Mediaboss Marketing

The following op-ed is written by State Rep. Savannah Maddox (R-Dry Ridge).

Nearly a decade has passed since the Obama administration implemented Operation Chokepoint, under which the Department of Justice sought to discourage banks from doing business with industries, like the firearm industry, that the administration opposed. The Trump administration rightly discontinued this initiative in 2017. However, financial institutions have continued to cave to political pressure applied by anti-gun billionaires and gun control groups and are refusing to conduct business with the firearm industry more frequently than before.

A recent survey of firearm industry members conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., demonstrated nearly 75% of surveyed businesses reported being denied financial services solely because of their affiliation with the firearm industry. Manufacturers of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), firearms which are deceptively labeled assault rifles by anti-gun groups, are not the only ones impacted. You do not have to look far to find a shooting range offering gun safety classes that has been denied the ability to process credit cards or manufacturers of hunting equipment that have been denied business loans.

These denials are not based onlegitimate credit worthiness or credit risk, but simply on political bias. This political bias on behalf of banks exists even as they receive an extraordinary amount of taxpayer-funded financial support through agencies and programs including the FDIC, Automated Clearing House, Open Window, the Federal Reserve System, and more. It is wholly inappropriate for the taxpayer- supported financial services industry to discriminate against any lawful business that provides goods which are necessary to the exercise of the Second Amendment rights of those same taxpayers.

In recent years, however, lawmakers at the state and federal level have begun to push back against this financial discrimination. For instance, a law was enacted in Georgia to prohibit discrimination against the firearm industry in 2016. In 2018, Louisiana State Treasurer John Schroder helped keep Citigroup, Inc. and Bank of America from participating in bond sales because of their policies that discriminate against the firearm industry.

The Freedom Financing Act was introduced in the last Congress by U.S. Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and John Kennedy (R-LA), and in the House by Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX). Finally, earlier this month the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) finalized a rule that prohibits banking discrimination against lawful industries like the firearm industry. Acting Director of the OCC Brian Brooks summed up the threat succinctly in an op-ed recently published inGame & Fish Magazine; If successful, the powerful interests at work will restrict Second Amendment rights and availability of sporting arms by suffocating the industry from capital and financing that make them possible. Rather than winning national policy debates through elections and facing the legal substrate of our great Constitution, loud factions are simply pestering bankers to succumb to their political will.

As a legislator in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, I have a responsibility to stand up for the Second Amendment rights of the citizens I represent. Allowing financial discrimination against the firearms industry poses just as much of a threat to the people who seek to exercise their right to keep and bear arms as it does to the entities that supply the goods which enable them to do so. That is why I introducedHouse Bill 175 this Session, which passed the house earlier this week and awaits consideration in the Kentucky Senate. This bill does not prevent any bank or financial institution from making standard business decisions, nor does it preclude them from making legitimate determinations pertaining to credit worthiness or credit risk. It does, however, stipulate that financial institutions may not implement a policy of discriminating against the firearm industry at large. This bill was filed in support of over 4,000 Kentuckians who are currently employed by the firearm industry, as well as several thousand law enforcement and military personnel who rely on equipment and facilities that the Kentucky firearm industry supports. This legislation is for all Kentuckians who exercise their Second Amendment rights today, and for all who will do so in the future.

Representative SavannahMaddox(R) represents Kentuckys District 61 in the Commonwealths General Assembly.

The rest is here:
Op-Ed: To Protect 2nd Amendment Rights, Kentuckians Should Support Fair Access to Financial Services - The River City News

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

Westmoreland County commissioners will approve a resolution to support gun rights this week.

Republican commissioners Sean Kertes and Doug Chew, along with Democrat Gina Cerilli Thrasher, said they will declare Westmoreland a Second Amendment County, a move they concede has no teeth but shows support for gun owners.

There are bills seeking to take away our Second Amendment rights in the Legislature, and we want to work with our local law enforcement agencies, our sheriff, to protect our Second Amendment rights, Kertes said We want to protect our ability to own rifles and high-capacity magazines.

Commissioners did not disclose the text of the resolution they will consider at their meeting Thursday but said it is based on a similar resolution approved this month in Washington County. That resolution, according to Washington County commissioners, would enable nonenforcement of gun control laws prohibiting ownership of certain weapons if officials believe the law to be unconstitutional.

Kertes said Westmorelands proposed resolution will carry no specific policy directives.

Our powers are limited, but we want the public to know we are standing with them, Kertes said.

Thrasher called the resolution silly but said she will vote for its passage.

I am pro-Second Amendment, but I dont really understand the purpose of this resolution. We dont have any jurisdiction over the United States Constitution and the Second Amendment, Thrasher said.

In addition to Washington, commissioners in Greene and Fayette counties approved similar resolutions, and Westmorelands leaders said Thursdays vote is part of an effort to unify the region in support of gun rights.

Josh Fleitman, the Western Pennsylvania manager for the gun-control advocacy group Ceasefire PA, said resolutions such as the one under consideration in Westmoreland are unenforceable.

It does nothing to make the county safer and, in fact, makes counties less safe and creates confusion about how and when gun laws will be enforced, Fleitman said. Its kind a solution in search of a problem.

Chew said he will support the Second Amendment resolution, which he described as no different than other proclamations on key issues.

We are limited in jurisdiction, but governments all over pass resolutions in favor of key issues, Chew said. The County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania sends out resolutions they suggest we adopt annually. This isnt one sent by CCAP, but its the same: our support for the full Second Amendment rights granted in both the commonwealth and federal constitutions.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293, rcholodofsky@triblive.com or via Twitter .

Categories:Local | Top Stories | Westmoreland

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More Westmoreland Stories

Read the rest here:
Commissioners to declare Westmoreland a 'Second Amendment County' in favor of gun rights - TribLIVE

I feel like its time we had a discussion about a now very topical subject. Our rights. Specifically as laid out in the Bill of Rights. Beautiful, God-given rights that would have been lost long ago without the Second Amendment.

Our founders put the right to bear arms in the number two spot for a very good reason. It was their way of saying, Here are your top five God-given rights, and here is how you defend them.

With very serious enemies of those rights and specifically the right to bear arms, in the White House the Second Amendment is once again a very hot topic of conversation. As such, it needs to be understood as thoroughly as possibly. What does it mean sentence by sentence? Lets find out:

A well-regulated militia: This has been interpreted to mean different things depending on the view of the interpreter. The Left wants it to mean the National Guard or similar force. The Right says it means the people. George Mason of Virginia famously said, What is the militia? It is the whole of the people. Those words are used to support the people argument.

However, if you read the Federalist Papers and the letters of the Founders you come to a slightly different meaning.

In essays 27 through 29 of the Federalist Papers (written by Alexander Hamilton), you clearly see that the term, a well-regulated militia, means a standing professional army. An army in the control of the central or federal government.

It is important to know that the citizens of the new United States of America had a very strong aversion to the government having a professional army. Such armies have been used throughout history to subjugate societies everywhere. The people of the USA did not want that.

This desire creates a problem because a nation, any nation, absolutely needs a military to remain free and sovereign.

That brings us to the second portion of the sentence, being necessary to the security of a free state,

Hamilton and Madison were attempting to convince the people of the necessity and assure them it could be done without threat of subjugation.

If it were to be written in the common speech of today, we might say it like this: A professional military, including a Navy, is necessary for the security of a free nation; however, because it is a danger to allow the government to have that military and navy, every citizen must be armed and trained if possible.

They wrote it as a constitutional right.

Far too often these days, we tend to use the term self-defense and that allows the enemies of the Constitution to claim its not necessary, because the police protect us. The police and that very military.

As citizens of our country, we are always ready to respond in a minute, (Minute men and women) are the militia in waiting. We are not a well-regulated militia. We are armed because of the inherent danger of that very necessary well-regulated militia. It really is very simple and straight forward.

I read one book of letters from the Revolutionary War period and do not remember the name of the writer, but he stated The Second Amendment allowed the average citizen to remain armed in a fashion equal to or in excess of the common soldier. A fairly high percentage of the people that owned their own firearms had rifles.

Today we call them Kentucky rifles, though most were made in Pennsylvania. Accurate to sometimes 300 or 400 yards. The weapon used by military was a musket, unrifled, and very inaccurate.

When Biden says we dont need AR-15s for self-defense, hes right. We do, however, need them to remain armed equal to or in excess of the common soldier, or as close as possible on a budget. We need them to prevent the subjugation of ourselves.

When we speak of the Second Amendment we need to speak of it in those terms, the ability to defend our freedom. Stopping a burglar or killing a trophy elk are just very nice bonuses.

In the future when you hear Biden or Harris say that you dont need an AR-15 to hunt deer understand its a distraction. Dont fall for it.

Rusty Rogers is a resident of Saratoga who pens a weekly article for the Rawlins Times.

Read more:
The Second Amendment | Opinion | wyomingnews.com - Wyoming Tribune

The Ellsworth City Council voted 6-1 Monday night against a resolution that would have declared the city a Second Amendment sanctuary.

The rejection in Ellsworth follows the recent approval of similar resolutions in a handful of small Maine towns taking stances against federal gun control measures that have yet to pass Congress.

The councils vote against the measure, submitted by Councilor Michelle Kaplan, came after Glenn Moshier, the city manager and police chief, expressed concern for how the resolution might create ambiguity or confusion for the citys police officers, who take an oath to uphold the state and U.S. constitutions.

Kaplan argued in favor of the resolution, though she ended up voting not to support it. Gene Lyons was the only councilor who voted in favor of the resolution.

Kaplan, who described herself as a law-abiding gun owner, said residents asked her to propose the resolution, which would help send a message to Congress to not enact additional restrictions on gun ownership that she claimed would be a blatant violation of our constitutional rights. Among the possible restrictions would be expanded background checks, limits on ammunition, increased taxes on gun sales and other barriers to entry, Kaplan said.

City Council Chair Dale Hamilton, who described himself as a supporter of the Second Amendment, said he had concerns about any city declaring itself a sanctuary from federal law, whether the law pertains to immigration or the right to carry firearms.

It sets a dangerous precedent, Hamilton said. You cant decide when you want to be a sanctuary city and when you dont.

Other municipalities in Maine that have considered and approved similar resolutions against proposals that they say would violate the Second Amendment include Paris, Fort Fairfield and Van Buren.

Approximately 40 people weighed in on the debate during Monday nights meeting, either in person or by emailing comments to Hamilton that he read aloud, with sentiment on the resolution more or less evenly split.

John Linnehan told members of the council that each of them swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, while Gwen Clark said she wouldnt feel safe living in a city that didnt support the Second Amendment.

Todd Little-Siebold countered that drafting the city budget and managing the citys handling of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic are two far greater priorities for the council than trying to intervene in federal politics.

It is unnecessary and purely symbolic, Little-Siebold said. Keep your focus on local issues. Dont play into the gun lobby scare tactics.

Councilor Heather Grindle said she shares many of the concerns of people who do not want additional restrictions on gun ownership, but that she is hesitant to pick and choose which federal laws Ellsworth should single out for support. She also said she wanted to learn more about how the resolution might affect local law enforcement.

Im listening and I share your frustration, but Im not quite there yet, Grindle said.

Members of the council agreed that, whatever their vote was Monday on Kaplans proposal, they would be able to consider a similar declaration of support for gun ownership rights at a future meeting, if another proposal were submitted.

See the article here:
Ellsworth rejects bid to declare itself a Second Amendment sanctuary - Bangor Daily News

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

I have spent a lot of my lawyering years practicing and teaching civil rights. The Second Amendment is something I know a great deal about. That the Westmoreland County commissioners, or any county commissioners, should pass a resolution in support of the Second Amendment strikes me as a rather meretricious vote-fishing endeavor (Commissioners to declare Westmoreland a Second Amendment County in favor of gun rights, March 16, TribLIVE).

No government entity wants to take away anyones rights under the Second Amendment. What is at issue is the Second Amendments true and intended scope and reach. Its language is not absolute and never has been. Like all other amendments, it is subject to reasonable restrictions, and even Justice Antonin Scalia, considered by many to be the patron saint of gun lovers, acknowledged that such weapons as assault rifles could be lawfully banned.

Such silly resolutions as proposed by the county commissioners only serve to embolden the misguided who think that no one can constitutionally take away any of their beloved killing machines. Perhaps the commissioners would do well to think of how such meaningless resolutions only lather up the gun lovers mistaken Second Amendment notions rather than promote respect for the law and its real meanings.

David Millstein

Naples, Fla.

The writer is a Greensburg native.

Categories:Letters to the Editor | Opinion

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More Letters to the Editor Stories

Read the original post:
Letter to the editor: Commissioners misguided on gun-rights resolution - TribLIVE