Category Archives: Second Amendment

At a special meeting on June 18, the Derby City Council convened to consider the sale of the Series 2020 STAR Bonds bonds being issued to finance a portion of construction and infrastructure costs in regards to two STAR bond project amendments.

The amendments would allow for the construction of the Derby Sports Zone (phase two), to include multiple indoor and outdoor sports courts as well as a restaurant facility on-site, and an Olympic-caliber rock climbing gym with an attached outdoor BMX course (phase three) in the STAR bond district.

Initially, the bonds were set to be sold separately, but complications related to COVID-19 postponed the bond sale for the second amendment (Derby Sports Zone) in March. That led to an amendment of the bond sale resolution in May, with the specification that the aggregate principal amount of the bonds not exceed $17.5 million or a six percent interest rate for the two amendments.

Combined, $12.6 million is being requested to help facilitate construction of the two STAR bond project amendments (with inflation and other factors taken into account). Bond counsel was able to secure $14,375,000 in bonds at a 4.637 percent interest rate.

Upon approval of the bond sale, council member Tom Keil asked who would approve expenditures, with it noted those would fall to city staff to review and City Manager Kathy Sexton to sign.

Mayor Randy White pointed out that the city council has been down this road before and it was good to have some familiarity with the process in trying to bring some unique amenities to the Derby community to fill out the STAR bond district.

When we get there, God-willing, this is going to be an exciting place to be around, White said.

The city council unanimously passed a motion adopting an ordinance issuing $14,375,000 in bonds for the phase two and phase three amendments to the STAR bond project.

Read more:
STAR bond sale approved to finance project amendments - The Derby Informer

An image on social media attributes a quote on arms and ammunition to the first president of the United States, George Washington. The quote, however, is partly inaccurate.

Reuters Fact Check. REUTERS/Axel Schmidt

The image shows a memorial plaque titled 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The text that follows reads: 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. A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.

Examples of the post are visible here and here .

The plaque in the picture can be found at a landmark in Amarillo, Texas called the Second Amendment Cowboy ( here ; here ; goo.gl/maps/6DuiCV9BMEBbSPtm8 ).

The first sentence of the text accurately quotes the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, visible here ( bit.ly/37HpGtI ).

The first few words of the second sentence are taken from Washingtons First Annual Message to Congress on January 8, 1790 ( here ).

However, according to the library at Mount Vernon, George Washingtons estate and museum which is managed by a private non-profit, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate ( here ).

The actual text from Washingtons speech is as follows: A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

Partly false. The quote on arms and ammunition attributed to George Washington does appear on a plaque in Texas but is partly inaccurate.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our work to fact-check social media posts here .

Read this article:
Fact check: George Washington misquoted on the need for arms and ammunition - Reuters

Opinion

New York -(AmmoLand.com)- These last few weeks, the Arbalest Quarrel has been working steadfastly on analyzing the NYC gun transport case. We felt a detailed analysis necessary as we had serious doubts the Court would grant cert in any of the ten pending Second Amendment cases. The NYC case provided our best chance for a serious Court review of 2A, ten years after the McDonald decision.

We intended to lay out what could have been gained and what was invariably lost from the failure of the High Court to consider the case on the merits; and we had hoped to post a comprehensive analysis of the NYC case prior to a final High Court determination, whether to grant or deny cert on any of the ten pending 2A cases.

We expected the Court would once again relist all ten pending 2A cases, denying cert on each at them at the Courts last conference for the Term. But the Court made its final determination on June 11, 2020.

No surprise to us as to the denial of cert, but the final determination came earlier than we expected. Even so, it means something more than, and something other than, most Americans realize. The cryptic, something other than, pertains to Roberts.

So, then, what went wrong? Actually, for Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the High Court, nothing went wrong. Everything went according to plan.

Some proponents of 2A, including some readers of AmmoLand News, believe the NYC case mootness issue was properly decided. It wasnt. And we may post our legal analysis at a later time. But the mootness issue is and was nothing more than a red herring. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing anticipated that the City would amend its Rules and that the State would amend its laws to avoid a consideration of and a decision on the merits, which would have necessitated consideration of Heller. And that possibility was not be countenanced. It was something that the liberal wing of the Court and Chief Justice Roberts, as well as the City of New York and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, intended to avoid at all costs.

The 2A Heller issue would not be heard.

But, why did Kavanaugh side with Roberts and the liberal wing, and why did he write a puzzling and limp concurring opinion, basically telling Americans, albeit in an oblique manner, that he really does support the Second Amendment and that the Court will have another chance to hear another case; and, so, that Americans need not worry?

Kavanaugh is, at best, a weak supporter of the Second Amendment and of the Bill of Rights, but he does adhere to Supreme Court precedent. His learned and reasoned dissent in Heller II is a testament to that.

Kavanaugh likely did not wish to side with the liberal wing. We believe Chief Justice Roberts cajoled Kavanaugh into doing so. Why? It couldnt be because a sixth vote was needed. It wasnt. Roberts fifth vote gave the liberal wing the majority it needed to find the case moot.

But we are dealing with appearances here: smoke and mirrors. We believe that Roberts may have tried to get another Trump nominee, Neil Gorsuch, to join the majority, too; but Gorsuch would not do so. A 7-2 majority decision would give Roberts even more cover, and cover is what Roberts wants. It is what he needs.

Clearly Roberts did not wish to appear alone, siding with the liberal wing of a Court, especially on a 2A matter. So, Kavanaugh reluctantly agreed to give cover Roberts cover, but insisted on drafting a concurring, to suggest: one that he does support 2A, if only half-heartedly; and, two that the Court should take up another 2A case soon, even as he knew full well that it wouldnthence his use of the word, should, in the concurring, rather than the word, will.

The Press tells us Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy was the sole hold-out in Heller for the critical fifth vote needed and that the late eminent Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who penned the Heller majority opinion, was forced to include language in that opinion to soften the rulings.

The Press paints a picture of Justice Anthony Kennedy as the moderate swing vote on the Court. In doing so, the Press is engaging in just another deception.

The truth of the matter is that Roberts, no less than Kennedy, and, conceivably, more so, compelled Scalia to add language to the opinion that would provide Anti-Second Amendment proponents with a safe harbor; allowing Anti-Second Amendment governments to continue to do what they have been doing all along: to whittle away at the import of the Second Amendment.

So, then, what does that say about Chief Justice Roberts?

Roberts has, for a time, come across as a defender of our Bill of Rights. It was all ruse. He isnt a defender of our Bill of Rights; nor, for that matter, and more specifically, is Roberts a defender of our Second Amendment; and he never has been.

Roberts is as much a trickster as the man who nominated him: the Skull and Bones President, George W. Bush.

Even as the Radical Left tabloid, New York Times, refers to Roberts as a member of the conservative wing of the Court, he is no such thing, and the Times knows it. Nor is he to be perceived as a judicial, moderatethe proverbial swing vote, carrying the mantle of retired Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Roberts has no more desire to see our Second Amendment strengthened than do Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Why, then, did Roberts and Kennedy agree to join the majority in Heller? We think that this says something about the force and indomitability of Scalias personality and intellect: something lost when Justice Scalia met with a deeply tragic and clearly puzzling death. And Roberts has no intention ever again to lock horns with another Justice who has the indomitability of spirit of Scalia.

Recall that George Bush nominated John Roberts to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court as the Chief Justice, not merely as an Associate Justice. This was no accident.

As Chief Justice of the High Court, John Roberts sets the tone of the Court and wields considerable leverage over the Court, as we deduce from Roberts obvious success in cajoling Kavanaugh to side with him, to join the liberal wing on the mootness issue.

The High Court is said to grant writs in four circumstances, as set forth in detail in the Peter Blair weblog:

In every case that has been brought to the Courts attention since Heller and McDonald, all four of the above factors are satisfied. Yet, in all instances, the High Court has either denied cert or has side-stepped the Second Amendment issue altogether, as it had done in Voisine and in the recent New York City case.

So what does this tell you? It tells you that the Court will take up a case when it wants to. And thats that!

In the instant case, Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court do not want to take up a 2A case, but then, the conservative wing wont do so either, unless it can be assured that Roberts is on board with them. He isnt and wont be, ever.

The Roberts Court will not take up another Second Amendment case unless the Court is able to sidestep the core 2A issue as in the Voisine case, or in the recent NYC gun transport case, or when or if the liberal wing knows it has a decisive majority. That would be calamitous. It would sound the death knell for Heller and McDonald. Once our right to keep and bear arms is lost, our Nation is undone.

Thus, the conservative wing wont wish to hear a Second Amendment case unless it knows that Roberts is on board, and Roberts will never be on board.

Understand, each Justice knows how each of the others will resolve a case before any vote is cast to grant cert or to deny cert on a case.

Justice Thomass scathing dissents reflect his knowledge and frustrationwhich obviously, he cannot express openlythat Roberts will not support the Second Amendment. It is as simple as that.

So, forget support from the Roberts Court on our Bill of Rights, given the Courts present composition.

So, where does that leave you and me?

The Globalist puppet masters have been utilizing, of late, Radical Left Anarchist groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa, along with the common criminal class, to rain havoc on our Nationto soften the Country upencouraging rebellion and insurrection, even attempting to destroy public faith in the police. And it is all by design.

The last thing these Globalist puppet masters want to have to deal with is internal police forces and an armed citizenry, in the midst of a civil war these puppet masters have, themselves, fomented. They are neutralizing the police, but they cannot so easily neutralize an armed citizenry; and if they cannot do that, they cannot win this civil war.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: http://www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Read the original:
The Roberts' Supreme Court Will Not Defend The Second Amendment! - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Sophia A. Nelson, Opinion contributor Published 6:00 a.m. ET June 20, 2020

Though the name endures, the current Republican Party is no longer Lincoln's party that advocated freedom, democracy, and justice for all

As President Donald Trump prepared to go to Tulsa for his Saturday rally, Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma proclaimed that no question this is still the Party of Lincoln.

Well, Senator Lankford, I have news for you: Todays GOP, led by Trump, is not the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln. In fact, it is not the party of Ulysses S. Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhoweror Ronald Reagan, either.

Instead, it is a party increasingly dominated by activists who are overwhelmingly white, always aggrieved, virulently militant about the Second Amendment (and their rightsnotto wear a face mask during a pandemic), pro-Confederacy and openly racist. That is your party, senator.

Lets be clear. This is not the party that began in 1854 as a pro-abolitionist, anti-slavery party. This is not the party that freed the slaves or passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution. No, this is not the party whose leaderswon the Civil War, fought the Klan, and ushered in Reconstruction. This is not the party that welcomed Booker T. Washington to the White House or used federal troops in 1957 to integrate Little Rock High.

This is not the party, led by Everett Dirksen in the Senate, that helped pass the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960s. Sadly, this Republican Party has within its elected ranks only one Black senator, Tim Scott of South Carolina, and one Black member of the House, Will Hurd of Texas. Hurd announced he was retiring in 2020, and Scott has saidthat if he runs for re-election in 2022, it will be his final term.

No, this is not your great grandfathers or even your grandfather's Republican Party. This Republican Party will be the first-ever to openly and proudlystain Lincolns legacy and embrace instead the traitors of Southern rebellion that sought to divide and destroy the Union our Founding Fathersestablishedin 1776.

This is now Donald Trumps party. And his trip to Tulsa (a city that, in 1921, was the site of the worst mass murder of peaceful black men and women in the history of America)the day afterJuneteenth (which commemorates the end of U.S. slavery) says a lot.

Sophia A. Nelson(Photo: Family handout)

Trumps conduct during the aftermath of George Floyds tragic murder has been reprehensible, cowardly, and divisive. He has made it clear to us all but most of all to his very white, very monolithic base that he is not on the side of democracy, freedom, and justice for all but, instead, on the side of suppressing free speech, tear-gassing protesters, and engaging in old culture wars that no longer resonate with a 21st century America, where more than 40% of the population is of color."

Both my maternal and paternal grandparents were Eisenhower Republicans. I was a moderate black female Republican for more than 25 years. Inspired by Jack Kemp at a college speech in 1988,I went on to work as an intern for Sen. Pete Wilson, R-Calif., and then for President George H.W. Bushs re-election campaign in 1992. Beyond that, I worked for former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, R-N.J.And then, in 1997,as the first Black female counsel to the Republican majority on the House Reform and Oversight Committee Counsel.

History of Henrietta Wood: The Backstory: The little known story about a former slave who sued her captor and won

But once Trump was nominated and elected in 2016, I, like many moderates and centrists, became a never Trumper. I was an early senior adviser to the Lincoln Project when it launched in January 2020. And I now find myself in June 2020 disillusioned with the Never Trump movement, as it is too white and too male.

Let me say it plainly. If todays Republicans think that marching in Black Lives Matter solidarity with Sen. Mitt Romney one day, then singing Trump's praises the next day, makes you woke, then they are clueless as to the power and impact of this national moment. If todays Republicans think President Trump can throw the black community false sound-bites like I have done more for black people than any presidentwhile turningNational Guardsmen and police against peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square, then they are very wrong.

The 19th-centuryparty of Lincoln was one that stood for the unity of the union. Freedom for the enslaved. Opportunity for the oppressed. The 21st-centuryparty of Donald Trump stands for racial slurs, placing Hispanic babies in cages, telling duly-elected congresswomen of color to go back to where they came from, and hiding in a bunker during historic protests in support of racial equality and justice. It's no wonder that Mary Elizabeth Taylor, a senior State Department official and one of the administration's high-ranking African Americans, followed "the dictates of my conscience" and resigned on Thursday.

JUSTICE Act: GOP Sen. Tim Scott: I've choked on fear when stopped by police. We need the JUSTICE Act.

Make no mistake, what Trump is about to do in Tulsa is dangerous. Even if he gives lip service to racial justice and police reform, he is signaling from the pulpit of the presidency that he will preserve, protect, and defend the whiteness of America. When Republicans like Lankford harken back to Lincolns freeing of the slaves to prove they are not racist, that will not cut it in this pivotal moment for America on race relations.

Richard Nixon, with his southern strategy in 1968, accelerated the process of destroying the GOPs legacy as the party of Lincoln. Donald Trump has finished the job.

Sophia A. Nelson is a CNN commentator, journalist, and author of E Pluribus One: Reclaiming Our Founders' Vision for a United America. Follow her on Twitter:@IAmSophiaNelson

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/20/republican-name-only-trump-and-death-lincolns-party-column/3221447001/

Read the original post:
Trump, Tulsa and the demise of Lincolns Republican Party - USA TODAY

Click here to read the full article.

President Donald Trump, supported by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), raised a major controversy in early June by suggesting that active-duty troops be used to impose order in the streets of American cities. The Trump administration made moves toward implementing that suggestion, including dispatching part of the Armys 82nd Airborne Division to locations just outside Washington, DC. The response in opposition by former senior military officerswith former defense secretary James Mattiss statement being the most eloquenthas been heartfelt and appropriate.

As part of Trumps guns-and-toughness posturing, the president has conflated the notion of Army troops confronting American citizens in American cities with another favorite part of that posturing, which is the gun rights issue invoking the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Trump made that conflation explicit in the Rose Garden speech that he delivered shortly before Attorney General William Barr ordered the use of stun grenades and tear gas to clear a path to Trumps photo-op at a church. In the speech, Trump stated, I am mobilizing all available federal resourcescivilian and militaryto stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson, and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, including your Second Amendment rights.

Trumps further rhetoric on this assortment of issues has been contradictory. He has shown no fondness for public order when egging on protestors who have resisted the authority of governors while threatening violence and brandishing assault rifles in state capitol buildings. Moreover, invoking the Second Amendment in the same breath as threatening to put active-duty military personnel into the streets involves another contradiction, as a matter of law and history.

The Second Amendment is about well-regulated militias. It says in the first line of the amendment that a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. For over two centuries the courts did not regard it as limiting the power of states and localities to enact laws regulating individual ownership of firearms. Then, in 2008, lobbying spearheaded by the National Rifle Association finally got five Supreme Court justices in Heller v. District of Columbia to abandon any semblance of original intent and construe the Second Amendment as a basis for striking down gun control laws that have nothing to do with militias, let alone well-regulated ones.

Story continues

When the Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part, was written, militias were in good odor among Americans of all political persuasions. Militias, after all, deserved much of the credit for standing up to the British Redcoats during the American Revolution.

After independence, militias became an important part of two over-arching political issues. One was the issue of how much power the new federal government would have relative to the authority of the states. Enactment of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, was a concession by the federalists to the anti-federalists who considered it vital to restrict the powers of the federal government and keep it out of the business of the states, including the business of preserving local order.

This subject was closely related to the second big and relevant issue, which was a general antipathy to standing armies. As much as militias were in good odor among Americans of that day, a full-time military under the control of a central government was in bad odor. (After the almost complete demobilization of the Continental Army at the end of the Revolution, this attitude was reflected in U.S. policy until increased tensions in the 1790s, first with Britain and then with France, led to the restoration of a small standing military.) The strong pro-militia statement the Second Amendment makes was a statement against any federal army butting into the states business. The right to bear arms was made universal out of a fear that the federal government might butt into the states business not only through the deployment of a federal army but also by limiting the size of a states militia. Baron von Steuben, the Prussian officer who became George Washingtons inspector general during the Revolution, had suggested just such a limitation.

In short, the Second Amendment embodies opposition to the very use of federal troops that Donald Trump and Tom Cotton are talking about. The authors and early champions of the amendment would be appalled to hear it invoked by those arguing that a federal army should be used to corral and coerce American citizens in the streets of American cities.

Useful context is provided by the Third Amendment, which protects citizens against having to quarter soldiers in their homes. The Third Amendment, like the Second Amendment, is a statement against standing armies getting involved in the local lives of Americans. Today, no one is talking about restoring that kind of military housing arrangement, and the Third Amendment is perhaps the least-cited portion of the entire Constitution. But reading itas well as that first line of the Second Amendmentwould aid understanding of the underlying issues.

Paul Pillar retired in 2005 from a twenty-eight-year career in the U.S. intelligence community, in which his last position was National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia. Earlier he served in a variety of analytical and managerial positions, including as chief of analytic units at the CIA covering portions of the Near East, the Persian Gulf, and South Asia. Professor Pillar also served in the National Intelligence Council as one of the original members of its Analytic Group. He is also a Contributing Editor for this publication.

Image: Reuters

Click here to read the full article.

Read the rest here:
How Donald Trump Abused the Second Amendment - Yahoo News

In response to a number of emails sent to the Kalispell City Council regarding the national debate over defunding police departments, the council assured residents at a recent meeting that the current police department funding would be maintained as it was originally set for the 2021 fiscal year.

The councils June 15 meeting agenda didnt have any items regarding police funding, but numerous people from the public showed up at council chambers to address the issue, as well as to discuss the recent Black Lives Matter protest in Kalispell.

We do fund our police force in Kalispell, Mayor Mark Johnson said. We dont anticipate ever cutting the funding for the police force and we will maintain that funding for as long as I am the mayor.

The proposed 2021 budget for the police department will remain at $5,659,635, a 6.85% increase from the 2020 fiscal year, which the council will finalize this summer.

I think that all of us on the council agree that chain emails are not necessarily how we make decisions, Councilor Kyle Waterman said. Ive seen chain emails from both sides in my inbox they are fairly full and that is not how we make decisions and thats not how we are swayed on funding things.

Community members attended the meeting to express their views on Kalispells Black Lives Matter protest, which occurred on June 6 in Depot Park and included the presence of members of the Flathead Patriot Guard, many who were armed with high-powered rifles and said they were there as peacekeepers.

Roughly 25 local Flathead Valley residents spoke during public comment, some supporting the peacekeepers and others against them, but all speakers agreed in their support of the police department.

I do understand theres some individuals that would like to reform or defund our law enforcement, and Im also concerned about those who are here who exercise their Second Amendment rights, Kalispell resident Bill Miles said, who expressed his support for local police.

While several other residents expressed their support for the police department and the Second Amendment rights on display at the June 6 protest, others spoke out against the armed peacekeepers.

I was (at the protest) with my parents with my granddaughter with my children I was of course shocked to see the heavily armed men all through that park, Valeri McGarvey said. Thats not something Ive ever been around and frankly it didnt feel peaceful. I didnt feel protected. It was frightening to me and very stressful.

Others defended the armed individuals at the protest, saying they were needed after hearing rumors, which were ultimately unfounded, that Antifa, an anti-fascist group, would also be at the protest.

We had intel that Black Lives Matter was coming in to town, Kalispell resident Dennis Gomez said. And also when Black Lives Matter comes into town, Antifa follows with them. Antifa are the rioters We went to the war memorial; I am a veteran of Vietnam We are here to protect our war memorial and our community.

But other residents at the meeting felt that protection should be the responsibility of the police department.

I went to the Black Lives Matter protest and I have a different perspective than a lot of you do, Kalispell resident and Kalispell Regional Healthcare nurse Tara Lee said. I am so grateful for our police. I believe in our police force here within town. I didnt feel that there needed to be excess firearms because I entrust my life with the police who are already here.

The council agreed on the importance of supporting the police department and felt the event was a learning experience for the future.

Im very pleased that when we got to that evening at midnight and checked in and nothing had happened, I was much relieved, Johnson said. But I want to carry on some of that conversation because I think theres a lot that we can learn from this. I think theres a lot of misinformation or lack of information shared amongst the different people who put in community input, but I do want to have that conversation.

Go here to read the rest:
Police Funding, Second Amendment Discussed at Kalispell Council - Flathead Beacon

Members of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly along with the borough mayor have embarked on a pointless effort to declare the borough a Sanctuary for the Second Amendment, an entirely unnecessary response to sensible and judicious gun-control efforts in Alaska and around the nation.

Ordinance 2020-29 is to be introduced at Tuesdays regular assembly meeting on June 16. It is sponsored by Mayor Charlie Pierce and Assembly Members Norm Blakely, of Soldotna, Jesse Bjorkman, of Nikiski, and Ken Carpenter, of Seward.

If adopted, it would declare the borough a Second Amendment Sanctuary, committing it to a policy of refusing to enforce state and federal legislation it deemed restrictive of Second Amendment rights. What exactly does that mean for a Second-Class borough with no police powers?

The national movement behind this ordinance stole the language of the Sanctuary City Movement that aimed to protect immigrants documented or not from abusive federal civil codes. Local governments are not required to spend local tax dollars to help federal authorities enforce civil law.

Ordinance 2020-29, however, would place the borough in the position of declining to enforce criminal law governing who can carry and under what conditions. Neither the borough nor its subset of cities has the authority to do that.

The pertinent therefor clause reads as follows:

That the assembly hereby expresses its intent to uphold the Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding citizens of the Kenai Peninsula Borough and that public funds, resources, employees, buildings or offices not be used to restrict Second Amendment rights or to aid or assist in the enforcement of the unnecessary and unconstitutional restriction of the rights under the Second Amendment of the citizens of the Kenai Peninsula Borough to keep and bear arms.

That certainly begs a huge question: Who gets to declare a law passed by the Alaska Legislature or the U.S. Congress unnecessary and unconstitutional? Cadres of so-called patriots who like to parade around armed to the teeth? I hope not. The Kenai Peninsula Borough? It lacks the power precisely because state laws supersede municipal ordinances.

Indeed, only Alaska Courts can declare a law unconstitutional.

Alaska law (Title 29) specifically declares the authority to regulate firearms is reserved to the state. The borough is constrained from enacting any law restricting firearms that are not identical to state law. That constraint also means the borough cannot decline to enforce laws merely because local elected officials or their constituents dont like them. For cities that have police powers, state gun laws represent an enforcement requirement that is not discretionary.

Though subject to federal jurisdiction, Alaskas gun laws are minimal and reasonable by any measure. As long as youre 21, Alaska requires no registration or permit to carry rifles, shotguns and handguns. They prohibit guns in or near schools, unless locked in the trunk of a car and the owners are of age. Firearms are banned from courthouses, day-care centers and shelters for victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse. Nor is one permitted to carry a weapon into a bar, or when drinking. Are the sponsors actually proposing that the borough be put in the position of declaring such reasonable statutes unconstitutional?

The Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. It needs no sanctuary. Those who believe it is so weak it requires the toothless protection of third- or fourth-level governments like boroughs, counties and cities misunderstand the Constitution, dont fathom the real meaning of the Second Amendment nor grasp the limitations placed upon it by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Declaring ones borough a Second Amendment Sanctuary may have rhythmical appeal to the paranoid ears of reactionaries, but the designation will have absolutely no power under state or federal law. The borough has far more important business to attend to. It cannot afford to enact an ordinance destined to lose a constitutional challenge.

Hal Spence is a former Homer News and Peninsula Clarion reporter now retired. He lives in Homer with his wife Lynn.

Link:
Voices of the Peninsula: The Second Amendment needs no sanctuary - Kenai Peninsula Online

U.S. President Donald Trump walks on the South Lawn of the White House upon his return to Washington, U.S., after a weekend in Bedminster, New Jersey, June 14, 2020.

Yuri Gripas | Reuters

President Donald Trumpraged Thursday against recent Supreme Court decisions, calling them "horrible & politically charged," and "shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives."

"We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!" the president wrote in a tweet shortly after the Supreme Court ruled against his administration in its effort to undo a program known as DACA.

The Obama-era programprotectshundredsofthousandsof young undocumented immigrants from deportation.

"Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn't like me?" Trump wrote in a second Twitter post.

The president earlier Thursday retweeted a news site that highlighted Judge Clarence Thomas' dissenting opinion in the DACA ruling.

The DACA opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the four liberal justices on the high court in the ruling that said the Trump administration acted in an"arbitrary and capricious" manner to terminate the program, formally known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Roberts was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush, a Republican. The chief justice has repeatedly irked his fellow conservatives by sometimes joining with liberal justices in rulings that were opposed by Republicans, most notably in decisions that protected the health-care law known as Obamacare.

On Monday the Supreme Court, in a ruling written by Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch, said that workers cannot be fired for being gay or transgender.

Trump at the time had said of that ruling that "some people were surprised" with the decision but "they've ruled, and we live with their decision."

"That's what it's all about. We live with the decision of the Supreme Court," the president said.

On the same day as the ruling in the gay and transgender cases was released, the high court refused to hear a challenge brought by the Trump administration to California's so-called sanctuary law, limiting the impact of the president's immigration agenda in that state.

Also on Monday, the Supreme Court likewise refused to consider hearing appeals on 10 Second Amendment-related cases that have been backed by activists who want to loosen gun regulations.

In contrast to Trump's vitriol over the Supreme Court, his predecessor in the White House, President Barack Obama, lauded the DACA decision on Twitter and used it as an opportunity to tout the Democratic presidential candidacy of his vice president, Joe Biden.

"Eight years ago this week, we protected young people who were raised as part of our American family from deportation," Obama wrote.

"Today, I'm happy for them, their families, and all of us. We may look different and come from everywhere, but what makes us American are our shared ideals," Obama wrote. "And now to stand up for those ideals, we have to move forward and elect @JoeBiden and a Democratic Congress that does its job, protects DREAMers, and finally creates a system that's truly worthy of this nation of immigrants once and for all."

Biden later weighed in himself, writing on Twitter: "The Supreme Court's ruling today is a victory made possible by the courage and resilience of hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients who bravely stood up and refused to be ignored. And as President, I will get to work immediately to make it permanent."

The rest is here:
Trump calls Supreme Court rulings 'shotgun blasts into the face' of Republicans, conservatives - CNBC

(The Center Square) A lawsuit against New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham over COVID-19 orders that shuttered firearm retailers has been dismissed after the restrictions were lifted.

The conservative-leaning Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) and Second Amendment rights groups sued the governor in federal court in April because the state's COVID-19order that closed some businesses included gun stores.

Lujan Grisham later revised the order to exclude licensed firearm retailers, allowing them to reopen with restrictions.

MSLF, the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and New Mexico Shooting Sports Association (NMSSA) joined in the federal lawsuit challenging the order. Gun owners were also named as plaintiffs in the case.

The lawsuit's backers argued that the closure of firearm retailers, ranges, and repair facilities violated the Second Amendment rights for many state residents. Federal law and New Mexico law almost entirely prohibit the sale of firearms except through authorized sellers at physical retail locations.

MSLF said Monday that it "agreed to voluntarily dismiss" the lawsuit since gun retailers in New Mexico have been allowed to reopen.

Gov. Grisham overstepped her constitutional limits when she attempted to restrict New Mexicans right to keep and bear arms, said Cody Wisniewski, the MSLF attorney representing gun shops and groups. While we celebrate our victory today, we are prepared to spring back into action should she attempt to reclose firearm retailers and infringe on the natural rights of New Mexicans again.

NRA members and law-abiding gun owners earned a victory today, NRA-ILA Director of Litigation Counsel Michael Jean said in a statement.

A statement from Lujan Grishams office after the revised order said that federally licensed firearm retailers may open by appointment only as needed conduct background checks and to allow individuals to take possession of firearms ordered online.

COVID-19 numbers across New Mexico have stabilized, according to data from the state Department of Health. There are at least 447 total deaths related to COVID-19 infection.

The rest is here:
Lawsuit against New Mexico governor dropped after firearm retailers allowed to reopen - The Center Square

Polk County voters will consider two county charter amendments and a business tax incentive program on the Nov. 3 ballot.

BARTOW Polk County voters will get another bite of the apple on two charter amendments and renewal of a measure granting tax breaks to new or expanding businesses in the county.

The Polk County Commission on Tuesday voted unanimously to put two previously rejected county charter amendments on the Nov. 3 general election ballot.

One amendment dealt with how often a citizens Charter Review Commission would meet, extending the period from every eight years to 12 years. The second amendment would abolish another citizens group, the Efficiency Commission, which is also scheduled to meet every eight years.

The Charter Commission last met in 2017 and recommended both amendments. Both failed in the 2018 general election.

Extending the interim charter review period to 12 years captured 50.6% of the vote, but it needed 60% to pass. A majority of voters, 53%, also approved abolishing the Efficiency Commission, also falling short of the 60% threshold.

The Efficiency Commission last met from 2013 into the following year and recommended abolishing itself by an 11-7 vote in its last meeting.

That commission recommended almost $10 million in supposed savings, The Ledger reported, but its unclear whether any savings approaching that were realized. It had cost $450,000 to operate.

County Manager Bill Beasley said Tuesday he didnt think the Efficiency Commission served a purpose.

"What Ive seen in the time Ive been here is that there were few efficiencies that surfaced that had any merit to pursue," said Beasley, a county employee since 2006. "The county is not perfect, but were pretty efficient."

Previous efficiency recommendations turned out to be things the county was pursing already, he said.

Commissioner George Lindsey has argued the charter, Polk governments fundamental document, does not need to be reviewed every eight years.

Past review bodies performed no more than "ministerial tweaking," he said.

Commissioners also unanimously approved putting the tax break measure on the ballot.

It asks voters to reauthorize an 8-year-old program that empowers the County Commission to give property tax abatements to new companies relocating to the county or to existing Polk businesses that expand their operations.

Polk voters approved the tax incentive program in the Nov. 6, 2012, election with a 10-year sunset provision.

Sean Malott, president and CEO of the Central Florida Development Council, Polks economic development agency, asked the commission to put renewal on this Novembers ballot to give supporters a second chance in 2022 if it fails.

Under the incentive program, new or existing companies can get an abatement on their county tax bill only for creating new, high-paying jobs, Malott said. It does not abate property taxes for schools and special tax districts.

Kevin Bouffard can be reached at kevin.bouffard@theledger.com or at 863-802-7591.

View post:
2 Polk charter amendments, tax break will be on Nov. 3 ballot - The Ledger