Category Archives: Second Amendment

D-Wave Quantum Inc. Enter into the Limited Waiver and Second Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement with PSPIB Unitas Investments II Inc  Marketscreener.com

Visit link:
D-Wave Quantum Inc. Enter into the Limited Waiver and Second Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement with PSPIB Unitas Investments II Inc -...

The legality of a Texas law exempting firearm suppressors made and kept in the state from federal regulations will not be determined by the federal judiciary after a challenge defending the law by the Texas Office of the Attorney General (OAG) on behalf of several Texas residents was dismissed.

The Texas Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 957 by Rep. Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress), known as the Texas Suppressor Freedom Act, into law in 2021. It allows Texans to ask the OAG to obtain a federal court order on their behalf granting them permission to manufacture and keep homemade suppressors without having to register them with the federal government.

The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has warned Texans that all federal laws requiring an application for a tax stamp, as well as the registration tax, still apply. Violations of the law can result in hefty fines and imprisonment.

Several residents asked the OAG to seek a court order on their behalf. Now impeached and suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit, prevailing against the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the first motion to dismiss brought in October of last year. The DOJ had argued the Second Amendment does not apply to suppressors, but Judge Mark Pittmann disagreed.

However, this week Pittman ruled against the state, dismissing the lawsuit for lack of standing.

In his ruling, Pittman took issue with both the situation in which the individual residents who wanted to make suppressors sought relief, and the ability of the state to intervene on their behalf.

Pittman explained that the plaintiffs neither attempted to make a suppressor and demonstrate a legitimate fear of being prosecuted by the federal government by doing so, nor did they fill out an application for a suppressor and demonstrate a burden on their constitutional right by being made to pay a tax.

While he acknowledged that the federal government has a history of prosecuting people for possessing unregistered suppressors, because the plaintiffs didnt claim to have an unregistered suppressor, there was no fear of being prosecuted for having one.

Individual Plaintiffs are correct that the government has a history of prosecuting the illegal possession of unregistered silencers. But these Plaintiffs have adduced no evidence that they, in fact, possess any illegal silencers or otherwise attempted any prohibited conduct. Nor have they shown that they have been threatened with prosecution or that it is likely. And our doctrines of criminal law forbid convicting persons for mere thoughts, desires, or motives, Pittman wrote.

The ruling does leave the door open for a challenge if a plaintiff shows standing, Pittman explained.

However, any future challenge will not be brought by the state on behalf of its citizens under Pittmans ruling, which determined the state doesnt have standing under the Constitution to intervene.

By its own words, Texas seeks to protect the ability of its individual residents to make firearm silencers at home, he wrote, adding, The only purported link between the State of Texas and the (Gun Control Act) regime is Texass state statute exempting silencers from the operation of federal law. And the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution determines the winner of that duel.

While Pittmans ruling has no bearing on whether the Second Amendment protects the right of Texans to make and keep a firearm suppressor in the state outside of federal regulations, any future court challenge will need to be brought by the citizens themselves, who have sufficient standing.

For now, those wanting a suppressor must pay the $200 tax, fill out an application, undergo a background check, and wait roughly 10 months for the tax stamp to be approved by the ATF.

The rest is here:
Federal Judge Rejects Lawsuit to Uphold Texas Suppressor Law for ... - The Texan

All seven pardons Gov. Maura Healey recommended won approval from the Governor's Council on Wednesday, cementing the first pardons awarded by a Massachusetts governor during their first elected year in office in three decades.

Healey in Juneproposed the pardons, which had earned the support of the Parole Board before Gov. Charlie Baker left office in January, when she also announced that she is planning to reform the clemency process to make it fairer, more timely and minimize racial disparities.

The Governor's Council, which reviews and approves the governor's clemency recommendations and judicial nominations, voted unanimously in favor of all seven pardons.

"I think our next seven items are pretty exciting for all of us," Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, who chairs the Governor's Council, said to councilors ahead of the pardon votes on Wednesday. "The opportunity to move forward with affirming pardons proposed by the administration an administration that in its first year of office, this is the first time in any recent memory that an administration has moved forward with pardons."

The pardons are aimed at people convicted on a variety of charges, one dating back more than half a century: Edem Amet, who was convicted in 1995 on drug charges; Xavier Delvalle, who was convicted in 2006 on breaking and entering and larceny charges; Glendon King, who was convicted in 1992 on drug charges; John Latter, who was convicted of arson in 1966; Deborah Pickard, who was convicted on several charges between 1982 and 1987; Gerald Waloewandja, who was convicted of drug charges in 2003; and Terrance Williams, who was convicted of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in 1984.

All seven pardons were recommended by the Parole Board during Baker's tenure, but Baker did not act on them before he left office in January, according to a Healey administration official.

"I just want to thank you and the governor," Councilor Marilyn Petitto Devaney told Driscoll during Wednesday's meeting. "I tried to hard to get the former governor to bring these forward, and you've started off so early with this, that we're going to have a wonderful administration and I look forward to more pardons."

Other councilors echoed Devaney's statements, saying they looked forward to approving more pardons, which forgive offenses, and commutations, which reduce sentences.

When Healey recommended the pardons in June, she said some of the individuals on the list face "barriers and uncertainties" in their lives today as a result of their criminal records.

Latter, who was convicted about 57 years ago, is unable to obtain a nursing license in Florida because of his record, while Williams has been denied a position at a private security company six times due to his conviction, according to Healey's office.

Williams who had long wanted to become a police officer joked in June that he is "too old for the academy" but said he's "not too old to help our community out." He called the process of securing a pardon recommendation a "long journey."

"We really need to look at people who are out there just like me, who just made a mistake years ago who just want that opportunity to come back to society," Williams said. "I never gave up."

King is a U.S. Army veteran who has worked for the Boston Fire Department for more than two decades. He told reporters that the pardon would lift a weight from his shoulders and also allow him to exercise his Second Amendment firearms rights.

"For a gentleman that's got a good head on his shoulders to be labeled a convicted felon for years is not a good thing," King said. "I've done everything by the book, everything right. I just want to get rid of that label."

Healey's office has said she is the first governor to issue pardons during her first year in office since former Gov. Bill Weld did so in 1991.

Despite the initial flurry, the Parole Boardannounced Mondaythat it will not continue advancing any pardon requests to Healey's desk until the governor finishes a promised review of the clemency process.

"In the Governor's first announcement of executive clemency, she indicated that the Administration is currently working to modernize the state's clemency guidelines to center fairness and racial and gender equity," Timothy McGuirk of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security told the News Service. "That process requires meaningful engagement with a broad range of stakeholders before issuing new guidelines later this year. To ensure current and future petitioners participate in a clemency process guided by the new framework, the Parole Board, functioning as Advisory Board of Pardons, will not schedule new clemency hearings until the update is complete."

Read more:
Governor's Council approves all 7 of Healey's pardon ... - WBUR News

Perhaps T.S. Elliot was wrong. July, not April, is the cruelest month, at least for GOP presidential contenders trying to supplant Donald Trump.

Before July, the campaigns have excuses for why the momentum hasnt kicked in yet. They can say theyre just in exploratory-committee mode, or theyre just getting the campaign stood up. Hey, we havent had a chance to meet the voters yet at an Iowa Pizza Ranch or chat with the gang at Manchesters Red Arrow Diner.

The ides of July is when the excuses evaporate in the summer heat as campaigns have to reveal their second quarter fundraising numbers. For Trumps challengers, those numbers vary in ugliness, but none are pretty. Mike Pence, a former vice president with enormous name ID, raised a paltry $1.2 million and may not reach the 40,000 small donors required to make the first GOP debate. Chris Christie, who has the highest negatives of any of the declared candidates, raised $1.6 million and has enough small donors to make the debate.

The most significant disclosures came from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. He raised a lot of money $20 million but he maxed out 70% of his donors, meaning he cant go back to them again. And hes burning through an enormous amount of cash.

But its the polling numbers that should depress everybody but Trump, who leads the field by over 30 points. DeSantis, whose team insisted in the spring that everyone should wait until he actually gets in the race, has actually lost a few points since he got in the race in May. The rest of the field is jockeying to stay out of single digits.

The one thing all of the challengers to Trump agree on is that none of this bad news really matters yet and they have a point. National polls at this stage are stupid. A surprise victory in Iowa or New Hampshire by any of them would completely recalibrate the race.

This is part of the cruelty. Every campaign except the one in the lead thinks its way too early to rule out anybody. Its a marathon not a sprint, as DeSantis says. But the only measures of progress are how much money theyve raised and from whom and those infernal polls.

The political press follows both as if theyre tangible points on the scoreboard and so does the donor class, which now includes tens of thousands of small donors. Its a vicious feedback loop: Failure to raise money or show momentum in the polls leads to negative press coverage, which in turn negatively affects your standing in the polls and how much money you can raise.

Indeed, you have to go back to 2000 to find an open GOP primary where the clear front-runner in mid-summer went on to win the nomination. At the beginning of July 2015, Jeb Bush and Donald Trump were neck and neck (though by the end of the month, Trumps surge had begun). In 2007, Rudy Giuliani led Sen. John McCain 2 to 1. Heck, most recent winners of the Iowa caucus didnt go on to win the nomination.

The problem is that this is an open primary in name only. Donald Trump is effectively running as an incumbent. Of course, he isnt one. He lost in 2020.

But GOP primary voters are acting like they dont know or dont accept that. Perhaps its because Trump refuses to admit defeat. Perhaps DeSantis is right that the criminal indictments of Trump have caused voters to rally around him in an act of defiance or sympathy. (If DeSantis is right, Trump might be looking at another boost: Trump says he received a letter from special counsel Jack Smith that he is a target of the January 6 grand jury investigation.) And maybe having so many Republican challengers praising or ignoring Trump has signaled to voters that Trump is the de facto incumbent until further notice.

Whatever the reason, pretending that this primary is normal when voters have an abnormal attachment to the front-runner is a recipe for the front-runner to glide to the nomination. With the exception of Christie, the other candidates are running as if Trump is not a candidate they are working to defeat, but just an idea. If you think of Trump as if he were, say, the personification of a political concept, like the Second Amendment, the way these GOP candidates talk about him makes a bit more sense. But the Second Amendment isnt running for president. Trump is.

If he werent running, it would make complete sense for GOP candidates to avoid offending Trump voters Republicans in 1976 certainly didnt routinely denounce Richard Nixon on the hustings. But unless they decide to run directly against the guy beating them now, the next six months are going to look a lot like July.

Jonah Goldbergs column is syndicated by Tribune Content Agency.

Read more here:
Jonah Goldberg: Why July is the cruelest month for GOP presidential ... - The Winchester Star

Federal law prohibits nine categories of persons from receipt and possession of a firearm. As the Supreme Court continues to develop its Second Amendment jurisprudence, which ones of those types are most significant in regard to representativeness and numerosity?

Felons in possession of firearms have been the leading type of prosecution under the federal Gun Control Act since its enactment in 1968. There were 7,454 such convictions in 2021.

The ban on felon possession is found in 18 U.S.C. 922(g), which also includes eight other categories of prohibited persons all of which pale into insignificance compared to the felon ban. One of the more minor categories is a person subject to a domestic restraining order. While the feds aren't too good at posting current data, in the years 2013 to 2017, there were 26,717 such convictions based on felon status, and only 121 for restraining order status. The proportions can't be much different today.

Given that disparity, why is Attorney General Merrick Garland so keen in having the Supreme Court decide whether the restraining order folks, instead of the felons, are protected by the Second Amendment? The felon issue is ubiquitous, and not just because of the sheer numbers. It involves not only the violent felony vs. non-violent felony issue, but also whether any limits exist in this day-and-age in which almost anything can be a felony. Why has Martha Stewart forfeited her right to have a gun for self-defense?

So why would the government try to convince the Supreme Court to take up the atypical issue regarding persons with a restraining order? Here's my take.

The Biden Administration is salivating at the prospect of United States v. Rahimi, about which I've written previously, being the next Second Amendment case to be decided by the Supreme Court. That's because the defendant in the case appears to be such an odious character. Arrested by police following multiple shooting sprees, Rahimi was prohibited from gun possession because he was subject to a prior agreed-upon civil protective order. The Fifth Circuit found the ban to be facially unconstitutional because no historical analogue allowed disarming a person based on a civil protective order rather than a criminal proceeding.

The government didn't bother to file a petition for rehearing en banc, and rushed straight to the Supreme Court with a cert petition. There is a reason for the adage that bad facts make bad law, and the Administration is angling to take full advantage of that.

So do the amici that have filed briefs urging the Court to grant cert. One of them is California Governor Gavin Newsom, who argues that the Court's "intervention is needed immediately," given that the Fifth's Circuit's decision "is just one example of lower courts misreading Bruen."

It then lists some of the other decisions that take the Second Amendment seriously, an obviously unacceptable outcome to those who wish to re-designate the right to bear arms to a second-class status.

As the cert petition states, "the government is filing this petition for a writ of certiorari on a highly expedited schedule . . . in order to allow the Court to consider the petition before it recesses for the summer." Nothing like rushing to the front of the line and insisting to the Court, "Pick me!"

And the government recently opposed the full length of an extension requested by Rahimi's counsel to respond to the petition. In its response the government indicated that it would only agree to cutting in half counsel's normal reply time "given the substantial disruption caused by the court of appeals' decision," in order "to allow the petition to be distributed on June 6 for consideration at the June 22 conference." The extension was granted only in part, to May 30.

To be clear, whether the Court considers the petition now or in the fall, it will not hear the case until next term. An apparent aim of the Administration is to ensure that Rahimi is the next Second Amendment case the Court hears. If there are other meritorious prohibited-person petitions that are filed after cert is granted in Rahimi, under typical Court practice those petitions likely would be held pending resolution of Rahimi. After that, the Court would grant cert, vacate, and remand (GVR) the pending cases for reconsideration in light of whatever it would decide in Rahimi.

A better approach would be for the Court not to act too quickly and to wait until it returns from its summer recess to decide whether to take Rahimi or another case for plenary review. The Court likely will at that time have a fuller menu of options from which to choose. For example, the Third Circuit is poised to decide the Range v. Garland case en banc. Range presents an as-applied civil challenge to the federal felon prohibition on behalf of an individual who was convicted for excluding lawn-mowing income from his food stamp application nearly thirty years ago. The three-judge panel upheld his conviction based on improper historical analogues such as the disarming of slaves.

In addition, the Second Circuit recently held argument in Zherka v. Garland, a challenge similar to Range's on behalf of an individual convicted of conspiring to commit bank and tax fraud. The district court upheld his legal disability under the "two-step" framework that Justice Thomas characterized in Bruen as "one step too many." These cases present more typical challengers than the one in Rahimi, and the facts of the cases are less likely to have a skewing effect on the law.

Rather than precipitously granting the Rahimi petition and then holding cases like Range and Zherka if they come before the Court, the Court should consider the full array of petitions that are filed when it comes back from recess and grant the one, or ones, most representative of the challenges that typically are brought in this area. The Court could then hold Rahimi pending the outcome of that case or at a minimum grant another petition alongside Rahimi.

Read more:
Second Amendment Roundup: U.S. Seeking Cert on Prohibited Persons % - Reason

Listen to Article

Listen to article 4 minutes

A problem occurred. Try refreshing the page.

0.8x 1.0x 1.2x 1.5x 2.0x

However you feel about guns, take a moment to check out our 2nd Amendment quotes to learn more.

We have some of the most insightful and historically relevant Second Amendment quotes to help you better understand both sides of the debate.

You may also enjoy reading these related articles:

The Second Amendment is a provision that protects an individual to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Many people have interpreted this provision differently, so the Second Amendment has varying meanings depending on who you ask.

Check out these Second Amendment facts below:

The Second Amendment prevents the need for the United States to have a professional standing army.

When the Second Amendment passed, the country was in different conditions than today.

The Second Amendment wasnt intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense.

However, the right to bear arms generally refers to a persons right to possess weapons.

As a result, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitutional right to bear arms as an individual self-defense right over the years.

Some people believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to carry arms.

Other people believe the Second Amendment preserves the right to bear arms within the context of a well-regulated militia.

The interpretation of the Amendment has spawned national debate for centuries.

People in favor of gun rights suggest that the Second Amendment is a necessary safeguard against government tyranny.

Gun control activists disagree.

They suggest the Second Amendment is outdated.

They dont believe it accounts for modern violence concerns.

To learn more, check out our Second Amendment quotes below.

These quotes remind us why some people are so passionate about maintaining the integrity of the Second Amendment.

1. There is more hooey spread about the Second Amendment. Molly Ivins

2. The Second Amendment is an integral part of the Bill of Rights. Ted Cruz

3. The Second Amendment is, of course, very much part of the American fabric. Peter Bergen

4. The Second Amendment says we have the right to bear arms, not to bear artillery. Robin Williams

5. The Second Amendment is just as important as all the other Amendments. John Kennedy

6. A gun saved my life. Thats why I wont let my Second Amendment right be taken away from me. Stacey Dash

7. You know why theres a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one. Rush Limbaugh

8. We also cannot allow Wall Street banks to rewrite the Second Amendment just because theyre too big to fail. John Kennedy

9. The Second Amendment does protect the right to people to possess weapons for self-defense in the home. Laurence Tribe

10. The Second Amendment, like the First Amendment, was never written to apply to the states themselves but to Congress. Ryan McMaken

Below are some Second Amendment quotes from some well-known individuals.

11. I dont hate the government. I dont think the Second Amendment is being infringed upon. Henry Rollins

12. But the guns are there, the Second Amendment is there, to make sure all of the rest of the amendments are followed. Louie Gohmert

13. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed. Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court

14. The final line in the Second Amendment says, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means not by the president, not by Congress. Chuck Norris

15. As an ardent defender of the Second Amendment, I will work aggressively with my House and Senate colleagues to make sure no attack on gun rights becomes law. Ronny Jackson

These pro-Second Amendment quotes are all about freedom and the law of the land.

16. The Second Amendment is not just words on parchment. Wayne LaPierre

17. Theres another group that just hates the Second Amendment. John Kennedy

18. Thankfully, the Second Amendment and the American people will not stand for it. Katie Pavlich

19. We need to get some rationality on the Second Amendment. This is crazy what we allow ourselves. George Takei

20. I will not sign a piece of legislation that has anything to do with imposing limitations on our Second Amendment. Glenn Youngkin

21. If the U.N. gun-ban treaty is ever signed and ratified into law, we may never get a second chance to save the Second Amendment. Wayne LaPierre

22. If youre too dangerous to buy an airplane ticket, youre too dangerous to buy an assault weapon. And when we talk about the Second Amendment. Jim Gray

23. There is a group of people that I think in good faith honestly believe that further curtailing our Second Amendment rights will enhance public safety. John Kennedy

24. Im not representing any organization. I represent the people of Ohio, and a lot of people in Ohio feel very strongly about their Second Amendment rights. Rob Portman

25. What a lot the media, and especially Fox News, has messed up with me is theyve made it seem like Im trying to take away peoples guns that Im against the Second Amendment. David Hogg

Here are a few additional gun control quotes and perspectives.

26. I dont think you should infringe on the type of weapon somebody should buy or the number of rounds in a high-capacity magazine. Gabriel E. Gomez

27. For me personally, Im anti-gun and always have been and always will be. But Im definitely not someone who is looking to abolish the Second Amendment. Justin Tranter Stevens

28. For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. John Paul

29. What I dont want to do is restrict law-abiding citizens from their Second Amendment rights, which are focused on freedom. I point out all the time. Remember, bad guys arent stupid; theyre just bad. Jim Jordan

30. How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of. Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp

The founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment into law to protect gun rights.

Here are some of their most memorable quotes.

31. I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

32. No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

33. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined. George Washington, First Annual Address to Congress, January 8, 1790

34. I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

35. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! Benjamin Franklin

36. That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment, to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion. George Washington, letter to George Mason April 5, 1769

Here are some additional quotes to hear what the founding fathers thought.

37. The Constitution of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

38. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country. James Madison, Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

39. A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies. John Adams, speech to US Congress January 8, 1790

40. On every occasion, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed. Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

Supporters of the Second Amendment often cite a desire to preserve their freedom as the basis of their passion; these quotes remind us why.

41. I am a strong supporter and proponent of the Second Amendment. Always have been. Lucy McBath

42. The authors of the Second Amendment had a more sophisticated vision of gun ownership than is often assumed. Ryan McMaken

43. I support the Second Amendment but the Second Amendment was created and designed to prevent tyranny and not to encourage terror. Jim Gray

44. I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense. Cass Sunstein

45. The enemies of freedom are waging an all-out assault on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which we have sworn to protect and defend. Jeff Duncan

Here are a few additional quotes about liberty and the importance of protecting it.

46. Our fight isnt just about the Second Amendment, its about preserving all our liberties saving our constitutional heritage and protections for the future. Wayne LaPierre

47. The Second Amendment is a constitutional right. I didnt make it up; the Republican Party didnt make it up. Its in the Constitution. I think its just as important as any of the other rights in our constitution. Marco Rubio

48. We are a country that believes in free speech and the open debate of ideas. Were a country that also believes in the Second Amendment and our ability to have guns. But weve got to figure out a way to keep America safe. Valerie Jarrett

49. I support gun safety measures, and Ill tell you, I grew up in a family of gun owners and hunters, and I went hunting with my dad as a kid, and you know, I have deep respect for the Second Amendment and the culture of our country. Eric Swalwell

50. It is often, therefore, just assumed that the writers of the Second Amendment were nave and incapable of seeing the vast asymmetries that would develop between military weaponry and the sort of weaponry the average person was likely to use. Ryan McMaken

Debates regarding the Second Amendment continue to rage.

Therefore, you have people on both sides who do not seem to be able to agree with an interpretation of the provision in a way that makes sense for each side.

There is an adage that says there is nothing new under the sun.

Whether private citizens should bear arms or if this right belongs to militias or the military was not raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

The United States was founded by those who feared what would occur if governments used soldiers to oppress people.

They were fresh from under the thumb of the British Royal Crown and wanted to protect themselves from tyranny.

It is understandable why they would enact measures to protect themselves from repeating the hardships from their previous conditions.

So today, people argue that since the United States has a strong, professional standing army, there is no need for an armed public.

However, gun rights advocate point to crime, violence, and a need to protect their families as reasons to keep their guns.

Where do you stand on the 2nd Amendment conversation?

Be sure to let us know in the comments below.

Originally posted here:
2nd Amendment Quotes for Hot Topics - Everyday Power

Today, the Buffalo News published an editorial on gun violence and how Governor Hochul has strengthened New York's gun laws. Text of the editorial is available below and can be viewed online here.

If it's true that our choices define us - and also understand that doing nothing is a choice - a recent News story shows that residents of this state have cause to be thankful they live here and not in the armed camp called Texas.

Both states suffered terrible tragedies last year. In Buffalo, 10 Black residents were murdered by a racist teenager while, only days later in Uvalde, Texas, another teenager massacred 19 elementary students and two teachers. Both killers used AR-15-style rifles, the preferred weapon of American mass murderers.

In New York the response was prompt. Gov. Kathy Hochul and state legislators saw the weaknesses in the state's gun laws and moved to tighten them. Among them was New York's red flag law which, had it been implemented against the shooter, might have avoided a terrible tragedy.

But in Texas, the bloodshed and the grieving of an entire community seems to matter not a bit - not officially, anyway. Not only has the state government there chosen to do nothing in response to that human tragedy, its governor has gone of his way to celebrate not just guns, but a murderer from another part of the state.

This is not about the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers' murky protection of firearms. It's no more absolute than the First Amendment is. Rights have limits; they may be indistinct and subject to interpretation, but they exist, regardless of the braying of absolutists.

What this is about is priorities: public safety vs. the right to own any kind of weapon; children's lives vs. the right to carry firearms designed for mass murder. In New York, there is a willingness to take facts into account, while in Texas, the compulsion, apparently irresistible, is to ignore such facts no matter how much blood is spilled or how young the victims.

Gun laws make a difference. Along with a more even-keeled culture, New York's laws help this a much safer state than Texas is, as stark statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention document. For 2021, the most recent year available, New York's firearm injury death rate was 5.4 per 100,000. The rate in Texas was nearly triple New York's, at 15.6 per 100,000. Similarly, while New York's homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000, the Texas rate was almost double, at 8.2 per 100,000. Those number tell a tale. The adoration of guns is a predictor of death.

And it is a cultural problem in Texas, as its reckless governor makes abundantly clear. A jury in Austin convicted an individual of murder of murdering an armed man - yes, it's Texas - who was protesting police brutality. But such is that state's commitment to gun culture - and its hostility to protest - that Gov. Greg Abbott wants to pardon him. Call it further evidence of the nation's rising problem with mental health.

Support for rational gun laws crosses political lines. Even many gun owners understand the need for legitimate controls. The flat rejection of them is mainly the province of the far right, often under the romantic guise of protecting the country from the imaginary risk of attack by their own government.

It didn't work that way on Jan. 6, 2021. Then, it was members of the far right, some of them armed, who sought by means of violence to overturn a fair election in service of a defeated president who had shown his disdain for the Constitution. So part of the value of gun laws is to protect decent Americans from extremists with too easy access to such weapons.

No state's gun control laws are perfect, as the May 14 murders at the Jefferson Avenue Tops supermarket showed. But neither is any state's laws against murder. You do what you can.

It would be much more effective for Washington to act, of course. Even with effective state laws, it's too easy to bring in weapons from states that benefit from the gun culture. Again, the numbers document the need. As healthdata.org shows, the United States is an outlier on gun violence, leading all high-income countries and territories with populations of at least 10 million. And leading by far: The country's rate of 4.12 firearm homicides per 100,000 people is more than double the rate of Chile, in the No. 2 spot at 1.82 per 100,000. Canada's rate is 0.5 per 100,000; the United Kingdom's, 0.04.

That's worse than an embarrassment. It's malfeasance - a failure to act in the face of facts that are killing Americans. Already this year, the Gun Violence Archive reports 243 mass shootings - that's about 1.7 per day - and 23 mass murders, or a little more than one per week.

It's a terrible record of violence and federal indifference. But it makes it good to live in New York.

See more here:
ICYMI: Buffalo News Editorial: Gun Laws and a More Sensible ... - ny.gov

As it stands in Prince William County, unloaded firearms are allowed in parks and public places where families and children gather. The Board of County Supervisors has the power to change this and improve residents safety.

Banning firearms from park property, apart from those carried by law enforcement, is essential to protecting the people who use county parks, is constitutionally sound and needs the support of the community.

Without an ordinance, unloaded guns are allowed on baseball and softball fields. These fields are used by children, teenagers and their families to play and watch youth sports. No one should have to worry about a concealed firearm while watching their child play softball. Allowing firearms, even unloaded, in any park is reckless and asking for tragedy.

Prohibiting firearms in sensitive areas is constitutional and does not threaten Second Amendment rights. The constitutionality of firearm bans in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings has been upheld by the Supreme Court repeatedly.

The time to enact change is now. Lets keep our kids safe at public parks.

The writer is a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

See the original post:
Opinion | Prince William needs gun-free zones - The Washington Post

Another federal court has cast doubt on the legality of one of President Bidens unilateral attempts at implementing new gun restrictions.

United States District Judge Jane L. Boyle of the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the ATFs ban on pistols equipped with stabilizing braces on Thursday in the case Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) v. ATF. Drawing on the injunction issued against the ban on Tuesday by a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Boyle said similar concerns over administrative procedure and Second Amendment rights were at issue in the case before her court. She limited her injunction to just the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Although the Fifth Circuits order limited relief to the plaintiffs in that case, the Court finds the same relief is appropriate here, Boyle wrote in her order. And while Plaintiffs raise some arguments that were not raised in Mock, the resolution of that appeal will almost certainly affect, if not control, the Courts decision on Plaintiffs Motion. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion and issues a preliminary injunction as to Plaintiffs in this case only, pending resolution of the expedited appeal in Mock v. Garland.

The ruling represents a bittersweet victory for gun-rights advocates who have fought to have the pistol brace ban tossed since the ATF finalized it earlier this year. While the injunction will provide a slight reprieve for the pistol brace-owning plaintiffs in the case ahead of the end of the bans amnesty period this month, its limited nature may leave millions of brace owners at risk of federal prosecution unless they register their braced firearms with the government beginning in June.

The lawsuits stem from President Joe Bidens decision to try and reclassify guns equipped with pistol braces, which are designed to strap to a shooters forearm rather than be pressed against their shoulder, as short-barrel rifles or shotguns. The reclassification would put them under the jurisdiction of the National Firearms Act, which requires the guns to be taxed and registered with the ATF. The agency set June 1st as the deadline to submit tax-free registration. Anyone who owns a pistol-brace-equipped gun that falls under the rule and doesnt register it could be charged with a federal felony.

President Biden used a similar rulemaking procedure to reclassify unfinished gun parts as firearms in another executive action that has since run into legal trouble. His ghost gun ban has also been enjoined by federal courts since it went into effect, though those injunctions have been limited in the same way the pistol brace blocks are.

Confusion over how far the new injunctions stretch prompted the Firearms Policy Coalition, the plaintiffs in the Fifth Circuit case, to request clarification from the court as to how many people are covered by the injunction it issued.

Absent such clarification before the time when the Final Rule goes into effect, many persons interacting or residing with Appellants, as well as members and customers of the organizational Appellants, risk inadvertent violation of the Final Rule and potential prosecution, and Appellants themselves will be unsure of the scope of the relief provided and how they can act to mitigate their otherwise irreparable injuries, FPC said in its motion for clarification.

As with the FPC case, the SAF case includes a gun-rights group and a gun company alongside several individual plaintiffs. Whether the injunctions extend to all the members of FPC and SAF as well as the customers of Maxim Defense and Rainier Arms will have a major impact on how many people are protected from prosecution as the cases move forward.

The courts interpretation of the plaintiffs covered by the injunction could have ramifications for the injunction issued in the Northern Texas case. Judge Boyle said she would not consider ruling on any additional claims against the ban until the Fifth Circuit panel concluded its expedited proceedings on the matter. Oral arguments in that case are not scheduled to take place until June 29, nearly a month after the amnesty period for brace owners will have ended.

Despite the rulings limited scope, gun-rights advocates still called Thursdays order a significant win.

We are pleased that the Court has preliminarily enjoined ATFs brace ban before the effective date, Adam Kraut, Executive Director of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), said in a press release. SAF will continue to aggressively litigate this issue to prevent the erosion of constitutional rights and prevent administrative agencies from overstepping their authority.

The ATF did not respond to a request for comment.

Continue reading here:
Second Federal Judge Expands Block on Biden Pistol-Brace Ban as ... - The Reload

Gift this article

Share this article paywall-free.

By the Editorial Board

This newspaper has consistently criticized Missouris Republican political leaders for a blatantly unconstitutional state law declaring certain federal gun restrictions unenforceable in the state. Thats simply not how it works; federal law supersedes. It would be inconsistent, then, to suggest that St. Louis could simply declare Missouri legislation against transgender citizens unenforceable in the city which is why Mayor Tishaura Jones approach is a better one.

The executive order Jones signed last week doesnt take the legally doomed approach of presuming to invalidate state legislation that harasses transgender people regarding medical care and sports participation. Instead, it counterbalances the effects of that legislation by providing support services for trans citizens.

Missouris 2021 Second Amendment Preservation Act is mainly designed to let the Legislatures Republican majority play to its gun-culture base. It threatens to fine any police agency in Missouri that enforces any federal gun laws that dont have an equivalent in state law. This has made Missouri-based law enforcement hesitant to work with their federal counterparts for fear of running afoul of the statute, thus endangering public safety. Luckily, the law is headed for probable overturn in the courts under the core constitutional principle of federal supremacy.

There is a parallel relationship between state and local policies: When they are in conflict, state law supersedes. That would include two cynical bills awaiting Gov. Mike Parsons signature that would restrict transgender minors from receiving gender-affirming medical care or participating on school sports teams that dont align with the gender on their birth certificates. The gender-sports issue is such a rarity in the real world as to render the legislative focus on it ridiculous, while gender-affirming health care involves complex medical and family issues that politicians have no business interfering with. These are mean-spirited attacks on a tiny minority in order to stoke the political right.

Jones order could provide real protection for trans kids without a counterproductive direct challenge to state statutes. It orders the city health department to organize a summit for providers to discuss best practices under the expected new law and disseminate information on access to gender-affirming care. It orders the designation of at least one bathroom in every city administration building as all-gender and calls for city employee training on gender identity inclusivity. It directs city economic development experts to recommend ways to incentivize businesses to support gender inclusivity. Regarding the sports issue, it simply declares that city-run sports programs wont ask participants their gender identity.

Whats notable about Jones order in addition to not giving state lawmakers much if anything to hang a legal challenge on is that it takes a supportive approach to the issue. A fair-minded public, both in and out of the city, should note the contrast with the outright malice of the state legislation.

Views from the editorial board, opinions from guest and national columnists plus the latest letters from our readers.

Continued here:
Editorial: Mayor's order of support for trans citizens contrasts with the ... - St. Louis Post-Dispatch