Mediaboss Marketing

Jon Gabriel, opinion contributor Published 7:00 a.m. MT Oct. 17, 2020

Opinion: Democratic Senate candidate Mark Kelly founded a center that gave Arizona gun laws an F and endorsed candidates that few gun supporters would back.

Democratic challenger Mark Kelly prepares to debate Republican Sen. Martha McSally at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University on Oct. 6, 2020.(Photo: Rob Schumacher/The Republic)

Sure, Mark Kelly loves the Second Amendment. Just ask him.

"I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, I am a gun owner, the Democrat said at last weeks U.S. Senate campaign debate. Our rights and traditions are so important.

I probably own more firearms than your average Arizonan," he told another interviewer.

But Kellys actions show disdain for gun rights. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which Kelly co-founded,endorsed California as the best model for gun laws while giving Arizona an F.

Californians fleeing their state might vote for the same failed policies in their new home of Arizona. If so, Mark Kelly is their guy. Arizonans who view the basket case to our West as a cautionary tale need to think twice.

Politicians love making promises almost as much as they love breaking them once they arrive in D.C. Its voters duty to trust but verify these oaths, although the trust part is optional.

The record clearly shows that Kelly has spent years pushing gun control legislation and promoting the Second Amendments worst enemies.

For Kelly, the issue of gun control is personal. His wife, Rep. Gabby Giffords, was shot by a mentally ill man in 2011, leaving her with a traumatic brain injury. The gunman killed six others, all with a weapon he legally bought following a background check.

Looking for the other side of the story?Subscribe today for access to even more opinions.

His activism is understandable, but he should be honest about it. Kelly is free to push all the gun control measures he wants; Arizona voters are free to disagree.

Following the Tucson shooting, Kelly and Giffords founded a gun control group called Americans for Responsible Solutions. In 2017, they renamed it Giffords, including a legal arm and political action committee.

The groups mission is fighting to end the gun lobbys stranglehold on our political system. Their long list of political endorsements includes some of the most passionate opponents of our Second Amendment rights.

The Giffords group endorsed Gov. Gavin Newsomin 2018, celebrating California for having the strictest anti-gun laws in the nation.

Im so honored to receive the support of Gabby and Mark two incredible advocates and selfless public servants, Newsom said. I have long admired their work across the country fighting to end gun violence, and Ive been proud to partner with them to strengthen our gun safety laws here in California.

Newsom is eager to push his gun safety laws on Arizona with another ally in the U.S. Senate.

Kelly and Giffords also endorsed Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzkerthat yearfor his attacks on the Second Amendment. Needless to say, Arizona has plenty of former Land of Lincoln residents as well. They fled for a reason.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) earned the coveted Giffords endorsement this year. While Mark Kelly might not mention the words Democrat or progressive in his ads, his organizationsure likes far-left candidates.

Thegroupeven endorsed Rep. Pramila Jayapal (DWash.), who praised protesters inSeattles violent CHAZ as planting the seeds of justice.The next day she called for decriminalizing homelessness and to re-imagine and rebuild law enforcement across the country in order to finally put an end to police brutality, militarization, and anti-Blackness.

Most Arizonans dont want autonomous zones planting the seeds of justice in Phoenix, Tucsonor Flagstaff, but perhaps Kelly disagrees. His groupsendorsement says otherwise.

Just like Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, Mark Kelly fills his ads with waving flags, pickup trucks, and paeans to tradition and the Constitution. But if the past is prelude, a Senator Kelly will push Sacramento and Seattle laws on the freedom-loving voters of Arizona.

I suspect Arizonans dont want to see their state turned into California. Mark Kelly hopes they do.

Jon Gabriel, a Mesaresident, is editor-in-chief of Ricochet.com and a contributor to The Republic and azcentral.com.Follow him on Twitter at@exjon.

Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2020/10/17/mark-kelly-actions-second-amendment-speak-louder-words/3658487001/

Originally posted here:
Mark Kelly says he supports the Second Amendment. But actions speak louder than words - The Arizona Republic

Preserving the Second Amendment right to bear arms is critical for women in situations where they face life-threatening domestic abuse, argues a law professor at George Mason University.

Certainly it is difficult for a woman to adequately defend herself against a man, but when armed for her self-defense she has a chance to deter him and survive, Joyce Lee Malcolm, a Second Amendment Constitutional Law professor at GMUs Antonin Scalia Law School, wrote in a recent Liberty & Law Center Research Paper.

Restraining orders against abusive partners often fail to deter violence, she maintained, citing a study in the Journal of American Psychiatry and the Law, which found that out of nearly 36,000 cases where protection orders had been involved, 18 percent had been violated.

The study also found that 50 percent of those with a temporary restraining order reported unwanted contact in that time frame, while 75 percent of women reported some unlawful contact within the first year of the orders implementation.

In other words, Malcolm claimed, the police failed to protect the victim from their abuser, and many of them have lost their lives because of itbut she maintained law enforcement is not necessarily at fault.

The police simply cannot be on the spot, even when they have reason to know that a violent crime may occur, she wrote.

Malcolm used the example of domestic violence to counter some of the most common arguments against the right to bear arms, arguing that the right to self defense is unalienable, and shouldnt be ignored in this time of peril.

Noting that the claim that citizens dont need firearms because police offer sufficient protection, Malcolm argued that advances in police technology and stiff criminal penalties have not made people safer, according to Malcolm.

Malcolm called it a false belief that citizens licensed to carry a weapon are a danger to public safety and cause an increase in crime.

To support that claim, Malcolm compared FBI violent crime statistics to the timeframes when each state allowed open carry or concealed-carry permits.

From 1993, when violent crime was at its highest, to 2018, when serious violent crime fell 51 percent, Malcolm notes that nearly every state adopted some form of concealed or open carry legislation.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics also found that violent crime correlating with that same period of time fell 71 percent.

In short, the rate of violent crime plummeted at the same time that the numbers of Americans permitted to carry a gun soared, Malcolm explained.

Malcolm conceded that success has many fathers and that changes in the economy and approaches to law enforcement could have impacted the plummeting violent crime rates as well.

But she argued there is a connection between lawfully arming citizens and thousands of incidents where Americans were able to protect themselves and their families.

A 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found the number of times firearms were used for self-defense ranged anywhere between 500,000 times and 3 million times a year.

In another study, the authors point out that as many as 400,000 people a year claim not only to have used a gun to defend themselves, but have also used a firearm to defend others.

This has almost certainly saved lives, and cannot be dismissed as trivial, the paper said.

To offer another perspective about what America would look like if the right to self defense is taken away, Malcolm pointed to England, where, she claimed, the right to self-defense has been effectually removed.

Following World War I, the British Parliament required citizens to get licenses from their local police departments and fit a strict list of requirements that only got stricter as time went on.

However, Malcolm notes that criminals dont abide by the law; so they are not following these handgun outlaws, allowing them to be the only citizens in Britain with firearms.

Moreover, for even law abiding citizens in a state of crisis, Extreme force has been ruled unjustifiable when there was an attempt merely to attack or destroy property, including someone breaking into your house, Malcolm writes.

She continues, The public has been instructed to leave their defense to the police, and to walk on by and call the police if they see someone being attacked.

Not surprisingly, Malcolm writes, crime in Britain following these restrictions soared.

Nevertheless, Malcolms argument was countered by an assertion in the New York Times that gun deaths remain extremely rare in Britain, and very few people, even police officers, carry firearms.

To that end, Malcolm concludes, This British history eerily evokes the policy preferences of todays American progressives eager to take guns out of the hands of citizens in the name of public safety, leaving them to rely for protection on the police.

Malcolm quotes Supreme Court Justice ClarenceThomas, who once referred to the Second Amendment as a constitutional orphan.

If so it is an orphan neglected by the courts, but clung to by the people who are not waiting for the authorities to come by later to pick up the pieces, but who are prepared to defend themselves and their loved ones, Malcolm wrote.

Joyce Lee Malcolm is the Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason Universitys Antonin Scalia Law School.

The full paper can be accessed here.

This summary was prepared by TCR staff writer Andrea Cipriano

Read this article:
Domestic Violence Victims Need the Second Amendment: Paper - Crime Report

RIDGWAY An estimated 300 people gathered at the Elk County Courthouse Saturday in support of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment Rally was an effort of the Elk County Wilds Tourism Association, in collaboration with other organizations, said Tom Fitch, noting the event was very educational.

The ECWTA served food to guests, and people were registered to vote that day, he said.

About 300 people attended, Fitch said. They heard nine speakers talk about the pending threats on the Second Amendment.

The rally welcomed speakers like Pennsylvania General Assembly candidate of the 75th district Mike Armanini and Pennsylvania Senate candidate of the 25th district Rep. Cris Dush.

Members of law enforcement also showed their support for the Second Amendment the right to keep and bear arms including Elk County Sheriff Todd Caltagarone and other officers.

Each speaker brought something different to the rally, Fitch noted.

Sheriff Caltagarone talked about our rights, according to the constitution, Fitch said. Ralph Dussia talked of the assault on our Second Amendment. Ron Burkett explained the erosion of our society, and our rights. Cris Dush and Mike Armanini spoke on pending legislation, and the limitations that will be put on our rights.

Other speakers included Kim Stoffer, John Hauser, Dr. Val Finnel and Austin Pringle of North Central PA Pheasants Forever Chapter 360, according to a news release.

Kim spoke of the effect attacks on Second Amendment, on your rights to defend yourself and your business, Fitch said.

Finnell, a representative of Gun Owners of America, urged attendees that now is the most important time to exercise their right to vote.

Austin spoke about what it (the Second Amendment) means to him, and other youth in shooting competition and personal development, Fitch said.

Local music teacher Jason Phipps sang the National Anthem.

Excerpt from:
Second Amendment Rally welcomes nearly 300 people in Ridgway - The Courier-Express

Editor: In my 52 years of voting in national and local elections, I have never told anyone who to vote for. I will however tell them who I wont vote for and why. I will never vote for anyone who denies the second amendment right to arms. In my 27 years in the military I got to see how unarmed peoples were treated by their governments.

Apparently Mark Kelley crossed his fingers when he swore to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Like the ACLU he defends the first and third though 24th but not the Second. He even loaned his wifes name to the most anti Second Amendment law firm in the nation, The Giffords Law Center (...to provide assistance to promote gun control and oppose firearm ownership).

If you own a firearm Mark is not your friend nor should he be your choice.

Of course Joe Biden and Harris also said many times we are going to come get them.

If you dont think these people are serious guess again. If Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris win and take the senate they will sign the U.N. Treaty on small arms which will vacate the Constitution as a Treaty is the highest law of the land.

Be careful of what you wish for folks.

Those of you are Trump haters, think carefully especially in Arizona.

Albert Bruns

Lake Havasu City

See more here:
Albert Bruns: The 2nd Amendment | Opinion | havasunews.com - Today's News-Herald

Taking on a 9-year-old boy who is about to have an act of the Legislature named in his honor is asking for trouble.

There were no nays when the House last week passed a bill establishing the Ka'Mauri Harrison Act. A university president, the ACLU and the NRA all rushed in to take the lad's side, so it required guts for Jefferson Parish Schools Superintendent James Gray to remain defiant. Hats off to him for that.

This is a fight he can't win, however, and his refusal to strike fourth grader Ka'Mauri's six-day suspension is starting to look not so much gutsy as pigheaded.

Ka'Mauri was originally recommended for expulsion, so maybe school administrators figured they'd get credit for leniency. Instead they find themselves denounced for racism.

Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU in Louisiana, and Walter Kimbrough, president of Dillard University, both weighed in to suggest that a white boy in Ka'Mauri's shoes would have escaped punishment. Odoms cited the deeply rooted racism that she believes fuels the school-to-prison pipeline, while Kimbrough spoke up for Ka'Mauri because he wants his own black son to be viewed through a lens of innocence.

Nobody can say for sure whether administrators had racist motivations, but what we can confidently assert is that they emerge from the brouhaha looking excessively foolish.

Jefferson Parish School Board member Simeon Dickerson endorsed the sentiments of Odoms and Kimbrough, declaring that the penalty was disproportionate to Ka'Mauri's offense. What offense? No lens of innocence is required to view the undisputed facts of the case and fail to discern what the lad did wrong. Gray has refused to revoke the suspension and issue an apology, but the longer he holds out, the greater the embarrassment when he is eventually obliged to fold.

Ka'Mauri would not have gotten into hot water had the coronavirus not forced education online. There he was taking a test at home when the younger brother who shares his room tripped over a BB gun that had been placed on the floor. Ka'Mauri picked it up, stood it by his seat and resumed the test. The teacher spied on her computer screen what she mistook for a full-sized rifle and noted Ka'Mauri would be recommended for expulsion.

A kid would have to be a serious danger to deserve being kicked out of class and having a firearms offense placed on his record. Nobody who regards that as a fair outcome in this case is cut out to take care of children.

The pretext was that, in the age of remote schooling, a student's home is an extension of the campus and the rule forbidding the possession of guns therefore applies. Thus no distinction is drawn between one student who comes to regular class toting a semi-automatic and another who keeps what is not much more than a toy in his private quarters.

State Attorney General Jeff Landry announced an investigation and said this child's Second Amendment rights may have been violated. God help Louisiana if we give children the same gun rights as adults, but no constitutional amendment is as dear to Louisiana legislators as the second.

The House of Representatives therefore rushed to approve the Ka'Mauri Harrison Act, which retroactively gives students the right to appeal an expulsion order in court even if it is reduced to a suspension. The act provides for attorney fees and damages to be awarded and requires every school district to call a meeting of a disciplinary policy review committee before the end of the year to ensure that the privacy rights of students and their families are protected during online instruction.

Disallowing BB guns in cyberspace had to be unthinkable to legislators who always take the position that what Louisiana needs is more deadly weapons in the real world, including schools. Two years ago, they exempted anyone with a concealed carry permit from the law that bans firearms in them.

Teachers and administrators, who may not have relished the prospect of conferences with the armed parents of failed students, objected, but anyone who went to protest at a committee hearing first had to be pass through a metal detector first.

Legislators aren't brave enough to allow guns in the Capitol.

Email James Gill at gill504nola@gmail.com.

Originally posted here:
James Gill: Jefferson hasn't learned its lessons on Second Amendment power at the Capitol - NOLA.com