Mediaboss Marketing

Justice Brett Kavanaugh was among the SCOTUS judges that shot down the NY gun case.

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. ~ Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from the Birmingham Jail; often miscited in abbreviated form as: Justice delayed is justice denied. Various renditions of the quotation have come down through the ages, recited by many learned and famous men. The origin of the quotation likely came from William Penn (1644 to 1718), who asserted, To delay Justice is injustice.

Blacks Law Dictionary says this about the concept, justice: In jurisprudence. The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due. . . . In the most extensive sense of the word it differs little from virtue; for it includes within itself the whole circle of virtues. . . . But justice, being in itself a part of virtue, is continued to things simply good or evil, and consists in a mans taking such a proportion of them as he ought. Bouvier. Commutative justice is that which should govern contracts. It consists in rendering to every man the exact measure of his dues, without regard to his personal worth or merits, i. e., placing all men on an equality. . . .

Some good Americans think the principal Petitioner, the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) prevailed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners V. City Of New York, 590 U.S ____ (2020), simply because New York Cityevidently fearing loss if the case were decided on the meritscapitulated, redrafting New York City regulations and New York State Statute, permitting New York City holders of restricted handgun premise licenses to lawfully take their firearms out of the City. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the mootness issue and found for the City against NYSRPA.

Nonetheless, can this case legitimately be considered a win for NYSRPA? Holders of such New York City restricted handgun licenses are not permitted to use the firearm for self-defense outside of the residence or business to which the license confers or deigns a right (more a privilege) of use for self-defense? And questions remain as to limitations on the import of travel to and from the residence or business establishmentquestions that could only have been resolved were the case to be decided on the merits.

Some Second Amendment scholars with whom AQ has since spoken believed the New York City case was not a good Second Amendment case to be decided by the Court, not least of all because it allowed the City to exploit the problems, predictably. These scholars believe that Kavanaugh, having urged, in his concurring opinion, for another Second Amendment caseamong those presently pending on a writ of certiorarito be taken up by the Court means that the Court will, shortly, take up another Second Amendment case. The idea, then, is that the NYC case was important for that reason alone.

Be that as it may, it still does not explain why, if Justice Kavanaugh agreed with Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court in ruling in favor of New York City, against the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners V. City Of New York, 590 U.S ____ (2020), on the mootness issue.

Why didnt Justice Kavanaugh just add his name to that of the liberal wing of the Court and to that of Chief Justice Roberts, in deciding in favor of the City, and leave it at that?

Did Justice Kavanaugh feel a jurisprudential need to write a concurring opinion, knowing that going along with the liberal wing is not what would be expected of him, given his past deference to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, in his well-reasoned, comprehensive dissent in Heller II?

Did Associate Justice Kavanaugh feel he needed to write a concurring opinion, knowing that siding with Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the High Court, against the conservative wing, comprising, Justices, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, would lead the American public, to infer, not unreasonably, legal and logical inconsistency and incongruous intellectual dishonesty on Kavanaughs partsomething impossible for him to hide? Perhaps. But no one really knows because no reporter or commentator has even bothered to hazard a guess as to Justice Kavanaughs motives or motivation for drafting a concurring at all.

Does Justice Kavanaugh know for a certainty the High Court will in fact take up for review another and more significant Second Amendment case and did he intend to use a concurring opinion specifically to inform the legal community and the public of that fact?

No commentator, to date, to our knowledge, has explored these questions and that leaves us in a quandary as to Kavanaugh's intentions.

For example, on April 27, 2020, Amy Howe, independent contractor, and reporter, who writes regularly for the SCOTUS blog, simply reiterated the simple fact that:

Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion in which he explained that he agreed with the majority that the gun owners original claims are moot and that the new claims should be addressed first by the lower courts. But Kavanaugh also indicated that he agreed with Alitos general analysis of Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the court made clear that the Second Amendment applies fully to the states, and that he shares Alitos concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. Kavanaugh posited that the Supreme Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

In her follow-up article, dated April 28, 2020, on SCOTUS blog, Amy Howe, reiterated the fact that:

The courts electronic docket reveals that Kavanaughs suggestion may come to fruition soon: By the end of the day yesterday, the Supreme Court had distributed for consideration at Fridays conference 10 cases that had apparently been on hold for the New York case.

Is this a cause for rejoicing simply because writs of certiorari in several Second Amendment cases have been filed with the Supreme Court and are pending a vote? The idea that the Supreme Court should address the issue whether Courts are properly applying Heller and McDonald doesnt mean that the Supreme Court will address that issue.

Possibility is not the same thing as probability, and even less, certainty. And, if the Court does agree to hear another Second Amendment case, when might that be? And, if soon, will the Court actually address the issue whether Appellate Courts had properly applied Heller and McDonald? Lastly, how would such a case be decided? These are not spurious questions. They are serious ones and unsettling ones, worthy of speculation. And the point of this speculation is that the New York City gun transport case was the first case to come down the pike ten years after McDonald, involving a core Second Amendment issue (with the exception of the seeming quasi Second Amendment Voisine case)

Keep in mind, there have been many Second Amendment cases that came before the High Court on writs of certiorari, in the intervening years between the seminal rulings in Heller and McDonald and the negative decision in the New York City gun transport case. Each of those cases should have been reviewed but were not reviewed. What happened to those petitions?

Those cases the Supreme Court failed to review reflect, to a one, the fact that U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, around the Country, blatantly and defiantly ignored case precedent clearly and categorically laid down in Heller and McDonald.

In future segments, we will begin our comprehensive analysis of what to our mind is Justice Kavanaughs bizarre concurring opinion in the New York City gun transport case, and we will address the mootness issue head-on.

We will strive to decipher Kavanaughs concurring to ascertain if Kavanaughs decision, siding with the Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court, is merely an anomaly or if it portends something ominous: an entire rethinking of Kavanaughs philosophy pertaining to the Second Amendment? Our aim, in forthcoming articles, will be to determine whether Americans can trust Brett Kavanaugh to remain true to his Oath to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit:www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Read more:
Justice Kavanaugh: Friend or Foe to the Second Amendment? - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Q: Many dont know the difference between a county commissioner and a county council member. Briefly explain the difference in responsibilities, and what you hope to accomplish as a commissioner if elected.

A: The council is responsible for setting tax rates and budgets for all county departments, such as the sheriffs office, or the county highway department. The commissioners act as the county executive. Theyre responsible for the daily management of the countys business. They also act as the legislative branch, creating or amending ordinances. One of the many things I love about the office, is that its made up of three people, so no one person has unilateral power. They must work together to reach agreement on issues. This appeals to me, as I believe in consensus building. As commissioner, I will work to bring a fresh approach to the business of Bartholomew County. As we have seen through the pandemic, technology has become vital to delivering and receiving information and services. I will bring an understanding of the efficiency and value of embracing new technologies. Also, I would work to expand our incredible veterans office to create a true outreach to our military heroes.

Q: One remark often heard from first-term elected county officials is that they had no idea how much time the job required until after being sworn into office. What have you learned to be the lesser-known responsibilities of a commissioner, and are you confident youll be able to make the necessary time commitment?

A: I have had many in-depth conversations about the responsibilities of the office with the current commissioners, and I have a strong grasp of the time commitment. Along with the scheduled meetings, there are work sessions, board appointments, and special meetings that I will attend. I also know that there will be citizens who will need some of my time as issues arise. I not only understand the commitment, I look forward to it. I have spent my entire life looking for ways to help others, and I have given freely of my time when it was needed. Also, having been a business owner for 30 years, my staff is quite supportive of the idea that I wont be in the office as often, which Im not quite sure how to take.

Q: If city and county officials had agreed last winter to a proposal to become a Second Amendment sanctuary, local governments could have claimed the right to refuse to cooperate with any state and federal firearm law they deemed unconstitutional. Did you agree or disagree with the proposal introduced in January to become a Second Amendment sanctuary?

A: I fully support the Second Amendment, and a persons right to protect themselves. I would not, however, vote for sanctuary status for several reasons. First, due to Indianas limited home rule status, commissioners, who are the keepers of home rule powers, do not have the authority to pass laws that are in conflict with state law. Second, our fore-fathers, in their infinite wisdom, anticipated these types of challenges, and vested the third branch, the courts, with the power to determine the constitutionality of laws. And third, in my opinion, the most important thing an elected official must understand is the limit to the authority of their office. I believe declaring sanctuary status of any kind, and saying there are laws we will not enforce, is government overreach.

Tony London

Age: 52

Education: Columbus North High School Class of 1986. Received bachelor of arts degree in political science, history and religious studies from Indiana University in 1990.

Career: Founder and president of the Tony London Co. since 1991.

Community activities: Columbus Area Planning Commission; Columbus Board of Zoning Appeals; Columbus Area Career Connection Board of Advisors; Taylorsville Bears/Bartholomew County Bears Youth Football and Cheer Board; Columbus Indiana Scottish Festival.

Family: Wife, Amy. Son, Charlie, 16 and daughter, Kate, 12.

View original post here:
Tony London: Candidate looks forward to serving in public office - The Republic

With the ReOpenNC group planning protests in five North Carolina cities on Memorial Day including Greensboro, the husband of one of the groups founders published a Facebook video that says violence shouldnt be ruled out.

Are we willing to kill people? Are we willing to lay our lives down? We have to say yes, Adam Smith said in a Facebook Live video posted on Friday.

Later in the 17-minute video, he said, If you bring force, were gonna bring force. If you bring guns, were gonna bring guns. If youre armed with this, were gonna be armed with this.

Smith, husband of ReOpenNC founder Ashley Smith of Morganton, took the video down after it was first reported by the Raw Story website. But Ashley Smith reposted the video Sunday afternoon on the ReOpenNC Facebook page.

Maybe you agree with him and maybe you dont, but we have nothing to hide, Ashley Smith wrote on Facebook. This group is built on the Constitution and that includes free speech and the second amendment. He is simply stating to protect his family and our freedom he is willing to take up arms like our forefathers did.

Reached late Sunday night by the News & Record, Ashley Smith said that her husbands comments have nothing to do with the rallies occurring today.

"In no way was it in any context with any rallies," she said.

Weve done five events in Raleigh ... and theres not been firearms at any of them, she said. Its going to be very patriotic, very family friendly.

The Greensboro rally will be at 11 a.m. at the Phill G. McDonald Plaza, 110 S. Greene St.

Ashley Smith said her husband is an ex-Marine who remains willing to die for all of you too, as he was when he was enlisted.

Adam Smith was also present along with other armed Blue Igloo demonstrators in downtown Raleigh on May 16. Blue Igloo is likely a play on the word Boogaloo, which the Anti-Defamation League describes as a slang term for a coming civil war.

The ReOpenNC group formed on Facebook on April 7, quickly growing to its current 78,900 members. The group has held numerous protests in downtown Raleigh, near the Legislative Building and the Governors Mansion, in opposition to Gov. Roy Coopers executive orders aimed at slowing the coronavirus spread.

State Capitol Police arrested Ashley Smith at one of the ReOpenNC rallies in Raleigh for disobeying an executive order. In a video of the incident, Adam Smith calls police little thugs for arresting her. Look at these thugs, people, arresting her for walking on the sidewalk, Adam Smith says.

Even as Cooper relaxed social restrictions on Friday, moving the state into Phase Two of his reopening plan by allowing more businesses to open and restaurants to resume indoor dining at reduced capacity, the group planned Memorial Day Freedom Rallies today. In addition to Greensboro, rallies are planned in Charlotte, Asheville, Raleigh and Wilmington at 11 a.m., according to the groups Facebook page.

The group seeks an end to all social restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has infected 23,222 people and led to 744 deaths in the state since March.

In the Facebook Live video, Adam Smith calls suggestions to wear masks and practice social distancing as part of an indoctrination test.

It is a test run to see how much liberty were willing to give up without a fight, Adam Smith said. Boy, you know what I say? Not an inch. Not an inch, Mr. Cooper.

While calling anyone who took issue with her husbands comments disgraceful, Ashley Smith said Sunday that he maybe could have chosen his words better.

Could he have said it better? Ashley Smith said on Facebook. Maybe, but thats not for anyone to decide how a free person should speak their mind. Our founding fathers would not be pleased that we gave up so much for so little. Look how hard we are having to fight to get our freedom back!

The News & Observer reached out Sunday to police departments in the five cities where ReOpenNC plans protests today.

Ron Glenn, public information officer for the Greensboro Police Department said: Im not sure if anyone is aware of that video, but the group has a permit to use the space (for the rally).

We have officers assigned to work that event and enough resources in place to handle that event," he said. "Were not expecting any issues from that group. The organizers have followed the protocol required to be in that area.

Police from the other four cities have not responded to the News & Observer.

Walt and Stephanie Emery of Winston-Salem were on hand for the protests in Raleigh on Tuesday, where demonstrators demanded restrictions be lifted on businesses in North Carolina.

Protesters gather at the corner of Jones and Wilmington streets across from the legislative building in Raleigh on Tuesday. Most called for North Carolina to reopen businesses shuttered due to the COVIID-19 pandemic.

Staff writer Jonas Pope IV and News & Record reporter Kenwyn Caranna contributed to this report.

This article is published through the N.C. News Collaborative, a partnership of Lee Newspapers, Gannett and McClatchy newspapers in North Carolina that aims to better inform readers throughout the state.

See the original post:
Husband of ReOpenNC leader says hes willing to kill people to fight government control - Winston-Salem Journal

We live in a country where the right to buy a gun is more sacrosanct than the right of a black person to not be shot and killed by someone with a gun.

On Feb. 23, Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old black man was out jogging in a Georgia neighborhood when he was chased down, shot, and killed by Gregory and Travis McMichael, a white father and his son. Despite having a video of the killing and knowing the identities of the two suspects, it took Georgia authorities more than two months to arrest the McMichaels, which finally occurred on May 7.

Also in the past month, a group of gun shop owners, would-be gun owners, and gun rights advocates filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts federal District Court challenging an order signed by Governor Charles D. Baker '79 that mandated non-essential businesses, including gun shops, remain closed during the pandemic. On May 7, less than one month later and the same day the McMichaels were finally arrested United States District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock issued an order allowing gun shops to reopen because, even in an emergency, we dont surrender our constitutional rights. Judge Woodlock found that the plaintiffs Second Amendment right to bear arms deserve[s] respect and vindication.

It took a federal judge in Massachusetts less time to uphold the right to buy a gun than it took officials in Georgia to arrest two white men who were captured on video shooting and killing a black man. Maybe this says something about the differences between our federal and state judicial systems, between our civil and criminal law institutions. Maybe it says something about the differences between Massachusetts and Georgia, between north and deep south. Undoubtedly, it says something about who we are and what we value.

The Constitution sets the parameters for the relationship between the people and their government. It does not really govern the way ordinary citizens interact with each other. Judge Woodlocks decision rests on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, meaning the government cannot interfere with a persons right to buy, own, or carry a gun. Apparently, government officials in Georgia also didnt want to intervene when two white men used their guns to kill a black man for no reason the case has now been overseen by four different prosecutors.

The Declaration of Independence, on the other hand, does not create rights. Rather, it was written to inspire colonists who felt increasingly oppressed by the British government. The words are aspirational and, unlike the Constitution, do not carry the force of law. Still, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the first draft, wanted his words to be an expression of the American mind. The preamble states, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. What may have been self-evident in the 1770s are only half-truths today.

No matter how one feels about the Second Amendment, we should take comfort that, at least in this one instance in Massachusetts, our judicial system worked the way it should: a group of people who believed their constitutionally-protected rights were violated filed a lawsuit, a judge heard them, and their rights were protected.

But Second Amendment rights only go so far. The Second Amendment grants the right to own a gun; it is not a license to kill. The murder of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia should shock our collective conscience not only for its brazenness but because it proves, yet again, that our system of justice does not work for everyone. It should not take hashtags and marches over two months to prompt government officials to arrest two men for murder, particularly when the crime was captured on video.

The Constitution protects the rights of Gregory and Travis McMichael to own guns. Yet for Ahmaud Arbery and countless black people across the country, the Declaration of Independences recognition of our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness apparently doesnt apply.

The time for us to get our priorities straight as a country is long overdue.

Jennifer A. Serafyn is a graduate student at the Harvard Kennedy School and a Zuckerman Fellow at the Center for Public Leadership.

Originally posted here:
America's Two Kinds of Justice | Opinion - Harvard Crimson

Remember civics class ... and not paying attention? These days, we need that civics lesson more than ever. The Civics Project is a fact-based, nonpartisan weekly column meant to answer your most basic questions about how the American government and political system are supposed to work.

Question: Why do courts need to interpret the U.S. Constitution? Why dont they just follow what it says?

Answer: Some provisions of the U.S. Constitution are very clear. For example, Section 1 of Article Two of the Constitution requires that the president must be at least 35 years old. However, the Constitution has provisions that are much less clear. For example, the 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. What is cruel, and how unusual does it need to be?

The Second Amendment provides that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But, few would argue this means we cannot keep felons from owning assault-style rifles. Many of the most important provisions of the Bill of Rights use broad language like unreasonable search and seizure and due process of law. We rely on courts to give these phrases meaning.

Further, even in the case where the provision is relatively clear, the world around us is changing. The Constitution doesnt change much, but the society it governs changes a great deal. So how do you apply the Constitution when the language is expansive or to situations that were not even imagined when the document was written?

Judges use different methods to settle these conflicts. They look at the meaning of the words, the intentions of the framers, and precedent. You have probably heard buzz words like Strict Construction, Original Meaning, Living Constitution, or Textualism. Those are just some of the strategies that judges use to discern the meaning of the Constitution.

Some argue that the Constitution should only be interpreted based solely on the text. Others argue we should look to the original intent of the drafters. Yet, others contend that judges should be more pragmatic, and the Constitution must be interpreted in light of our current society and not just based on what was known years or even centuries ago.

The cynical would claim that these strategies are just defenses for judges to reach the conclusions that they would have reached anyway. Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court has been the most popular of our federal branches of government, largely because it has been seen as outside regular partisan battles. Its role is purportedly to neutrally interpret the law. Current Chief Justice John Roberts has tried to reinforce that view by asserting that judges are not defined by the president who appointed them. Yet, increasingly people see the court as partisan. And that is unfortunate.

As Congress and the president are unable to reach compromises and legislate, many issues are being decided in the courts. As a result, judges play a greater role in the U.S. than in other constitutional republics with more detailed constitutions that specify individual rights and government powers. Our political fights become legal fights. Issues such as abortion, immigration and health care are currently being litigated.

I suspect the deciding issue for many voters in this years election will be which candidate is more likely to appoint judges and justices who will issue decisions which will align with their values.

Kevin Wagner is a noted constitutional scholar, and political science professor at Florida Atlantic University. The answers provided do not represent the views of the university.

The professor wants to hear from you. Keep in mind that no question is too basic; but it can be too partisan. So if you have a question about how American government and politics works, send us an email at rchristie@pbpost.com.

Read this article:
The Civics Project: Like it or not, much of the Constitution is subject to interpretation... and increasingly, partisanship - Palm Beach Post