Category Archives: Second Amendment

Indias latest series of amendments to its Patent Rules are likely to hugely benefit startups and small entities seeking patent protection for their inventions. With these amendments, overall filing and prosecution fees for startups and small entities have been significantly reduced. While the fees applicable for small entities have been reduced outright, startups can retain their startup status for up to ten years, thus allowing them the benefit of favourable fees, etc. for an extended period from what was earlier available.

These amendments are in line with various initiatives taken by the government to promote entrepreneurship, and in particular, startups in India. Earlier this year, the Scheme for Facilitating Startups Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP) that was initially launched as a pilot project to assist startups in developing and protecting their intellectual property has been extended for a further period of three years from April 01, 2020 to March 31, 2023.

The first set of amendments the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2020, notified on 19 October 2020 simplify the procedure relating to the submission of priority applications and their translations, as well as the filing of working statements (Form 27). These amendments will reduce both compliance and prosecution costs for applicants.

The second set of amendments the Patents (Second Amendment) Rules, 2020 (2020 Second Rules), notified on 04 November 2020 further reduce the filing and prosecution costs for applicants that are startups and small entities. These amendments will cumulatively make intellectual property protection affordable as well as accessible to various classes of business, and will likely also boost patent filings.

Fees for Small Entities

The Patent Rules, 2003 previously allowed a 50% reduction in the fees payable by a small entity, compared to that payable by other entities. The amendments reduce this further: now, the fee payable by a small entity is down to 20% of that payable by other entities. This makes the fee payable by a small entity at par with that payable by a natural person and a startup.

Change in the status of startups

The Patent Rules, 2003 previously provided that an entity would no longer be able to claim the status of a startup after a period of five years from the date of its incorporation or registration. The amendments substitute this period of five years by a period during which it is recognised by the competent authority.

At present, an entity ceases to be recognized as a startup by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) on the completion of ten years from the date of its incorporation/ registration or if its turnover for any previous year exceeds 100 crore rupees (see G.S.R. notification 127 (E), available at https://www.startupindia.gov.in/content/dam/investindia/Templates/public/198117.pdf)

Certain benefits to prevail even if the status of startups/ small entity ceases

In an important procedural clarification, the 2020 Second Rules clarify that even if applicants status of startup/ small entity ceases after filing a request for expedited examination, the request made for expedited examination will not be questioned.

Visit link:
New Indian Patent Rules offer benefits to startups and small entities - Lexology

Georgia Senate Runoffs Will Decide The Fate Of These Bills

Georgia/United States Senate -(AmmoLand.com)-What sort of stakes are we facing with the Georgia Senate runoffs? Perhaps the best way to get a handle on them is to look at some of the legislation that could get a path forward based on the results of those elections. So, we will look at some legislation that could get a potential boost or which could languish unpassed should Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue lose their bids.

So what could get a boost if they lose? Heres six really bad bills that could get new life should Chuck Schumer be in the majority.

When we covered this legislation over the summer, we noted that it did to suppressors what Eric Swalwell wanted to do to modern multi-purpose semiautomatic rifles. Should Joe Biden hold on to win the White House after the litigation has passed, this is the sort of bill Second Amendment supporters could see him push, and if the filibuster is nuked, they would have to trust the likes of Joe Manchin and Jon Tester to keep it from passing.

Biden has vowed to come after firearms manufacturers. This bill, which was also covered over the summer, would be one way for him to do it. It would allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission to regulate firearms. In essence, it hands over the power to ban guns to unaccountable bureaucrats.

This bill, which we covered earlier this year, is a two-fer in terms of violating the Bill of Rights. Not only does it go after our Second Amendment rights, it targets the First Amendment as well. You can bet that this bill will be pushed by a Biden Administration, especially if they control the Senate.

When we covered this early this year, we noted that anti-Second Amendment extremists want a gun registry, and are not above methods that create it through the back door. This would be one effort, easily painted as a clerical amendment to disguise its intent of destroying privacy for gun owners.

Another method that could enable a Biden Administration to create a registry of gun sales would be to adjust some of the legal provisions regarding the National Instant Check System. This bill, which we analyzed earlier this year, mandates the retention of records for at least 90 days. Sneaky move but one we will be waiting for.

This legislation, one of the last covered here before the election went into high gear, could also be a priority for a Biden Administration that has an anti-Second Amendment House and Senate to ram bills through. In this case, it would target those who make their own firearms, even though there are already laws in place to target the misuse of firearms or for when prohibited persons have them.

These six bills are just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other anti-Second Amendment proposals that have been introduced in the House and Senate in just this Congress. Not to mention what Biden could do with the stroke of a pen. To build a firewall to protect our rights, Second Amendment supporters need to back Loeffler and Perdue, then also support the National Rifle Associations Political Victory Fund and their Institute for Legislative Action, in order to be ready for 2022 and 2024.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

Read the original:
Georgia Senate Runoffs Will Decide The Fate Of These Bills - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

The 2020-21 Kansas winter sports season wont have the exact same look as years past.

But after appearing to be in partial jeopardy of even being held at all because of rising COVID-19 concerns and following a proposal sent forth last week by the Kansas State High School Activities Associations Executive Board, the season will indeed begin on time. And in large part it will resemble seasons past.

At Tuesdays special KSHSAA Board of Directors meeting one that lasted four hours the 2020-21 season was given a green light to begin as scheduled next week. By a 53-22 vote, the board of directors approved a modified revision to the schedule that greatly reduced the limitations outlined in the original proposal by the Executive Board and afford every school in the state the opportunity to enjoy a complete winter season.

The mantra of "Let Them Play" that resonated across the state after last weeks KSHSAA proposal was made hit home with the 78-member Board of Directors, which is made up of representatives of every league in the state as well as a number of other entities.

"Its so important and every person on our staff and every person on our board believes in the value of interscholastic activities," KSHSAA executive director Bill Faflick said. "Their mission is not just words on paper, its about preparing kids to be successful. ... Our board believes its appropriate to have competition immediately and were ready to go."

The original proposal moved forward by the Executive Board last week called for the winter sports season to delay competition in basketball, wrestling, swimming and diving, bowling, debate and scholars bowl for all of December, though practice could occur during that time period. Following a practice moratorium from Dec. 23-Jan. 3, practice would resume on Jan. 4 with competitions beginning Jan. 15.

At Tuesdays meeting, the Dec. 23-Jan. 3 moratorium was approved but the season around it was greatly altered from the original proposal. An amendment proposed by Olathe North principal Jason Herman to allow competition to start in December as scheduled, continue through Dec. 22 and then resume Jan. 15 was approved 44-25. The board then approved a second amendment proposed by Mill Valley principal Jerald Van Rheen that altered the resumption of competition in January from Jan. 15 to Jan. 8, by a 41-24 count.

The amended motion then went to vote and easily passed 53-22.

"Im pleased that the system works and it shows that it works that there was very specific action items that needed to be addressed and the membership had the opportunity to weigh in through their representatives," Faflick said. "Im pleased that kids will have the opportunity to participate. Im pleased that those learning opportunities will be a part of their reality. Anybody thats involved with education is concerned that were doing our part to make sure were working toward a healthier Kansas and making sure all mitigation protocols are being followed. Because thats what its going to take, everybody doing their part moving forward."

The decision at the high school level also applied to middle school activities, many of which have already begun and would have had to suspend their seasons mid-stream.

In addition to approving the slightly altered competition schedule, the board also passed restrictions on holding large in-person invitational tournaments during the season (59-15 vote). High school and middle school basketball tournaments can be held with no more than four schools playing concurrently, while wrestling events are limited to no more than eight teams or 112 individual participants.

However, the board did not place restrictions on the maximum number of events that could be held per sport. An item to reduced the basketball season to 13 games was amended to allowing the current maximum of 20 games and then approved 66-7 while items to reduced the number of competitions in wrestling, swimming/diving and bowling were voted 69-2 to not take action on.

While the allowance for winter sports to continue pretty much as previously scheduled was widely well-received, the other major action the board took was met with far more mixed response.

The caveat to letting the kid plays is that almost nobody will be there to watch them.

By a 50-26 vote, the board approved an item that calls for events to be held without spectators from Dec. 1 until Jan. 28. At that time, fan attendance will be limited to allow for appropriate distancing for the facility and in accordance with local admission and attendance policies.

The debate among board members was greatest during this item discussion with many in support of allowing fans and others seeking a uniform direction from the KSHSAA.

An amendment to allow no more than two spectators per student participant was proposed by Burlington principal Stacy Reed and went to a vote, but failed 46-29.

While largely unpopular among parents in particular, the different applications of fan limitations across the state during the fall sports likely played a role in Tuesdays vote for a uniform mandate by the KSHSAA.

"It has been emotion and emotional every time theres been restrictions put in place where people havent been able to attend contests involving their kids, alma mater or favorite school," Faflick said. "Weve seen that through the fall. But somethings not working because community spread is continuing. ... Weve got to start somewhere. Can we dial it back eventually? Certainly thats a possibility. But right now the board has deemed that the cleanest, safest way to do this based on what doctors are saying is this is primarily a disease that is spread through adults and their interactions and if we can limit those interactions we will be better for that.

"It takes some of the burden off the schools to have that uniform policy and knowing this is the expectation whether Im home or away, league game or non-league game. Its not going to be well-received and will cause a lot of concern for our parents and school communities."

Faflick said the spectator policy could be revisited by a special board meeting prior to the expiration of the current mandate on Jan. 28.

"Every decision we make is continually assessed and re-assessed and this will be one of those where we monitor the data and monitor the response of our member schools," Faflick said. "The reason this meeting existed was we had a number of member schools contact us and say We need to be considering this. There needed to be decisions made in regard to attendance policies, competitions and moratoriums. ... That balance between benefit and risk is what we will continue to evaluate and that assessment will be ongoing."

Prior to the board votes, a public forum allowed eight people to speak to the board in three-minute increments. Many spoke in favor of allowing the winter season to occur as close to regularly scheduled as possible.

Among the points made included:

"There is no evidence to suggest that kids are either superspreaders or very susceptible to this virus to begin with," Craig Holtzen of Louisburg said among three points in his presentation. "I would dare go far enough to say that kids are practicing better better virus protocol when they are in school or activities than when they are locked down.... Fall activities were largely successful because of our ability to be flexible and adaptive to the many changing things that happened over that season."

"Canceling only competitions but still allowing practice rests on a point of contradiction," said Chanutes Kellen Adams. "Our focus should be on minimizing risk while also keeping every practice and competition in line with that. Create a plan, communicate that plan and then execute that plan when appropriate."

"It seems like were taking a group of people who are not at risk and putting a significant punishment on them for people who are at risk and wont take the precautions necessary," said Sean Wheeler, a sports medicine physician in Overland Park who cited studies at both the collegiate and prep level. "Im not sure that putting restrictions on these kids does anything to help them."

"Were in the fourth quarter now," said Dr. David Smith, University of Kansas Health Systems and team physician for the Kansas City Royals. "We had spring, summer, fall and now winter. I will predict we will have overtime because this is not ending. The data is clear we are not ending this soon despite the promising vaccines that are coming through. With that said, the sports advisory committee stands firm in recommending that one compromise we can make is hold off on competition, but all winter sports to start. I agree we need to have students doing something, they are much safer practicing than out there doing whatever else they choose to do. With that said, risk mitigations must be followed. ... If we are going to proceed with winter sports, we must adhere to risk mitigations properly."

Read the rest here:
KSHSAA Board of Directors vote to start winter activities on time - Leavenworth Times

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

By C.A. Kip Crofts, guest columnistCrofts is a former U.S. Attorney for Wyoming

In the public policy debate in America today, probably no issues are more controversial than abortion and gun control.

Generally, views on the gun issue follow red/blue lines, with the red side believing they have a right to defend themselves and their families and businesses, while blue folks seem to hate and fear guns more than they do the people who pulled the trigger.

Although this seems to be changing with even blue folks buying guns now when they hear about riots, calls to defund the police, and news about police who fail or refuse to respond to 911 calls.

Both President-elect Biden and Vice-President elect Kamala Harris made it clear that they want more gun control. On the Joe Biden website they include fifteen pages of a plan for all the gun control laws they plan to pass.

Former U. S. Rep. Beto ORourke, who competed in the early primaries for President said, Hell yeah, were going to take your AR-15. If its a weapon that was designed to kill people on the battlefield, were going to buy it back. Later, when Beto dropped out of the race and endorsed Biden, Biden said to Beto, Youre going take care of the gun problem with me. Youre going to be the one who leads this effort.

Kamala Harris said over and over that, Weapons of war have no place in a civil society.

It is important to point out for these folks that the semiautomatic AR-15 type rifle that they are talking about, owned by millions of law-abiding Americans, has never been used as a weapon of war by the US Military or any other military force in the world. They seem to be talking about the M-16 military rifle that is already illegal for civilian use because it is a fully automatic (machine gun). This is a common falsehood used by gun control advocates, and even some federal judges, who either dont know the difference or are willing to lie about it to support their position.

The Biden platform proposes to reinstall the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which everyone agrees had no measurable effect on crime. The old law allowed continued possession of guns already owned but now he goes further and says he will also get rid of existing rifles with a buy back program. This sounds friendly enough, but it is clear the owner would not have a choice in the matter, and it also does not explain how the government can buy back something it never owned.

There are a number of other proposals in the platform that are less well-known but equally concerning to the millions of law-abiding gun owners in America.

I have written a book entitled, A Few Commonsense Gun Laws Is There Such a Thing and Can They Work? This is based on a lifetime of experience with guns and gun laws as an Army officer with service in two wars, a law enforcement officer, a federal prosecutor and US Attorney.

Generally, my answer to both questions is no. In that book I discuss current and proposed gun control laws, and explain why they either dont work or are unconstitutional, and usually are both. If we spent more time identifying and controlling dangerous or mentally ill people, and less time worrying about inanimate objects, such as guns, cars, hammers, knives, shoes and golf clubs, all of which can and have been used as dangerous weapons, wed be more effective, more intelligent, and more honest. If we take a gun away from a dangerous person all he has to do is get another. We arrest drunk drivers not the cars they drive.

It is futile to try to manage human behavior (violence) by trying to control inanimate objects (guns). It just doesnt work.

These laws infringe (the operative word in the Second Amendment) upon the rights of the millions of gun owners who do not commit crimes with their guns, while doing nothing to prevent criminal violence by a tiny minority of criminals who are willing to ignore all laws, including those regulating guns.

For example, does anyone think that a person planning to go to a school and kill children will be deterred by a sign announcing, Gun Free School Zone?

Or does anyone think that a violent fugitive will try to buy a gun knowing that he will have to provide a photo ID and submit to an FBI background check?

Of course, not hell steal it or pay someone to buy it for him. These laws are not only unworkable, but unjust because too often they punish people severely for mere possession of a gun when it is clear that they had no intention of doing any harm to anyone with the gun.

With a diminished majority in the House and at best a tie in the Senate, is there any likelihood President Biden will have any success in tilting this windmill? And if he does, what will happen when the laws get to the Supreme Court?

Since the landmark opinion by Justice Scalia in 2008 in theHellercase held that citizens have a right to possess guns for personal defense, the Court has been strangely silent on a host of subordinate issues deciding the limits of that right. I dont know but suspect Chief Justice Roberts, who joined Scalia in theHellerdecision, does not want to rule again in favor of gun rights, then read about a school shooting the next day. But judges do that all the time, as when they hold that a confession by a murderer was taken in violation of the Constitution and may not be used in his trial. It is their job to follow the Constitution not the opinion page of the New York Times.

It is embarrassing the way the Supreme Court has allowed the lower courts to fly all over the map on those issues. The worst example may be laws allowing the police to decide who has a need to exercise this constitutional right by carrying a gun for defense of self and family.

Some states say that a general desire for protection, without some specific threat, is not sufficient. So, I guess you call the police office that approves gun permits while the person is breaking down your door when you can describe a need? What other provision of the Bill of Rights is subject to such arbitrary control by police? Would we tolerate this government intrusion in any other context?

I suspect this may change with the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Court. She has demonstrated in at least one case that she takes the Second Amendment seriously.

Wyoming prohibits felons from possessing firearms, as does federal law. But the Wyoming law limits that prohibition for a short list of violent felonies, whereas the federal law prohibits all felons from having guns. I argued in my book that federal law was not constitutional.

To abridge a clearly stated constitutional right, the government must show at least that the law has a rational basis. Conviction of a violent felony shows a predisposition for violence. But conviction of some innocuous white-collar crime proves no such thing.

There is simply no good reason for keeping Martha Stewart from having a skeet gun.

Im sure Justice Barrett never heard of me or read my book, but in a dissenting opinion she wrote while still a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Barrett expressed that same opinion, arguing that a person convicted of mail fraud has not demonstrated that he is dangerous. This opinion greatly disturbed the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee considering her nomination who will not be happy until no American citizen has any right to bear arms.

That opinion by Justice Barrett shows that there are now five justices who take the Second Amendment seriously and I believe the amendment will do just fine now unless Democrats are successful in stacking the Supreme Court to put Justice Barrett in the minority.

But Sen. Joe Manchin, Democrat from West Virginia, has already said hell vote against that and any change in the filibuster rule. So, it looks like the Second Amendment may survive another onslaught by politicians who havent read the Constitution or thought much about what it says, why it says it, and how important it is to sustain a free nation.

***For All Things Wyoming, Sign-Up For Our Daily Newsletter***

Excerpt from:
The Second Amendment In A World Of President Biden, VP Harris, And Justice Barrett - Cowboy State Daily

To the editor:

Joe Bidens Gun Control Policy/Will Biden Take Away Your Guns? That is the name of a YouTube video, wherein the guy has the information from Bidens website right in front of him, and he pragmatically talks about it to explain what each of Bidens gun control points would mean in actuality.

This whole thing with guns and the Second Amendment reminds me of when there was a push to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed, which on the surface sounded good. But in actual interpretation, one thing the ERA would have meant is that women would be required to fight in combat alongside the men, in a war. (And yes, I know, nowadays some women wish to do this). But my point is that even though the ERA didnt pass, the people who wanted it to pass have brought about their desires in other ways. I compare this to what Biden/Harris want to do with our gun rights, and I think the guys reasoning in this video is sound about how we WOULD lose most of our gun rights.

One thing to remember too, is that the lawless will always have the guns that we wont have if Biden/Harris get their way, which would leave us very vulnerable in our homes.

I so appreciated the article by Kate Anderson about the rule of law, which was followed by an article by Debbie Mays about chasing leprechauns, criticizing what Kate had said about gun control however, my guess is that even though Kate worded it as losing our Second Amendment, she probably in actuality meant what the YouTube video explains.

Diana Larsen

Hyrum

More:
More about Biden and the Second Amendment | Letters to the Editor - The Herald Journal

11/16/2020 | 01:55am EST

ALSTOM

Socit anonyme with share capital of 1,588,222,755

48, rue Albert Dhalenne, 93400 Saint-Ouen-sur-Seine, France

RCS: 389 058 447 Bobigny

SECOND AMENDMENT TO UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT 2019/2020

This amendment to the Universal Registration Document 2019/2020 was filed on 13 November 2020 with the French financial markets authority (Autorit des marchs financiers - AMF) in its capacity as the competent authority within the meaning of EU Regulation 2017-1129, without prior approval, in accordance with Article 9 of such regulation.

The Universal Registration Document may be used for the offer to the public of securities or the admission of securities to trading on a regulated market, provided it is accompanied by a securities note and, if applicable, a summary and all amendments made to the Universal Registration Document. These documents are approved as a whole by the AMF in accordance with the above-mentioned regulation.

This second amendment (the "Second Amendment") supplements and should be read together with the Universal Registration Document 2019/2020 filed with the AMF on 2 June 2020, under number D.20-0508 (the "Universal Registration Document 2019/2020") and the first amendment to the Universal Registration Document 2019/20 filed with the AMF on 7 October 2020, under number D.20- 0508-A01 (the "First Amendment").

A reconciliation table is provided in this Second Amendment to facilitate locating the information incorporated by reference and the information being updated or modified.

In the Second Amendment, "Alstom" and the "Company" mean Alstom S.A., and the "Group" means the Company and all of its consolidated subsidiaries.

The Universal Registration Document 2019/2020 and the related First Amendment and Second Amendment are available on Alstom's website (www.alstom.com) under the heading "Finance- Regulated Information," as well as on the website of the AMF (www.amf-france.org).

1

Table of Contents

PRELIMINARY NOTE..........................................................................................................................

3

1.

TRANSACTION TO ACQUIRE BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION ...................................

5

2.

RISK FACTORS ............................................................................................................................

6

3.

DESCRIPTION OF BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION ......................................................

10

4. FINANCIAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMPANY FOR THE FIRST HALF OF THE

2020/21 FISCAL YEAR PUBLISHED ON 10 NOVEMBER 2020....................................................

11

5.

MARKET OUTLOOK .................................................................................................................

20

5.1

Changes in the rail market ....................................................................................................

20

5.2

Perspectives concerning Alstom following the Acquisition .................................................

21

6.

FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 OUTLOOK...........................................................................................

23

7.

GOVERNANCE ...........................................................................................................................

25

8.

UPDATED INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ISSUER ....................................................

26

9.

SIGNIFICANT RECENT EVENTS.............................................................................................

27

10. LEGAL AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS ...................................................................

29

11. DECLARATION BY THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT

TO THE UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT 2019/20 .....................................................

30

12. RECONCILIATION TABLE ...................................................................................................

31

ANNEXES............................................................................................................................................

36

Annex 1:

Alstom's half-yearly financial report for the first half of the 2020/21

financial year

Annex 2:

Report of the Company's statutory auditors on the adjusted EBIT margin

forecasts for the financial year ended 31 March 2021

2

PRELIMINARY NOTE

In this Second Amendment:

3

This is an excerpt of the original content. To continue reading it, access the original document here.

Disclaimer

Alstom SA published this content on 16 November 2020 and is solely responsible for the information contained therein. Distributed by Public, unedited and unaltered, on 16 November 2020 06:54:04 UTC

Technical analysis trends ALSTOM

Income Statement Evolution

Continue reading here:
Alstom : 2nd Amendment to the 2019/20 Universal Registration Document - Marketscreener.com

When it came to her final word at the Miss USA pageant, Asya Branch was asked to speak on gun laws. And she wasn't afraid to state her support for the Second Amendment.

"I think it's important that we not ban guns because, obviously, people will find a way to get what they want anyway," Branch, who represented Mississippi, said onstage as she stood among the final five contestants on Monday night. "But I think it's our Second Amendment right, and I think we just need more safety surrounding that."

Branch's words caught the attention of Twitter and various media outlets especially after she was announced as the winner mere minutes later.

Branch spoke out in support of the Second Amendment during the pageant. Benjamin Askinas/Miss USA

"I think that AK-47s and other guns along those lines should be left to our military," Branch said. "There's no reason for civilians to have those types of weapons."

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994 expired in 2004. Congress has passed scant gun legislation in recent years, despite a wave of mass shootings in the country, and the fact that a 2019 Politico/Morning Consult poll found that nearly 70% of all American voters would support a new ban on assault weapons.

During her final word in the Miss USA pageant, Branch noted that she had grown up in a home with guns and "learned from an early age how to load, how to fire, and gun safety."

Branch said she grew up with guns in her home from an early age. Benjamin Askinas/Miss USA

"As our Second Amendment right, we obviously have the right to bear arms," she said. "And where I'm from, there are a lot of guns people like to hunt. It's important that we just really enforce gun safety and make sure that people have permits and that they're legally able to own a gun."

"It's just a matter of making sure that when we put guns in the hands of people, that they're capable of being safe and making sure that they're using it for the right reasons," she added. "Go hunting, go shoot targets, use it as more of a sport. Let's not harm each other."

People on Twitter recently criticized Branch after a photo of her singing at a Trump rally resurfaced on Monday night. Benjamin Askinas/Miss USA

The pageant queen also caught Twitter's attention when an Instagram photo of her singing at a Donald Trump rally in 2018 resurfaced.

Branch told Insider that she had been contractually obligated to sing the national anthem at the rally while she was Miss Mississippi for the Miss America organization, which is separate from Miss USA.

"I think what people miss a lot of the time is the fact that, as Miss Mississippi in the Miss America system, I was under a contract as an employee of the organization," she said. "Part of my contract obligated me to attend appearances, and that [Trump rally] was one of them."

"And I think that any opportunity that I get to sing the national anthem is a true honor, regardless of where it takes place," she added.

More here:
Miss USA does not believe that the country should ban guns - Insider - INSIDER

Although voters in Novembers election had a refreshing break from initiatives to impose new gun-control laws, there was a pro-gun ballot measure this fall in Big Sky Country.

LR 130, a ballot measure to limit local government authority to regulate firearms, was supported by the NRA and approved by Montanas voters. Voters had to contend with a barrage of misinformation along with the typical outsized spending by Michael Bloombergs Everytown for Gun Safety to defeat the measure.

The path to this vote started when the City of Missoula enacted a 2016 ordinance to criminalize private firearm sales, gifts, loans, and other transfers unless the parties processed the transaction through a licensed firearm dealer and had a NICS check done. Like almost every other state, Montana has firearm preemption laws that prohibit local governments from regulating firearms as they please. The Montana Attorney General concluded that state preemption statutes prohibited Missoula from enforcing its ordinance. The city responded with litigation against the Attorney General, seeking a declaration that its ordinance was lawful. A year ago, the states highest court ruled 5-0 in favor of the Attorney General, finding that the ordinance violated the preemption laws.

State lawmakers then passed HB 325, an amendment to the preemption laws that would confine local governments authority to regulate firearms to firearms carried by unlicensed persons in publicly-owned buildings controlled by that locality. Bloombergs Everytown/ Moms Demand Action opposed the legislation and called on Governor Bullock to veto HB 325. Governor Steve Bullock (D) did veto HB 325, which triggered the placement of an identical measure, HB 357, on the ballot as LR-130, a legislatively referred statute (Montanas constitution and statute law protect such measures from a governors veto).

Opponents of LR-130 used deceptive mailers that painted the measure as an attempt by lobbyists and out-of-touch politicians to take away our freedom; elsewhere, they referenced the need to protect our Second Amendment rights and claimed LR-130 was unconstitutional. Ignoring the 2019 court ruling invalidating Missoulas ordinance, opponents alleged that local government decisions on firearms had not been challenged by proponents because they know theyd lose. Besides these desperate assertions, Everytown and its gun-control allies spent 27 times the amount spent by supporters of the measure in the lead-up to the election.

Voters were not deceived.

Montanas voters not only supported LR-130, they made it clear that theyd had enough of Steve Bullock and his side-winding ways on the Second Amendment. After failing in his bid to be the Democrat nominee in the 2020 presidential race, Bullock had opted to run for the U.S. Senate, facing off against incumbent Steve Daines (R). Unlike the anti-gun positions he espoused as governor and presidential candidate, senatorial candidate Bullock found it expedient to profess his support for gun rights, with a fake hunters group even advertising that he was strong on guns.

Although Bullock did well in Missoula County, the flip-flopper flopped with Montanans overall, who preferred his opponent by a decisive ten percent margin.

For billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the defeat on LR-130 is likely another indication that, regardless of the huge funding disparities between real grassroots organizations and the anti-gun advocacy groups bankrolled by his millions, everyday Americans feel their freedom is not for sale.

Read this article:
Bloomberg Scores Another Failure in Big Sky Country - NRA ILA

LETTER from CHRISTIAN BASHEAR

To the Editor:

To express my support of the Second Amendment, I joined the 2AS group here in Otsego County when it was first organized. For far too long, the New York State government has passed more and more insane gun controls without seeming to care at all that they may be unconstitutional infringements to myright to keep and bear arms.

I also am sick of the insulting name-calling pro-gun control people use to label us.

There is nothing unreasonable to champion the Second Amendment as written and nor is it unreasonable to call into question certain gun control laws.

I have grown up in a household that enjoyed hunting and target shooting. The same with many ofmy friends and neighbors. We are not gun nuts and I dont know of anyone who is.

In fact, I cant see any of my friends or family even wanting to be around people who dont respect their firearms. But that doesnt mean its OK for the government to place one obscure restriction after another.

I want to see a future where my kids can enjoy hunting and target shooting as I did growing up. It has been a tradition that I fear might be stripped away.

There is talk every week on passing more infringing gun control laws throughout New York. We cannot stand for this anymore. Im tired of it and its time for freedom to fight back.

Having the freedom of self-defense is not only our right, it is our duty.

CHRISTIAN BRASHERRichfield Spring

Continue reading here:
BASHEAR: Protect Our Gun-Using Traditions - AllOTSEGO

SAF Rising as 2A Warrior, Challenging Restrictive Carry Laws (Dave Workman photo)

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Empowered by its landmark 2010 Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which nullified the Windy Citys handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment, the Second Amendment Foundationa scrappy gun rights group based in Washington Statehas become a legal powerhouse that is now targeting at least three states for their alleged arbitrary, prohibitive concealed carry laws.

This year alone, according to SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, SAF has filed an average of two lawsuits each month. With its most recent legal actiona federal lawsuit challenging Marylands arbitrary good and substantial reason requirement to obtain a concealed carry permitthe foundation has launched, usually in cooperation with other groups, 24 lawsuits so far in 2020. And, he acknowledged with a wink, the year isnt over. December could see even more activity, he indicated.

Most of these lawsuits have been filed in federal court. In addition to the Maryland case, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, recent days have seen SAF filing similar actions against New York City and the State of New Jersey.

Its part of a strategy announced by Gottlieb some five years ago with the intention of Winning Firearms Freedom, One Lawsuit at a Time. The organization, founded more than 40 years ago, has been constantly active since the June 2010 McDonald ruling, and this year has seen their legal gears shift into overdrive.

Depending upon the case, SAF is often joined by the California-based Firearms Policy Coalition, another group flexing its legal muscle. In some cases, SAF partners with the National Rifle Association. In the New Jersey and Maryland cases, SAFs sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is also participating.

State-level groups have also come aboard on occasion, including the Illinois State Rifle Association, New Jersey Second Amendment Society, San Diego County Gun Owners, Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League, Illinois Carry, Florida Carry, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., and Washington Arms Collectors, to name a few.

Cases havent always been about right-to-carry, either. SAF has been involved in legal actions to thwart gun bans in public housing, stopping local municipal governments from instituting regulations in defiance of state preemption laws, and in at least two cases, defending the First Amendment.

For example, SAF and NRA are challenging a City of Seattle safe storage requirement for firearms owners, in apparent violation of Washington States 35-year-old preemption law, which prohibits cities and counties from adopting their own gun control laws. The now-retired trial court judge tossed the suit on a technical standing issue, but last month, a three-judge panel on the State Court of Appeals unanimously reinstated the case and remanded it back for further action. A similar law in nearby Edmonds was struck down last year by the trial court.

The common denominator in New York City, New Jersey and Maryland are restrictive requirements to demonstrate something generically called justifiable need or good and substantial reason. SAF considers this nonsense because applicants are routinely denied, amounting on a ban of concealed carry by average citizens.

But the State of Maryland has criminalized the carrying of handguns by ordinary citizens, making it wholly unlawful for law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right to bear arms in public for self-defense without first satisfying the State that they have a good and substantial reason to do so.

Worse still, Maryland has made clear that a general desire to carry a handgun for the purpose of self-defensethe central component of the Second Amendment, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 599 (2008)is not a sufficiently good reason to exercise the right. Instead, according to Maryland, an ordinary citizen must provide documented evidence of concrete threats or recent assaults to obtain a permit from the state to carry a handgun in public. That restriction is akin to a state law concluding that the general desire to advocate for lawful political change is not a sufficiently good and substantial reason to exercise the right to free speech, and it cuts to the very core of the Second Amendment, no less than such a restriction would gut the First.

But the State of New Jersey has criminalized the carry of handguns by subjecting those who unlawfully do soeven if by an otherwise law-abiding person who carries a handgun to exercise their fundamental right to bear arms in public for self-defenseto punishment for a crime of the second degreea serious felonyplacing such conduct among crimes for aggravated assault resulting in serious bodily injury, aggravated arson, robbery, and sexual assault.

Adding further insult to constitutional injury, should an unlicensed person be convicted for exercising his rights by carrying a handgun in public, he would lose his Second Amendment rights under state and federal law.

The States few exceptions to this broad criminal statute do not allow law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun outside their homeIndeed, the law sweeps so broadly that it bars anyone from having a handgun in their possession unless they can show that they fall into one of the limited Case.

The Rules of the City of New York provide that, in order to obtain a Carry Business License or a Special Carry Business License, an applicant must show proper cause. The Rules define proper cause as follows:

Proper cause is determined by a review of all relevant information bearing on the claimed need of the applicant for the license. The following are examples of factors that will shall be considered in such a review.

Example: Employment in a position in which the applicant routinely engages in transactions involving substantial amounts of cash, jewelry or other valuables or negotiable items. In these instances, the applicant shall furnish documentary proof that her/his employment actually requires that s/he be authorized to carry a handgun, and that s/he routinely engages in such transactions.

Example: Instances in which Police Department records demonstrate that the life and well-being of an individual is endangered, and that s/he should, therefore, be authorized to carry a handgun. The factors listed above are not all inclusive, and the License Division will consider any proof, including New York City Police Department records, which document the need for a handgun license. It should be noted, however, that the mere fact that an applicant has been the victim of a crime or resides in or is employed in a high crime area, does not establish proper cause for the issuance of a carry or special handgun license. [38 RCNY 5-03]

In addition, the Rules of the City of New York require a person seeking a Carry Business License or a Special Carry Business License to submit a letter of necessity [that] explains the need for the license. 38 RCNY 5-05(b)(8)(i). Pertinently, the letter of necessity shall contain . . . [a] detailed description of the applicants employment and an explanation of why the employment requires the carrying of a concealed handgun and [a] statement acknowledging that the handgun shall only be carried during the course of and strictly in connection with the applicants job, business or occupational requirements, as described herein. Id. 5-05(b)(8)(ii)(A)-(B). The letter of necessity requirements make no reference to the need for a defensive firearm outside the context of employment.

Its the bill of rights, not the bill of needs, Gottlieb says in a SAF radio advertisement that frequently airs on Mark Walters Armed American Radio.

With Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett now on the Supreme Court, there is at least a 5-4 conservative majority, and if Chief Justice John Roberts comes back on gun rights issues, that would make for possible 6-3 rulings, provided Republicans retain control of the Senate.

Fox News is reporting that some Capitol Hill Democrats admit their chances of pushing a progressive agendawhich will undoubtedly include extremist gun control measuresare diminished by the strong GOP showing on Election Day. Efforts by Far Left Democrats to push Joe Biden farther in their direction could be dashed if two special elections in Georgia in January leave Republicans with a slim Senate majority. Under that scenario, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can stop legislation and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary might even prevent some cabinet nominees. They would certainly be able to prevent Biden and Vice President Kamala Harrisif they are declared the winners and take officefrom stacking the Supreme Court.

With record voter turnout in several states, it does not appear gun owners sat this one out. The presumed election outcome does not appear to have had any impact on SAFs legal activities, however. Indeed, SAF has been stepping up its game.

The foundation is involved in more than three dozen court cases right now, and the intent clearly is to get one or more of these to the Supreme Court. SAF had several cases seeking review earlier this year, none of which the high court accepted. That was a major disappointment for Gottlieb and his legal team. While the organization has no in-house attorneys, it works with several lawyers who have become specialists in gun rights issues.

Filling federal court vacancies with conservative judges and justices maybe Trumps longest-lasting legacy and his most significant political victory. With some semblance of balance restored to the federal courts, there is a strong possibility that one or more of SAFs pending cases could wind up before the high court.

One significant disadvantage for SAF is that the other side has lots of money because it typically comes from the taxpayers. In some cases, anti-gun organizations provide pro bono legal support to some lawsuit defendants, such as the City of Seattle. SAF nor any of its allies has enjoyed that luxury.

Over the past several months, with gun rights being a major shadow issue in the election cycle, donationswhich are tax-deductibleto SAF have been improving, but every little bit helps. No doubt with a Biden administration pressing a gun control agenda and local governments doing likewise with support from the gun prohibition lobby, there will be even more support for SAF and its allies in their legal battles.

It will take more court victories to restore the Second Amendment to its rightful stature, Gottlieb acknowledges. That could take years, but SAF is in this for the long haul.

For information about the Second Amendment Foundation, visit http://www.saf.org

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor atTheGunMag.comand Liberty Park Press,author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

The rest is here:
SAF Rising as 2A Warrior, Challenging Restrictive Carry Laws - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News