Mediaboss Marketing

Keep out of a womans right

I read the 66-page Roe V. Wade decision for the first time a few days ago and I have to admit it is a travesty. The Supreme Court had legal precedent to issue a definitive ruling, which would have nullified all the abortion bills winding their way through the Wyoming Legislature. But in true sausage making tradition, the nine male justices opted for Solomons Bargain, where they cut the Constitution in half and this decision has divided America ever since.

After mansplaining for 41 pages, the Justices chose a convoluted solution instead relying on the plain language of the Fourth Amendment. These diviners of our Constitution threw out the opportunity to set a clear definition on what is a private decision and instead opened Pandoras box with their misguided interpretation. The Founders would be horrified to find that the State had a compelling interest in that personal decision.

On Page 41 of the Decision, the nine, carried through with Solomons threat by collectively dividing the Constitution in half by chiseling the words: With this we do not agree. Had these men removed the do not from the previous sentence then the Constitution would be intact, and Roe would not have become the disaster we have come to know.

This punch line of the previous 41 pages was this monumental sentence:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the womans right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses.

Had these nine men agreed with the legitimate evidence that resulted in the sentence above, by using the words With this we agree, the abortion discussion would have been castrated in America. Instead, this decision has birthed a group that lives and breathes in the sanctity of the Second Amendment, while actively destroying the Fourth Amendment. Hypocrisy.

Americans that believe in America should fight for the entire Constitution and not just the part that suits them at the moment. It is clear that your neighbors and the State have no right to ask or interfere in ones pregnancy, just as the Fourth Amendment intended.

Greg Hunter

Laramie

Abortion interference in Wyoming

Over 30 years ago, I made a personal and public commitment to support access to abortion; it is unwavering. This is an action and decision of personal autonomy for the pregnant person supported by information via their medical practitioner. The decision is serious, worthy of regard and reason, without restriction to lawful, optimal medical procedures or access.

SF133, Prohibiting abortifacients and chemical abortions or HB134, Human heartbeat protection act, seek unfounded intrusion on inherent pregnancy risks within which time sensitive decisions must be made for the pregnant person. HB134 does nothing to protect the heartbeat of the pregnant person, why are heartbeats in competition? Both bills dismiss valid decisions for pregnancy termination. Why are Wyoming State legislators applying their will to force birthing?

Self-agency and communal regard is completely absent from the legislation; it ignores intricacies and considerations best met by the pregnant person. I urge defeat of SF133 and HB134 immediately.

Debra East

Lander

Electric cars? Not viable. Not at this point in time

The current administration in Washington, D.C. is informing us that we must switch to electric vehicles by 2035. Just stating this will not make it so. The reason why we have wind turbines is that the government provides substantial subsidies that makes them profitable for the companies and the politicians who vote in these subsidies.

Electric vehicles are just not ready for public consumption. While lithium-ion batteries are cutting-edge technology for electric vehicles, a lithium-ion battery, at most, can store about 0.6 kWh per pound of battery.

In comparison, gasoline contains 6 kWh per pound of gasoline (or 36 kWh/gallon). A Tesla Model 3 has a standard battery pack capable of storing 50 kWh of energy and an average compact car with a 10-gallon tank is capable of storing 360 kWh. A gas car can be refueled in minutes and can travel almost twice as far as an electric that will take over night to recharge.

With gas prices going up, the electric has a small edge in fueling expense. Electric vehicles usually come with a standard 120v (Level 1) charger and this is fine to get you started, but if fully discharged it can take 24 hours to recharge. 240v (Level 2) chargers can recharge the same car in only seven hours but you just cannot plug these into a standard outlet.

A 40 amp Level 2 charger will have to be installed by an electrician and that may be a problem. Most houses in the U.S. have only 100 or 200 amp service and unlike other appliances in your home, when this charger is operating it will be drawing a continuous 32 amps and this is only for one car.

If every house on your block buys an electric car, the lines to and the transformer feeding your homes must be upgraded.

There are also several issues dealing with cold weather.

We will need a lot more power, but as we have seen wind turbines and solar panels are not dependable. What do you do when the power goes out and you have an emergency?

Derek Mancinho

Laramie

Read the original post:
March 21: Letters to the editor | Opinion | wyomingnews.com - Wyoming Tribune

Mar. 20MORGANTOWN The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill Friday morning aimed at protecting the state from federal gun control overreach, but law enforcement expressed worries that the bill could hamper task force efforts to fight crime.

HB 2694 is called the Second Amendment Preservation Act. It says no state agency, political subdivision or an employee of either of those acting in an official capacity may "knowingly and willingly participate in any way in the enforcement of any federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation regarding a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition if the act, law, order, rule, or regulation does not exist under the laws of this state."

It also bars use of public funds for the purposes mentioned.

A committee substitute removed criminal penalties described in the introduced version and included exceptions for multi-agency task force investigations of drug crimes and for violations of federal law detected during unrelated law enforcement activity.

The bill requires the attorney general to publish model policies for guidance.

Delegates peppered committee counsel with various hypothetical "what if " questions. They learned that if the FBI arrested someone participating in a US Capitol insurrection who carried a gun, the bill could prohibit the suspect from being housed in a state jail. It could also limit cooperation in extradition cases where the suspect flees to West Virginia.

Problems begin to arise, they learned, because state firearms laws do not mirror in every respect federal laws and most firearms cases in West Virginia involve federal law.

Adam Crawford, a Kanawha County deputy and detective, spoke for the Fraternal Order of Police about their issues, "We understand the concerns and fears of potential federal overreach, " he said. The problem is that federal firearms law are often used to put criminals away. There's frequent "bleedover " between drugs, guns, money and violent crimes, he said.

Story continues

"It's hard to limit and restrict how police work functions, " he said. The bill might let violent criminals walk because police can't assist in federal firearms violations.

"It's just unclear to us why this is getting mixed in. With all these other issues we have, " he said.

Many federal crimes carry stiffer penalties that state crimes, Crawford said, and task forces will often use them to put the criminals away longer.

West Virginia police, he said, often make use of the National Integrated Ballistics Network to investigate local shootings where there are difficulties, such as lack of witness cooperation, and submit information to NIBN and find that the gun was used in a different shooting. The bill could hamper such use of federal databases. "The biggest fear I have is it's going to cease a lot of the cooperation we have."

Pressed by bill supporters about whether the added exception offered reassurance on his concerns, Crawford said his questions remain.

Crawford's doubt weren't sufficient to sway the supporters and the bill passed in a voice vote. It heads to the House floor.

Tweet David Beard @dbeardtdp Email dbeard @dominionpost.com

Go here to see the original:
House Judiciary OKs 2nd Amendment bill; law enforcement worries it may hamper cooperation with feds - Yahoo News

Michael F. Kraemer| The Providence Journal

Michael F. Kraemeris a retired Rhode Island attorney anda volunteer with the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence who has testified before the judiciary committees of the Rhode Island House and Senate.

The right to bear arms established under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is often misunderstood. Given the proposed firearms legislation pending in the General Assembly, it is important to understand what the law does and does not protect.

Q:What does the Second Amendment protect?

A:The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that an individual has the right to own and maintain a handgun at home for personal protection. The Court did not establish any other right regarding gun ownership, beyond "the right ... to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

Q:Is this right unlimited?

A:No.Justice Antonin Scalia stated in Heller: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [The right] is not a right to keep and carry a weapon whatsoever and for whatsoever purpose."

Q:Does the Second Amendment create a right to carry a weapon, openly or concealed, outside of one's home?

A:No."The core Second Amendment right is limited to self-defense in the home." Gould v. Morgan.

Superior Court Judge Robert D. Krause recently wrote a lengthy and scholarly opinion in State of Rhode Island v. Ortiz discussing this issue. While this is a lower court decision, hisopinion provides a detailed review of the appellate cases before rejecting defendant's claim to a constitutional right to carry a firearm outside of the home without a permit.

The opinion notes that "states with more restrictive licensing schemes for the public carriage of firearms experience lower rates of gun-related homicides and other violent crimes." Judge Krause deflated the "good guy with a gun" myth as "using firearms for self-defense in crowded public areas risks fatalities and serious injury to innocent bystanders." He concludes that "firearms create or exacerbate accidents and deadly encounters."

Q: Can the General Assembly ban assault weapons?

A:Yes. Federal and state laws prohibit owning automatic weapons and in many states ban semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. No court has concluded that an individual has the right to own assault weapons.

Every court that has ruled on assault weapons bans reached the conclusion that such prohibitions are constitutional. For example, the Massachusetts ban on assault weapons was upheld in Worman v. Healey. In a lengthy opinion surveying Supreme Court jurisprudence and decisions from other appeals courts, a three-judge panel found the Massachusetts law did not violate the Second Amendment. The opinion was written by Rhode Islander Judge Bruce Selya. One of the three judges signing on to the opinion was David Souter, retired Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, sitting by designation.

Q:Is a ban on high capacity magazines constitutional?

A:Yes. Six out of seven federal appeals courts ruling on HCM bans have found them to be constitutional, including the 1st Circuit in the Worman case.

The Vermont Supreme Court in State of Vermont v. Mischrecently unanimously upheld a law banning HCMs as constitutional under the Vermont Constitution. The court noted the state legislature's reliance on studies that showed "extensive evidence that 'the use of LCMs [large capacity magazines] in mass shootings increases the number of victims shot and the fatality rate of struck victims,'" that "large capacity magazines are associated with many of the deadliest shootings in the United States," and that between 2009 and 2018, shootings involving HCMs led to five times the number of people shot per mass shooting.

Go here to see the original:
Opinion/Kraemer: A primer on the Second Amendment - The Providence Journal

Bob Henry, Special to The Desert Sun Published 5:00 a.m. PT March 1, 2021

These photos show a vehicle, gun and drug paraphernalia confiscated Monday, Nov. 2, 2020 at a Highway 111 checkpoint.(Photo: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency)

The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.

The Constitution and its amendments were written with the idea that this document could be added to and changed as the circumstances of our country changed. This also applies to the right to bear arms. Even if the writers of the Constitution believed that we had an unlimited right to keep guns, which they did not, they would have recognized the right to change or repeal the Second Amendment at some time in the future.

The arguments over the Second Amendment have never been resolved. Originally the amendment was interpreted literally: In order to maintain a well-regulated militia, citizens had the right to keep and bear arms. Up until 1980, it was understood that the two parts were linked.

The 1980 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia vs. Hellerignored the linkage between state militias and owning guns, and ruled that citizens had a virtually unlimited right to own guns. It ignored the issue of what constitutes a well-regulated militia.

This is very troubling. The courts have sidestepped the issue of what constitutes a well-regulated militia. In the past, it was assumed that the amendment referred to state militias, which have become our state National Guard units. Our founders did not contemplate the rise of private armies.

So, we have two problems linked together that could destroy our democracy. They are a) everyone is allowed to bear arms and b) there is no restriction on forming private militias.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Why not do away with the Second Amendment entirely? This would not eliminate guns. It would allow state and federal governments to regulate them. If this were the case, our politicians could not hide behind the Second Amendment to justify doing nothing. We would no longer hear the phrase, Of course I believe in the Second Amendment before every discussion of gun control.

According to a Pew reearch poll, 60% of Americans favor increased gun control (Pew Research Center, October 2019). The majority of Americans do not own guns. A November 2020 Gallup poll found that gun owners constituted only 32% of our population. Most people have no use for private armed groups. We are the majority, so why should we be afraid to suggest doing away with an amendment that is now a threat to our democracy?

We do not need weapons to defend ourselves from our government as long as we take our duties as citizens seriously; we are the government. Neither do we need armed groups to defend us from our fellow citizens. Thats what we have police for.

We are being held hostage by the fantasies of a segment of our society who picture themselves as Ramboesque characters who will defend their values with blood. Personally, I would rather defend our values with the political processes we have fought so hard to create.

Practically, I realize that it is extremely difficult to amend our constitution. It is only when an overwhelming majority of society insists upon a change. What we can do is start that discussion. There is no reason why the repeal of the Second Amendment should be a taboo topic.

Open discussion is the first step in making change, and this change is long overdue.

Bob Henry(Photo: Courtesy)

Bob Henry is a 45-year resident of the Coachella Valley. He is an educator and former teacher at Coachella Valley High School. He can be reached atbobhenrycve@gmail.com

Read or Share this story: https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/contributors/valley-voice/2021/03/01/voice-its-time-repeal-second-amendment/4508027001/

Read this article:
Voice: Its time to repeal the Second Amendment - Desert Sun

McCOOK, Neb. No action could be taken on a proposal to make Red Willow County a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary County, but the idea received a positive reception at Mondays meeting of the Red Willow County Commissioners.

After a presentation by Stacie Sandall in the citizens comments portion of the meeting, commissioners agreed to place the Red Willow County Nebraska Second Amendment Preservation Act on their agenda for 9:30 a.m. March 15.

Sandall presented details of the HR 127 proposal which would impose strict requirements and fees on gun owners and ban many types of firearms, magazines and ammunition.

Commissioners Randy Dean and Earl McNutt expressed support for the idea, and Sheriff Alan Kotschwar said he campaigned for sheriff with the promise he would not enforce any attempt to violate citizens' Second Amendment rights.

Nine counties have already passed similar resolutions, as have four other states, it was noted.

We took our oath to uphold the Constitution, Dean said.

Sandall, who attended with Kerri Unger, April Kendall, and her son Isaiah Kendall, presented an informal petition with a number of signatures after only one week of effort.

Im sure your support would be near 100% with more time, McNutt said.

Sheriff Kotschwar said he had been following the issue, and one such proposal is LB188, which would keep state officials from enforcing potentially restrictive federal gun laws that dont already exist at the state level. It would not cover county or city officials.

Another bill, not mentioned Monday, is LB 236, which would give counties the ability to declare themselves Constitutional Carry communities and allow for the lawful carrying of firearms by legal gun owners, regardless of whether or not they have a carry license.

April Kendall said her son, Isaiah, 15, is interested in law enforcement but doesnt want to be put in the position of enforcing restrictions of citizens' Second Amendment rights. Frontier recently passed a sanctuary county resolution, and her brother plans to introduce one in Furnas County, she said.

In other business, a bid of $1,850 was accepted from Tracy Soderlund for a county surplus 1985 Chevrolet pickup truck, and accounts payable of $41,028.51 were approved for a health insurance premium and claims.

The county is receiving $306,663.23 from the Nebraska Emergency Management Cares Act for Law Enforcement Expenses during the COVID crisis. Because it was not budgeted, however, it will go into the general fund until paperwork requirements can be completed.

Read more here:
2nd Amendment proposal finds favorable response in county - McCook Daily Gazette