Category Archives: Second Amendment

ATLANTA (AP) Joe Biden is resisting calls from President Donald Trump and even some fellow Democrats to release his list of potential Supreme Court picks seven months after he pledged to name the first Black female justice.

Some on the left suggest that outlining potential picks would help Biden build enthusiasm in the final weeks of the campaign, particularly after he already selected California Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate, making her the first Black woman on a major presidential ticket. Trump, meanwhile, is eager to comb through a list to find possible nominees who would bolster his false depiction of Biden as an extreme liberal.

Trump helped insert the Supreme Court squarely into presidential politics in 2016 by taking the unprecedented step of releasing a list of potential nominees before he was elected, a move that helped rally the conservatives who ultimately carried him to victory.

But some of Bidens allies say a list wont provide the same payoff for him and could hurt him by distracting voters from Trumps handling of the coronavirus and give the president fuel to suggest Bidens choices are too far left.

Why play into Trumps hands? asked Karen Finney, a prominent Black Democratic strategist.

Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a Biden protg and confidant, pointed to the former vice presidents 36 years in the Senate and his brand as a liberal pragmatist as assurance enough for voters.

He doesnt need to issue some lists in order for Democrats to be comfortable that they know his values and his priorities, Coons said, arguing that voters of all stripes know Biden would elevate highly qualified, mainstream jurists.

Still, the issue represents a familiar tightrope for Biden. Hes a center-left establishment figure aiming for a broad ideological coalition to defeat Trump in an era when the loudest voices come from the political poles. On issues from health care to the climate crisis, progressives hammer Biden as too incremental while conservatives cast him as too liberal. A Supreme Court nomination is certain to amplify those dynamics.

Trump offered a preview last week, challenging Biden to match his list of choices while sketching a caricature of radical justices he insisted would gut Second Amendment rights, remove under God from the Pledge of Allegiance and declare the death penalty unconstitutional. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, a former Senate Judiciary chair, followed up Wednesday by urging Biden not to hide his intentions for the court.

On the left, the group Demand Justice wants to match the rights intensity on judicial politics, while a second group, She Will Rise, is raising awareness about the possibility of a Black woman joining the high court.

Demand Justice has assembled a list of 17 Black women it says would make ideal justices. The list includes law professors, leading civil rights attorneys and jurists from lower federal courts and state supreme courts. But there are no names as prominent as the headliners on Trumps list: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton.

Demand Justice has launched a $2 million ad campaign targeting voters in Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin around the Supreme Court and Bidens promise of a Black female nominee. But executive director Brian Fallon argued that Biden could do more.

Whatever good is achieved by making a general commitment like that would only be expanded and furthered if he put out some names of people hes considering, said Fallon, an adviser on Hillary Clintons 2016 presidential campaign.

Pew Research found in August that 66% of Biden supporters identified Supreme Court nominations as a very important issue, more than the 61% of Trump supporters who said the same. Thats a reversal from 2016, when Pew found Trumps supporters were 8 percentage points more likely than Clintons to consider the court a key issue.

There were key differences in 2016. Most important was a vacancy: Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon, had died and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to consider President Barack Obamas nominee, Merrick Garland, who would have tilted the courts majority to the left. There is no vacancy now, despite considerable attention on the health of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal wings 87-year-old leader.

Further, Trump in 2016 faced distrust among many conservatives, including white evangelicals, because of his support as a private citizen for Democratic politicians and public statements in favor of abortion rights and same-sex marriage. Trump turned that to his advantage by accepting help from the Federalist Society and other conservative legal advocates to compile a public list of would-be justices. Hes since nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch, who appeared on a preelection list in 2016, and Brett Kavanaugh, who appeared on a post-election list.

Without that list, he wouldnt have won, Coons said.

There is some irony in Supreme Court politics being such a potentially prominent variable in Bidens presidential hopes.

The conservative political movement on the judiciary blossomed after Biden, as Senate Judiciary chair, helped scuttle the nomination of conservative firebrand Robert Bork submitted by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. Biden angered some women four years later during the confirmation hearings of another conservative, Clarence Thomas, because of senators treatment of Anita Hill, who accused Thomas of sexual harassment. Biden voted against Thomas, but he was confirmed.

Even a 5-4 Supreme Court majority deciding the 2000 presidential election in favor of Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore did little to shift campaign dynamics concerning the court. All five justices in the majority were nominated by Republican presidents.

Kitchen-table issues, health care and economics have always resonated more with our voters, said Donna Brazile, a former Democratic Party chair and Gores campaign manager.

Fallon acknowledged, much to my chagrin, that it would be a first for Democrats to leverage the court as a key presidential issue more effectively than Republicans.

Finney said part of the challenge is the Democrats are mostly protecting existing precedent, while conservatives have spent decades trying to reclaim lost turf, from the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide to decades of rulings on civil rights and the expansion of federal power. In short, its harder to get voters on the left to understand potential threats to rights they already take for granted.

Republicans have been better at using fear as a motivator, Finney said. A board member of NARAL, an abortion-rights group, Finney added: Ive had people say to me, Do we really need NARAL anymore? Arent our abortion rights safe? No!

Another example: A divided Supreme Court in 2013 gutted key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, but Democrats didnt make that an issue in 2016 even with the vacancy from Scalias death.

If theres a shift in 2020, Finney predicted it wont come from Biden or his promise of a historic nomination. Trumps list is a motivating factor by itself, she said. There is no Democrat who wants to see Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court.

___

Associated Press writer Alexandra Jaffe in Washington contributed to this report.

Originally posted here:
Biden under pressure to unveil list of potential court picks - The Associated Press

Its not just that Biden would revoke the presidents offers of federal backup for overwhelmed or hamstrung local police departments the former vice president has made it clear that he would do everything in his power to deprive law-abiding citizens of the means to defend themselves, their families, or their property should they find themselves in the crosshairs of rampaging radicals.

If the left gains power, they will demolish the suburbs, confiscate your guns, and appoint justices who will wipe away your Second Amendment and other constitutional freedoms, President Trump warned on the closing night of the RNC.

Thats not even hyperbole. Biden sent an unmistakable message to the country when he appointed his former rival Robert Francis Beto ORourke best known for his full-throated declaration that, Hell, yes, he would confiscate legally-owned firearms from American citizens to help devise his campaigns gun control platform.

As the president explained, our votes in this election will decide whether we protect law abiding Americans, or whether we give free reign to violent anarchists, agitators and criminals who threaten our citizens.

Its not a trick question. Between now and Nov. 3, the Democrats will do everything they can to obscure and obfuscate, just as they did throughout the DNC. Theyre well aware that the American people would never accept their radical message if they were to deliver it in plain English.

See the rest here:
Scott Walker: American greatness will prevail over the forces of darkness - Madison.com

Fox NationhostTomi Lahrensat down with Alek Skarlatos, a veteranhero who helped stop aterrorist attack on a Paris-bound train in 2015, about his run for Congress in Oregon's 4th congressional district.

Lahren previewed her interview with the 27-year-old Army National Guard veteran on hershow "No Interruption."The hero hopes to flip the seat Republican against 33-year incumbent liberal DemocraticRep. Peter DeFazio.

"He decided after taking downa terrorist he is ready to takedown the swamp in Washington,D.C.," Lahren told "Fox & Friends" Thursday of Skarlatos.

Her longtime friend is ready to "fight for the rural peopleof Oregon and show that not all youngpeople are crazy and liberal andleftist and that they believe inthe Second Amendment.They believe in freedom.They believe in small-townAmerica and he is ready to win," she added.

TOMI LAHREN ASKS ARMY VET TURNED COUNTRY MUSIC STAR HOW HE RESPONDS TO UNABASHED HATRED OF AMERICA

Skarlatos played himself in the 2018 Clint Eastwood film The 15:17 to Paris, which depictedthe attempted attackon a train from Amsterdam to Paris. Skarlatos and two of his friends,Anthony Sadler and Spencer Stone,were traveling in Europe in August 2015 when they incapacitated an Islamist gunman.

Since then he came in third on the show, "Dancing with the Stars," and now the hero wants to help flip his district red.

Skarlatos told Lahren his district is made up of timber, fishing, grass seed farming, rural and working-class, blue-collar people who've "had a tough time over the last 30 years."

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD VETERAN ON PORTLAND UNREST: 'I THINK IT'S TIME' TO 'DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT'

"Economically since the timberindustry went away, thingshave really gone downhilland the incumbent Democrat not doinganything to help us," Skarlatos explained, "it really just made me want to stand up andfight for the people that I livewith."

Co-host Ainsley Earhardt noted the 27-year-old "has done more than most of us in our lifetime."

Skarlatos won the Republican primary in May with more than 86% of the vote.

"This is somebody who could've justtaken his famefrom a Clint Eastwood movie and just been happy with that, but no, he saidthe people in my district, theyhaven't been fought for," Lahren said. "We have a Democrat that justkeeps getting reelected over andover and over again."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

She said his race is similar to so many across the country, saying people are "tired ofwatching Democrats run theircities into the ground and notpay attention to the littlepeople."

Lahren said that despite Portland's "craziness," Skarlatos' district wants the timber industry and good-paying jobs back, not what the radical leftists are offering with the Green New Deal and "other things that are going to completely decimatetheir livelihood."

"He's ready to fight for themand he'sa young conservativeready to do it and I think he isgoing to win," she said.

To watch all of"No Interruption",go to Fox Nationand sign up today.

Read the original post:
Tomi Lahren talks to Oregon congressional candidate, 27, who became American hero - Fox News

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

When did Bill Barr turn into Alex Jones, screaming and swearing about cabals of evil Democrats threatening to overthrow the government? Wasnt he supposed to be a starchy institutionalist whod been in DC forever and would be a steady hand on the tiller at the Justice Department?

Apparently not! Hes threatening to jail protestors, spouting nutball conspiracy theories about Democrats trying to steal the election with mail-in ballots, and all but shouting I AM THE LAW!

Okay, lets run this one down Top 6 listicle style, because thats what weve been reduced to in the hellscape that is 2020.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Barr told prosecutors on a conference call last week to prepare for protests to increase in size and intensity in the lead-up to the election.

And how should they prepare for the exercise of First Amendment-protected speech by American citizens?

By readying to file federal charges in the rare instance when protestors get violent, even when state charges might apply. Charges up to and including sedition, because throwing a Molotov cocktail at a federal courthouse is apparently the same as plotting to overthrow the government these days.

On the same call, Barr wondered if there were some way the DOJ could charge Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan, who has come in for a raft of abuse from the president, for allowing a police-autonomous zone this summer. Totally normal!

Take it away, Bill Barr:

Just think about the way we vote now. You have a precinct, your name is on a list, you go in and say who you are, you go behind a curtain, no one is allowed to go in there to influence you, and no one can tell how you voted. All of that is gone with mail-in voting. Theres no secret vote. You have to associate the envelope in the mailing and the name of whos sending it in, with the ballot.

Theres no more secret vote with mail-in vote. A secret vote prevents selling and buying votes. So now were back in the business of selling and buying votes. Capricious distribution of ballots means (ballot) harvesting, undue influence, outright coercion, paying off a postman, heres a few hundred dollars, give me some of your ballots.

Literally none of this nonsense he spewed to the Chicago Tribune ever happened. Its pure fiction (Ed. Note: Indeed it is, as we discussed with Professor Rick Hasen here).

The president just spent the entire morning tweeting that theres no way he could lose unless the election is rigged, and the Assistant Health and Human Services Secretary for Public Affairs was fired yesterday for telling his supporters to buy guns and ammunition in a lunatic rant about Democratic hit squads.

There are Trump supporters telling reporters that theyll commit suicide if Biden wins in November, with one believer in the rampant pedophilia conspiracies flogged in the Trump wingnuttosphere telling Time, I would honestly try to leave the country. And if that wasnt an option, I would probably take my children and sit in the garage and turn my car on and it would be over.

But Bill Barr hasnt heard anything at all about that.

You know liberals project. All this bullshit about how the president is going to stay in office and seize power? Ive never heard of any of that crap. I mean, Im the attorney general. I would think I would have heard about it. They are projecting. They are creating an incendiary situation where there will be loss of confidence in the vote.

Someone will say the president just won Nevada. Oh, wait a minute! We just discovered 100,000 ballots! Every vote will be counted! Yeah, but we dont know where these freaking votes came from.

Bill Barr cannot abide a loss of confidence in the vote! But if the absentee ballots dont reflect the same-day vote totals, how will you know where those freaking votes come from?

Remember when Attorney General Loretta Lynch chatted with Bill Clinton for 15 minutes on an airplane tarmac, and then had to recuse herself from an entire federal investigation because the political impropriety was a major scandal?

Well, apparently, the rules are different now. Bill Barr has every right to exert political influence on prosecutions affecting the president or his friend, and anyone who suggests that an equal justice system relies on a separation of politics from law enforcement is just a whiny baby.

Name one successful organization or institution where the lowest level employees decisions are deemed sacrosanct, there arent. There arent any letting the most junior members set the agenda, Barr said during a speech yesterday at Hillsdale College. It might be a good philosophy for a Montessori preschool, but it is no way to run a federal agency.

Barr went on to defend his absolute right to direct federal prosecutors to employ one standard for the presidents political allies, and one for everyone else.

These people are agents of the attorney general. As I say, FBI agents, whose agent do you think you are? And I say, What exactly am I interfering with? When you boil it right down, its the will of the most junior member of the organization who has some idea he wants to do something. What makes that sacrosanct?

In fact, Barr went so far as to say that political interference in the administration of justice isgood and proper, deriding career prosecutors whodo not have the political legitimacy to be the public face for tough decisions and they lack the political buy-in necessary to publicly defend those decisions.

Political buy-in? What the hell happened to balls and strikes?

In short, the attorney general, senior DOJ officials, and US attorneys are indeed political. But they are political in a good and necessary sense, Barr continued, doing his best Eva Peron impression.

Oh, yes, he did.

You know, putting a national lockdown, stay at home orders, is like house arrest. Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history.

Fred Korematsu might like a word, sir!

Almost 200,000 Americans are dead, and every day we watch other countries who buckled down and did the work returning to something like normal life. Meanwhile, the highest law enforcement officer in the land is likening routine public health measures to slavery.

Since Bill Barr is trotting out his favorite excuse for police brutality again, lets just flag it here.

Theyre not interested in Black lives, Barr said of the protestors. Theyre interested in props, a small number of Blacks who are killed by police during conflicts with police usually less than a dozen a year who they can use as props to achieve a much broader political agenda.

In point of fact, upwards of 200 Black people are shot and killed by American police every year, not less than a dozen, and African Americans are more than 2.8 times as likely to be shot by police as white people.

But Barr only counts the police shootings where the victim was unarmed. He said it in June to NPR:

Well, there are 8,000 Blacks who are killed every year. Eighty-five percent of them are killed by gunshots. Virtually all of those are Blacks on Blacks. I think that there are a number of the statistics on police shootings of unarmed, unarmed individuals are not skewed toward the African American. There are many whites who are shot unarmed by police.

And he said it again in September to CNN:

I think the narrative that the police are on some, you know, epidemic of shooting unarmed Black men is simply a false narrative and also the narrative that thats based on race. The fact of the matter is very rare for an unarmed African American to be shot by a white police officer.

If the Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to possess automatic weapons, then why does the mere presence of a knife in the possession of a Black person justify his execution by the police?

Yeah, hes off the rails. Bugf*ck insane. Were fast approaching rubber room territory. Its a problem.

Barr Tells Prosecutors to Consider Charging Violent Protesters With Sedition [WSJ]Column: AG Bill Barr says federal corruption hunters never at a loss for work in Chicago [Chicago Tribune]Remarks by Attorney General William P. Barr at Hillsdale College Constitution Day Event [DOJ]

Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Go here to see the original:
Sorry To Interrupt Your Pumpkin Spice Latte, But The Attorney General Has LOST HIS DAMN MIND - Above the Law

As the presidential race enters its final weeks, President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden both hope to compel voters to the polls by drawing contrasts with their opponent, swapping barbs intended to paint the other as unfit. Most politicians draw the line at trash talk, recognizing that seeming too divisive could hamper their efforts to appeal to as many voters as they can. Trump, however, is known for harsher rhetoric, for instance labeling former President Barack Obama a traitor and criticizing supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement as terrorists. His goal appears to be rallying his ardent backers instead of widening his support.

Making oneself odious to most of society, as in gettinga gang tattoo, is known as costly signal deployment. Professor Joshua D. Greene 97, an experimental psychologist who studies the scientific underpinnings of moral judgments and decision-making, spoke with the Gazette via email about the likely rationale behind such a strategy, and what has changed since his acclaimed 2013 bookMoral Tribes: Emotion, Reason and the Gap Between Us and Them.

GAZETTE: Both Biden and Trump have framed the 2020 election as an existential choice between a dark, corrupt, and dangerous dystopia brought about by their opponent and the halcyon world they promise to deliver. Its The Soul of America or Trumps America. How do peoples natural impulses to want to be winners, or the party in power, versus those who believe its important to be part of a majority, or on the right side of history, complicate this election?

GREENE: Complicate is a major understatement. The great innovation of democracy is the peaceful transfer of power deciding things by vote rather than by violence. But that requires a shared willingness to accept some big political losses. That shared commitment to living by the vote is under grave threat. But the threat is not symmetrical, and we should avoid the mistake of false equivalence.Trump has been actively undermining the democratic process since before he was elected in 2016. In 2016 he would not commit to accepting the outcome of the election if he were to lose. And even after the election he did not accept that he lost the popular vote,claimingwithout evidence that millions of fraudulent ballots were cast for his opponent. His view is Either I win, or its fraud. And this view is endorsed by a large number of Republicans.

Neither Biden nor other prominent Democrats have done anything like this. Biden and the Democrats are not making baseless claims about voter fraud in order to discredit their electoral losses. Whats new in the Trump era is not that both sides strongly preferwinning to losing. Its that the President himself is using systematic misinformation, the solicitation of foreign interference, threats of violence, and his power over government agencies (most notably the Postal Service) in order to disrupt the democratic process. And to the extent that the Democrats are worried about a second Trump term, its because they understand the stakes.

GAZETTE: In a recent New York Times piece, you are quoted calling Trump an expert at saying what his supporters want to hear, and you described his deliberately provocative and divisive remarks as performing a function similar to gang tattoos. Can you explain what you meant, and what are some examples of signaling that Trump and Biden have used so far in their campaigns?

GREENE: Trump isnt merely saying things that his base likes to hear. All politicians do that, and to the extent that they can do so honestly, thats exactly what they are supposed to do. But Trump does more than this in his use of costly signals. A tattoo is a costly signal. You can tell your romantic partner that you love them, but theres nothing stopping you from changing your mind the next day. But if you get a tattoo of your partners name, youve sent a much stronger signal about how committed you are. Likewise, a gang tattoo binds you to the gang, especially if its in a highly visible place such as the neck or the face. It makes you scary and unappealing to most people, limiting your social options, and thus, binding you to the gang. Trumps blatant bigotry, misogyny, and incitements to violence make him completely unacceptable to liberals and moderates. And, thus, his comments function like gang tattoos. Hes not merely saying things that his supporters want to hear. By making himself permanently and unequivocally unacceptable to the opposition, hes proving his loyalty to their side. This is why, I think, the Republican base trusts Trump like no other.

There is costly signaling on the left, but its not coming from Biden, who is trying to appeal to as many voters as possible. Bernie Sanders is a better example. Why does Bernie Sanders call himself a socialist? What he advocates does not meet thetraditional dictionary definition of socialism. And politicians in Europe who hold similar views typically refer to themselves as social democrats rather than democratic socialists. Socialism has traditionally been a scare word in American politics. Conservatives use it as an epithet to describe policies such as the Affordable Care Act, which, ironically, is very much a market-oriented approach to achieving universal health insurance. Its puzzling, then, that a politician would choose to describe himself with a scare word when he could accurately describe his views withless-scary words. But it makes sense if one thinks of this as a costly signal. By calling himself a socialist, Sanders makes it very clear where his loyalty lies, as vanishingly few Republicans would support someone who calls himself a socialist.

GAZETTE: Bidens frequent references to the loss of his first wife and daughter and to his early career in Congress as a single dad widower are intended to highlight his character and relatability to working parents. And yet, these tragic experiences are fairly uncommon and may suggest to some who cannot relate to them that perhaps Biden is different from them or, worse, may instill the idea that because Biden suffered emotional trauma, he would be a problematic leader. Are those examples of costly signals?

GREENE: I would not characterize those as costly signals. A costly signal is not any signal about a cost that one has paid. And it is not just any case of signaling. A costly signal in the relevant sense is a signal that demonstrates ones commitment (or other valued trait) through the paying of a cost. Biden has presumably suffered greatly as a result of his personal losses, but the fact that hes suffered those losses and is willing to talk about them does nothing to demonstrate (or undermine) his commitment to his political team. It may make him a more sympathetic, relatable, or otherwise appealing person, but in sending these messages he is, again, saying things that he hopes will appeal to both sides. By contrast, when Trump leads chants of Lock her up and makes vague comments about how maybe the Second Amendment people can do something about Hillary Clinton if she becomes president, hes not attempting to broaden his appeal. He is bonding with his base by saying things that are completely unacceptable to liberals and moderates, and thus demonstrating that he will never betray them, never change sides.

In short, if youre saying broadly appealing things without giving something up, without limiting your options,youre not sending costly signals. If youre saying things that prove your loyalty to Us by making yourself completely unacceptable to Them, then you are sending costly signals.

GAZETTE: How effective is costly signal deployment, and what are the potential harms? It used to be thought that winning in politics was about expanding appeal, not narrowing it. Dont Us versus Them ultimatums based on political ideology, race, class, religion, education, etc., drive away all but extremists?

GREENE: Yes, its absolutely a problem. For Republicans, its an inter-party problem: Youre either for Trump or against him, and theres nothing in between. The Republican Party has exiled or subdued pretty much all non-Trumpy Republican politicians. For Democrats, its an intra-party problem: If youre not sufficiently progressive, then youre as bad as Trump.

GAZETTE: Whats changed since you wrote Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them, and how?

GREENE: Conservatives and Republicans have traditionally characterized themselves as champions of limited government and individual freedom, as well as champions of traditional values, such as honesty and commitment to community and family. In Moral Tribes, I took a different view:

In sum, American social conservatives are not best described as people who place special value on authority, sanctity, and loyalty, but rather as tribal loyalists loyal to their own authorities, their own religion, and themselves. This doesnt make them evil, but it does make them parochial, tribal. In this theyre akin to the worlds other socially conservative tribes, from the Taliban in Afghanistan to European nationalists.

Back in 2013, the idea that the Republican Party was the party of American nationalism was not so obvious. Now, its pretty obvious. Indeed, Trump hascalled himself a nationalist, something that prominent politicians did not do before Trump.

This interview was lightly edited for clarity and length.

Read more:
A look at how Trump's pointed rhetoric binds him to his tribe and it to him - Harvard Gazette

With the presidential debate right around the corner on September 29, the SIU community discussed their political leanings, thoughts on public policy and opinions on the presidential candidates.

Partisan divisions seem to be greater than ever, yet individuals on the left and right found some common ground.

Scott McClurg, a political science and journalism professor at SIU, identified the most important issues to people on both sides of the political spectrum.

The most important issues to Democrats are race relations, COVID-19, health care, immigration, McClurg said.

McClurg said younger generations with left leaning values tend to focus on environmental issues regarding climate change, and social justice issues like LGBTQ rights, and police brutality.

Conservatives are an interesting case. They care about economic freedom, immigration and the idea of America First, McClurg said. The President talks a lot about relations with other countries.

McClurg said younger generations with right political leaning tend to focus on second amendment rights, and pro-life candidates.

Emily Caminiti, the chair of Young Democratic Socialists of America at SIU, defines her political beliefs as achieving the end of capitalism through electoral means.

Caminiti said prominent figures in the Democratic Socialist party have tried and failed to get into the electoral system, citing Bernie Sanders who ran in the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses in 2016 and 2020.

Social democracy is the main focus of Democratic Socialism, Caminiti said.

Zachary Meyer J.D, former candidate for state representative and SIU Law school alumnus, aligns his views within the lens of the Republican party.

Being a Republican is a core focus on our individual freedoms without extensive government involvement in our day to day lives, Meyer said.

Caminiti and Meyer shared their opinions on the platforms of the Republican and Democratic presidential election candidates.

I believe that President Trump has been doing a tremendous job. He has passed many bills that have helped everyday citizens, Meyer said.

Meyer said Trump has made astounding accomplishments despite the ridicule he has received throughout his presidency.

The President passed criminal justice reform. He is hoping to secure our borders to help make sure that the American citizens are safe, Meyer said.

Meyer said Democratic candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris present issues politically.

Kamala Harrris record as a prosecutor is concerning to me with her withholding evidence. I believe Joe Biden wont be able to make the full term if he is elected as president, Meyer said.

Caminiti isnt satisfied with either of the presidential candidates.

Donald Trump and Mike Pence are horrible human beings, Caminiti said.

However, Caminiti found Biden and Harris to be inadequate Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidates.

Neither Biden nor Harris align with my own values. Im willing to vote for them just to get rid of Trump, Caminiti said.

When it comes to mail-in voting due to COVID-19 Caminiti and Meyer are on different sides of the spectrum.

During the Illinois primary, a lot of cases were tied to people going into vote. Its safer to vote by mail and it should be expanded, Caminiti said.

Meyer said mail-in voting can present multiple issues when it comes to voting on time.

Mail-in voting can be delayed, lost in transit, or delivered to the wrong address, Meyer said. The best and safest way to ensure that your vote is recorded is to vote in person.

Caminiti said Trumps handling of the COVID-19 pandemic reflects poorly on the nation as a whole.

State governors did what they could when it comes to COVID-19 without a coherent federal response, Caminiti said.

Caminiti said unemployment protections will soon run out.

We couldve had a rent and utilities freeze so everybody could self isolate while this happened. Trumps response to the coronavirus could be called a crime against humanity, Caminiti said.

Meyer said new information comes out everyday about the virus so the federal government is unsure what steps to take to keep everyone safe.

If you look at the statistics, suicides have skyrocketed, and many businesses will not be able to recover, Meyer said.

As a small business owner Meyer said he believes businesses should have been allowed to be open since the beginning of the pandemic.

Small businesses are the backbone of this nation, especially in small areas like Southern Illinois. It should be up to the business owners if they want to close; they should not be held hostage by the government, Meyer said.

Caminiti and Meyer both value policy surrounding the economy but their means to an end differ.

Caminiti said the economy greatly matters to younger generations because these generational cohorts will have to deal with bad economic conditions in the future.

We are expected to have less money than our parents did and possibly shorter lives because of the health effects of poverty, Caminiti said.

Meyer, on the other hand, said the economy has recovered over the past four years as a result of Trumps presidency.

Jobs are coming back, the economy and all the markets are at a record high, Meyer said.

Caminiti said the companies need for profit above all else is not sustainable, especially from an environmental perspective.

These fossil fuel companies are responsible for all the climate denialists around now. They consistently muddied the waters about this so that they could keep making money, Caminiti said.

Meyer said there is no science to tell what will happen as a result of a changing climate.

The earth has its cycles. Its something that is changing and should be addressed but there are ways that it must be done to ensure that were not destroying our economy and the livelihoods of people who are alive today, Meyer said.

Caminiti and Meyer voiced their opinions on current social justice movements like Black Lives Matter.

Caminiti is in support of the movement, massive police reform and defunding the police.

I want that money to be reallocated to things that address the cause of crime like poverty, mental health centers, education, just community resources, Caminiti said.

Meyer stands behind peaceful protests in cities across the United States.

I support police officers but I do not support murderers. The right to protest and have free speech is something that makes America great, Meyer said.

Meyer said we should increase funding of police departments.

We need to ensure officers have more training, and put more officers on the street to receive backup, Meyer said.

Clashes between opposing groups at Black Lives Matter protests have also amplified conversations of gun control and the 2nd amendment.

There should be more measures of record keeping when it comes to guns. I do not want to ban them completely but there should be a reduction in the types of weapons that we use, Caminiti said.

As a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, Meyer said Americans stand at risk of losing our nation without gun use.

Tuition for collegiate education is another issue that is splitting the polls. According to Bernie Sanders campaign platform, Sanders proposed to cancel all student loan debt for the some 45 million Americans who owe about $1.6 trillion and place a cap on student loan interest rates going forward at 1.88 percent.

In 2018, the Young Democratic Socialists of America at SIU launched a petition to end student debt and make SIU tuition free.

People are often deterred by the cost [of higher education] and get stuck in low wage jobs that they are not passionate about, Caminiti said.

Meyer is opposed to making college tuition free.

There will be an influx of people and the degree will become worthless. It will drive down salaries because of supply and demand. It reduces the value of the degree, Meyer said.

One thing Caminiti, Meyer and McClurg can all agree upon is the power of voting.

Caminiti gave a message to younger voters who might opt out of voting in local, state and federal elections.

I understand they feel dejected and broken down but there are local issues that are important, Caminiti said.

Meyer said regardless of political affiliation all citizens who can vote should.

They need to make sure they are informed on what ballot initiatives there are, what the candidates stand for and try to get involved as much as possible with politics and voting. No one should go in there blindly, Meyer said.

McClurg said if young people opt out of voting they will make no impact at all.

Individual people dont change things, groups of people do, were all part of a group. As young people they can be very important, McClurg said.

Reporter Oreoluwa Ojewuyi can be reached at [emailprotected] or on twitter @odojewuyi.

To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter.

Read more:
If you don't participate you have no impact at all: Politically active community members discuss the 2020 presidential election - Daily Egyptian

In 2008, Kamala Harris signed on to a District Attorneys' friend-of-the-court brief in D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court's leading Second Amendment case. Of course, she may have changed her views on the Second Amendment since then (perhaps in light of precedents such as Heller); and she may have different personal views than the ones she expressed as a D.A. (though note that she signed on to the brief as a signatory, and not just as a lawyer for the signatories). But this brief likely tells us something about her views on the Second Amendment.

[1.] To begin with, the brief urged the Court to reverse the decision below, and thus to reinstate D.C.'s handgun ban. Thus, Harris's view in that case was that the Second Amendment doesn't preclude total bans on handgun possession.

[2.] The brief also came at a time when the great majority of federal courts (including the Ninth Circuit, which covered Harris's jurisdiction, San Francisco) viewed the Second Amendment as not securing any meaningful individual right of members of the public to personally keep and bear arms. Rather, those courts viewed the Second Amendment as endorsing (to quote the then-existing Ninth Circuit precedent, which the brief itself later cited),

the "collective rights" model, [which] asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons.

Under this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as due process, equal protection, and the like.

And the brief supported that majority view among federal courts: Affirming the D.C. Circuit decision, which rejected the collective rights model and recognized an individual right to own guns,

could inadvertently call into question the well settled Second Amendment principles under which countless state and local criminal firearms laws have been upheld by courts nationwide.

Thus, Harris's view in that case was thus that the "collective rights" view of the Second Amendment was correct, since that was the "settled Second Amendment principle[]" in lower federal courts at the time.

[3.] Now the brief also said that "The District Attorneys do not focus on the reasons for the reversal [that it was urging], however, leaving these arguments to Petitioners and other amici." Nonetheless, it argued that,

For nearly seventy years, courts have consistently sustained criminal firearms laws against Second Amendment challenges by holding that, [among other things], (i) the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms, (ii) the Second Amendment does not apply to legislation passed by state or local governments, and (iii) the restrictions bear a reasonable relationship to protecting public safety and thus do not violate a personal constitutional right. The lower court's decision, however, creates a broad private right to possess any firearm that is a "lineal descendant" of a founding era weapon and that is in "common use" with a "military application" today.

The federal and state courts have upheld state and local firearms laws, as well as criminal convictions thereunder, against Second Amendment challenges on three primary grounds. In holding the D.C. laws at issue to be unconstitutional, the decision below undermines each of these grounds, which also could be cast into doubt by an affirmance in this case.

First, courts nationwide have upheld criminal gun laws on the basis that the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms. See, e.g., Scott v. Goethals, No. 3-04-CV-0855, 2004 WL 1857156, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2004) (affirming conviction under Texas Penal Code 46.02 for unlawfully carrying a handgun because Second Amendment does not provide a private right to keep and bear arms); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052,1087 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that California residents challenging constitutionality of California's Assault Weapons Control Act lacked standing because Second Amendment provides militia-related right to keep and bear arms); State v. Brecunier, 564 N.W.2d 365, 370 (Iowa 1997) (upholding firearm sentence enhancement because defendant "had no constitutional right to be armed while interfering with lawful police activity").

The lower court's sweeping reasoning undermines each of the principal reasons invoked by those courts that have upheld criminal firearms laws under the Second Amendment time and again. First, under the lower court's analysis, the Constitution protects a broad "individual" constitutional right, one that is not militia-related, to possess firearms.

This certainly seems to me like approval of the principle listed as (i) in the brief, which is the view that "the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms."

Now perhaps this passage could be read as simply describing what courts were doing, or as suggesting that the Supreme Court could either adopt principle (i) or perhaps some of the other principles instead. But it certainly sounds to me like an endorsement of the "only a militia-related right to bear arms" view, especially since that's the lower federal courts' "well settled Second Amendment principle[]" to which the brief had earlier alluded (see item 2 above).

Plus principle (ii) is an endorsement of the view (rejected by the Court two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago) that states and localities can institute whatever gun bans they want (even total gun bans) without violating the Second Amendment. And even if we focus on principle (iii), under which gun laws are constitutional if they "bear a reasonable relationship to protecting public safety," the brief was supporting a total handgun banif that is permissible on the theory that it "bear[s] a reasonable relationship to protecting public safety," then I would think a total ban on all guns would be, too.

The brief closed with a suggestion that "the Court exercise judicial restraint and explicitly limit its decision to the three discrete provisions of the D.C. Code on which it granted certiorari" (the handgun ban, a licensing requirement, and the requirement that guns be stored disassembled or bound with a trigger lock), because "This would avoid needless confusion and uncertainty about the continued viability and stare decisiseffect of this Court'sand other courts'prior Second Amendment jurisprudence."

This passage doesn't expressly urge the Court to adopt a particular line of reasoning. But, again, the first principle that the brief mentioned, and the one most clearly consistent with lower federal courts' "prior Second Amendment jurisprudence," was that the Second Amendment didn't secure an individual right that ordinary citizens could exercise in their daily lives. It sounds like that is at least one approach that the brief is endorsing.

So, to summarize:

An article by Cam Edwards (Bearing Arms) on Aug. 11 made a similar argument in concluding that"Kamala Harris Doesn't Think You Have the Right To Own a Gun" (to quote its original title), but an Agence-France Press "Fact Check" on Aug. 18labeled that claim "false." I find the "Fact Check" quite unpersuasive, at least as to the specific question of Harris's views on the right to own a gun.

AFP writes, "Rather than outright opposition to gun ownership, Harris has supportedlegislation aimed at increasing safety." It may well be that Harris wouldn't promote a statute banning guns outright. But her brief states that she thinks governments have the constitutional power to ban at least all handguns, and likely guns more generally.

AFP writes, "Nor has she called for the destruction of the Second Amendment, whichsays: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'" But she has endorsed, as I read it, the view that the Second Amendment doesn't protect a normal individual right to own guns, rather protecting only a "collective right" under which states can limit gun ownership to members of a state-designated "militia."

AFP goes on to say, "Legal scholars, however, say that although Harris supported the amicus brief, it is false to conclude from it that she believesas the article claims'you don't have the right to own a gun'":

"The brief in question is not about whether there is an individual right under the Second Amendment. It is about the crime-related consequences of invalidating the DC handgun law at issue in Heller," Aziz Huq, of the University of Chicago Law School, told AFP by email. Huq studies how constitutional design interacts with individual rights and liberties.

Adam Winkler, a specialist in gun policy at the UCLA School of Law, made a similar argument.

"This statement is false," he said of the article's claim.

"The brief she supported argued that DC's gun laws should be upheld but not because there was no right to own a gun," Winkler said in an email to AFP.

"Rather, the brief argued that the laws should be upheld because there is a tradition of gun restrictions, and DC's were reasonable regulations," said Winkler, the author of "Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America."

Again, for the reasons I gave above, I think Profs. Huq and Winkler are mistaken. The brief does seem to endorse the collective rights view of the Second Amendment, under which there really is no right to own a gun. And, again, at the very least the brief endorses the view that all handguns could be banned, consistently with the Second Amendment.

Finally, the brief turns to another scholar:

The amicus brief which Harris joined argued "that at least as far as the Second Amendment is concerned, it doesn't relate to private rights," said [Jake] Charles, of the Duke Center for Firearms Law.

But he added: "I'm not sure it's fair to claim that as her current position given that the Supreme Court decided in Heller that people do have that right, and I haven't seen her questioning the Heller decision."

Here, I agree that (1) the amicus brief does take the view that the Second Amendment doesn't protect any "private rights," and (2) we can't be certain that this remains her view today. But it is at least plausible that her views about the subject haven't changed, and that if she could participate in reshaping the Supreme Court, she would reshape it in favor of reversing the Heller decision, and moving the law back to a view under which "the Second Amendment doesn't relate to private rights."

More here:
Kamala Harris on the Second Amendment Reason.com - Reason

Dont let the politicians or the NRA scare you about taking your guns away. The Second Amendment to the Constitution would have to be repealed. Heres how the process works:

A proposed amendment to the Constitution must first be passed by Congress with two-thirds majorities in both the House and the Senate.

Then three-fourths of the states must ratify the amendment. Thats done either through getting the state legislatures to approve of it or by ratifying conventions. Three-fourths is a high bar if as few as 13 states refuse to approve the change, the amendment stalls. Considering how many states are considered gun-friendly, its unlikely that the amendment would survive.

The other option for repealing the Second Amendment is more radical: Calling for a constitutional convention under Article V of the Constitution (AKA an Article V convention). If two-thirds of the state legislatures call for a new convention, they could convene delegations and start drafting new amendments. Its understandably a controversial idea, but arguably could be a way to repeal the Second Amendment.

LARRY L. DUBEY,

Alpena

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read the original here:
Repealing the Second Amendment is not easy | News, Sports, Jobs - Alpena News

On March 21, 2018, newly elected U.S. Senator Doug Jones gave his first-floor speech. The topic of his speech most certainly was one that is rarely heard from members of the Alabama delegation in either chamber his support of gun control and restrictions on the nations Second Amendment rights.

According to an NPR story, Jones said he was supportive of efforts that were discussed and later implemented after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting, including, moving to ban bump stocks that can convert guns into automatic-style weapons, efforts to strengthen the background check system. He went on to say those restrictions werent enough. Jones proposed making background checks universal, including on internet sales, at gun shows and even private sales, as well as implementing three-day waiting periods.

Jones has since tried to reframe his speech and its purpose. AYellow Hammer news story cross-referenced his senate speech with an interview with Al.Com. In his speech, Jones said, So while I know that guns and gun control are difficult issues for this country, I can tell you theyre complicated for me, too. In his interview with Al.com, he backtracked, saying, I didnt make a speech about gun control. I made a speech about gun safety.

Doug Jones attracted the attention of NRA-ILA and its members when the national organization called upon him to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Jones voted against Kavanaughs confirmation.

A recent Ammolandeditorialby Harold Hutchinson laid out additional arguments for electing Republican Tommy Tuberville over Jones. Electing Tuberville would help give Republicans an advantage in the Senate. He goes on to explain,Jones did sign on to a version of the For The People Act, which for all intents and purposes he says is intended tosilence grassroots opposition to left-wing politicians and causes, like gun control.

Hutchinson also noted in his piece that Along with control of the Senate, the need for a Republican advantage lies in the ability to fill judicial vacancies. The next elected president will possibly fill the vacancies of judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, orClarence Thomas. Donald Trump will certainly continue to nominate pro-Second Amendment judges, and if the Senate majority narrows, the nomination and confirmation of these judges could be stopped.

In contrast, Tuberville has openly stated his support for the Second Amendment. On his campaign website, Tuberville states, While we are fighting out-of-touch liberals to protect life and liberty, we must also stand up for the time-honored traditions we hold dear in Alabama. Being a sportsman has always been a part of my life. That is why I will always vote to protect and preserve our Second Amendment rights.

In an interview with the Daily Mountain Eagle, Tuberville said, A mental health plan is needed to address the mass shootings in the nation. He added it once had one. Now he says the plan is to release prisoners to the streets.

There is not a gun problem. It is a people problem, he said. Theres been guns here forever. Im not for any form or fashion of gun control. Theyre are not taking my guns, because what happens is they are not looking to take guns because you want to hunt and do some casual shooting or target practice. They want to take your guns away so they can control you. In this country, we cannot do that. The Second Amendment says we are allowed to bear arms.

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) endorsed Tuberville over Jones. Dudley Brown, a NAGR-PAC chairman, made a statement to Yellowhammer News.Tommy Tuberville scored a perfect 100% on the NAGR survey and has pledged to support the Second Amendment and fight back against illegal gun grabs as a member of the U.S. Senate.

Like Loading...

Related

See the original post:
Second amendment rights on the line with Doug Jones US Senate reelection bid - Alabama Today

We are living in extraordinary times, and it will take an extraordinary effort by freedom-loving Americans during this years presidential election to emerge with our liberties intact. The candidates could not be further apart in how they view your fundamental right to protect yourself and your loved ones. Regardless of party affiliation, if you value the right to keep and bear arms and wish to preserve it for this and future generations, you must vote to re-elect President Donald J. Trump in November.

I explained last month why the election of Joe Biden would be a disaster for gun owners and would cripple the Second Amendment as we know it. That alone makes the choice easy.

But for his part, President Trump has earned the gun vote by keeping his promises to Americas firearm owners and by proving time after time that he is a stalwart and trusted ally to Second Amendment supporters.

Gun owners will remember that 2016s presidential election was largely a referendum on who would choose the successor to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the landmark 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. Scalia used text, history and tradition to establish as a matter of law what was already common knowledge to most Americans: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, independent of service in an organized militia. Justice Scalias decision led to the end of handgun bans in the District of Columbia and Chicago. It also signaled that the Second Amendment must be afforded the same respect as other individual liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

Gun prohibitionists reacted with fury and have been trying to undermine and reverse Hellers individual-rights holding ever since. They may well have succeeded, had the Senate confirmed Barack Obamas choice to fill Scalias vacant seat on the court. That nominee, Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, had voted to rehear the lower court decision that would eventually become the Heller case before the Supreme Court. Garland manifestly believed the full D.C. Circuit needed another crack at interpreting the Second Amendment, after a three-judge panel issued an opinion holding that D.C.s handgun ban violated the Second Amendments individual right to keep and bear arms.

Donald Trump made appointing a worthier successor to Scalias legacy a keystone of his presidential platform. He even published a list of potential Supreme Court nominees during his campaign, so voters could see for themselves what sorts of judges Trump would appoint to the nations highest court. The common denominator among these judges (besides impeccable professional credentials) was a demonstrated respect for Americas constitutional order, legal traditions and Second Amendment.

Most had also adopted Scalias signature originalist style of constitutional interpretation, which limits judicial policy-making by deferring to the meaning of constitutional language as it was understood at the time of its adoption. This ensures permanence and stability for the nations founding principles, unlike the contrary practice of simply declaring constitutional precepts out of thin air to suit the judges preferred politics and to keep up with the elite trends of the day, whatever they happen to be.

Gun owners understood the stakes in 2016 and voted for Donald Trump in droves. After his election, President Trump kept his most important promise by nominating Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, then of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, to ascend to Scalias vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Gorsuch, in contrast to Garland, had demonstrated his respect for the Second Amendment, writing in one case that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly. Like Scalia, Gorsuch also emphasized textualism and originalism in his approach to constitutional interpretation.

President Trump had another opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice with the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2018. Kennedy was widely recognized as the critical swing vote in Heller and the follow-up case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. Yet he was also typically characterized as a centrist, and it wasnt clear how far his support for the Second Amendment extended. Many believe the reason the Supreme Court remained silent on the Second Amendment in the years after Heller and McDonald was that neither the evenly divided pro- and anti-gun wings of the court had confidence that Kennedy would vote their way.

Trumps choice to succeed Kennedy was Brett M. Kavanaugh, then of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Kavanaugh had one of the strongest records on the Second Amendment of any potential nominee, having penned a lengthy and well-reasoned dissent from a case that upheld various aspects of D.C.s onerous post-Heller gun control regime. It was clear he would take the Second Amendment seriously if elevated to the high court.

In judicial appointments and many other ways, President Trump has unapologetically supported the Second Amendment.

Since their appointments to the Supreme Court, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been even clearer about their concern over the lower courts dismissive treatment of the Second Amendment and their desire for the court to rectify that situation. Both have joined or written opinions expressing this sentiment in cases in which the court ultimately declined to revisit the right to keep and bear arms. No one knows when the Supreme Court will take up another Second Amendment case, but when they do, few doubt that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will be among the strongest defenders of that essential liberty.

Speaking of the lower courts, President Trump has been busy there as well, in June reaching the milestone of 200 judicial appointments. Only a tiny fraction of cases ever reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The decisions that affect Americans lives and libertiesincluding the right to keep and bear armswill mostly be rendered by judges at the district and circuit court levels. President Trump recognizes this and has made an investment in the judiciary that will pay dividends for gun owners for decades to come. Even Trumps detractors recognize that his reshaping of the federal judiciary will be his most important and lasting legacy.

Yet President Trumps support for the Second Amendment goes well beyond his judicial appointments. Shortly after taking office, he wasted no time repealing an Obama-era scheme that forced Social Security recipients to choose between their benefits and their Second Amendment right to possess a firearm. President Trump made sure that Americans rights should never be the subject of such a false choice.

During his 2016 campaign, Trump promised to abolish so-called gun-free zones that empower criminals and disarm the law-abiding. He did exactly that in April, initiating a rulemaking to end a ban on the possession of firearms in water resource development projects administered by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). These areas comprise one of the largest networks of outdoor recreation sites in America, encompassingmore than 400 lake and river projects in 43 states. Visitors use these sites for hiking, boating, fishing, camping, hunting and geo-caching. Yet carrying firearms for self-defense in these areas is prohibited.

The proposed rule would abolish an existing gun-free zone on 12 million acres of public lands and waters nationwide, including 55,390 miles of shoreline, 7,856 miles of trails, 92,588 campsites and 3,754 boat ramps. It is set to be one of the single largest expansions of the right to carry in the nations history.

The Trump administration also reformed Americas antiquated system for regulating exports of firearms and ammunition in a way that benefited both individual gun owners and the lawful industries that support them. Among other things, this move reversed Obama-era polices that wreaked havoc with gunsmiths and gunsmithing schools, as well as with hunters traveling abroad with personally owned firearms and ammunition.

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many state governments were poised to use the novel virus as a means to restrict Second Amendment rights, President Trumps administration identified the firearms industry as critical infrastructure, forcing all but a few states to keep gun stores and other firearm businesses open. In doing so, President Trump made clear that the self-defense rights of law-abiding Americans are and forever will be essential.

And, who could forget the historic moment when President Trump unsigned the Arms Trade Treaty on stage at our 2018 Annual Meeting. His leadership freed the U.S. from a terrible treaty that could have imposed restrictive international gun control on American gun owners.

The president additionally used his authority to increase access to public lands for the use of hunters and sport shooters, both through executive orders and by signing federal legislation to that helps states provide more shooting ranges on public lands.

More so than any of his predecessors, President Trump has unapologetically supported the Second Amendment, even when elite opinion has railed against it.

President Trump understands that despite what these so-called elites claim, nothing is more important than the fundamental freedoms we enjoy as Americans. Thats why Ive whole-heartedly endorsed him in my role as Chairman of NRA-PVF, and why I look forward to casting my ballot to help re-elect him on November 3. I invite you to join me by doing the same.

Excerpt from:
The Choice Is Clear: President Trump's Second Amendment Record Has Earned Him the Gun Vote in 2020 - America's 1st Freedom