Mediaboss Marketing

On Tuesday, the city council in Richmond, Va., voted to ban firearms from public property during protests and other events. The ordinance may not hold up in court, but its a clear indication public officials are concerned about the rise in political confrontations and violence this year.

When you increase tensions with firearms, its just not a good mix, Gerald Smith, Richmonds chief of police, told the council, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Sooner or later, we are going to have different groups with different opinions who square off with each other.

Around the country, protesters and counter-protesters have clashed repeatedly this year, occasionally violently and sometimes fatally. A teenager named Kyle Rittenhouse is in custody for allegedly shooting three protesters, killing two of them, in Kenosha, Wis., last month. Last week, U.S. Marshals shot and killed Michael Forest Reinoehl, the suspect in an earlier fatal shooting of a far-right demonstrator in Portland, Ore.

Throughout the period of anti-racism protests this year, armed members of self-styled militias have appeared at demonstrations, saying they were protecting property and exercising their Second Amendment rights. The anti-police protests themselves have frequently devolved after dark into rioting and looting.

This isnt exactly new in American politics. This is a country that survived a bloody civil war. Something that might have been fairly regular during the 19th century, however, retains the capacity to shock in the 21st century.

Up until recently, we found any kind of violence to be shocking, somehow a threat to the broader stability of the community, says Jeffrey Selinger, author of Embracing Dissent: Political Violence and Party Development in the United States. Were so far removed from violence that even a flare-up of modest proportions registers as a pretty substantial event that shapes the public conversation.

Other countries may routinely witness violence and deaths during an election season, but its not something that has happened here for a long time. We now have the potential in towns and cities across the country for pretty significant violence, with a large number of deaths, said Steven Levitsky, a political scientist at Harvard University. We should not be watching the political death count rise in a mature democracy like the United States.

A new study finds evidence that the American populace is growing more tolerant of political violence. Most remain opposed to the idea, but there may be violent partisanship among tens of millions of Americans, write political scientists Nathan Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason.

Fifteen percent of Republicans and 20 percent of Democrat agreed that the country would be better off if large numbers of opposing partisans in the public today just died, a shockingly brutal sentiment, they write. Seventeen percent of Democrats and 7 percent of Republican report every wishing that someone would injure one or more politicians from the out-party.

Its easy for partisans to view the other side as a threat something that might now lead to real and violent action. This year has seen everything from shoving matches to sometimes fatal shootings of protesters in places such as Albuquerque, Austin, Louisville and Shellsburg, Pa.

Rather than calling for calm, some politicians, from President Trump on down, appear to be fanning the flames. On Wednesday, the House Intelligence Committee released a whistleblower complaint alleging that top officials at the Department of Homeland Security have attempted to downplay the threat from white supremacists.

The willingness of the political parties to castigate the other side for violence and their supporters to cross the line into physical confrontation has many people worried that the problem will only grow heading into the election and perhaps its aftermath.

Unfortunately, I see many reasons to expect further escalation of political violence before Election Day, says Michigan State political scientist Matt Grossman, and I cant think of any reasons to expect de-escalation.

Politics is filled with martial metaphors, with candidates claiming theyre under attack, dehumanizing opponents or describing them as dangerous. Politicians do their best to appear tough and pledge to defend nervous supporters, while provoking the other side. Posing with firearms is routine. Congressman Ken Buck, who chairs the Colorado Republican Party, appeared at a fundraiser last month wearing a tee-shirt that read, "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out."

Lately, the tone has at times grown more heated. Clay Higgins, a GOP congressman from Louisiana, posted pictures of Black protesters on Facebookand wrote, Id drop any 10 of you where you stand I wouldnt even spill my beer. The post has been removed by Facebook. Civil rights groups are calling for Higgins to be censured.

Last fall, Moe Davis, now a Democratic nominee for Congress in North Carolina, took to Twitter to write, When @NCGOP extremists go low, we stomp their scrawny pasty necks with our heels and once you hear the sound of a crisp snap you grind your heel hard and twist it slowly side to side for good measure.

While politicians sometimes make and often receive threats, ordinary citizens have grown more likely to confront each other in public spaces. Trump supporters rode on trucks through downtown Portland, Ore. already the scene of violent clashes between leftist protesters and police or federal forces shooting paintballsand spraying mace.

When did it become acceptable to shoot at someone because they were supporting the President of the United States? tweeted Jean Evans, executive director of the Missouri Republican Party, in response to reports of suspects shooting at a pro-Trump caravan.

Last week, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden condemned looting and rioting. "Violence will not bring change, it will only bring destruction, he said. It's wrong in every way."

Republicans have complained that Biden has not done enough, holding Democrats responsible for widespread violence around the country. Make no mistake: These are left-wing terrorists and Joe Biden voters, tweeted Tim Murtaugh,communications director for the Trump campaign. You really can't tell where Biden's campaign ends and ANTIFA begins.

Its become a frequent complaint in conservative circles that mainstream media outlets have downplayed or dismissed rioting, mocking the phrase mostly peaceful protests when theres been evidence of damage such as burned buildings for anyone to see. Rioting condoned by the Democratic leadership is the reason Vanderburgh County, Ind., Sheriff Dave Wedding gave Wednesday on Fox News for leaving the party.

Trump has threatened to withhold federal funding from cities that have been plagued by violence, describing them as "anarchist jurisdictions." He has put the blame for thuggery on Democratic leadership. He has repeatedly commented on political violence in ways that sometimes seem almost celebratory tweeting out videos of clashes and liking a tweet suggesting Kyle Rittenhouse's actions were a reason to support the president. Trump tweeted that the big backlash in Portland should not have been unexpected and retweeted a prediction that citizen militias would rise up around the country.

Trump has a long history of appearing to condone and even encourage violence. During the 2016 campaign, he called on supporters to knock the crap out of protesters, pledging to pay any resulting legal fees. He said of one protester, Id like to punch him in the face.

These people only know one thing, and that is strength, Trump said during a campaign rally in North Carolina on Tuesday. Thats all they know strength. And we have strength.

During Trumps speech accepting the Republican presidential nomination, he warned that your vote will decide whether we protect law-abiding Americans, or whether we give free rein to violent anarchists and agitators and criminals who threatened our citizens.

That night, protesters outside the White House placed Trump in effigy in a guillotine. Lugging guillotines to protests has become a common, although not yet frequent, habit of leftists staging protests. Following Trumps speech, Black Lives Matter protesters surrounded and yelled epithets at Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul and his wife, who were escorted from the scene by police.

Democrats are encouraging violence in Americas cities, calling President Trump and GOP lawmakers domestic enemies, and using other reckless rhetoric to further divide this nation, Lenze Morris, press secretary for the Republican State Leadership Committee, said in a statement.

American politics is becoming like some ugly, distorted funhouse mirror. Partisans see the other side as an existential threat to the American way of life, however they define that. The American Conservative recently ran a column arguing that violence is justified to defend civil society, while NPR gave a platform to the author of a book defending looting.

What were seeing is performative violence, a kind of posturing intended for an audience, a mass audience that will be captured by cellphones, says Selinger, a government professor at Bowdoin College in Maine. The game is to make yourself look like the victim, but still intimidate.

Selinger notes that political violence has a long way to go before it gets anywhere near as bad as it was in this country in earlier eras. Violence was once a common tactic of union busters, while hundreds of African-Americans were lynched as part of a campaign of intimidation, often state-sanctioned, during the Jim Crow era.

There is still a difference, as Trump has suggested, between shooting paint balls and shooting bullets. The thing about violence, however, is that it has a tendency to escalate. That may be especially true in crowds, which are notorious for loosening individual restraint.

There has already been blood and many are worried that things will get worse during the election proper, and after, if there is not a clear-cut victory in the presidential race. Trump has floated the idea of sheriffs and other law enforcement officials monitoring polling places, while the Republican Party is looking to recruit 50,000 poll watchers -- the party's first nationwide effort in decades, following the recent expiration of a consent decree after a 1981 election in New Jersey in which armed poll watchers prevented some Blacks and Hispanics from voting.At his North Carolina rally on Tuesday, Trump urged supporters to act as poll watchers to counteract "thieving and stealing and robbing" he claimed Democrats would do.

Kalmoe and Mason find that partisans are likely to reject violence if it's denounced by partisan leaders, but at the moment there's more effort at castigating the other side than trying to calm temperatures all around.

Their study points to the possibility that even the winning side may be emboldened to engage in violence. Nine percent of Republicans and Democrats say that, in general, violence is at least occasionally acceptable, they write. However, when imagining an electoral loss in 2020, larger percentages of both parties approve of the use of violence though this increase is greater for Democrats (18 percent approve) than Republicans (13 percent approve).

Mason, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, isnt pleased by her own findings. I'm having trouble writing my book on political violence, she tweeted, because I'm too worried about political violence.

See the article here:
Violence Will Likely Escalate Ahead of the Election - Governing

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that the Second Amendment restricts the actions of the states as well as the federal government, the constitutionality of state laws related to firearms has been less than certain.

It was only two years earlier that the Supreme Court had declared, with its ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that does not depend on participation in a state militia. The McDonald case established that this is a fundamental right that applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which bars the states from denying liberty to any person without due process of law.

Beyond that, the details are still to be worked out.

One such detail is the constitutionality of Californias ban on the possession of large capacity magazines (LCMs), those capable of holding more than ten rounds. In 2000, California banned the manufacture, importation and sale of LCMs, but state residents who acquired LCMs prior to 2000 were grandfathered and allowed to keep them.

That is, until voters approved Proposition 63 in 2016. That measure made it unlawful to possess an LCM after July 2017. The law was immediately challenged.

In mid-August, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs and struck down the ban. Judge Kenneth Lee wrote in the majority opinion, Even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster. The ruling said Californias ban on possession of LCMs strikes at the core of the Second Amendmentthe right to armed self-defense.

Or does it?

One member of the three-judge panel dissented, writing that the majority opinion conflicted with an earlier case decided in the Ninth Circuit that upheld a similar law. And on Tuesday, a New Jersey law banning LCMs was upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit asking for a rehearing by an 11-judge panel. But by fighting for Californias ban on the possession of LCMs, Becerra may be risking that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually hear the case and use it to strike down a broader range of state gun restrictions.

The dispute between the circuits, and between the judges, centers on the entirely subjective judgment of whether a law is a reasonable regulation or a severe burden on core Second Amendment rights. Since the McDonald case, the U.S. Supreme Court has passed up opportunities to hear cases that could more specifically define the boundaries of state regulation of firearms.

In 2017, justices declined the opportunity to hear Peruta v. California, in which the issue was the right of ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. Edward Peruta had been denied a concealed carry permit by the San Diego County sheriff on the grounds that self-defense was not sufficient good cause for the issuance of a permit.

If the current California case, Duncan v. Becerra, eventually reaches the justices, it could lead to a narrow ruling limited to the constitutionality of Californias 2016 ban on possession of property that was legally acquired years before. However, if the justices agree to hear the case, it could ultimately strengthen Second Amendment rights more generally, appropriately narrowing the scope of state power to limit a fundamental right.

Here is the original post:
California and the Second Amendment - LA Daily News

Clay Scofield, Special to the Advertiser Published 6:10 p.m. CT Sept. 3, 2020

Clay Scofield (R), Marshall County, was elected in 2010 to the Alabama Senate representing District 9.(Photo: Contributed)

PortlandSeattleChicagoNew York City

Scenes of rioting, looting, lawlessness, and utter chaos in these once-great American cities have become commonplace on television news channels over the past several months.

Liberal Democrat mayors like Bill DeBlasio, Lori Lightfoot, and Ted Wheeler have ceded control to mob rule, and Alabamians are joining millions across the country in asking when the violence will be brought to an end.

At the same time, these leftist politicians and many in the Hollywood elite are working to take away your Second Amendment gun rights while they remain safely protected behind heavily-armed security details.

Because the violent protesters, looters, and rioters have no regard for human life or property, the ability to own a firearm if you choose is more important than ever before.

But when it comes to the issue of gun control, interim U.S. Senator Doug Jones chooses to stand with his fellow liberals like Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rather than with the Alabama citizens he swore an oath to serve.

Those of us who embrace gun ownership for home protection, hunting, sport shooting, and other reasons understand that Joness election to a full term poses perhaps the biggest threat to our rights in the history of our state, and there is ample evidence to prove that fact.

After receiving the National Rifle Associations lowest possible rating on the groups annual congressional scorecard, Jones attacked the NRA and accused it of holding extreme positions on firearms-related issues.

When members of the Alabama Legislature introduced a bill to provide certain public school teachers with law enforcement firearms training and certification as a deterrent against school shootings, Jones called the proposal the dumbest idea I have ever heard.

And Jones has greedily raked in thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from far-left gun control groups and committed activists who are opposed to firearms possession.

At the same time, his advertisements have included photos and videos of a flannel-clad Jones awkwardly carrying a shotgun while stomping through the woods in an attempt to portray him as an outdoor enthusiast.

Ask yourself what kind of true outdoorsman receives the NRAs lowest rating alongside the most strident, anti-gun fanatics in the U.S. Congress.

Similarly, Joness record of voting to confirm conservative federal judges who will interpret the Second Amendment as our founding fathers intended has fallen short time and again, and he has cast his lot, instead, with those who celebrate Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the patron saint justice who is worthy of worship.

He famously opposed the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh and supported Senate liberals like Kamala Harris as they subjected the judge and his family to unprecedented levels of falsehoods, conjecture, and character assassination.

In 2017, Jones also admitted to the Washington Post that he would have voted against Justice Neil Gorsuch had he been serving in the Senate at the time.

Coach Tommy Tuberville, on the other hand, will fight tooth and nail to protect the Second Amendment, and he will stand-in the breach against liberal Democrats who attempt to grab out guns.

Unlike Doug Jones, Tuberville is a true and dedicated sportsman, and guns have been a part of his life since his father, a World War II veteran who drove a tank across Europe with General George Patton, first introduced him to hunting. Since that time, he has hunted for quail in the Wiregrass, shot white-tailed deer in Jackson County, and stalked prey on the large tract of hunting land that he owns in East Alabama.

Tuberville understands that gun ownership is a time-honored tradition in Alabama, and it is one that most who live here hold dear. Whether you want to possess a firearm for hunting or to protect your family when an intruder comes kicking at your door, Tuberville will stand strong for your right

It has often been said that the 2020 election is the most important in our lifetime, and that is no overstatement.

We are not just choosing between Tommy Tuberville and Doug Jones, but also between two distinct directions our nation will take - pro-gun vs. anti-gun, pro-life vs. abortion, American excellence vs. globalism, law and order vs. mob rule, conservatism vs. liberalism, and the list goes on.

It is time for Alabamians to have a U.S. senator who represents our conservative values, not liberal New York and California values, when it comes to gun rights and other issues.

I urge all Alabamians to join me in voting for Coach Tommy Tuberville, a proven winner and staunch defender of the Second Amendment, in the November 3 general election.

Clay Scofield (R), Marshall County, was elected in 2010 to the Alabama Senate representing District 9, which includes Marshall County and a portion of Blount and Madison Counties.

Read or Share this story: https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/opinion/2020/09/03/sen-clay-scofield-doug-jones-poses-biggest-threat-2nd-amendment-alabamas-history/5710616002/

Continue reading here:
Sen. Clay Scofield: Doug Jones poses biggest threat to 2nd Amendment in Alabama's history - Montgomery Advertiser

SOME VETERANS in politics and media have taken it upon themselves to rescue Americans from the dangers of firearms, specifically the AR-15.

Their contention is that these are weapons of war and therefore unfit for civilian use. Pat Ryan, an Iraq War veteran who had run for Congress in New Yorks 19th district, ran a campaign ad in 2018 expressing his desire to get rid of assault rifles. In the wake of the Orlando shooting, Congressman Seth Moulton, a former Marine officer, stated on Twitter that I know assault rifles. I carried one in Iraq. They have no place on Americas streets.

As a Marine trained on the use of numerous military-grade weapons, Seth and others should know better.

The original definition of assault rifle from a 1970 Army Field Manual (FSTC-CW-07-03-70) has been re-purposed by the anti-gun movement to nebulously define firearms they believe civilians should not own. One of the four requirements for the field manuals definition of an assault rifle is a select-fire option (i.e. you can toggle settings between single shot and fully automatic or burst). The fact that the AR-15 currently sold to civilians in America only has a single fire option means it does not meet their definition of an assault rifle. And, just in case anyones wondering, the AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle not Assault Rifle.

But details like these dont matter to the gun control lobby, and the issue with these anti-gun veterans is that they believe they know better than the rest of us. They tout their combat experience with these weapons of war, demanding that we trust their message and heed their warning.

The irony is either they do not know what they are talking about, or, worse, they have suppressed that knowledge in order to appease the politics of the time. At its core, this issue is less about civilian ownership of AR-15s and more about the elitist mentality of any veteran who believes civilians are incapable or irresponsible when it comes to firearms.

As a Marine Corps officer, I carried the same M4 in Iraq that Seth Moulton did. During my time in Iraq, my Marines investigated an officer who had experienced a negligent discharge, where he almost accidentally shot and killed another Marine.

In Iraq, I also witnessed a court martial trial for one of my Marines who had threatened to shoot an NCO in his chain-of-command. Tragically, we also saw a Marine who used his rifle to take his own life.

Human error and human factors affect members of the military just as much as civilians. Should we prevent veterans from owning firearms because they have a higher-than-average rate of suicide compared to the rest of the U.S. population?

At the end of the day, if a person is responsible and knowledgeable about the firearms they own, what difference does it make if he/she is veteran or civilian?

Governor Chris Sununu has done a great job stemming the tide of anti-gun legislation coming through the New Hampshire Legislature. Unfortunately, anti-gun veterans threaten to tip the scales of the discussion in favor of more gun control because they claim to know better than the rest of us.

Most veterans I know do not want to outlaw AR-15s or limit civilian firearm ownership and it is time for the silent majority of pro-Second Amendment veterans to speak their minds, especially in an election year.

If we fail to do so, we are foregoing a responsibility to speak out against the same injustices we joined the military to defend against. And sadly, this issue extends beyond just the discussion of Second Amendment rights.

The I-know-better-than-the-average-civilian mentality has become the de facto stance of the corrupt and powerful in our government. Look no further than the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, where a handful of rogue officials sought to undo the will of the people.

Mike Judge lives in Mason.

Read more:
Mike Judge: The hypocrisy of anti-Second Amendment veterans - The Union Leader

To the editor:

Who will best protect our right to bear arms on the Executive Council? The answer is conservative Janet Stevens.

As a responsible firearm owner and advocate, I proudly stand with Stevens for Executive Council. Many candidates talk about their support for the Second Amendment, but when they get to Concord they take their sights off defending our constitutional right. Stevens will walk the walk.

She will stand with Gov. Chris Sununu in opposition to unconstitutional red flag laws. She supports constitutional carry. She supports New Hampshires stand your ground" law and our right to defend ourselves, our property and our families.

She will vote to appoint pro-Second Amendment judges. Lastly, she supports law and order.

Stevens will never defund our police.

Its unfortunate that one of Janets opponents, Bruce Crochetiere, supported red flag bills and stated in an interview with New Hampshire Public Radio, Its something that has to be done at a local level.

Sununu has vetoed two of these bills. Stevens will stand with the governor and support the Second Amendment.

Lets hold the line and defend our Second Amendment right by voting for Janet Stevens for Executive Council on Sept. 8th. She is the conservative ready to lead on Day One.

Matt Wellington

Derry

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

View original post here:
Letter: Stevens will defend Second Amendment on Executive Council - Eagle-Tribune