Mediaboss Marketing

A man whose conviction for holding an unloaded shotgun in his home while drunk was upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court is taking his case to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

The case is State v. Weber, which as has been noted on our site, "involves a situation where despite the defendants wife telling police there was no longer a problem, they pressed their way in. There they found her admittedly inebriated but nonthreatening husband who, while he did have a shotgun, told police it was not loaded, which they proved for themselves."

Weber was charged with violating R.C. 2923.15(A), which states: No person, while under the influence of alcohol or drugs of abuse, shall carry or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance.

After a bench trial, Weber was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days in jail with all 10 days suspended. He also was placed on community control for one year, ordered to complete eight hours of community service, and fined $100.

When the Twelfth District Court of Appeals court upheld his conviction, it ruled as follows:

Furthermore, R.C.2923.15 does not, as suggested by appellant, criminalize the mere presence of a firearm in the home of an intoxicated person. Nor does the statute, as suggested by appellant, prohibit a person from carrying or using a firearm after consuming alcoholic beverages. Rather, the statute only prohibits the use or carrying of a firearm by a person who has imbibed to the point of intoxication.

Mr. Weber appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, and that body narrowly ruled against him as well.

In a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sharon L. Kennedy and Judith L. French, Justice Patrick F. Fischer write that courts have been divided about the proper way to test the constitutionality of firearm laws since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008. He observed the Weber decision follows an interest-balancing test created by federal courts. He suggested Ohio adopt another approach that focuses on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment to see if the challenged law or rule is consistent with the scope of the right as originally understood.

Justice Fischer also noted that state and federal courts would benefit from more clarity from SCOTUS on how to evaluate challenges to laws claiming to violate the Second Amendment. He wrote that instead of using the convoluted two-step approach, the Court should follow the Heller and McDonald decisions and look at the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.

Justice Patrick DeWine concurred in the majority opinion, but also argued separately that the majority's analysis was not protective of Second Amendment rights because it "improperly applied an 'interest balancing' test rather than evaluate the challenged restriction based upon the original understanding of the Second Amendment," according to the court.

If Weber's petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court is granted, those calling for SCOTUS to provide clarity may get their wish. Weber is asking the court to determine the proper standard of constitutional review of a law that impacts the core value of the Second Amendment.

"The disagreement in the Ohio Supreme Court is emblematic of the confusion gripping the nation's lower courts," he wrote. "But confusion is not the only problem. The outcome of a wrongfully applied standard can significantly dilute the core protection of the Second Amendment."

As firearms rights advocate David Codrea wrote when covering this case for AmmoLand.com:

The point of intoxication, as defined by Ohios OVI laws is a Blood Alcohol Content of 0.08, or 0.02 if under 21. Significantly, a citizen old enough to serve in the military can reach that level after only one drink. And its fair to ask how many of us, especially with the holidays approaching, will be inclined to consume several adult beverages over the course of a family gathering. What if youre carrying, and not all blurry-eyed and speech-slurring like the hapless Mr. Weber was reported to be, but just right there at the legal limit for driving? Where is the compelling state interest to define that as the limit point?

...

"Still, this isnt a popular case for most 'gun rights' lobbying groups to make a big noise defendingwho wants to endure the optics of arguing guns for drunks? Regardless, the fact remains that there are already ways to deal with people who brandish, and who attack others with weapons. This isnt about public safety, its about another inroad to citizen disarmament. As for people who have proven they cant or wont control themselves, taking their tools but leaving them able to harm others is never the solution."

Chad D. Baus served as Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary from 2013-2019. He is co-founder of BFA-PAC, and served as its Vice Chairman for 15 years. He is the editor of BuckeyeFirearms.org, which received the Outdoor Writers of Ohio 2013 Supporting Member Award for Best Website, and is also an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Related Articles:

Does Ohio Supreme Court ruling threaten right to bear arms in own home?

Gun and Alcohol Case Could Put Citizens at Risk in Their Own Homes

Go here to see the original:
SCOTUS asked to take up State v. Weber, Ohio case with Second Amendment implications - Buckeye Firearms Association

We take cars more seriously than we do guns. The fact I can buy an assault rifle at a gun show in Texas without a background check but cannot yet import the Nissan GTR sports car renowned for its performance and cult following due to safety concerns and regulations, should indicate something is seriously wrong with the way we treat guns in this country.

Something needs to be done about firearm regulation, especially with the increase of mass shootings in the past decade. The problem is that it is a lot easier said than done, as it requires an extensive reevaluation and understanding of our countrys laws and culture.

First, many people want to get rid of the Second Amendment, but is that realistic?

People should be able to defend themselves, but the right to bear arms is an abstract statement anything can theoretically be a weapon. The freedom to defend ones self is not going anywhere. However, in terms of guns and ammunition, the Second Amendment is out of date and needs to be looked at for relevancy for this century.

The definition of arms is much more diverse than it was in the 18th century. A distinction needs to be made between a gun for hunting or defense and a purpose-built weapon of war. That difference probably was difficult to identify until the 1940s, but now it is a little more obvious.

The AR-15, what the National Rifle Association calls Americas rifle, is the gun predominantly used in mass shootings because that is what it was designed to do by definition, it is an assault rifle. It has been used by the military in some form or another since the Vietnam War. Do civilians really need weapons designed for urban combat, capable of killing 30 people or more with one magazine? Its a bit much.

The concept of a state militia as described by the Second Amendment, which would justify the general population having access to such military-grade weapons, needs to be amended. We have a standing army made of our citizens, and all states have a National Guard that fulfills that role. All 50 states prohibit paramilitary activities. If people want to play soldier, they should join the armed forces.

As much as one can argue civilians should not have access to assault weapons, removing them is not going to happen anytime soon and might not do anything. While banning assault weapons would solve the issue of people going on killing sprees, gun ownership is so culturally ingrained in this country that resistance to a ban would be significant, and it most definitely would not pass as legislation.

We have to find a way for society to live with these kinds of weapons in a more productive and less dangerous way. We might not be able to prevent someone from getting an assault weapon outright, but hopefully there can be a way to reduce the lethality and frequency of mass shootings. For now, it needs to be a lot harder for people who are violent, extremists with radical beliefs, suicidal or have a criminal history to get weapons.

It wouldnt be a bad idea to make a federal law requiring people to become certified to own a gun. Its a weapon and that demands a sense of responsibility. We are required to have insurance to drive; we have to pass a test, have good eyesight and follow strict rules with the fear of heavy penalties. It would make sense if there were some similar accountability for assault weapons.

As of now, only the AR-15s receiver is regulated by the government. That equates to the chassis of a car and does not consider modification or additions. But this is a gun, not a car it is meant to kill.

Committing to mandatory background checks prior to selling firearms and keeping that database up to date are ways we can address this issue.

We need to give gun regulation the same respect we do with cars; decrease lethality by regulating their caliber, the types of ammunition sold, as well as limit modifications and magazine capacity to something police departments are comfortable with managing. Because at the end of the day, police officers are the ones who have to resolve mass shootings. Perhaps they should be the ones saying what needs to be done, not a senator.

Unfortunately, politicians still havent done anything after dozens of shootings. So why should anyone believe another dozen will change anything?

The subject of guns has been a political issue for decades. Neither party seems to respect the others point of view; instead, many politicians prefer to spread destructive conspiracies about the subject. Part of the problem is the NRA, which holds a great deal of political influence. As long as its grip remains strong, many lawmakers will be afraid to act.

Both sides need to compromise on this and find a happy medium that addresses the issue properly. It shouldnt be this hard or controversial.

Read the original here:
Second Amendment here to stay, but more regulation necessary - Santa Fe New Mexican

SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISMThe article youre about to read is from our reporters doing their important work investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers businesses have been impacted. Thats why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insiders program here. Thank you.

JOIN NOW

EARLE MCNEIL, San Clemente

We must remember that the colonists and farmers had essentially the same type of guns as the British army.

So, when the SecondAmendment was written, our Founding Fathers were well aware that the people should not be disarmed to bows and knives when facing the possibility of a tyrannical government gone wild.

The Second Amendment is what protects our First Amendment. Congress is composed of We the People. Any gun restrictions must include all members of Congress.

No ones life in Congress is worth any more than We the People. Best argument to own a gun is provided by those governors and mayors who refuse to let police protect the citizens life and property.

Just look at the killing, maiming, rioting, looting, and burning in their cities.

Related

BECOME AN INSIDER TODAYTrustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

CONTRIBUTE NOW

Read more from the original source:
Letter to the Editor: The Second Amendment - San Clemente Times

SALT LAKE CITY House and Senate Republicans passed resolutions against the teaching of critical race theory in Utah schools and supporting the idea of declaring the state a "Second Amendment Sanctuary."

WATCH: Utah parents, activists disagree over Critical Race Theory curriculum

The votes capped off a dramatic day on Utah's Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers walked off the floor in protest and conservative activists demonstrated at a news conference of Black community leaders.

As the House was voting on its resolution on critical race theory, every single Democrat in the chamber walked out leaving Republicans to pass it alone. House Minority Leader Brian King complained that Democrats were not consulted on any of the resolutions and they objected in particular to the one about critical race theory.

"What this about is an attempt or a first step in assuring that my history and the history of many people of color are not taught in the school system," said Rep. Sandra Hollins, D-Salt Lake City, the legislature's only Black lawmaker.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, House Speaker Brad Wilson, R-Kaysville, said the resolution merely called on Utah's school system to evaluate their curriculum.

"Were calling on the state school board to look at the curriculum and determine what are the right parameters for this discussion to happen," he said.

Critical race theory is the idea that systemic racism is built into the fabric of American society. It is not currently taught in Utah schools. Lawmakers have been flooded with emails and voicemails from constituents opposed to teaching it. Governor Spencer Cox declined to put it and the Second Amendment Sanctuary bill on the agenda for Wednesday's special session, which was largely about COVID-19 federal money.

But Republican leaders on Capitol Hill felt the issue was urgent, so they took the rare step of calling themselves into an extraordinary session to pass resolutions. Because of the way they were doing it, the House and Senate had to run their own resolutions.

Outside on the Capitol steps, members of the Utah Educational Equity Coalition stood and called for the resolutions to be put on hold.

"There seems to be so much misinformation out there about what CRT is and isnt," said Michelle Love-Day, a member of the group.

As Love-Day spoke, protesters opposed to critical race theory stood behind them holding up signs condemning it. Coalition members then stepped between Love-Day and the protesters in an effort to act as a buffer. The protesters raised their anti-CRT signs over their heads.

"CRT is a very divisive and destructive theory," said Monica Wilbur, who held a sign opposing CRT. "It turns people into the oppressed or the oppressors."

Opponents of the theory argue that it elevates one race over another. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, R-South Jordan, who sponsored the Senate version of the resolution, said it was his desire to have the legislature study the issue. But he did not support CRT being in the curriculum. He acknowledged there are different definitions of what it is.

Resolutions are merely statements from the legislature and have no force of law, but both issues are expected to return in the 2022 session.

Betty Sawyer, the head of Ogden's branch of the NAACP, said they need to be invited to the table to be heard.

"Why wouldnt you include a diversity of people to talk about race?" she told FOX 13. "That baffles my mind to have a conversation without that."

The legislature also accepted $1.65 billion in federal COVID-19 relief money, banned face mask mandates in the fall in Utah schools, extended the state of emergency for drought, and passed a resolution recognizing Utah's Asian American and Pacific Islander community and condemning anti-Asian hate crimes.

Sen. Jani Iwamoto, D-Salt Lake City, said she hoped that resolution serves as "a call to action as well as meaningful and transformational change."

Asked about considering it on the same day the legislature passed resolutions supporting a ban on any discussions of critical race theory, Senate President J. Stuart Adams insisted they were not exclusive.

"You cant elevate and you surely cant demean another person because of their race," he told reporters. "Theyre so consistent. It is the same."

On the Second Amendment Sanctuary, the legislature is stating its desire to protect Utahns' gun rights in the face of the Biden administration. The resolution's sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Evan Vickers, R-Cedar City, acknowledged they have seen no specific federal policies yet to object to.

"Admittedly there are none, but unfortunately theres been some saber-rattling in Washington D.C.," he said.

Read this article:
Legislature passes resolutions on critical race theory, 2nd Amendment sanctuary - fox13now.com

PEORIA, Ill. (WMBD) Theres a new challenger for Peorias 46th State Senate District.

U.S. Navy Veteran Corey Allen is running as a Republican against Democratic Incumbent Dave Koehler.

Corey Allen spoke with WMBDs Matt Sheehan about how he thinks his career in the military will translate into public office. He hopes to be the Peoria areas State Senator come 2022.

Allen spent nearly five years in the U.S. Navy. He spent time in Security Forces. Hes also a Crisis Response Team member for PCAV (Peoria Community Against Violence).

He spent two years in Japan, two years in Iceland, and was based in on the U.S.S. Tarawa outside of San Diego where he was deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

The time I spent there really gave me an opportunity to gain the discipline and structure needed to manage crisis, Allen said. When things go wrong, when chaos ensues, youre looking for that calm in the storm. In the military, people came to me when they were at their worst, in the military.

Allen is currently the CEO of the Central Illinois Veteran Warriors, a hockey team full of veterans. The goal of the organization is to provide a healthy outlet for veterans. Whether its to battle PTSD, a love of the game of hockey, or just a place to build community.

A few years ago a group of veterans got together at a random skate in Bloomington and it just blossomed, Allen said. I was very fortunate and blessed to be chosen to organize this group.

The group started with six members and now has 35.

Having that outlet both on the ice and off the ice has been such a huge component in my own personal growth mentally and physically, Allen said.

Allen said as State Senator he wants to address community safety, education, infrastructure, small business, and protecting the Second Amendment.

Were trying to disarm legal citizens instead of going after the people that dont need weapons in the first place, Allen said. Going after that issue and figuring that out will help us figure everything else. Small businesses dont want to be in a place where theres high crime, families dont feel safe in an area with high crime.

In order to figure out how to remove guns from criminals hands, taking them away from legal citizens is not the answer, Allen added.

We need to focus on family health. The pandemic has shown that, Allen said. We need to get back to the basis that we need to take care of ourselves first.

Allen said throughout history, education is the thing that fixes everything.

Coming from a family of teachers, my mom was a professor of nursing, education has always been at the forefront. While Ive taken a non-traditional route, I absolutely value education and we need to focus on that as a whole and at an individualistic level, Allen said.

If we dont have good schools, good roads and sidewalks, were putting people at risk, Allen added.

Small business is always going to be the backbone of our country and theyve taken too big a hit during this pandemic, Allen said. With the lack of resources and support from government officials, both federally and locally. With that structure and discipline I gained in the military, I can go in and help the small business understand what assets and resources are available.

Allen said its time to simplify, support, and secure their present and future so we can provide jobs.

Allen said he wants to promote the law and order structure in the State of Illinois.

In order to do that, we need to figure out the police situation, Allen, who is third-generation law enforcement, said.

Allen said he wants to also enhance community-policing.

Im always going to back the blue. We need to figure out how to stem the violence. Were taxing our police force which in turn, taxes our tax money. If we want to fix the economy, we need to fix small businesses and create resources for people. We need to stop the violence, Allen said.

We need integrity. Honor, courage, and commitment. Those are the core values of the United States Navy, Allen said those values are embedded in him.

Allen said theres too much violence, not enough opportunity, too much tax.

Allen cited a CBS News article ranking Peoria one of the deadliest cities in the U.S. as well as the 24/7 Wall Street article ranking Peoria the worst city for African-Americans.

What are we doing if were not trying to fix that situation? Allen asked. Along with prosecuting the crime that happens, we need to have outlets for the young individuals who need some type of constructive outlet for that energy.

Allen said a key component is listening to Illinoisans.

People are tired of not being heard, Allen said. Politicians hear what they say, but they dont listen. I want to show up for the people, be a voice for them.

You can find Coreys professional State Senate Facebook page here.

Next week On the Record, Sheehan will host Peorias fourth district councilman, Andre Allen, live on WMBD This Morning on Tuesday, May 25.

Excerpt from:
U.S. Navy Veteran running for State Senate wants to address community safety, education, protect Second Amendment rights - CIProud.com