Mediaboss Marketing

As the Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings Monday on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, much of the attention focused on whether the committee should even be considering her at this late date, with so many Americans already casting ballots in elections that could shift control of the White House and Congress. There was widespread interest, too, in how Barrett would handle issues already before the court or potentially soon to be there, including challenges to the Affordable Care Act and the results of the November elections.

One issue flying under the radar is gun control. Its been more than a decade since the Supreme Court has taken up a significant Second Amendment case largely, court observers agree, because the four conservative associate justices worried that they wouldnt be able to persuade Chief Justice John Roberts to vote with them to expand the rights of gun ownership.

If Barrett wins Senate approval to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the conservatives might just gain that fifth vote. And that could be exceedingly dangerous for a country already awash in guns, potentially undermining efforts of California, New York and other states to overlay some measure of sanity on access to and use of firearms.

The Supreme Court previously embraced the notion that the Second Amendment referred to the rights of states to maintain militias, which consisted of individuals who brought their guns with them in the event the state called the militia into service. That changed with the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, written by a conservative icon, Justice Antonin Scalia (invoking a misreading of the historical role of militias). In that case, the court held for the first time that the Second Amendment conferred a constitutional right to keep a firearm in the home for purposes of self-defense.

But it wasnt an absolute right, the court held. Government has a compelling interest in regulating who has access to firearms, Scalia wrote, pointedly adding that nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing 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.

A couple of years later, the court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the Heller decision applied to state laws as well as federal, but since then it has declined to accept cases that might clarify other issues, such as whether the court believes the right to have a firearm exists outside the home. (It took one case last year, then abandoned it as moot after the New York law at issue was changed.)

The Heller decision was wrongly decided, in our view, but the likelihood that this court will undo it is astronomically small. More likely, with Barrett aboard, is that the court will change the way it assesses gun regulations, opening the door for more successful challenges by gun rights advocates, many of whom take a hard-line approach that the Second Amendment guarantees just about anyone in the country the right to own and carry a gun any time they want.

Barrett didnt mention the Second Amendment in her opening statement Monday before the Judiciary Committee. And while sitting on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett considered only one Second Amendment case, writing an arcane but important dissent in Kanter v. Barr, a 2-1 case last year.

Since the Heller decision, lower federal courts have measured the constitutionality of gun restrictions by looking at whether the restriction in dispute achieved an important government objective. If the evidence showed that it did, the courts have held, restrictions were lawful even if they impinged on someones ability to buy or carry a weapon.

Barretts dissent embraces a broader view of Second Amendment rights that suggests she subscribes to the text, history and tradition test to determine whether there is a historical precedent for a challenged gun law. If theres no precedent, then the restriction is unconstitutional a theory that could imperil such modern gun controls as mandatory background checks, permits to carry a firearm in public and bans on large-capacity magazines.

But when do history and tradition start? Gun laws have always been part of American jurisprudence. So while Barretts ascension to the court will likely shift the balance toward loosening gun restrictions, its unclear how far she and the court might go.

Ultimately, though, loosening restrictions or barring innovative new controls on access to firearms would move the country in the wrong direction. We know that the presence of firearms in the home increases the likelihood they will be used against someone in the household. We have seen the incendiary effect they have when protesters arrive at demonstrations with military-style rifles slung over their shoulders. Accidental deaths and suicides run higher in jurisdictions with the fewest restrictions on gun ownership. Thats all part of the history we would hope even a conservative court would contemplate as it holds the fate of so many people in its hands.

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.

Previous

Continue reading here:
Another View: What a Justice Barrett might mean for the Second Amendment - Press Herald

People said they left feeling even more confident in their decision as they head to the polls for the next few weeks.

MACON, Ga. Just 18 days from Election Day, people who attended President Donald Trump's rally on Friday said he solidified their votes.

"I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Democrat, I'm just an American and I've never really been into politics, but a couple days ago, it was my 18th birthday so President Trump will be the first person I vote for. I just had to come over here and say that," says Kinsley Ann Hadaway, from Alabama

"I think that a lot more people showed up than what they thought. I think the parking was really difficult, but other than that, it was a really good turnout and there's a lot of support for Donald Trump," said Tanner Bone of Warner Robins.

When we asked his favorite part of the rally, Bone adds, "Probably his Second Amendment, when he was speaking about how the Second Amendment is at risk right now, I like that he supports that."

Cameron Bligen from Peachtree City said, "Tonight's rally has been great. I think that people need to see that this country is united and not as divided as the fake news wants you to see."

Shawn Evanuk from Centerville said, "Second Amendment rights, the fact that he's all for what America stands for, that's basically it in a nutshell."

13-year-old Daniel McElheney from Jones County said although he can't vote, "He's my favorite president and he's done so much for America and I think he's great."

There was a long wait time for buses to get back to the parking lots after the rally, and some people chose to walk the 1.25 miles to their cars instead.

View post:
Attendees say President Trump's MAGA rally in Macon solidified their votes - 13WMAZ.com

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

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

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