once a premier stretch of beach. And, where is the concern about the high levels of bacteria in our beach waterwhat is the problem and is there any way to help correct it before the heat of summer?

I think these are more important issues than feel good Second Amendment statements.

Overall, I have no axe to grind with our city council. I think they do a pretty good job in the aggregate. Please, just spend more time on things that matter for our community and less on those that contribute nothing to our way of life.

Related

BECOME AN INSIDER TODAYTrustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

CONTRIBUTE NOW

See more here:
Letter to the Editor: More on 2nd Amendment Rights - San Clemente Times

It has been thirteen years since the Supreme Court last looked at the Second Amendment. In that case, District of Columbia v. Heller, it finally admitted that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right to home defense, and not merely a right for states to maintain a well-regulated militia. In April of this year, the Court agreed to hear New York Rifle and Pistol Organization v. Corlett. This will address whether that right of individuals to bear arms gives constitutional protection for those who want to carry a firearm across town, or if one is only allowed to carry it from the bedroom to the kitchen.

Meanwhile, there has been a spate of activity in Californias Ninth Circuit. Three separate cases from the lower courts have nullified different aspects of Californias virtual ban on the popular AR-15 (Armalite Rifle). Duncan v. Becerra overturned Californias ban on the standard 30-round magazine. Rupp v. Becerra and, more recently, Miller v. Bonta challenge Californias AR-15 ban as violating SCOTUS common use standard.

If all this seems barely relevant except to preppers, this column is for you. My purpose today is not to get into the weeds of all these cases and reconcile the Courts strange and contradictory pronouncements. Rather, I will simply outline a few basic concepts to help the non-gun enthusiast appreciate what is at stake.

We begin by observing that the most ardent defenders of the Constitution were opposed to the original Bill of Rights. They did not oppose the rights delineated in the first ten amendments. Rather, they opposed the very idea of delineating rights. The problem, as they saw it, is the difference between natural law and positive law.

The U.S. Constitution is an outgrowth of the natural law that produced the Declaration of Independence. The law that all men are created equal existed before governments and legislators said so. Positive law, on the other hand, creates law as a social contract. According to it, humans have no rights whatsoever until those in power say that they do. Positive law theory attacks the very foundations of our constitutional republic.

By making a list of specific rights, the Bill of Rights presented two dangers. First, just rights unintentionally omitted from the list might not be protected. Second, the Bill of Rights itself might inadvertently teach that rights come from the federal government, and are not transcendent and above all human institutions.

Especially when it comes to the Second Amendment, those original critics of the Bill of Rights have been vindicated. Gun rightseven more than the rights of free speech, free assembly, free press and the free exercise of religionare too often treated as special privileges that can be alternately doled out or rescinded at the whim of lawmakers. To the contrary, the Constitutions framers considered the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right inherent in the very fact of your humanity. It does not arise from government, but from God.

Obviously, this view of the Second Amendment does not depend on current technology. Whether a person has the right to carry a rock, a knife or a pistol is not for the government to decide. What is inherent in the very reality of humanity created in the image of God is the responsibility to love ones neighbor with heart, soul, strength and mind.

When loving ones neighbor requires defending him or her from bodily harm, human beings have the corresponding right not only to make use of physical strength, but also to use the mind. We think up tools that can assist us to defend our families and our neighbors from harm. This creativity comes from God and is a gift that the animals do not possess. No government has the right to infringe on it.

This right exists independently of the Second Amendment because your responsibility to protect your neighbor is not an assignment from the government, but an assignment from God. As technology advances and your neighbor is threatened by more sophisticated tools, your right to match this sophistication by possessing tools for defense is inherent.

Contrary to SCOTUS common use doctrine, there is nothing in the Constitution, or in natural law, that requires a tool to be commonly available before you have a right to keep and carry it. Rather, governments should limit themselves to prohibiting only those tools that have no use in defending individual persons or which are impossible to use without harming innocent bystanders.

As we stock up on fireworks to celebrate the firearms that won our independence, now would be a good time to think about the modern tools that we need to have on hand to protect the life and liberty of our neighbors in the 21st century.

Read more:
Re-grounding the Second Amendment in natural law - Wyoming Tribune

On a recent episode of "Democracy Now!," Professor Carol Anderson discussed her book"The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America"that describes how the Second Amendment was written to empower local militia groups to put down slave revolts and protect plantation owners. She writes the Second Amendment is rooted in fear of Black people, to deny them their rights, to keep them from tasting liberty.

In light of that, those (with their Tarzan yells) who beat their chests about the Second Amendment are most likely alt-right/white supremacist scaredy-cats who are terrified of people of color, esp. blacks.

Recently attorney Alexandria Kinaid said We are committed to continuing to challenge the erosion of Second Amendment rights in Idaho.

Since the Second Amendment was created to suppress blacks (esp. freed slaves), it SHOULD be eroded.

I have to ask our local Second Amendment advocates (Steve Wasylko, Ron Korn, Dan McDonald, Scott Herndon and Jeff Avery)do you condemn the January 6thriot and mob attack of our nations capital? Dont beafraid, speak up and go on the record about your position on the Jan. 6insurrection.

Remember, intelligence is a gift and ignorance is a choice. Its sad that so many on the right prefer the latter.

LEE SANTA

Sandpoint

Originally posted here:
The Second Amendment is a racist document - Bonner County Daily Bee

That African Americans were no match for the slave owners arsenal didnt mitigate their resistance to subjugation Anderson reports at least a half-dozen insurrection scares during the colonial period. In response to Charlestons bloody Stono Rebellion, South Carolinas Negro Act of 1740 became the model for slave codes throughout North America, (requiring) heavy-handed white control that curtailed the enslaveds movements, literacy, right to self-defense and access to firearms.

Courtesy of Bloomsbury Publishing

Credit: Handout

Credit: Handout

In the Lowcountrys labor-intensive rice culture, 18th century planters understood perfectly the consequences of the hellish society they had spawned. Anderson writes, the combination of insatiable desire for enormous profits coupled with the sadistic brutalization of bonded African labor created an overwhelming fear among whites of the enslaveds capacity and desire for retribution.

Crucial to her case is James Madison, the Virginian who would become Americas fourth President. A slave owner who believed slavery to be an abomination, Madison was the key figure in crafting the Second Amendment. He embraced the necessity of a new constitution, siding with the Federalists, who sought a more coherent government with a national bank and a professional military.

To the contrary, the Anti-Federalists, aligned with Southern slavers like Patrick Henry, feared the centralization of power and a standing army. Undaunted, Madison sprinted between factions, brokering compromises that finally secured the Constitution of the United States in 1789. As an additional inducement, he promised the Anti-Federalists a Bill of Rights to follow. The Second Amendment was therefore, according to Anderson, a bribe that not only elevated militias, whose primary and most important function was controlling the Black population, but ensured that the federal governments constitutional role would not interfere in the states ability to use those forces when necessary.

The Second Amendment was ratified just as the Haitian Revolution began in 1791. The news of victory for the islands slave population would send an electromagnetic pulse wave through the white South. Charleston was as close to Saint Domingue as it was to Boston.

Would Blacks access to guns have made a difference in the 400 years since their arrival in the New World?

Andersons answer is, mostly, no. The armed power of the state, paramilitary mobs and the local police has been too great. As for the Black Panthers and their Hollywood displays of firepower in the late 1960s, she details her reasons for the failure of armed self defense as a political tactic. (Black Lives Matter has never endorsed this strategy.)

(P)ervasive anti-Blackness, even after the civil rights movement, turned the Second Amendments law for protection the castle doctrine, stand your ground and open carry against African Americans, Anderson writes, pointing to studies that indicate, when African Americans openly carry a gun, although allowed by law, it raises exponentially the sense of danger about them and to them.

Anderson has a gift for elegant summary. Her writing has clarity of style and a cool zeal, but do not doubt the fire. The best historians have noble intent; for them, that means nurturing an empathy for historys victims and accepting ones inevitable professional vulnerability: The Second, she said in her Zoom interview, was a hard write, before pausing to add, pain over centuries.

And so she reaches a damning conclusion: The Second (Amendment) is lethal; steeped in anti-Blackness, it is the loaded weapon laying around just waiting for the hand of some authority to put it to use.

As for all tomorrows options, Anderson reminds us of one thats 200 years old: the vision of Gabriel Prosser, who led an 1800 slave revolt in Virginia. His objective, Anderson states, was to create a multiracial, multi-religious, multiethnic republic. It was as if an occult hand had nudged Gabriel well in advance of his contemporaries, the Founding Fathers, who are still trying to find themselves in the 21st century. It is time to defuse the power of white rage, Anderson writes. It is time to move into that future.

NONFICTION

The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America

by Carol Anderson

Bloomsbury Publishing

272 pages, $28

View post:
The Second eyes racial implications of the right to bear arms - Atlanta Journal Constitution

This is a response to "County leaders again disappoint with Second Amendment letter."

Please listen, with discerning ears, to the words of those who would paint us all as less than constitutional. They repaint your history with their beliefs. Do you want to be ruled by these people?

They misguide you with their opinions. They tell you what you are to speak. Do you want to be led by these people?

The Constitution and its amendments were put in place by Americans fighting against such authoritative rulers. Americans should stand up for their rights named via the Constitution and the amendments. Dont you want freedom?

We the people, we the United States, are not bound to the guilt some people would try to paint us with. Our whole history is one of improvements for the citizens of the United States and the world. Dont you want to retain and restore your freedoms?

I know that many of you feel the same as the 50 who sent letters to our Walla Walla County Commissioners about their regard for the Second Amendment.

Please send our County Commissioners your thoughts about supporting the Second Amendment in Walla Walla County. We need your voice.

Link:
Your support of the Second Amendment is needed - Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISMThe article youre about to read is from our reporters doing their important work investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers businesses have been impacted. Thats why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insiders program here. Thank you.

JOIN NOW

JERRY DAVIS, San Clemente

The self-righteousand blatantly incorrect notions of those whothinkgovernment is intruding into our lives are laden with hypocrisyand little truth.

Lets start with guns. The NRA is hardly a credible source to quote. It is now bankrupt thanks to financial corruption by its leaders. Eighty percent of Americans when polled said they want sensible guncontrol,including background checks.

What are the laws recently passed to get rid of guns? None. In fact, many states, and most recently Texas, are set to pass laws allowing open carry without a permit.

Totalitarianism coming to our country due to gun regulation? That might come as a surprise to our EU allies, Australiaand Japan, all of which have strict gun regulation.

As for God and our Founding Fathers, many of our Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by deism. Deists valued reason over religious dogma. They believed in a higher power but not necessarily a supernatural deity.

They must have felt strongly enough about this that they included separation of church and state in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers may be spinning in their graves at the thought that God created this nation.

On the topic of government intrusion, there seems to be little concern about too much government when politicians try to pass laws to prevent people from loving and marrying whomever they choose, or telling women that they do not have the right to make their own decisions about their well-being. They have no problem eliminating anti-discrimination laws, or with laws making it harder to vote.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

Rather than quoting scripture and denying historical facts, or inventing divisive issues based on fear, our leaders might better serve us by focusing on realproblems based on accurate and historical facts.

Finally, resorting to name-calling and labeling using loaded language like Marxism and socialism are tactics used by those who are without ideas.

Related

BECOME AN INSIDER TODAYTrustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

CONTRIBUTE NOW

See the rest here:
Letter to the Editor: Second Amendment and Big Government - San Clemente Times

SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISMThe article youre about to read is from our reporters doing their important work investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers businesses have been impacted. Thats why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insiders program here. Thank you.

JOIN NOW

I knew it wouldnt be long before the other stalwart of the Guns, God, Gold, Greed, Gerrymandering and Gullible electorate political party would surface, and he didnt disappoint.

We are faced with an inane Second Amendment Sanctuary motion, and now the pivot to God. While reading his letter, I thought, for a moment, that I was at an evangelical revival session, when, in reality, it was just another letter with rather loose facts and strong religious bias.

He has about as good a grasp of history and facts as his close sidekick, Gene James. God did not establish this nationour Founding Fathers did. God will not protect us, not even from ourselves.

The stability of this country certainly does not stem from your Almighty God. In my opinion, church and state must be forever separateread a little history, if you will, and perhaps enlightenment will ensue.

Prayer in public schools is unnecessary and undesirable. Pray at home, in private, or at your church.

Mr. Knoblock alleges that our children and military are being indoctrinated with Marxism and socialism. Again, he has no facts to support that absurd claim. I do believe students need to be educated in those philosophies, so they can understand how capitalism differs.

Then, he launches into legalized abortion, equating that with murder, and makes other spurious statements. Given the makeup of the current Supreme Court, there is a good chance that Roe v. Wade will be rescinded or significantly modified.

As an older physician, I well remember the horror stories from my mentors about back-alley and illegal abortionthe sickness, infertility and death toll was large. This is the place to which the conservatives want us to return.

Mr. Knoblock, when you write another letter, please get your facts straight. Second, please spare us all your Bible-thumping; keep it private in your Bible class or in your church.

You may repent all you wish, but I certainly wont be joining you. I, among perhaps many others, dont appreciate all your religious pontificating.

Related

BECOME AN INSIDER TODAYTrustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

CONTRIBUTE NOW

See the article here:
Letter to the Editor: Second Amendment Knoblock Letter - San Clemente Times

"); var pScript = document.createElement("script"); pScript.type = 'text/javascript'; pScript.src = '//embed.sendtonews.com/player3/embedcode.js?fk=' + fkId + '&cid=5945&offsetx=0&offsety=0&floatwidth=400&floatposition=bottom-right'; pScript.async = true; pScript.setAttribute('data-type', 's2nScript'); //pScript['data-type'] = 's2nScript'; elem.append(pHtml); elem.append(pScript); }, insertVideoFuel: function(channelId) { var u = 'https://spreadsheets.google.com/feeds/list/1jVoUBFY2Xpt9g_eSOhoUipSA_OOh7hMbPDYAqYWx3nI/1/public/values?alt=json'; $.ajax({ type: 'GET', url: u, cache: true, dataType: 'json', success: function (response) { if ( typeof(response.feed) !== 'undefined' ) { var img_url = 'https://res.cloudinary.com/review-journal/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto,c_scale,w_1200/v1611081380/webdev/New7at7onGray.jpg'; //response.feed.entry[0]['gsx$imageurl']['$t']; var description = response.feed.entry[0]['gsx$description']['$t']; var elem = $('#stn-in-article-player'); var pHtml = $('',{'data-channel':channelId,'data-poster-image':img_url,'data-autoplay':'true','data-muted':'true','data-floating':'true'}); var click_url = '/7at7/?utm_campaign=7at7&utm_medium=insert_widget&utm_source=article_page'; var f_title = $('',{'class':'f-title'}).append( $('',{'href':click_url, 'alt':'7at7'}).append( $('',{'html':'Watch '}) ).append( $('',{'alt':'logo-7at7','src':'https://res.cloudinary.com/review-journal/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto,c_scale,w_50/v1611100661/webdev/seven2.png'}) ).append( $('',{'html':' now streaming'}) ) ); var f_desc = $('',{'class':'f-desc','html':description}) var pScript = document.createElement("script"); pScript.type = 'text/javascript'; pScript.src = 'https://fuel-streaming-prod01.fuelmedia.io/player/1.0/player.min.js'; pScript.async = true; pScript.setAttribute('id', 'fuel-player-script'); elem.addClass('rj-fuel-77'); elem.append(pHtml); elem.append(f_title); elem.append(f_desc); elem.append(pScript); } }, error: function (xhr, ajaxOptions, thrownError) { console.log('rj_xhr.status:' + xhr.status + '_error:' + thrownError); } }); }, videoIDs: { 'category-local': {'id': '7395798e-4c30-417b-8b1a-b3d7bad8ff98', 'provider':'fuel'}, 'tag-coronavirus': {'id': 'u37v495p'}, 'category-politics-and-government': {'id': 'kqRvD0a8'}, 'tag-mc-opinion': {'id': 'kqRvD0a8'}, 'tag-mc-crime': {'id': 'kqRvD0a8'}, 'tag-2020-election': {'id': 'kqRvD0a8'}, 'rj-main-category--science-and-technology': {'id': 'j88hQyle'}, 'tag-mc-news': {'id': 'pCyFtg5f'}, 'tag-mc-business': {'id': '31shkzyP'}, 'rj-main-category--raiders': {'id': 'bpswZwKM'}, 'tag-mc-sports': {'id': 'dbx2WkwF'}, 'rj-main-category--food': {'id': '3DQjoZb7'}, 'tag-mc-entertainment': {'id': 'YBuF2XdP'}, 'tag-mc-life': {'id': 'aaWqdJ5u'}, 'tag-mc-autos': {'id': 'kag2nBSV'}, 'tag-mc-homes': {'id': 'HPa6ehMQ'} }, getVideoId: function() { //var fkId = false, var vdo_k = false; for (var checkClass in stnInArticleVideo.videoIDs) { if (stnInArticleVideo.wrapper.hasClass(checkClass)) { //fkId = videoIDs[checkClass].id; vdo_k = checkClass; break; } } return vdo_k; //fkId; }, run: function() { stnInArticleVideo.wrapper = $('article.rj-story.rj-story-full'); if (stnInArticleVideo.wrapper && stnInArticleVideo.canInsertVideo()) { var vdo_k = stnInArticleVideo.getVideoId(); if (vdo_k) { if (stnInArticleVideo.videoIDs[vdo_k].hasOwnProperty('provider') && stnInArticleVideo.videoIDs[vdo_k].provider == 'fuel') { stnInArticleVideo.insertVideoFuel(stnInArticleVideo.videoIDs[vdo_k].id); } else { stnInArticleVideo.insertVideo(stnInArticleVideo.videoIDs[vdo_k].id); } } } } }; stnInArticleVideo.run(); });})(jQuery);

Go here to read the rest:
LETTER: Time to amend the Second Amendment - Las Vegas Review-Journal