Mediaboss Marketing

A Fairfax County Circuit Court judge on Thursday shot down a lawsuit filed by hosts of one of the nations biggest gun shows, who claimed that cancelling this weekends event due to coronavirus restrictions violated the Second Amendment.

Judge Brett Kassabian ruled that it is not in the public interest to exempt The Nations Gun Show from virus restrictions. The three-day event scheduled to start Friday was expected to bring up to 25,000 attendees to the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly, where it has been held a few times a year.

I find that it is in the private interest of the plaintiffs, said Judge Kassabian, according to a press release from Virginia Attorney General Mark Herrings office. To allow thousands to roam unchecked during the middle of the most serious health crisis this county has suffered in the past one hundred years is not in the public interest.

The judge disagreed with the gun show hosts argument that rules to limit their attendees are an overreach of authority and a violation of the Second Amendment. He also criticized a recent show in August that drew nearly 13,000 people, which the hosts said was safely and successfully executed even while being severely limited by pandemic restrictions.

[J]ust judging on what occurred in August, tens of thousands are allowed to gather over the course of three days and then leave, the risk of an unprecedented superspreader event infecting not only those persons but third parties that those persons come into contact with is substantial, Judge Kassabian said.

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and Health Commissioner M. Norman Oliver were named as the defendants in the 57-page complaint filed by state resident John Crump and Showmasters Inc., which is conducting business as Showmasters Guns Shows and Sonnys Guns and Transfers, and .

The three plaintiffs claimed that state officials do not have the authority to order the complete cancellation of one of the single largest economic events in the Commonwealth, at which thousands of persons gather together to engage in millions of dollars of lawful commerce, and activity expressly protected by multiple provisions of the Constitution.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the show should be classified as a brick and mortar retail business, which has no capacity limit under current emergency restrictions.

State health officials, however, have said that any event at the expo center is considered entertainment and amusement business, which currently is restricted to 30% of the lowest capacity limit or 250 people.

The hosts claimed that exhibitors and event staff would far exceed the 250 person capacity even before including attendees and called the emergency restrictions the very definition of tyranny due to the lack of clarity and vagueness.

The gun show presumably would have been particularly profitable as the recent demand for firearms, ammunition, and related products and services has skyrocketed, fueled by intersecting scares over COVID-19 and interruptions in government-related services including policing, fears of demonstrations, rioting and social unrest purportedly in response to various police shootings, and a general sense of apprehension about the November 2020 presidential election and the future for gun rights in this country.

The plaintiffs, represented by lawyers from William Olson P.C. and Spiro & Browne PLC, can appeal the judges decision.

Mr. Herring filed a reply brief Wednesday regarding the potential superspreader event, and applauded the ruling in a press release Thursday.

Im pleased that the judge agreed that putting thousands of Virginians at risk for contracting COVID just so people could buy and sell guns at a gun show was not worth it and could have led to disastrous consequences, said Mr. Herring.

See the original post here:
Va. judge rejects indoor gun show event expected to draw up to 25,000 - Washington Times

Everywhere one looks there are warning signs, from labels on cigarette packs warning that smoking causes cancer, to ridiculous labels on thermometers that read, "Once used rectally, the thermometer should not be used orally."

Associate Justice Samuel Alito has delivered some serious warnings that too often are ignored by many who believe the freedoms we enjoy are inviolable.

In an address last week to the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, Alito touched on several subjects, including COVID-19, religious liberty, the Second Amendment, free speech and "bullying" of the Supreme Court by U.S. senators.

Alito made a case for how each issue contains elements that contribute to a slow erosion of our liberties.

On tolerance, preached but not often practiced by the left, Alito said: "...tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply in many law schools, and in the broader academic community. When I speak with recent law school graduates, what I hear over and over is that they face harassment and retaliation if they say anything that departs from the law school orthodoxy."

This is not a new revelation, but it bears repeating.

While acknowledging the deaths, hospitalizations and unemployment caused by COVID-19, Alito warned: "The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty. Now, notice what I am not saying or even implying, I am not diminishing the severity of the virus's threat to public health. ... I'm not saying anything about the legality of COVID restrictions. Nor am I saying anything about whether any of these restrictions represent good public policy. I'm a judge, not a policymaker. All that I'm saying is this. And I think it is an indisputable statement of fact, we have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced, for most of 2020."

Where does this lead? Alito answered when he spoke of "...the dominance of lawmaking by executive fiat rather than legislation. The vision of early 20th-century progressives and the new dealers of the 1930s was the policymaking would shift from narrow-minded elected legislators, to an elite group of appointed experts, in a word, the policymaking would become more scientific. That dream has been realized to a large extent. Every year administrative agencies acting under broad delegations of 'authority' churn out huge volumes of regulations that dwarfs the statutes enacted by the people's elected representatives. And what have we seen in the pandemic? Sweeping restrictions imposed for the most part, under statutes that confer enormous executive discretion."

Alito cited a Nevada case that came before the court: "Under that law, if the governor finds that there is, quote, 'A natural technological or manmade emergency, or disaster of major proportions,' the governor can perform and exercise such functions, powers and duties as are necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population. To say that this provision confers broad discretion would be an understatement."

Restrictions on how we are told to celebrate Thanksgiving would be another example.

On the erosion of religious liberty, he said: "It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored, right."

As evidence, he mentioned how we have moved from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress in 1993 to the recent persecution by the Obama administration of The Little Sisters of the Poor for their refusal to include contraceptives in their health insurance. The Catholic nuns prevailed in a 7-2 court ruling, but Alito believes the threat to the free exercise of religion remains all too real.

There is much more in his address that should be read in its entirety. Alito's warnings ring true, but are we listening?

Cal Thomas is a columnist for the Tribune Content Agency.

Read the original:
Freedoms are eroding, warns Justice Alito - News from southeastern Connecticut - theday.com

Ive changed my vote.

No, not that vote.

Ive changed my vote for the most reactionary and dangerous member of the U.S. Supreme Court. The distinction no longer belongs to Clarence Thomas. Nor should it be reserved for any of the three conservatives appointed by President Donald TrumpNeil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, or Amy Coney Barrett.

The honor belongs to Samuel Alito. Hes earned it.

A long-time member of the ultraconservative Federalist Society, Alito has been a featured speaker at several of the groups functions, voicing support for rightwing causes and regressive social values.

Nicknamed in progressive legal circles as Strip-Search Sammy for a dissenting opinion he wrote in 2004 as a Circuit Court of Appeals judge in Washington, D.C., in which he approved of the body search of an innocent ten-year-old girl, Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush in 2005.

Alitos selection was widely opposed by civil rights and civil liberties organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which warned of his troubling decisions on race, religion, and reproductive rights while sitting on the federal appeals court. In its long and storied history, the ACLU has opposed only three other high-court nomineesWilliam Rehnquist, Robert Bork, and Kavanaugh.

Despite these warnings, the Senate confirmed Alitos appointment in January 2006. Since then, Alito has been everything the ACLU feared, endearing himself to the radical right by writing a series of contentious and controversial majority opinions, including:

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2007, dismissing a pay discrimination lawsuit brought by equality activist Lilly Ledbetter because it was not filed within 180 days. (The decision was effectively overturned by the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009, following prodding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.)

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 2010, extending individual gun rights under the Second Amendment to the states.

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 2013, holding that American human rights activists had no standing to challenge government surveillance of their communications with persons located abroad.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 2014, exempting closely held corporations with religious objections from Obamacares provisions requiring employers to provide workers with health care insurance coverage of contraceptives.

Glossip v. Gross, 2015, ruling that the Eighth Amendments ban on cruel and unusual punishment does not prohibit statesfrom using asedative in lethal injection protocols that causes severe pain.

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, 2018, upholding Ohios vast 2016 purge of voting rolls.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, 2018, invoking the First Amendment to prohibit public-sector unions from collecting fees from non-union members to support collective bargaining activities.

Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 2019, upholding a warrantless blood alcohol sobriety test administered to an unconscious driver.

Hernandez v. Mesa, 2019, declaring that the family of a Mexican teenager shot and killed by a Border Patrol agent while standing in a culvert on the U.S. side of the border could not sue for damages in a U.S. court.

Alitos arch-conservatism has also found its way into his dissenting opinions on the Supreme Court. In 2013, for example, he crafted a breathtakingly homophobic dissent in United States v. Windsor, which struck down key provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. And this past July, he and Thomas displayed their fealty to President Trump, penning separate dissents in Trump v. Vance, the landmark 7-2 ruling that held the Constitution does not categorically block state criminal subpoenas issued to a sitting President.

As awful as his official court opinions have been, it is Alitos behavior off the bench that has set him apart from his fellow jurists. In January 2010, shortly after the court issued its Citizens United decision (in which he, of course, concurred), he was infamously caught on national television sneering during Obamas State of the Union address, mouthing the words not true as the President decried the ruling and the effect it wouldand didhave on future elections.

A long-time member of the ultraconservative Federalist Society, Alito has been a featured speaker at several of the groups functions, voicing support for rightwing causes and regressive social values. Although it is not unusual for Supreme Court Justices to participate in bar association meetings or academic conferences, Alito discarded all pretense of judicial impartiality in his most recent Federalist Society appearance in a Zoom webinar speech, delivered on November 12, keynoting the societys prestigious annual national lawyers convention.

Sounding like a Fox News host spouting the familiar and incendiary talking points of conservative victimhood, Alito called the Second Amendment the ultimate second-tier Constitutional right.

In a similar fashion, Alito blasted federal regulatory agencies for churning out huge volumes of regulations that, he insisted, shifted policymaking from elected legislators to an elite group of appointed experts. And he went even further into the nether reaches on the subject of same-sex marriage, charging that you cant say that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Until very recently, that's what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now its considered bigotry.

But it was on the subject of COVID-19 that Alito reached his apogee. He said the recent restrictions imposed in some states on the size of religious gatherings has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty. There was nary a nod to slavery, the internment of Japanese Americans, or segregation.

If Alito were still sitting on a lower court, his unhinged commentary could be grounds for disqualification. Supreme Court Justices, however, are not subject to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. They are beyond the reach of sanctions for conflicts of interest or bias. In a very real sense, they are above the law they are tasked with interpreting and upholding. That is what makes them supreme.

Alito understands the awesome power that his lifetime appointment has given him. More than any other member of the high tribunal, he has opted to abuse that power for nakedly partisan ends, making him little more than a political firebrand draped in a black robe.

The rest is here:
Unequal Justice: The Treachery of Samuel Alito - Progressive.org

Everywhere one looks there are warning signs, from labels on cigarette packs warning that smoking causes cancer, to ridiculous labels on thermometers that read, Once used rectally, the thermometer should not be used orally.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito has delivered some serious warnings that too often are ignored by many who believe the freedoms we enjoy are inviolable.

In an address last week to the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, Alito touched on several subjects, including COVID, religious liberty, the Second Amendment, free speech, and bullying of the Supreme Court by U.S. senators.

Alito made a case for how each issue contains elements that contribute to a slow erosion of our liberties. On tolerance, preached but not often practiced by the left, Alito said: tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply in many law schools, and in the broader academic community. When I speak with recent law school graduates, what I hear over and over is that they face harassment and retaliation if they say anything that departs from the law school orthodoxy. This is not a new revelation, but it bears repeating.

While acknowledging the deaths, hospitalizations and unemployment caused by COVID, Alito warned: The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty. Now, notice what I am not saying or even implying, I am not diminishing the severity of the viruss threat to public health. Im not saying anything about the legality of COVID restrictions. Nor am I saying anything about whether any of these restrictions represent good public policy. Im a judge, not a policymaker. All that Im saying is this. And I think it is an indisputable statement of fact, we have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced, for most of 2020.

Where does this lead? Alito answered when he spoke of the dominance of lawmaking by executive fiat rather than legislation. The vision of early 20th-century progressives and the new dealers of the 1930s was the policymaking would shift from narrow-minded elected legislators, to an elite group of appointed experts, in a word, the policymaking would become more scientific. That dream has been realized to a large extent. Every year administrative agencies acting under broad delegations of authority churn out huge volumes of regulations that dwarfs the statutes enacted by the peoples elected representatives. And what have we seen in the pandemic sweeping restrictions imposed for the most part, under statutes that confer enormous executive discretion?

Alito cited a Nevada case that came before the Court: Under that law, if the governor finds that there is, quote, a natural technological or manmade emergency, or disaster of major proportions, the governor can perform and exercise such functions, powers and duties as are necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population. To say that this provision confers broad discretion would be an understatement.

Restrictions on how we are told to celebrate Thanksgiving would be another example.

On the erosion of religious liberty, he said: It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored, right. As evidence he mentioned how we have moved from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress in 1993 to the recent persecution by the Obama administration of The Little Sisters of the Poor for their refusal to include contraceptives in their health insurance. The Catholic nuns prevailed in a 7-2 court ruling, but Alito believes the threat to the free exercise of religion remains all too real.

There is much more in his address that should be read in its entirety. Alitos warnings ring true, but are we listening?

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com.

The rest is here:
Thomas: Justice Alito and warning signs - Daily Local News

NORWALK Gun owners and non-gun owners alike are taking issue with a new proposal that would ban the weapons on city properties, with some arguing the rule would infringe on their constitutional rights.

According to Common Council Ordinance Committee Chair Lisa Shanahan, the group received over 250 emails prior to its Tuesday meeting with feedback on the committees look at city gun ordinances, which could include a proposed ban from carrying in city buildings.

Despite the outcry over the proposal, Shanahan said the committee is continuing to research and discuss the issue. A vote on the item was tabled after over two hours of comments and discussions.

Over a dozen people both gun owners and non-gun owners spoke at Tuesdays meeting against the proposed ban. Concerns ranged from the potential of the ordinance to make criminals out of legal gun owners to the proposal contradicting the Second Amendment, which protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

This is a huge infringement on the Second Amendment rights, said Norwalk resident Mallory Stevens. Given the current climate, this is an overstep of the government on our personal choices. I havent seen someone whos law-abiding cause a problem. ... Its about keeping our constitutional rights and you guys not infringing on that.

Norwalks ordinance would apparently be allowed by Connecticut state law, which states the issuance of any permit to carry a pistol or revolver does not thereby authorize the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver in any premises where the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the person who owns or exercises control over such premises.

Permitting laws do not distinguish between concealed and open carry.

Several committee members revealed they have gun permits and could be affected by this proposal.

People that have the most to lose are responsible already. Thats why we received so much outcry, said committee member Manny Langella, who added he has a gun permit and grew up hunting. Theres a balance between public safety and a right to carry a legal firearm. Its hard for me to support this change when the police chief has validated theres little to no complaint.

Langella said he was particularly concerned about what penalties would be in put in place for people who violate the potential ordinance. The committee has not settled on this yet, but said they would look at other towns for guidance, though Langella said he was cautious about doing so.

I dont think all towns are created equal, Langella said. This is one of the most difficult things to look to other towns for guidance. Where I grew up, people hunt as a way of living. ... Theres a delicacy we have to look at here. The right thing to do is for us to table this, do more research and go through public comments.

In addition to concerns about penalties, many speakers said they were worried about how the proposal would affect their ability to protect themselves; this was particularly a concern for people of color who said they are concerned about the potential of a bigoted attack.

Norwalk resident Peter Choi, a licensed gun carrier, said he has been attacked verbally for being Asian-American and carries to protect himself.

Verbal harassment can quickly elevate to physical harassment and, as a result, I consider concealed carry critical in maintaining safety of myself and loved ones, he said. I fear this proposal will primarily punish responsible, law-abiding citizens such as myself.

Committee member David Heuvelman said he grew up with guns, but has his doubts that private citizens who carry are trained to adequately respond in a dangerous situation. Heuvelman, who has a gun permit, added he was concerned about how guns can escalate situations in a public setting.

Im a concealed-carry holder and I would never think to carry in a city park, Heuvelman said. It made me stop and think about when I come around the corner and someone perceives my dog as an animal threat, could that potentially spark a situation? ... I want to make sure were doing this the right way and serving everyone.

One speaker Tuesday was in favor of the ordinance, and Ordinance Committee Chair Lisa Shanahan said many more emailed expressing support. She also clarified the ordinance would only affect city buildings, not streets, sidewalks or parking garages. And the discussion will continue after Tuesday night.

We recognize we have further work to do on this ordinance and further research to do, Shanahan said. The intent is to make city premises workplace gun-free zones. We tried to make it as clear as possible what buildings are covered by this. Theres been a lot of misunderstanding and I want to be very clear on what this will and wont address.

Committee member Tom Livingston, who grew up trap shooting, added there are exceptions to the Second Amendment and many legislative bodies, including Congress, do not allow guns where they gather. By creating the ordinance, city buildings such as the library and the senior center, would be covered, he said, and signage would make it so law-abiding citizens would not mistakenly violate the ordinance when entering these places.

He added that he felt it was better to enact such a rule now before there is a problem and its too late.

erin.kayata@hearstmediact.com

Read the rest here:
'A huge infringement': Norwalk to do further research after community feedback on proposed gun ban - CT Insider