Archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ Category

When Armed Vigilantes Are Summoned With a Few Keystrokes – The New York Times

Tapping on his cellphone with a sense of purpose, Kevin Mathewson, a former wedding photographer and onetime city alderman in Kenosha, Wis., did not slow down to fix his typos as he dashed off an online appeal to his neighbors. It was time, he wrote on Facebook in late August, to take up arms to defend out City tonight from the evil thugs.

One day earlier, hundreds of residents had poured onto the streets of Kenosha to protest the police shooting of 29-year-old Jacob Blake. Disturbed by the sight of buildings in flames when he drove downtown, Mr. Mathewson decided it was time for people to arm themselves to protect their houses and businesses.

To his surprise, some 4,000 people responded on Facebook. Within minutes, the Kenosha Guard had sprung to life.

His call to arms along with similar calls from others inside and outside the state propelled civilians bearing military-style rifles onto the streets, where late that night a gunman scuffling with protesters shot three of them, two fatally. The Kenosha Guard then evaporated just as quickly as it arose.

Long a divisive figure in Kenosha, Mr. Mathewson, 36, who sprinkles his sentences with Jeez! and describes himself as chunky, does not fit the typical profile of a rifle-toting watchdog, although he said he supported President Trump on Second Amendment grounds. The rise and fall of his Kenosha Guard reflects the current spirit of vigilantism surfacing across the country.

Organizations that openly display weapons have existed for decades, with certain hot-button issues like immigration or Second Amendment rights inspiring people who think the Constitution is under threat. Ever since the 2017 white nationalist march in Charlottesville, Va., armed groups have become fixtures at demonstrations around the country, although membership numbers remain opaque.

With the approaching election ratcheting up tensions in recent months, armed groups that assembled via a few clicks on the keyboard have become both more visible and more widespread. Some especially violent groups were rooted in longstanding anti-government extremism, like the 14 men charged with various crimes in Michigan this month.

Starting in April, demonstrations against coronavirus lockdowns prompted makeshift vigilante groups to move offline and into the real world. This became more pronounced amid the nationwide protests after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis with some armed groups claiming to protect the protesters while others sought to check them.

When President Trump was asked at last months presidential debate about activity by right-wing extremists, including the violence in Kenosha, he declined to outright condemn such groups, and told one far-right group to stand back and stand by.

Experts who study violent groups say that many are unstructured and do not undertake basic steps like training together. They are usually just a fraternity with a shared goal, like the groups in Oregon that patrolled back roads amid wildfires, hunting mostly imagined looters or arsonists.

In Kenosha, police officers were caught on video expressing appreciation to the gunmen and handing them bottles of water, prompting criticism that law enforcement officers encouraged the armed groups.

But soon after, the sheriff tried to distance his department. Part of the problem with this group is they create confrontation, David Beth, the Kenosha County sheriff, told reporters at a news conference. Asked later about any investigation, the Sheriffs Department said it had not referred any cases linked to the Kenosha Guard for prosecution, and the Police Department did not respond.

Mr. Mathewson first tried to muster the Kenosha Guard in June after the city had small protests because of Mr. Floyds death in Minnesota. A little more than 60 people responded.

Then, on Aug. 23, video emerged that showed a Kenosha police officer firing seven times toward Mr. Blakes back.

When protests disintegrated into property destruction, Mr. Mathewson said, he thought law enforcement was overwhelmed.

After two nights of demonstrations, he posted an event on Facebook called Armed Civilians to Protect our Lives and Property. He named himself commander of the Kenosha Guard and added an open letter to the police telling them not to interfere.

Several hundred people volunteered to participate and around 4,000 expressed approval. His call to arms spread to other platforms, like Reddit. Infowars, the website that traffics in conspiracy theories, amplified it, as did local right-wing radio stations.

You cannot rely on the government or the police to protect you, Mr. Mathewson said.

Before forming the Kenosha Guard, he had seen reports focused on armed groups deploying in Minneapolis and Portland, Ore. It was so far from me that it did not seem real, he said. When it happens in your own backyard, your own city, it is like, Jeez, what can I do?

I am pro-Second Amendment, but I am not a right-wing nut job, he added.

Posts on Facebook amplified the sense of siege in Kenosha by spreading false rumors that murderous gangs from Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Chicago were coming to ransack the city of 100,000 people.

Jennifer Rusch, 47, a hair stylist, clicked on Mr. Mathewsons webpage to find armed men to protect her business. Facebook had a lot to do with making everybody hysterical, she said. Now we know 99 percent of it was lies.

People messaged Mr. Mathewson from around Wisconsin and other states, asking where to deploy. He could not handle the avalanche of responses flooding his cellphone, he said.

People thought we had some kind of command staff or a structure but it was really just a general call to arms meant mostly for his neighbors, Mr. Mathewson said.

Jerry Grimson, 56, a former campaign manager for Mr. Mathewson during his run for alderman, responded by organizing his own neighbors to come out. There was no way we were going to let people burn down our homes, he said.

That night, Mr. Mathewson stuck to the entrance of his subdivision, WhiteCaps, at least seven miles from the city center. Pictures show him wearing a baggy red Chuck Norris T-shirt and knee-length camouflage shorts, with a rifle slung over his chest. He passed the early evening sitting outside on a lawn chair with some armed neighbors, then went to bed early. I kind of felt a little bad that I got this in motion but then I was home by 9, he said.

While he slept, downtown Kenosha boiled over.

Witnesses blamed the violent disarray partly on the fact that many gunmen downtown were strangers to one another, with some on rooftops acting as spotters to call in reinforcements and no one in command.

To Raymond K. Roberts, a real estate investor and six-year Army veteran who monitored the vigilantes, the parade of jacked-up pickup trucks filled with armed men resembled Afghanistan.

Mr. Roberts noticed that law enforcement officers largely ignored the men.

The gunmen never seemed to realize that all the combat weaponry made Black residents like himself particularly uneasy, Mr. Roberts said, and that the community would have preferred to protect itself. They just had this assumption that we dont exist, he said.

As tensions surged with protesters and armed enforcers tussling, authorities say that Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from nearby Illinois, opened fire with a military-style semiautomatic rifle, killing two protesters and seriously wounding a third. He faces homicide charges and has become a poster boy for the far right.

Mr. Mathewson remains unsure which armed men downtown responded to his call and he denied having any contact with Mr. Rittenhouse.

Longtime Kenosha residents said they were conflicted over Mr. Mathewson, with his behavior angering some and others praising his many years as an independent watchdog.

Fans noted that he had chased down surveillance videos that exposed bad police behavior and, before leaving his alderman post in 2017, pushed for police body cameras that have still not been bought. But critics said he had turned himself into a nuisance by transforming political differences into personal vendettas.

Angie Aker, a community activist, initiated a criminal complaint against him as an accessory to the protest deaths. I think he invited people in who were looking for a reason to shoot, she said. There is also a federal lawsuit that names Mr. Mathewson, along with Mr. Rittenhouse and Facebook, among others, for depriving the four plaintiffs of their civil rights; one is the partner of a victim and the three others allege that armed men assaulted them.

Mr. Mathewson said what he did was covered by free speech.

After the shootings, Facebook banned Mr. Mathewson for life, removing his personal and professional pages. He said he lost 13 years of photo archives, including videos of his daughter and son taking their first steps and a memorial page for his mother.

Mr. Mathewson said that for now he had no plans to revive the Kenosha Guard. His wife has had enough of the spotlight, he said, with his phone ringing constantly.

I am getting love and hate from all over the country, he said.

Mark Guarino contributed reporting.

Read more:
When Armed Vigilantes Are Summoned With a Few Keystrokes - The New York Times

The First Amendment has no single constituency, and thats a problem – USA TODAY

Ken Paulson, Opinion columnist Published 4:00 a.m. ET Oct. 16, 2020 | Updated 8:59 a.m. ET Oct. 16, 2020

The Supreme Court is a vital component of our democracy. Here's how the process works to nominate, confirm, and oppose a potential justice. USA TODAY

Can you imagine a U.S. Supreme Court nominee being unable to explain the Second Amendment? Or drawing a blank on the ruling in Roe v. Wade?

That would lead to cries of outrage, a 24-news cycle and in all likelihood, the withdrawal of the nomination.

But when Judge Amy Coney Barrett struggled to name all the freedoms of the First Amendment and Senator Ben Sasse (R-NEB) tried to help her out with the wrong answer, it was barely a blip on Twitter.

It began today when Sasse tossed Barrett what presumably was intended as a softball question: What are the five freedoms of the First Amendment?

Barretts response: Speech, religion, press, assembly. speech, press, religion, assembly (now counting on her hands) I dont know. What am I missing?

She turned to the wrong person for a lifeline. Sasse quickly said redress or protest.

Then came the most astonishing moment of all. A relieved Barrett said Oh, OK.

Oh, OK? Not quite.The fifth freedom is the right to petition government for redress of grievances, a guarantee close to the hearts of lobbyists. The right to protest is not one of the five freedoms, but it can be used in tandem with all of those rights.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Dont get me wrong. Ive had the privilege to testify before a Congressional committee and Ive been interviewed live on national television. Both can be nerve-wracking experiences. If I were to do both at the same time, with my future and that of the Supreme Court at stake, Im pretty sure I would struggle to remember my middle name. Of course, if the interviewer offered up the wrong middle name, Im pretty sure I would catch that.

That said, it was a mental lapse and not the crime of the century. In the end, this isnt about a judge or a senator.

Its about the First Amendment. Its five freedoms are at the heart of the American experience, giving each of us the right to express ourselves freely and to exercise our personal faith, while providing the tools needed to keep a check on the abuse of government power.

But instead of that bundling of rights making the First an untouchable amendment, it does just the opposite. The First Amendment has no clout.

The news media are all in on freedom of the press. Churches and religious organizations will readily fight for freedom of religion. Support for freedom of speech tends to be based on what is being said. Assembly is a popular freedom in the abstract, unless civil unrest looms in highly visible cities. For what its worth, the right of petition is just fine.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett delivered her opening statement in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing.(Photo: AP)

The First Amendment has no single constituency, and thats a problem.

When journalists assert their right to freedom of the press, but rarely write about incursions on faith, thats a problem.

When people of faith are outraged by COVID-19 limits on church attendance and dismiss the news media as fake news, thats a problem.

When a university proclaims itself to be a marketplace of ideas and tries to limit assembly to a free speech zone, thats a problem.

When someone uses their free speech at full volume on social media, only to demand the firing of public figures who do the same, thats a problem.

Our rights to speech, press, religion, assembly and petition are embodied in the most important 45 words in American history. Those freedoms are buffeted, though, by those who choose to embrace the First Amendment selectively.

The Second Amendment poses no such problem. It is clearly about the right to bear arms, though the whole militia business muddies things up a bit. Its constituency is clear and powerful. (See the right to petition.)

Sasse followed up with a second question to Barrett about the First Amendment, asking if she knew why the five freedoms were packaged in a single amendment.

I don't know why, actually, she responded. Im sure there's a story that I don't know there about why those appeared in the First Amendment all together rather than being split up in different amendments.

And this was where the previously imprecise senator nailed it.

You don't really have freedom of religion if you don't also have freedom of assembly, Sasse explained. You don't really have freedom of speech if you can't also publish your beliefs and advocate for them. You don't really have any of those freedoms if you can't protest at times and seek to redress grievances in times when government oversteps and tries to curtail any of those freedoms.

The very best way to protect your favorite First Amendment freedom is to take a stand for all of them. That requires respecting the exercise of free expression in all its forms, even if the expression isnt to your liking. That mindset would contribute to a more civil society and more consistent support for the amendment that makes Americas ideals possible. It may also prove handy for a future Supreme Court nominee.

Ken Paulson is the director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, a former editor of USA TODAY and a member of USA TODAYs Board of Contributors.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/10/16/free-press-free-speech-freedom-religion-assembly-seek-redress-column/3665682001/

More:
The First Amendment has no single constituency, and thats a problem - USA TODAY

‘Rod of Iron’ firearm festival held in Greeley – The River Reporter

By OWEN WALSH

GREELEY, PA Guns, God and Trump.

Thousands of Second Amendment supporters turned out for the second annual Rod of Iron Freedom Festival in Pike County this past weekend. The largest open-carry festival in the country, the event was centered on the celebration of gun ownership but underpinned by politics ahead of this years General Election.

Dubbed Pennsylvanias version of Woodstock on its website, the event looked more like a rally for Donald Trump than a music festival. The presidents likeness was everywhere: on clothing, on flags, on cardboard cutouts, on 30-foot high banners, and at least once as an inflatable head.

Held behind the corporate headquarters of firearms manufacturer Kahr Arms, vendors set up booths across the grounds providing a variety of foods (from barbecue to sushi) and a variety of information (from the National Rifle Association to Preparedness Peace Survival Classes).

Some attendees shot at tyrant targets with specialty Kahr guns at a 50-foot shooting range, while others took in educational seminars. Over Saturday and Sunday, the seminars covered a range of topicsseveral focused on Marxism and communismothers covered topics like Understanding the Threat of Islam, The Leftist Attack on American Identity and What is Unique about Americas Founding Principles. A Second Amendment-themed art gallery allowed gun enthusiasts to portray their passion for firearms and conservatism through various mediums.

A slate of conservative personalities and religious pastors took the main stage over the weekend, including Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell, a brother-sister duo who host Eyes on the Target Radio. On Sunday, Suffecool and Campbell sat down with Frank Scavo, a Republican political candidate who unsuccessfully ran for the PA State House in 2018 to discuss the erosion of gun-owning rights throughout U.S. history. They said that the misuse of firearms by criminals had needlessly restricted the rights of all gun owners.

How do you legislate evil? Suffecool asked. You cant. But you can counteract evil with firearms, Scavo responded.

The trio also told the crowd that President Trumps Supreme Court pick of Amy Cohen Barret would be good for Second Amendment protections and that it was vital to keep Republicans in charge.

The Rod of Iron festival is directly connected to the Newfoundland-based religious groups, World Peace and Unification Sanctuary and Rod of Iron Ministries, both founded by pastor H.J. Sean Moon.

Moon, whose brother Justin Moon is the founder and CEO of Kahr Arms, has garnered national attention in recent years. In 2018, he made headlines when his church held a ceremony in which hundreds of crown-wearing worshipers clutching [unloaded] AR-15 rifles drank holy wine and exchanged or renewed wedding vows prompting a nearby school to cancel classes, soon after the school shooting in Parkland, FL took place.

Moon and his followers subscribe to a belief rooted in a passage from the Book of Revelations: and he will rule them with a rod of iron. Moon, who studied theology at Harvard University, says that this informs a religious duty to own firearms. He opened the ceremony on Saturday morning, where he said that the Bible depicts Jesus an assault weapons manufacturer and that the U.S. is under attack by radical leftists and communist China.

Gods kingdom depicts a decentralized, armed society that is in the image of the chief shepherd. The shepherds hook staff is to catch and reign in his sheep from harm, and the shepherds rod is to punish the wolves and predators that seek to kill his sheep, Moon said to the audience. In the same way, the rod of iron that is given to the believers in Christ, allows the good guys to have arms to defend the sheep, and to punish the wicked when needs be.

Attendees did not have to abide by any COVID-19 guidelines. Festival organizer Greg Noll told local media that those who wished to could social distance and wear masks, but it was not mandated.

See the original post:
'Rod of Iron' firearm festival held in Greeley - The River Reporter

Like Scalia, Amy Coney Barrett shares an ‘originalist’ view on Second Amendment | TheHill – The Hill

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Judge Amy Coney BarrettAmy Coney BarrettLike Scalia, Amy Coney Barrett shares an 'originalist' view on Second Amendment Senators dial down rhetoric at Barrett hearing after 2018 Kavanaugh brawl Twitter reacts to Barrett misspeaking about approaching cases with an 'open wine': 'Me too, girl' MORE come as the Supreme Courts nascent Second Amendment jurisprudence is at an important inflection point. So far, the court has clearly held only that the Constitution protects the right to keep a handgun in ones home for self-protection. The most practically important questions that have not yet been answered have to do with carrying firearms in public. The justices have hinted that there is such a right, but they have not determined what limits on that right they will recognize, or how far legislatures may go in restricting it.

For the past 10 years, the Supreme Court has been dragging its feet by refusing to hear any cases that raise this issue. Several members of the court have protested against this inaction, and it looks as though the next justice may be able to get the court off the dime. If that turns out to be Barrett, we can expect her to provide an intelligent and faithful interpretation of the Constitution.

Such an approach is particularly important on this issue at this time because America has been experiencing an extraordinary plague of violent political unrest. Most of the riots and other forms of political violence in recent years have been connected to specific allegations of police misconduct and to broader claims about pervasive racial bias in the use of lethal force by police.

Most dramatically, the nation was swept this summer by mass protests after several incidents in which such bias was imputed to police officers who were involved in confrontations that turned violent. No one at the time could have known what mixture of truth and fiction there was in the assumptions made by those who took to the streets. Despite this uncertainty, and perhaps in part because of it, many of the demonstrations were marked by arson, looting, beatings and murders of innocent victims.

Most strikingly, some state and local governments were visibly tolerant of the rioters. Public officials discouraged or forbade the use of standard crowd-control measures, and in some cases prevented the police from taking any action to protect innocent bystanders or their property. One city has experienced nightly riots for months on end. Another simply surrendered an area within its legal jurisdiction to thugs who had begun by attacking a police station. In some cases, prosecutors were disinclined to enforce the law against individuals who had been arrested. Prominent politicians promoted the defunding of the police, and some jurisdictions took concrete steps in that direction. Violent crime spiked sharply in some places, probably in part because the police became less aggressive in enforcing the law.

Barrett was a law clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and she shares his originalist approach to constitutional interpretation. As it happens, Scalia wrote the seminal 2008 opinion inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, which protects the right to keep a handgun in ones home. Last year, Barrett wrote a dissenting opinion in a Second Amendment case, which is even more proficient than Scalias.

InKanter v. Barr, the majority upheld a federal statute that imposed a lifetime firearms disability on a man who had been convicted of mail fraud. Barretts dissent thoroughly refuted a popular theory according to which the Founders thought the right to keep and bear arms is relinquished on conviction for any felony. She concluded that the historical evidence shows that legislatures at the time sought only to disarm classes of people who were considered dangerous.

But how much discretion should legislatures have in defining such classes? Barrett argued that a total and permanent deprivation of the right to possess arms would have to be substantially related to the prevention of violent crime, as well as closely tailored to that goal. She then showed that the governments evidence failed to demonstrate that mail fraud is a reliable predictor of future gun violence, and that the government presented no evidence that this particular convicted felon had shown any proclivity for violence.

Hellersignaled that the first places to look for the meaning of the Second Amendment are its text and the historical evidence that bears on how it was understood by those who enacted it. Barrett was faithful to that sensible teaching, as well as to the principle that definitive answers supplied by those sources are binding on the courts. But most questions wont be so easily answered. And when theyre not, judges have a great deal of discretion about the nature and degree of the burden they put on the government to justify infringements on the liberty of American citizens.

Barrett showed how to exercise that discretion by engaging in legal, rather than policy, analysis. HerKanterdissent is not the work of an ideologue. Rather, she conscientiously sought to respect what ScaliasHelleropinion called the interest balancing by the people that is reflected in the Second Amendment.

This summers civil unrest may be a prelude to a series of increasingly aggressive legislative disarmament efforts, which will call for careful and fearless review by the courts. Neither the Supreme Court nor most of the lower federal courts have recently exhibited much care or much courage in their approach to the Second Amendment. HerKanterdissent promises that a Justice Barrett would bring both of those virtues to her work, which would be good for the court, good for the Constitution, and good for American liberty.

Nelson Lund is a professor of Law at George Mason Universitys Antonin Scalia Law School.

More here:
Like Scalia, Amy Coney Barrett shares an 'originalist' view on Second Amendment | TheHill - The Hill

On the Second Amendment and Hunting – National Review

Salesman Ryan Martinez holds a handgun at the Ready Gunner gun store In Provo, Utah, June 21, 2016.(George Frey/Reuters)

In my post arguing that the Founders wanted you to own AR-15, I contend that there was no mention of hunting during drafting debates over the Bill of Rights.

Professor Joseph Olson reminds me that the debates over ratification of the Bill of Rights in Pennsylvania did indeed mention hunting. (I write about this in detail in my cultural history of the gun.)

Here was the excellent suggestion offered by the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention on the topic of arms:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

James Madison ended up simplifying and distilling many suggestions, throwing in a comma that would be seized upon many years later. But the debate on ratification was over militias and standing armies, never over individual ownership of guns.

Hunting was likely only mentioned in the Pennsylvania convention as a precaution against English-style restrictions on ownership. The most famous example, the Game Act of 1671, made possession of a firearm by anyone unqualified to hunt (read, common men) illegal and provided a pretext for the Crown to confiscate weapons.

Many saw all of this as superfluous. Some argue that fear of the national government was overblown because there were so many guns in private hands it was unimaginable any tyrannical army could ever be more powerful than the general public. Noah Webster, writing as A Citizen of America, reasoned that the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

Not one person in the provisional government or at the Second Continental Congress or any delegate at the Constitutional Convention at any state ratifying convention is on the record arguing against the idea of individual firearm ownership. There is, however, a multitude of examples of leaders championing the importance of that right.

Eight of the 13 original states enshrined the right to gun ownership in their constitutions most with language more straightforward than that found in the Bill of Rights. The best was probably New Hampshires compact sentence: Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Read the rest here:
On the Second Amendment and Hunting - National Review