Category Archives: Second Amendment

For months, news accounts have reported on the nationwide surge in gun sales. The soaring demand for guns has led in turn to soaring prices for gun stocks. Shares of firearms manufacturers like Smith & Wesson and Ruger have sharply outpaced the broader stock market.

All this was happening before Americans learned about Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd on May 25, or saw the video of Gregory and Travis McMichael, the two Georgia men one an ex-cop who gunned down Ahmaud Arbery after seeing him jog past their home. Black Americans in particular have been getting a pointed lesson in the value of their Second Amendment right to bear arms, and translating that lesson into action.

Hence the explosion in the number of Black gun owners nationwide, as David Dent reports in The Daily Beast. The National African American Gun Association, which began in 2015 with a single chapter in Atlanta, now comprises more than 100 chapters with 40,000 members 10,000 of whom joined within the past five months. They include not only recreational shooters, but new owners like Iesha Williams, a young mother who, Dent writes, was persuaded by recent events to acquire a gun as a form of protection against racial violence. Black gun ownership is as essential today as it was in 1892, when Ida B. Wells wrote that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.

Millions of Americans instinctively grasp that private ownership of guns makes them safer. But advocates of more gun control never see it that way. When Michael Bloomberg was asked in January about a Texas church where a massacre was aborted when a 71-year-old parishioner shot and killed the gunman, his response was that guns are for police. Its the job of law enforcement to have guns and to decide when to shoot, said Bloomberg. You just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place.

Only cops should have guns and decide when to shoot? Try telling that to the families of Breonna Taylor, Philando Castile, Botham Jean, Tamir Rice, Laquan McDonald, Michael Dean, and Walter Scott, all of whom were killed when cops whether from recklessness, incompetence, or racism decided to shoot.

Of course, most cops are neither racists nor thugs. But even the most dedicated police officers cannot always be there to provide protection when it is needed. The Second Amendment exists in part for just that purpose, as persecuted minorities have had good reason to know.

The denial of the right to own weapons reinforced the racial repression of Americas first centuries. In its infamous Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that if Black people were considered US citizens, the Second Amendment would give to persons of the negro race . . . the right . . . to keep and carry arms wherever they went. Gun controls racist roots run deep. Before the Civil War, a multiplicity of laws barred slaves from owning weapons and permitted free Black people to do so only with a courts approval. In the Jim Crow era, states found other ways to disarm Black Americans. They heavily taxed handgun sales, for example, or permitted pistols to be sold only to sheriffs and their deputies a category that often included KKK terrorists.

The Second Amendment is always revitalized when we feel threatened, writes David Harsanyi in the current National Review. Between the coronavirus pandemic, the killing of George Floyd, and the recent wave of demonstrations and looting, this is an alarming moment in American life. Black and white Americans, millions of them, have chosen to meet the moment by arming themselves. The hoplophobes may disapprove, but this is what the Second Amendment is for.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jeff.jacoby@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @jeff_jacoby. To subscribe to Arguable, his weekly newsletter, go to bitly.com/Arguable.

Read the original:
Black and white Americans are embracing the Second Amendment - The Boston Globe

Gatherings of all sizes and kinds marked a lengthy Saturday in the Tri-State, capped with a group spending the evening keeping an eye on businesses in Evansville.

About 15 men came together in the parking lot near Target on the east side, many of them openly carrying firearms.

They told us they were there to protect the community and they didnt want to see anything torn up.

The armed members of the group became the latest in a series of expressions of constitutional rights, done so through the night in peace.

For Saadia Miles, speaking out today is a family affair.

Were tired. Im raising up two beautiful black women. And this cant keep happening. After the whole worlds seen George. Its changed the dynamic of how were moving today, she explained.

She joined others in bringing their kids down to the waterfront in peaceful demonstration Saturday afternoon.

Spreading a message not just across the city, but through generations.

I think its just sad that the racism is going around, her daughter Bianca said.

Weve had a lot of negativity out here. And thats been hard to deal with, Saadia added. Were still not getting the support we need. And thats why were still standing here. Were still fighting. This is all a learning lesson.

For their family, coming out isnt just about a single issue.

We have to stop, and its not even about the police at this point either. We have to stop the gun violence against us too. We have to love each other for everybody to love us as well, Saadia explained.

As crowds continued to gather throughout the afternoonat the Four Freedoms monument before marching to the Ford Centerother mothers in the group of hundreds also shared how the last moments of George Floyd brought them out.

Im a momma. Ive got four kids but I have two black grandkids. It just bothers me. He cried for his momma at the end. Its just sad. Its horrible, Melissa Key said.

Saadia Miles, and her daughters, echoed that idea

We wanna live. This is why were here. Thats why my kids are here. We want to live. We want the same respect we give to everybody else, Saadia explained.

as their voices, and that of others from across the city, echoed through the streets.

comments

Excerpt from:
Groups Exercise First, Second Amendment Rights in Peaceful Gatherings - wevv.com

Opinion | LetterEveryone has a right to their opinion. But brandishing guns crosses the line.

By Ben Long // Jun 21, 2020

As a gun owner and a supporter of both the First (free speech and assembly) and Second Amendment (right to bear arms) of the U.S. Constitution, I was embarrassed and concerned by the Flathead Patriot Guards showing at the Black Lives Matter rally at Depot Park. The presence of armed vigilantes at a peaceful protest is not normal and we should not allow it to become normal.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment allows citizens to defend their homes and businesses with firearms. But it does not allow citizens to form armed vigilante squads. It does not allow armed vigilante squads to intimidate intentionally or not other citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

The Flathead Patriot Guard told the press that intimidation was not their goal. Their goal, they claimed, was to protect the War Memorial from vandalism. Evidently they felt the need to carry large-capacity, center-fire, semi-automatic weapons to do this. Who are they afraid of? Thoughtful students and concerned citizens armed with cardboard signs?

First off, no one asked for their protection. In a civilized community, we have professionals who are hired to protect public parks and to keep order: police. At the rally, we saw police from city, county and state present. They did their job. The vigilantes were unnecessary and uncalled for.

Second, no rational person can believe that the presence of grim-faced men with ball bats and firearms is neutral. Ive been to Memorial Day vigils and public rallies at Depot Park for 30 years and the atmosphere of this rally was made menacing by the Flathead Patriot Guard. I will take them at their word that this was not their intent, but it was in fact their impact. If I felt anxious as a white male comfortable around firearms, I can only imagine what others, say a black man or indigenous woman, must feel. All Americans have the right to assemble and speak their minds without intimidation. The Flathead Patriot Guard violated that right.

Third, what were they going to do with all this firepower? If someone had wanted to break a window or spray-paint a monument, did they intend to open fire in a crowded park? What mayhem would follow from that action? What kind of mistake an accidental discharge, a backfire, a firecracker would escalate into bloodshed? Would that be worth it?

The premise of these gun hobbyists being capable of quelling some imaginary riot is video-game quality fantasy. If things had turned ugly, they and their weapons would have only made matters worse.

While protesters at the rally were to a person polite and within their rights, they were subjected to obscene taunts and gestures and squealing tires from passersby. That goes with the territory of public rallies. Everyone has a right to their opinion. But brandishing guns crosses the line.

If the Flathead Patriot Guard wants to celebrate their Second Amendment rights and their gun fetishes, they should have their own rally. Meanwhile, they should leave their guns at home. Their Second Amendment rights do not eclipse the First Amendment rights of Americans to gather and speak their minds without fear or intimidation. There is no room for vigilantes in todays Montana.

The right thing for the Flathead Patriot Guard to do is quietly disband or show up with their own signs and flags. Let the professional police do their job. If the Flathead Patriot Guard persists in their irresponsible displays of gun ownership, then our elected representatives need to clarify our laws to keep this behavior out of the bedrock American principle of right to protest.

Ben LongKalispell

Follow this link:
Leave the Guns At Home - Flathead Beacon

The President carried the district in 2016, He's endorsed Scott Taylor in 2020 Republican primary.

NORFOLK, Va. President Donald J.Trump has now weighed in on Tuesday's Virginia Second Congressional District Primary.

He has given his "complete and total endorsement" to Scott Taylor, calling him in a tweet, a "fighter" who is "strong on the border, the military and the second amendment."

"I'm super humbled and appreciative of the President's support, of course," said Taylor.

The other two candidates in the contest have expressed admiration and support for the President.

"I'm supporting Trump on the economy, what he's done on various policies, what he's done around the world," said Ben Loyola. "It's not an apologetic tour. It's an America First tour."

And, said Jarome Bell: "That's one thing you can say about President Trump. He's a straightforward guy. And he's like me. He's a fighter and outsider. He's going to let you know what he's thinking. He's going to let you know where he stands."

Christopher Newport University political analyst Quentin Kidd says whoever wins the primary will do whatever he can to tie himself to Trump heading into the November general election.

"The Republicans who turn out to voter for Donald Trump are going to be energized and excited to vote for Donald Trump," he said. "The Republican candidate in the 2nd Congressional District needs that percentage of voters who vote for Trump to also vote for them.".

In 2016, President Trump carried the second district by 3 percentage points over Hillary Clinton, garnering more than 156,000 votes.

But in 2018, Democrat Elaine Luria defeated the incumbent Republican Congressman Taylor, also by around 3 percentage points; pulling in over 139,000 votes.

See the original post here:
Considering the role of Trump in Virginia's 2nd Congressional District - 13newsnow.com WVEC

Sujeev Shakya is author of Unleashing the Vajra Nepals Journey Between India and China and chairs the Nepal Economic Forum.

The Nepal House of Representatives endorsed a historic second amendment to its 2015 constitution by updating its map and national emblem on June 13. The new political map included the territories Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhuraan area of 335 square kilometers (129 square miles) that India also claims. In response, the government of India registered a border dispute with Nepal.

More on:

Nepal

India

China

South Asia

Territorial Disputes

In Nepal, anyone who does not agree with or celebrate this amendment is touted as an anti-national. The Nepal government and the ruling political party used this nationalism as a veil to cover their bungled response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The opposition parties also took solace in this act of nationalism as it helped them cover for their lack of engagement with citizens in this time of crisis. So long as the Nepal government stoked anti-India sentiments as a way to distract from corruption and bad governance, this dispute has been inevitable. Meanwhile, India has wrongly denied Nepals requests for official talks ever since releasing its own revised map on November 2, 2019. When India released a map that showed Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh as union territories, the government also made changes to the India-Nepal border and included the disputed area of Kalapani as part of India. The government of Nepal promptly rejected Indias claim and requested a dialogue, which never happened.

Frail Relationship

Asia Unbound

CFR fellows and other experts assess the latest issues emerging in Asia today.1-3 times weekly.

Indias relationship with Nepal is at its lowest point since the five-month Indian Blockade of 2015. Many Nepalis believe that in September 2015, India tried to tip the scale to prevent the election of Nepal Communist Party leader K.P. Sharma Oli as prime minister. Nonetheless, he was elected, and as China-Nepal ties warmed, the Indian stance on Nepal has been quite obvious ever since. An Eminent Persons Group formed between the two countries submitted a report in July 2018 that outlined a new framework for the Nepal-India relationship. News reports alleged that New Delhi did not like parts of the content of the report (yet to be made public,) and the last official reaction from the Indian side was a statement by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs in response to a December 2019 question in parliament: The formal submission of the EPG Report to the two Governments is yet to take place. The gap between Kathmandu and New Delhi is widening as India has not been able to keep up with transformations in Nepal and uses old lenses to view its neighbor.

Hell Breaks Loose

When Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh on May 8, 2020 shared his delight to inaugurate the Link Road to Mansarovar Yatra on Twitter, all hell broke loose in Nepal, as this road passed through the territory Nepal claims as its own. When protests in Nepal began despite the pandemic, Indian Army Chief General Naravane issued a statement suggesting China was to blame, saying, There is reason to believe that they [Nepal] might have raised this issue at the behest of someone else. Notably, General Naravane maintains a position in the Nepal army, and his Nepali counterpart in the Indian army commands 32,000 Nepali soldiers in the Gurkha Regiment, reflecting the long history of close ties between India and Nepal.

As China and India have skirmished at the border of Ladakh since May 5, 2020, many in the right-wing Indian media were quick to blame China for instigating Nepals action. Popular Nepali actress Manisha Koirala, a Bollywood star, was trolled for being a traitor by Indians and the Indian media when she spoke in favor of Nepals amendment. In Nepal, because of many peoples perception of the Indian media as close to the Modi administration, the medias actions were seen as being instigated by the Indian government itself. Nepali citizens viewed what was coming out of television and print media as the Indian strategy for dealing with the border issue, rather than diplomatic dialogue.

China Matters

For Nepal, the biggest change in geopolitics since the September 2015 blockade has been increased Chinese interest as part of the Belt and Road Initiative, and other measures to provide an economic alternative to reliance on India. President Xi Jinping visited Nepal in October 2019the first time in twenty-three years a Chinese head of state made the trip but Nepal could not take advantage of this visit due to being underprepared. The trade war between China and the United States, along with the border skirmishes between China and India, puts Nepal back into the center of regional geopolitical activity. This is much like in the 1960s, just before India and China went to war and the United States used Nepali territory to push military aid to rebels in Tibet.

More on:

Nepal

India

China

South Asia

Territorial Disputes

Nepal understands its economic dependency on India: the Nepali rupee is pegged to Indias, landlocked Nepal relies on Indian ports for trade, and six million Nepalis work in India. However, with Nepals dependence on India for jobs receding and more Indians working in Nepal than ever before, Indians will lose equally if the open border and parity in economic opportunities outlined by the 1950 Friendship Treaty come into review. Disputes require talks for resolution, and therefore, the sooner India engages in discussion, the better. Nepal also needs to learn from its own mistakes, such as not being well-prepared for talks due to the lack of thorough research, and failure to communicate well. These were mistakes made during Nepals dispute with Bhutan on refugee issues in the early 1990s. The stalling of this border dispute can have grave consequences, which both India and Nepal need to understand. This is why they must engage in fruitful discussion as soon as possible.

View original post here:
India-Nepal Bilateral Relations Slide: Perspective From Kathmandu - Council on Foreign Relations

The Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on Monday notified the Substantial Acquisition of Shares And Takeovers (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2020.

The Board seeks to amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011.

In regulation 10 a new sub-regulation (2A), any acquisition of shares or voting rights or control of the target company by way of the preferential issue in compliance with regulation 164A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018 shall be exempt from the obligation to make an open offer under sub-regulation (1) of regulation 3 and regulation 4, shall be inserted.

The exemption from the open offer shall also apply to the target company with infrequently traded shares which is compliant with the provisions of sub-regulations (2), (3), (4), (5),(6), (7) and (8) of regulation 164A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018. The pricing of such infrequently traded shares shall be in terms of regulation 165 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018, the notification explained.

Read more from the original source:
SEBI notifies Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2020 - taxscan.in

Is the text of the Second Amendment contrary to slavery? So argued the great abolitionist Lysander Spooner in his 1845 book The Unconstitutionality of Slavery. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1866-68, the Amendment's supporters agreed with Spooner that if the Second Amendment were enforced, slavery would be impossible.

Author of important books and pamphlets on scores of subjects, Lysander Spooner's greatest passion was antislavery. A radical theorist, Spooner was a hero to many antislavery activists, including John Brown, whose raid on Harper's Ferry was inspired by reading Spooner. He was "pre-eminent in the group of abolitionists who developed the constitutional law now incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment." C. Shively, Introduction to 4 Lysander Spooner, Collected Works 11 (1971). For more, see Randy E. Barnett, Whence Comes Section One? The Abolitionist Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment, 3 J. Legal Analysis 165 (2011).

Spooner was "the most theoretically profound advocate" of the position that slavery was unconstitutional. David A. J. Richards, Abolitionist Political and Constitutional Theory and the Reconstruction Amendments, 25 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1187, 1193 (1992).

In the widely-distributed and frequently reprinted book The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, Spooner argued that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original public meaning of the words in the text. In case of ambiguity, words should construed according to natural justice. Spooner did not favor looking to speeches by political figures, newspaper essays, or other sources to put a gloss on the constitutional text itself.

As Barnett explains:

Spooner supplemented this interpretive claim about original public meaning with a principle of construction he took from the 1805 Supreme Court case of United States v. Fisher in which John Marshall articulated a 'plain statement' rule of construction for resolving ambiguities in the public meaning of statutes. "Where rights are infringed, where fundamental principles are overthrown, where the general system of the laws is departed from," wrote Chief Justice Marshall, "the legislative intention must be expressed with irresistible clearness, to induce a court of justice to suppose a design to effect such objects."

As elaborated by Spooner, under this rule of construction, when the original public meaning is ambiguousthat is, when there is more than one reasonable meaning"the court will never, through inference, nor implication, attribute an unjust intention to a law; nor seek for such an intention in any evidence exterior to the words of the law. They will attribute such an intention to the law, only when such intention is written out in actual terms; and in terms, too, of 'irresistible clearness'"

For example, Spooner's natural justice interpretation of the Second Amendment was straightforward:

This right "to keep and bear arms," implies the right to use themas much as a provision securing to the people the right to buy and keep food, would imply their right also to eat it. But this implied right to use arms, is only a right to use them in a manner consistent with natural rightsas, for example, in defence of life, liberty, chastity, &c. . . . If the courts could go beyond the innocent and necessary meaning of the words, and imply or infer from them an authority for anything contrary to natural right, they could imply a constitutional authority in the people to use arms, not merely for the just and innocent purposes of defence, but also . . . robbery, or any other acts of wrong to which arms are capable of being applied. The mere verbal implication would as much authorize the people to use arms for unjust, as for just, purposes. But the legal implication gives only an authority for their innocent use. (Unconstitutionality of Slavery, p. 66).

Spooner used the Second Amendment to argue that slavery was unconstitutional. Since a slave is a person who is (or can be) forbidden to possess arms, and the Second Amendment guarantees that all persons can possess arms, no person in the United States can be a slave. Similarly, the militia clauses (Art. I, sect. 8, cls. 15-16) give Congress the power to arm the militia and to call it forth. He elaborated:

These provisions obviously recognize the natural right of all men "to keep and bear arms" for their personal defence; and prohibit both Congress and the State governments from infringing the right of "the people"that is, of any of the peopleto do so; and more especially of any whom Congress have power to include in their militia. The right of a man "to keep and bear arms," is a right palpably inconsistent with the idea of his being a slave. Yet the right is secured as effectually to those whom the States presume to call slaves, as to any whom the States condescend to acknowledge free.

Under this provision any man has a right either to give or sell arms to those persons whom the States call slaves; and there is no constitutional power, in either the national or State governments, that can punish him for so doing; or that can take those arms from the slaves; or that can make it criminal for the slaves to use them, if, from the inefficiency of the laws, it should become necessary for them to do so, in defence of their own lives or liberties; for this constitutional right to keep arms implies the constitutional right to use them, if need be, for the defence of one's liberty or life. (Id. at 97-98.)

As Spooner recognized, the Constitution never expressly used the words "slave" or "slavery." James Madison explained that he kept those words out of the document because it would be "wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men." Timothy Sandefur, The Anti-Slavery Constitution, National Review, Sept. 30, 2019. So the word "slavery" did not appear in the Constitution until 1865, with the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude."

Spooner argued that the so-called "Fugitive Slave Clause" was no such thing. The actual text said:

No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due. (Art. IV, sect. 2, cl. 3.)

According to Spooner, the text could be read to apply only indentured servants, or other persons who voluntarily undertaken a service or labor obligation. Indentured servants were not legally free, but (unlike slaves) their required service would end after several years, according to the contract they had signed. For example, some immigrants to America paid for their sea voyage by signing a five-year indenture that the ship's captain could sell upon arrival in America. Indenture contracts were legally enforceable.

In Spooner's theory, reading the clause to encompass slavery would violate Chief Justice Marshall's rule of interpretation.

As for the right of "persons whom the States call slaves" to use arms to resist recapture by government officers, Spooner wrote:

The constitution contemplates no such submission, on the part of the people, to the usurpations of the government, or to the lawless violence of its officers. On the contrary it provides that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This constitutional security for "the right to keep and bear arms," implies the right to use them,as much a constitutional security for food, would have have implied the right to eat it. The constitution, therefore, takes it for granted that, as the people have the right, they will also have the sense, to use arms, whenever the necessity of the case justifies it. (Lysander Spooner, A Defence for Fugitive Slaves 27-28 (1850).)

Similarly, Spooner contended that unconstitutional laws need not be obeyed pending their repeal. To require obedience to unconstitutional laws would be to allow the government "to disarm the people, suppress the freedom of speech and the press, prohibit the use of suffrage, and thus put it beyond the power of the people to reform the government through the exercise of those rights." Id. at 28.

In Spooner's best seller, the 1852 An Essay on the Trial by Jury, he used U.S. Constitution right to jury trial and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to make his point that the "right of resistance is recognized by the constitution of the United States." (p. 17).

Courts in the 1840s and 1850s did not adopt Spooner's view that slavery was unconstitutional. Then in 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment made explicit was Spooner had argued was always implicit: slavery is unconstitutional. The Thirteenth Amendment was insufficient by itself to prevent the newly-freed from being de facto re-enslaved. If former slave states could prohibit freedmen from assembling, from contracting their labor freely, from traveling, or from defending themselves, then they could be reduced to servitude by the Black Codes being adopted in the ex-confederate states.

Just a few weeks after the Confederate States surrendered at Appomattox, Frederick Douglass declared:

Now, while the black man can be denied a vote, while the Legislatures of the South can take from him the right to keep and bear arms, as they canthey would not allow a negro to walk with a cane where I came from, they would not allow ve of them to assemble togetherthe work of the Abolitionists is not finished. Notwithstanding the provision in the Constitution of the United States that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, the black man has never had the right either to keep or bear arms; and the Legislatures of the States will still have the power to forbid it, under this [Thirteenth] Amendment. They can carry on a system of unfriendly legislation, and will they not do it? Have they not got the prejudice there to do it with? (Frederick Douglass, In What New Skin Will the Old Snake Come Forth? Address delivered in New York City, May 10, 1865, pp. 83-84 [In Frederick Douglass Papers, series 1, vol. 4).

The next year, Congress recognized that disarming the freedmen was indeed part of the efforts of southern state governments and terrorist organizations to keep the freedmen in de facto servitude. So in 1866, the Second Freedmen's Bureau bill ordered the Union army in the South to protect the freedmen's "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate including the constitutional right to bear arms." The same year, the Civil Rights Act was passed, and the Fourteenth Amendment was sent to the States for ratification. All were enacted with supporters' expressly stated purpose of protecting the Second Amendment self-defense rights of the freedmen. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) (Thomas, J., concurring) (detailing legal history, and citing Spooner).

Whether Spooner's 1845 approach to constitutional interpretation is the best one can be debated. It can be said that parts of his constitutional vision were so compellingand so much in accord with natural justicethat they became the law of the land. As the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes, slavery and the constitutional right to arms are opposites.

Continue reading here:
Does the Second Amendment prohibit slavery? Reason.com - Reason

Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts departs the Trump impeachment trial in Washington,January 29, 2020.(Brendan McDermid/Reuters)The most likely explanation is that neither of the Courts ideological factions was confident enough of Robertss support to risk granting certiorari.

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review all ten of the Second Amendment cases it had pending on its docket. Though the cases presented different fact patterns and procedural postures, the Court simply refused to weigh in on any of them. There seems to be one likely reason: Chief Justice Roberts does not want the Court to take a stance on the Second Amendment. We know because it only takes four justices to agree to hear a case but five to reach a decision once a case is heard and there are four justices on record as being in favor of the Courts reviewing Second Amendment issues.

Justice Thomas has been dissenting from the Courts refusal to review those issues for years, and he did so again on Monday, writing to protest the Courts decision to pass on Rogers v. Grewal, a case addressing New Jerseys unconstitutional handgun-carry-permit laws:

This case gives us the opportunity to provide guidance on the proper approach for evaluating Second Amendment claims; acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry in public; and resolve a square Circuit split on the constitutionality of justifiable need restrictions on that right. I would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Justice Alito authored the landmark 2010McDonald v. Chicagoopinion, which incorporated Second Amendment rights to cover the states, and recently filed a scathing dissent to the Courts decision inNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York:

Twelve years ago inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller. . . we held that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms. Two years later, our decision in McDonald v. Chicago . . . established that this right is fully applicable to the States. Since then, the lower courts have decided numerous cases involving Second Amendment challenges to a variety of federal, state, and local laws. Most have failed. We have been asked to review many of these decisions, but until this case, we denied all such requests.

Alitos dissent goes on to review the underlying merits of the case and argue that the New York City gun-control law at issue is certainly unconstitutional.

Justice Kavanaugh is also in favor of the Courts weighing in on Second Amendment issues. He wrote a well-knowndissent in Heller II, a follow-up case stemming from the Heller decision Alito references, in which he chastised the D.C. Circuits reasoning and directly applied the Supreme Court test that was established inHeller. More recently, he joined Thomass dissent against the Courts refusal to hearRogers, and wrote, in a concurrence to theNew York State Rifledecision:

I share Justice Alitos concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applyingHeller andMcDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

Finally, Justice Gorsuch, while being quieter on the subject, has voiced his support for a review of Second Amendment issues as well: He has joined a couple of dissents penned by Justices Thomas and Alito, inPeruta v. CaliforniaandNew York State Rifle, respectively.

If youre counting along at home, thats four Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in favor of the Courts reviewing Second Amendment issues. Those four together can grantcertiorariin any case they wish. One presumes that the only reason they didnt do so in one of the ten Second Amendment cases the Court passed on Monday is that they were unsure how Chief Justice Roberts would vote once the cases were heard.

To be clear, the Court wasnt in want of choice. The ten cases pending before it covered issues ranging from New Jerseys handgun-carry regulations (Rogers) to Californias presumptively unsafe handgun law (Pena v. Horan) and Massachusetts assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans (Worman v. Healey).

Some of the ten also showed a clear circuit split a conflict between two or more courts of appeals in the nation as to how to decide a similar or identical issue which tends to make the Court far more likely to hear a case. In this instance, there was and is a clear split between circuits on the applicability of the Second Amendment outside the home.

So, ruling out votes and issues, the remaining roadblock would seem to be Chief Justice Roberts. What is unclear is why.

Some have speculated that Roberts wants to avoid risking the Courts reputation on a controversial case during a tense political cycle. But, if the Court had grantedcertiorariin one of these cases today, the case would have been briefed over the summer, argued in late 2020 or early 2021, and decided in early or mid 2021, well after the next president had been elected.

Does Roberts actually align with the four progressive-leaning justices on the Court when it comes to the Second Amendment? Not likely. Remember, the four progressive-leaning justices can grant review of a case just as the four conservative-leaning justices can. Given that they didnt on Monday, they likely dont believe Chief Justice Roberts is on their side of the issue.

The conclusion were left with is that Chief Justice Roberts doesnt want the Court to weigh in on the Second Amendment right now, and neither the four conservative justices nor the four progressive justices were confident enough of his siding with them on the issue to risk granting certiorari in any of the ten cases.

Keep in mind, when the chief justice is in the majority on a decision, he gets to pick who writes the opinion.If Chief Justice Roberts is the swing vote in a case, hell be in the majority however he decides, and could easily assign himself the opinion. Given that the rest of the Court is evenly split, no matter how he drafted it, the justices who agreed with the outcome of the opinion would almost have to sign on, regardless of its reasoning, and that could spell trouble.

For now, we will have to rely on the decisions of the circuit courts in gun-rights cases. But while its unclear what the impact of this week will be on the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence, those of us committed to defending Second Amendment-protected rights will not give up the fight.

Read the rest here:
Why Did the Roberts Court Punt on Ten Second Amendment Cases? - National Review

SaturdayJun20,2020at1:45AMJun20,2020at1:45AM

As someone who knows several of the candidates running in the Republcian Primary for State Assembly, I am proud to offer my full support for Jeff Gallahan. Jeff is the only candidate running who is a Life Member of the NRA and has received an A+ rating from Ontario County SCOPE. He is a concealed carry permit holder and a member of several local sportsmen's clubs.

He has also been a tireless volunteer for efforts to expand high school trap shooting leagues to help teach the next generation.

Lots of politicians take photos with guns and beat their chests about how much they support the Second Amendment, but quickly forget who elected them when they get into office.

Thats not Jeff Gallahan. He is the real deal. We can count on him to stand up to Cuomo and defend our rights.

Tim Maher

Chairman, Ontario County SCOPE

View original post here:
Letter: Jeff Gallahan is the real deal on Second Amendment - MPNnow.com

Final consultation on TAR NC Consultation on draft second amendment 2020 to GSCO Publication of second amendment 2020 to GSCO Proposed RPM Discounts, multipliers and seasonal factors Cost allocation assessment Comment

EU Regulation 2017/460 (16 March 2017)(1) established a network code on harmonised transmission tariff structures (TAR NC). On 31 January 2019 E-Control Austria's national regulatory authority published its first consultation document on the implementation of the TAR NC in Austria (for further details please see "Consultation on implementation of network code on harmonised transmission tariffs"). This article discusses the subsequent developments.

Final consultation on TAR NC

Based on Articles 26 and 28 of EU Regulation 2017/460 and the comments on the first TAR NC consultation document (CP1), E-Control carried out a second consultation on the proposed reference price methodology (RPM) and the resulting indicative reference prices, as well as the proposed discounts, multipliers and seasonal factors. On 6 November 2019 E-Control published this revised final consultation document (CP2) on the implementation of the TAR NC, in accordance with EU Regulation 2017/460's consultation requirements. Comments on CP2 could be submitted to E-Control until 8 January 2019.

Consultation on draft second amendment 2020 to GSCO

Gas system charges are based on the allowed cost and the transported volume established by E-Control's executive board in line with Section 82 of the Natural Gas Act. The allowed cost and the transported volume are fixed periodically, generally for each four-year regulatory period.

The draft second amendment 2020 to the Gas System Charges Ordinance 2013 (GSCO) aligned the transmission system charges with the proposed RPM. This alignment should have entered into force on 1 October 2020. Annex 3 to the draft amendment provided for a further revised and updated RPM compared with CP2.

Pursuant to Section 70(3) of the Natural Gas Act, the adoption of the draft amendment had to be preceded by a consultation procedure. E-Control commenced this consultation procedure in April 2020; comments could be submitted until 5 May 2020.

Publication of second amendment 2020 to GSCO

On 4 June 2020 the second amendment 2020 to the GSCO was published in Federal Law Gazette II (254/2020). This final version of the amendment largely corresponds to the draft amendment, with one major variation: the entry into force date has been changed from 1 October 2020 to 1 January 2021. Austria's two transmission system operators had heavily criticised the original entry into force date in their consultation responses to the draft amendment. Further, the tariff period has been aligned with the gas year foreseen by the TAR NC and thus now extends until 30 September 2024 (and not 1 January 2025, as was previously customary).

Proposed RPM

The proposed RPM for the Austrian entry-exit system remains the virtual point-based approach, with the Baumgarten interconnector point serving as the virtual reference point. Further, the proposed RPM continues to apply clustering (Annex 3 includes one additional cluster for storage facilities), the equalisation of homogenous points and a maximum tariff increase of 10% to all entry and exit points. In CP2 and Annex 3, E-Control justifies this 10% cap with the necessary protection of domestic supply against the volume risk arising from long-term capacity contracts at the transit level. The amount of 10% is explained by reference to the consumer price index according to which the annual increase of consumer prices amounts to approximately 1.8% (7.5 % over four years). Moreover, E-Control reacted to the request of several stakeholders in the consultation process by disclosing the 'theoretical' (ie, real) tariffs in Annex 3 in addition to the effective tariffs previously set out in CP1 and CP2.

An individually calculated exit tariff, leading to a tariff reduction, applies under CP1, CP2 and Annex 3 for the exit at Murfeld (this so-called 'benchmark tariff Murfeld' leads to a 43% reduction of the current tariff) to achieve a competitive level of reference prices on an allegedly competing route leading to the Croatian entry-exit system via the Mosonmagyarvr exit point, thereby avoiding both underuse at Murfeld and congestion at Mosonmagyarvr according to E-Control. Compared with CP1, CP2 and Annex 3 provide for a graphical comparison of the capacity booking process at the Murfeld and Mosonmagyarvr exit points. Further, CP2 introduced a tariff difference limit at Murfeld of EUR 0.67kWh/h/year, which is explained at least to some extent in Annex 3.

Capacity-based transmission tariffs for exits into storage facilities remain discounted by 50% and entries from storage facilities remain discounted by 100%. The breakdown between the revenue from capacity-based transmission tariffs at all entry points and the revenue from capacity-based transmission tariffs at all exit points results in an entry-exit split of 20.6:79.4.

Since the cost approval proceedings V MET G 01/17 (for Gas Connect Austria GmbH) and V MET G 02/17 (for Trans Austria Gasleitung GmbH) were still pending with E-Control when CP1 and CP2 were published, all tariffs were calculated on a preliminary cost basis and were therefore only indicative, which in turn was unfavourable for network users from a planning perspective. These cost approval proceedings have now been concluded and the corresponding official decisions handed down. The cost basis, which provides for substantially lower costs than assumed under CP1 and CP2, is therefore now binding. However, contrary to the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators' (ACER's) recommendation in its opinion on CP2,(2) E-Control has yet to publish the official decisions.

Discounts, multipliers and seasonal factors

While CP2 abolished seasonal reductions but introduced comparatively high separate multipliers at the Arnoldstein exit point, Annex 3 completely waives any discounts, multipliers and seasonal factors. However, the explanatory notes on Sections 3(9) and (9a) of the amendment reveal that E-Control has retained the multipliers described in CP1.(3) To justify their values, E-Control refers to related consultations with national regulatory authorities of neighbouring market areas and the resulting adjustments of these multipliers to an equal level. Although the proposed multipliers are still within the range provided by the TAR NC, they are significantly higher than the multipliers currently defined under the GSCO and higher than the multipliers proposed or applied in other countries. Separate multipliers for the Arnoldstein exit point have been dropped.

Cost allocation assessment

Under Article 5 of the TAR NC, E-Control must perform and publish a cost allocation assessment as part of the final consultation on the proposed RPM. The intent of the assessment is to ensure against undue cross-subsidies on capacity (or commodity) by assessing that the revenue-to-cost ratio for intra-system use is broadly similar to the revenue-to-cost ratio for cross-system use. According to Article 5(6) of the TAR NC, any ratio exceeding 10% requires justification by E-Control in its motivated decision under Article 27(4) of the TAR NC.

In CP1 and CP2, E-Control performed a cost allocation assessment, the index of which never exceeded 10%. Consequently, no further justification was required. Annex 3 now provides for a cost allocation comparison index of 12.29%. This suggests the presence of cross-subsidisation between intra-system and cross-system network use, demonstrating that the proposed RPM does not guarantee cost-reflectivity and triggering the justification requirement of Article 5(6) of the TAR NC.

Comment

The materials accompanying the amendment reveal that ACER has criticised the lack of sufficient explanations and disclosure of important data in CP1 and CP2. E-Control has partially addressed this criticism by publishing an Excel file on the Tariff-Model 2020-2024 and disclosing some additional explanations in Annex 3. However, the tariff calculation methodology is still partially incomprehensible for instance, with regard to the benchmark tariff Murfeld, where suitable evidence for the actual competitiveness of the Murfeld and Mosonmagyarvr exit points is still missing.

With regard to the 10% cap, Annex 3 makes clear that E-Control has not changed its opinion on the reasons for the increase, despite ACER's claim that a 10% tariff increase cap exceeds the benchmarking stipulated in Article 6(4)(a) of the TAR NC. ACER also criticised the fact that E-Control described the market-distorting effect of tariff increases of more than 10% on long-term supply contracts only in general terms in CP1 and CP2. The amendment and the materials thereto do not address this criticism.

Further, it remains unclear why certain entry-exit points are still subject to a tariff increase while the cost basis of network operators was substantially lowered and most other entry-exit points benefit from lower tariffs.

With regard to the cost allocation assessment, E-Control has provided only general comments to justify the cost allocation comparison index now exceeding 10% and has failed to elaborate on the result (eg, by connecting it to the choice of the entry-exit-split or the potential cross-subsidisation effect between cross-system use and intra-system use). Article 5(6) of the TAR NC stipulates that the justification for the cost allocation comparison index exceeding 10% will be provided in the motivated decision referred to in Article 27(4) of the TAR NC. E-Control itself defines the explanatory notes on the amendment as such a motivated decision. However, although these explanatory notes mention the cost allocation comparison index, they lack the necessary justification, which in turn contradicts the TAR NC.

Finally, since E-Control's motivated decision was issued in the form of explanatory notes, which are not legal norms but instead aid the interpretation of the underlying amendment, it is not possible to challenge this decision.

For further information on this topic please contact Bernd Rajal or Felix Schneider at Schoenherr by telephone (+43 1 53437 50203 or +43 1 53437 50213) or email (b.rajal@schoenherr.eu or f.schneider@schoenherr.eu). The Schoenherr website can be accessed at http://www.schoenherr.eu.

Endnotes

(1) EU Regulation 2017/460 of 16 March 2017 establishing a network code on harmonised transmission tariff structures for gas, C/2017/1657, OJ L 72, 17.3.2017, pp29-56.

(2) See ACER, Agency Report analysis of the consultation document for Austria, 6 March 2020, para 16.

(3) The multipliers are as follows:

The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to thedisclaimer.

ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.

More here:
Consultations on TAR NC and second amendment to Gas System Charges Ordinance - International Law Office