Mediaboss Marketing

OPINION:

As a young lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre found himself in the offices of powerful then-Rep. John Dingell, Michigan Democrat, with then-Rep. Larry Craig, Idaho Republican, facing the fact that they didnt have the votes to defeat a bill the NRA opposed.

The NRA, founded in New York in the years after the Civil War, counted among its early presidents the likes of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Gen. Philip Sheridan. It focused on gun safety training, competition running national firearms matches and promoting civilian gun ownership and use.

It was bipartisan, avoided politics whenever possible and employed no lobbyists, for there was no real need to do so. There was little argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment, though the NRA had fought some former Confederate states that had enacted legislation restricting gun ownership and possession along racial lines.

That changed, and by the 1960s, gun control had become part of the liberal agenda. The Gun Control Act of 1968 had been enacted at the behest of then-President Lyndon Johnson, and his Republican successor, Richard Nixon, favored even stricter regulations. Gun owners, hunters and those in Congress who represented them were worried.

It was in this atmosphere that Dingell observed that Second Amendment supporters had to be careful because, as he put it, the NRA was essentially a paper tiger. She can roar, but she has no teeth, Mr. Craig remembers him saying.

As Mr. LaPierre, a former high school teacher who grew up in Virginia, and Mr. Craig left Dingells office, they looked at each other and agreed that theyd better get the tiger some teeth. And that is exactly what they did.

Dingell, a staunch Second Amendment supporter, had earlier pushed the NRA to get more involved. The result was the creation of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action in 1975, which Mr. LaPierre would build into a powerhouse able to mobilize hundreds of thousands and later millions of gun owners to vote for their principles.

As head of the institute and later as executive vice president of the NRA itself, Mr. LaPierre built the NRA into one of the most influential and, yes, feared lobbying operations in U.S. history the teeth it so badly needed.

Under his leadership, the NRAs membership grew fivefold. NRA members won victory after victory in Congress, state legislatures and the courts. Today, more than 17 million Americans have permits allowing them to carry concealed weapons. Attempts to ban guns have been defeated time after time, and American gun owners have learned to look to the NRA and Wayne LaPierre for leadership in defending their rights.

That has made him one of the most loved and hated public figures in the country. His success has come at a price. NRA members love him, but those who disagree loath him and have been on the attack against him for years.

Gun control activists have celebrated the demise of Mr. LaPierres activist NRA more times than one can count. Following the passage of the Clinton administrations so-called assault weapons ban, The Washington Post featured an above-the-fold. front-page headline predicting the end of NRA influence. They were wrong then, and those celebrating Mr. LaPierres departure now will be proved wrong, too.

Mr. LaPierres influence and ability to provide teeth to what was a paper tiger when he took over is a tribute to his sense of mission and hard work, along with a lifelong identification with the values of the millions of American gun owners who make up what he has always referred to as the NRA family.

He may have headed the family for more than 30 years, but he knew better than anyone that it was not he but the millions of Americans who make it up that have made the NRA the powerhouse it has become. For all of that, every Second Amendment supporter owes him a debt of gratitude.

David Keene is editor-at-large at The Washington Times.

Go here to read the rest:
Second Amendment supporters owe Wayne LaPierre a debt of gratitude - Washington Times

Maine lawmakers are considering a bill to prohibit unauthorized paramilitary training, leading to concerns about 2nd Amendment rights, and difficulties for Maine firearm trainers.

This bill is a slippery slope, a solution looking for a problem, said Joshua Raines, vice president of Gun Owners of Maine (GOME).

The bill came as a response to a failed attempt by Neo-Nazi Chris Pohlhaus and former Democrat activist Fred Ramey to build a neo-Nazi compound in Springfield, Maine.

[RELATED: Co-Owner of Neo-Nazi Compound in Northern Maine, a Former Democratic Activist, May Be Prohibited from Owning Firearms]

The bill, LD 2130, appears to target a problem that has already been resolved and has raised concerns about violating the rights of firearms instructors and gunsmiths.

LD 2130, makes it a class C. crime if anyone instructs a person in the use of a firearm or explosive, or in the construction of firearms or explosives, if the instructor knows or reasonably should know that training will be used in the furtherance of civil disorder.

Although the bill does define civil disorder, it does not explain what would be considered furtherance of civil disorder.

The bill also fails to specify how the state will determine whether an instructor reasonably should know if someone intends to use their instruction in service of civil disorder.

The bill also has a clause allowing the Attorney General to take civil action against anyone whom they suspect is violating the law, or anyone whom they suspect is about to violate the law.

The bill empowers the court to place a temporary injunction on someone to prevent the suspected crime or future crime.

Ralph Perkins, a firearm instructor and owner of 207 Firearms, expressed concern to the Maine Wire over how the bill could impact his business.

Do you interrogate someone because they want to learn about construction or they go to a welding class? Like, you dont know the intentions of use. You know, your job as an instructor is simply to educate those that are unfamiliar with that hardware, said Perkins.

Perkins believes that the bill is far too vague in explaining what constitutes an offense, and has the potential to threaten his livelihood.

Is this going to affect our way of life, our ability to feed our families, or just educate the public in general, asked Perkins.

Another firearm instructor, Paul Mattson of CWP Training, was less concerned that the bill would directly harm his business, but did see the bill as a violation of Second Amendment rights.

Para is just somebody exercising the Second Amendment right [under] Maine Constitution Article One section 16, said Mattson.

GOME also responded to an email from The Maine Wire, expressing similar concerns as Perkins about the vagueness of the bills language.

Who is to say what constitutes intent to cause civil disobedience, said Joshua Raines. If you ask 10 different people what intent to cause civil disobedience is, youll get 11 different answers.

In addition to their concerns about the bills vagueness, GOME highlighted the power it gives the Attorney General to bring suit against anyone even suspected of a future violation of the law.

The main concern is the amount of unbridled power this hands to the Attorney General.That specific clause could very easily lead to an abuse of power, as well as being used in a political manner, said Raines

More here:
Concerns about 2nd Amendment Rights Raised as Maine Considers Bill Targeting "Paramilitary Training" - The Maine Wire

(Metro photo)

By: Teresa Binkley, Brookings

Updated: 4 hours ago / Posted Feb 6, 2024

Editor's note: This Speakout was submitted byTeresa Binkley of Brookings.

Did anyone else find the governors Feb. 2 Speakout as appalling as I did? Do South Dakotans truly want California gun manufacturers to come to our state and for our great state to become known as a Second Amendment haven?

The governor needs to realize the gun-toting days of the wild west are over. Hunting and shooting family activities the governor describes are a far cry from constitutional carry, waiving all fees for conceal carry permits, and inviting gun manufacturers to our state. Governor Noem is encouraging all of this when there are mass-shootings in our schools and communities on a regular basis. Do we really want our state to be known as a gun haven?

The South Dakotans I know are logical, ethical and hard working. Current leadership in our state is skewing attitudes toward illogical, unethical, and freedom working. And honestly, please Governor Noem, quit saying that South Dakota does not rely on aid from the federal government. A KELO news report Dec. 7, 2021 (Federal money is a big help to South Dakotas budget) stated, Since fiscal year 2019, the state has received at least $1.6 billion in federal aid each year that helps fund schools, parks and other operations in the state, according to the state Bureau and Finance Management budgets. But our governor says we dont rely on the federal government? The only federal funding our governor did not rely on was a federal program that would have provided $7.5 million to feed hungry kids.

As South Dakotans, we are respectful and neighborly people who seek the best in others. We need leadership that reflects those qualities, not leadership that pushes extremist views to gain attention on the national scene. We have much more to offer as a state than to become the most Second Amendment-friendly state.

Read the original post:
Speakout: The most Second Amendment-friendly state? - Brookings Register

MANHATTAN (CN) A group of New Yorkers who claim their rights to openly carry firearms on the New York City subway are protected by the Second Amendment faced a skeptical Second Circuit panel Tuesday morning.

Represented by Scarsdale-based attorney Amy Bellantoni, the trio of gun owners from Westchester and Orange counties sued New York City in 2021 because their state-issued concealed carry handgun licenses are invalid in New York City due to the citys regulations under the Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

The Concealed Carry Improvement Act took effect in September 2022 in rapid response to the U.S. Supreme Courts landmarkSecond Amendment rulingthat struck down the state's requirement for applicants to prove they had proper cause for a permit.

The new law, among other things, bans guns from designated "sensitive places" such as schools, playgrounds and Times Square.

On appeal the gun owners claim the regulations are inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of firearm regulation, and they seek reversal of the lower courts denial of a motion for preliminary injunction of firearm bans on public transportation such as the MTA, subway, and train cars and in Times Square.

One plaintiff-appellant, William Sappe, says he wants to openly carry a firearm for self-protection in the gun-free Times Square because his business involves transporting substantial amounts of cash, diamonds, and jewelry for high-end jewelers in Midtown Manhattan's Diamond District.

Another plaintiff-appellant, Jason Frey, says he wants to carry a gun while he travels to New York City from Westchester County in order to get goodies at Juniors, travel to Murrays Bagels in Manhattan, and visit friends in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

Challenging the denial of their motion for injunction, the gun owners claim in their appeals brief that the historical argument proffered by the state and city of New York for gun restrictions not only falls outside of the founding era, they also conflict with the plain text of the Second Amendment.

Formal licensing did not in the founding era, Bellantoni said during oral arguments on Tuesday morning. I believe our founding fathers would have deemed that repugnant to the Constitution to go Britain and asked for permission to be armed, I dont think wed be standing here as America if that was the case.

The three-judge panel on Tuesday referred to New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that changed how states determine who may carry a concealed weapon in public. Under Bruen, a historical analogue must exist a similar law restricting firearms at the time the Second Amendment was ratified for a present-day firearms restriction to pass muster.

Bruen says we should ask how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizens right to armed self-defense, U.S. Circuit Judge Joseph Bianco raised. The question is how and why, in modern times, does that affect the law-abiding citizens right to self-defense where sensibilities may have change from being terrorized by someone whos concealing versus the sensibilities now being terrorized by someone whos openly carrying.

What about historically, railway cars were subject to regulations of that type, the Trump-appointed judge asked.

Bellantoni responded that historically those railway cars were private companies rather than government.

We also have a body law that says the government can control the carrying of firearms on its own property, U.S. Circuit Judge Reena Raggi interjected. Why isnt this the circumstance with the subway, this is basically a government-provided means of transportation, this is government property.

There is a tradition of the government being able to limit the carrying of firearms on its property courthouses, government buildings, etc., the George W. Bush-appointed judge continued. Why doesnt that tilt this in favor of the city and the state?

Raggi also asked about vulnerable populations on the subway, specifically schoolchildren who ride the New York City subway on weekday afternoons.

I think the vulnerable population is a blanket thats been recently created by the anti-Second Amendment faction, Bellantoni replied.

Taking an interpretation of historical analogue even further back, Bellantoni told the judges: There isnt one case the state or the city has shown that supports the idea that there is a tradition of regulating or banning open carry open carry has been around since the cave man.

The gun owners motion to enjoin the states firearm laws was denied last year, with U.S. District Judge Nelson Roman finding they are unlikely to succeed on the merits of theirSecondAmendment claims.

Both Raggi and Bianco suggested directly to Bellantoni that the appellants had again not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success for the panel to grant the injunctive relief they sought.

New York assistant solicitor general Philip Levitz similarly noted during oral arguments on Tuesday that the record here is clearly insufficient for the plaintiffs to prevail.

Elina Durker, an attorney for the city of New York, wrote in an appeals brief the public interest tips decidedly against a preliminary injunction, which she said would dispense with important public safety provisions, potentially leading to panic and deaths.

Bill Clinton-appointed U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Sack rounded out the panel, which did not indicate when a ruling will be issued.

Bellantoni said that if the case returns to the lower court, she will make a motion for summary judgment.

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Continue reading here:
NY gun owners take fight over ban on firearms in subway and Times Square to 2nd Circuit - Courthouse News Service

( BillionPhotos.com stock.adobe.com)

Augusta County is so, so lucky that a rando named Jeremy Nance appointed himself the book czar for the county school system.

This Nance fellow, per a story in the News Leader, is responsible for three of the four books that have been banned from public schools in Augusta County.

Interesting note here: Nance doesnt have any children in the school system.

He says hes speaking up for single moms, single parents who dont have time to go to the school board and teachers who are afraid of retaliation.

Of course he is.

What this Nance dude is, actually, is a far, far right political activist.

A quick Google search tells us that Nance, back in 2019, threatened a boycott of Mill Street Grill, a Downtown Staunton restaurant owned by City Councilman Terry Holmes, because Holmes signaled that he wouldnt support a Second Amendment sanctuary resolution being pushed by the local far, far right.

Guns, guns and more guns, but books like the award-winning Golden Boy, by Abigail Tarttelin, about an intersex teenager books are dangerous.

The objection that Nance has to Golden Boy is a pages-long graphic rape scene involving an adult and the teen protagonist.

As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse by an adult, the problem I have here is, not the book with the rape scene, but the political activist guy who thinks that just pretending the bad stuff that is perpetrated upon kids doesnt happen means, you know, it doesnt happen.

We see this phenomenon with another book that this Nance fellow objected to, The Swallows, by Lisa Lutz, which challenges the boys will be boys hierarchy in a fictional high school, the problem here being, if youre a far, far right activist, boys will be boys is your favorite ex-president raping a woman in a department store dressing room and then claiming she isnt his type.

Its a shame books like this are still in there,Nance told the Augusta County School Board as he raised his objections.

Sure, it is.

But the real shame is that we have a school board here that gives a guy like a Jeremy Nance the power that he has.

This is your daily reminder that elections matter. The school boards chair, David Shiflett, is leading an effort to review the school systems guidelines to make sure that the materials that are in our libraries are age-appropriate for the students that have access to them.

That review is on the agenda for the Augusta County School Board meeting on Thursday night.

You can bet that the review will end with the board empowering more Jeremy Nances to make sure that kids in Augusta County are protected from the uncomfortable realities of the world that we live in.

Well, except for the uncomfortable reality of gun violence.

It boggles the mind that theres a Jeremy Nance who thinks its more traumatic to read a book than it is to have to walk through a metal detector at the entrance to the school and have armed deputies patrolling the halls, but thats where we are.

See original here:
Augusta County Second Amendment guy wants to protect schoolkids from books? - Augusta Free Press