Mediaboss Marketing

Opinion | LetterThe Democrat solution is to raise taxes and grow government

By Verdell Jackson // Oct 12, 2020

Vote to enhance our freedom and make sure our government is fiscally responsible. Excellenceinvoting.org is a web site that provides honest information on candidates. We need a governor and legislators with skill and expertise to deal with the funding deficit we will have as the result of COVID-19. The Democrat solution is to raise taxes and grow government, which will not build a strong economy. Greg Gianforte is a proven Montana job creator. He continued his work in Congress by protecting our freedom and securing federal relief and health care. He gives most of his income away each year. As governor he will have the support of conservative Senate legislators in the Flathead such as Carl Glimm, SD2, who chaired House appropriations last session, Keith Regier, SD3, who chaired Judiciary, Bob Brown, SD 7 who chaired Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and holdover senators Bob Keenan and Mark Blasdel.

Conservative House candidates are Rep. Mark Noland, HD10, Matt Regier, HD4, John Fuller, HD8, and Derek Skees, HD11. Their voting records demonstrate that they strongly support the constitutions of Montana and the United States, freedom, jobs, and protection of our water from aquatic invasive species. They opposed the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Compact, which would give the tribe off reservation water rights to control use of water in western Montana.

New conservative candidates are Braxton Mitchell, HD3, who is making a huge positive impact on young people in his fight to protect our property rights, Second Amendment, public lands and our constitutional republic. Catherine Owens, HD5, supports lower property taxes by coming up with creative ways to generate revenue, protecting our public lands and water and does not support the CSKT Compact which her opponent supported. Amy Regier, HD6, also does not support the CSKT Compact and will work to lower property taxes, support the Second Amendment, promotes family values and access to public lands.

Verdell JacksonKalispell

Read the original here:
Elections Determine Our Freedom and Wealth - Flathead Beacon

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Opinion columnist Published 4:00 a.m. ET Oct. 8, 2020

Riots over George Floyd predictably resulted in billions in property damage, but it might be a surprise that they have strengthened the argument for gun rights.

This yearsriots, sparked by the death of George Floyd and continued in the names of several others, have destroyed billions of dollars in property, cost numerous people their livesand businesses and jobs,and promoted what will probably be a decade or more of de-urbanization.But whatever else happens, they will have accomplished an important social change.Thanks to these riots, the case for the Second Amendment and the personal right to own weapons is growing steadily stronger, as is the legal case for private gun ownership.

Thats the thesis of a new paper by George Mason University law professor David E. Bernstein, who also serves as the director of GMUs Liberty and Law Center.The Right to Armed Self Defense in the Light of Law Enforcement Abdication, notes that the experience of this years riots undercuts the classic argument against an individual right to arms.While gun-control proponents have for decades argued that individual gun ownership is unnecessary in the modern era, where we have police forces to control crime, that hasnt worked out very well this year for people in numerous urban centers around America.

Bernstein offers an extensive review of happenings in cities ranging from Seattle to Louisville, Portland to Chicago and New York and Raleigh, and many other cities. In case after case, police were told to stand down, in order to avoid provoking violence.And in each case, the result was more violence, more property destruction, and more damage to businesses and jobs, while political leaders stood by.

In Seattle, city officials not only allowed the creation of a police-free zone, the city actually helped the creators by supplying things like traffic barriers and portable toilets. How did that work out?

Open-carry activist on Sept. 17, 2020, in Lansing, Michigan.(Photo: Nicole Hester/Ann Arbor News via AP)

It was a debacle, despite Mayor Jenny Durkans initially comparing it to a block party.When it was finally ended, Bernstein notes, Durkan admitted that the rioting produced a 525% increase in person-related crime, including rape, robbery, assaultand gang-related activity.

Justice and law reform: Why defunding police, upping social budgets alone won't work

Likewise, in Chicago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot and prosecutor Kim Foxx established an early policy of toleratingand even implicitly encouragingstreet violence through their lackadaisical response. Bernstein notes, EvenotherChicagoofficials whogenerallysupportcriminaljustice reformhavecriticizedFoxxsreluctancetopursuefelonychargesagainst thosearrested forriotingor looting.

Meanwhile, On a particularly violent weekend in early June, Lightfoot refused to deploy the National Guard beyond Chicagoscentralbusinessdistrict,drawingcondemnationsfromofficials representing districts on the south and west side of the city, which were left unprotected during Chicagos deadliest weekend in sixty years.Over that weekend, twenty-four people werekilled andatleast sixty-one injured by gunviolence,and thecitys911dispatchersreceived65,000callsina single day 50,000 more than normal. As chaos unfolded, one Democratic city councilwoman told the mayor on the phone, My ward is a shit show .... [Rioters] are shooting at the police. I have never seen the likes of this. Im scared.

Bernstein recounts, with heavy documentation, numerous cases along these lines from numerous cities around the nation. In addition, he notes other cities like Atlanta and Los Angeles, where police called in sick to protest the actions of city leaders, leaving citizens unprotected.

Reforming the police: Screams of 'defund police' misplaced. Instead, use military as example for progress.

Even in normal times, gun owners joke thatwhen seconds count, the police are only minutes away.But, sometimes, theyre not coming at all.Sometimes theyre not even allowed to show up. (And, historically, political leaders have sometimes used the denial of police protection to opponents as a means of opening those opponents up to violent attacks.)

Bernstein notes that this is something that courts should take into account when Second Amendment cases are argued. But its also something that the rest of us should keep in mind.In 2020, the police will protect you seemsparticularly hollow.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of"The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself,"is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/10/08/riots-2020-have-given-boost-second-amendment-column/5901798002/

Here is the original post:
Riots of 2020 have given the Second Amendment a boost - USA TODAY

Before addressing the subject of this column, I wish to express an opinion on an issue which appeared in the recent grammar school brawl laughingly called a presidential debate. Good Ol Joe Biden followed his partys strategy of denouncing Donald Trump as a crypto-fascist. He seized on the presidents failure to condemn the Proud Boys as a fascist-nazi-racist-nasty hate group. The president yielded the point after the debate was over by condemning this group. I have no knowledge about the ideological convictions of this group, apart from displays of the American flag. All I know is that they have confronted Antifa rioters in Portland and Seattle. I enjoyed watching tapes of the Proud Boys knocking the rioters on their cabooses. I might have enjoyed watching a mob of Quakers doing the job more, but we must all settle for whatever is on offer.

Moving on to a more interesting issue, we can expect a lot of hectic chatter about Judge Barrett and her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Most of the emotion on the subject will be centered on speculation about what positions she may take on hot-button issues. These speculations will not concern her legal analysis. Her opponents and partisans will not show much interest. They are only interested in whether she will arrive at the desired outcomes. Some liberals fear that her Catholic convictions will bend her in the wrong direction. Its not that they object to Catholics as such, Good Ol Joe is Catholic after all and they are comfortable with him. Their problem is with Catholics who believe their churchs teachings.

Barrett is known as a disciple of the late Justice Scalia, who has argued that a Judge who is faithful to his oath of allegiance to the Constitution has to be prepared to accept legal decisions which will make him uncomfortable or, alternatively recuse himself from judgement. This is a reassuring principle but its not conclusive.

Leaving aside her religious beliefs Judge Barrett has a judicial record relevant to the Second Amendment. In Kanter v. Barr (2019) her decision accepted bans on gun ownership by persons

who have a clear record of a history of violence. She argued against a blanket rule that applies even to felons who have no such a record. She wrote that this it was wildly over-inclusive, to ban an honest-to-goodness felon convicted of redeeming large quantities of out-of-state bottle deposits in Michigan. Maine has a law against people importing recyclables for redemption. Its far from unlikely that some undetected scamp has already committed this crime. (Confessing here: I didnt look it up to find whether Maine classifies this malfeasance as a felony.)

Her position on Kanter gives Barrett the clearest record on the Second Amendment of any recent nominee. On broader Second Amendment issues the Supreme Court has ruled that it includes protection of the right of self-defense. Ginsbergs death leaves Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan as determined defenders of the governments exclusive right to possession of fire-arms. Since the 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald decisions which ruled against a governmental power to completely ban gun ownership was passed with five votes, Barretts views are of special interest to citizens who believe in a right of self-defense.

Since the nominee is commonly described as a disciple of Antonin Scalia his ruling on Heller, backed by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas and Alito, is our best guide on how Barrett may interpret the Second Amendment. Dick Heller, a special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty, requested exemption from restrictions on keeping his weapon at home. Under the District of Columbia law he was obliged to disable the gun by taking it apart or fixing it with a trigger lock.

Scalias originalism doctrine argues that the Constitution must be understood by the voters. Judges must read its words and phrases as they are used in a normal and ordinary way.

The Second Amendment 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. He argued that the preface about the militia announces a purpose and that the prefatory part does not limit or expand the scope of the operative part. He pointed out that shall not be infringed recognizes the existence of a pre-existing right, i.e., the Amendment did not create a right, it recognizes a right.

Scalia quotes Justice Ginsburgs interpretation of bearing arms in an opinion she wrote for an earlier case. She wrote as the Constitutions Second Amendment indicates wear, bear, or carry upon the person or upon the person, or in the pocket for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in the case of a conflict with another person. Scalia reinforced this proposition by pointing out that nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century and the first two decades of the 19th century established the citizens right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, or bear arms in defense of himself of the state.

If Judge Barrett is called upon the decide a Second Amendment case while sitting on the Supreme Court its seems certain that she will follow her mentor in upholding the right of self-defense it was written to protect. Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and the other Democrats in Congress are hoping for a liberal judge who will support the views of the liberal judges who will support the dissents in McDonald case when they wrote that the U.S. Constitution does not include a general right to keep and bear firearms for purposes of private self-defense. . . . the use of arms for private self-defense does not warrant federal constitutional protection from state regulation.

Supporters of Second Amendment rights should take note and make their candidates know about their concerns.

John Frary of Farmington, the GOP candidate for U.S. Congress in 2008, is a retired history professor, an emeritus Board Member of Maine Taxpayers United, a Maine Citizens Coalition Board member, and publisher of FraryHomeCompanion.com. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Read the original:
Amy Coney Barrett and the second amendment | Lewiston Sun Journal - The Bethel Citizen

In this post, I briefly outlined Judge Amy Coney Barretts impressive dissent inKanter v. Barr, in which she determined that categorical bans on a felons possession of firearms could not be applied to Rickey Kanter, who had pleaded guilty to one count of federal mail fraud for falsely representing that his companys therapeutic shoe inserts were Medicare-approved and for billing Medicare on that basis. Barrett concluded that the federal government and the state of Wisconsin had failed to show that their categorical bans could be applied against all nonviolent felons or that there was anything in Kanters history or characteristics that indicated that he was likely to misuse firearms.

Having run across various distortions of Barretts position, I will go a bit deeper in this post.

1. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Justice Scalia stated in his majority opinion:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

In a footnote appended to that sentence, he referred to these presumptively lawful regulatory measures.

2. The panel majority in Kanter observed that the Court in Heller never actually addressed the historical pedigree of felon possession laws and that the Seventh Circuit had refused to read too much into the Courts precautionary language. (P. 15.) It expressly acknowledged that the Seventh Circuit is among the several federal appellate courts that have left room for as-applied challenges to the federal ban on firearm possession by a felon. Indeed, it cited and quoted Seventh Circuit precedent for the proposition that [W]e recognize that 922(g)(1) [the federal ban] may be subject to an overbreadth challenge at some point because of its disqualification of all felons, including those who are non-violent. (P. 10.)

The panel majority recognized that whether nonviolent felons as a class historically enjoyed Second Amendment rights was an open question:

The first question is whether nonviolent felons as a class historically enjoyed Second Amendment rights. Heller did not answer this question. [P. 14.]

The panel majority ultimately concluded that it need not resolve this difficult question. (P. 19.) It instead proceeded on the assumption that nonviolent felons have Second Amendment rights and held that the felon-dispossession statutes satisfy intermediate scrutiny and can therefore be applied against Kanter. (Pp. 19-26.)

3. Garrett Epps (whose misrepresentation of Barretts position on stare decisis Ive already refuted) is simply wrong when he claims that Barrett asserted thatHellerdidntreallymean that felon possession laws were constitutional. (His emphasis.) The question in the case was not whether the laws were constitutionally permissible; it was instead whether the constitutionally permissible laws could be applied against Kanter. Under Barretts position, the laws remain enforceable against violent felons as well as against any subcategory of nonviolent felons whose convictions can be shown to be substantially related to violent behavior and against any nonviolent felon whose other personal circumstances or characteristics indicate that he would pose a risk to public safety if he possessed a gun.

Indeed, as Barrett points out, her historical analysis indicates that the category of persons who can be disarmed is simultaneously broader and narrower than felonsit includes dangerous people who have not been convicted of felonies but not felons lacking indicia of dangerousness. (My emphasis.)

Ive seen various other claims that Barrett somehow disregards Hellers statement that felon-dispossession statutes are presumptively lawful. Not so. She addresses that statement for a full page (p. 32) and concludes, like the majority, that that statement provides only a place to start: I agree with the majority that Hellers dictum does not settle the question before us.

4. Tweeting on the Kanter case, liberal Second Amendment scholar Adam Winkler has stated that he agree[s] with Barrett and has argued that blanket bans on firearm possession by felons goes too far. Some felonies do not suggest violent tendencies (think of Martha Stewart), and the interest in public safety is not advanced by denying those people their rights. (In the same tweet thread, he says that theirs is not the mainstream position among judges who have ruled on the question so far.) Liberal law professor Alan Morrison expressed a similar agreement with Barrett in this recent Federalist Society panel discussion.

More here:
Re: Judge Barrett on the Second Amendment - National Review

In a previous interview with The News & Advance, Good said he believes assaults on law enforcement should be a felony. At the time, he also said he was in favor of an automatic death penalty for the killing of a police officer.

Good took several shots at Webb as well, stating his opponent has been otherwise silent on issues surrounding the Second Amendment.

[Webb is] MIA on the Second Amendment, hes MIA on supporting the police. However, he does support the radical BLM Movement, Good said, describing Black Lives Matter as a Marxist organization.

Good also referenced his tenure with the Campbell County Board of Supervisors and his track record of support for local law enforcement. He said during his time on the board, the county had increased funding for the sheriffs department by $685,000 from about $4 million.

We stand with law enforcement, we stand behind them, Good said. There is a reason why we are overwhelmingly supported in this district by the sheriffs and commonwealths attorney.

Van Cleave said issues facing gun ownership are unprecedented attacks, claiming opponents want to get rid of law and order.

Weve got to win this. We cannot afford to lose where we are now, Van Cleave said of the Nov. 3 presidential election.

Continue reading here:
Dozens gather in support for Good, Second Amendment in Nelson - Lynchburg News and Advance