Mediaboss Marketing

I dont know about you, but Im getting really bummed out by all of these mass shootings. One after another, day after day, more than one a day since the beginning of the year. Something has to change. This is America after all. The United States has a long history of dealing with challenging problems.

So, whats the solution? Simple, rebranding.

America has a long history of rebranding, of changing the terms we use when dealing with unpleasant issues.

When slaughtering Indigenous people and stealing their land started to sound bad, we rebranded. We called it Manifest Destiny and said it was about spreading freedom from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This made it sound noble.

Clearly, we Americans have a long history of successfully rebranding difficult issues. Or more accurately, I should say that conservatives have a long and successful history of rebranding troubling issues.

When enslaving and dehumanizing the people stolen from Africa started to get bad press, slave owners knew they had to do something. So they rebranded. They began calling it The Peculiar Institution. Peculiar, sort of like your weird Uncle Phil, with his handlebar mustache and old MG, who affects a British accent. Although, as peculiar as old Phil was, he never whipped anyone to death or bred them like cattle.

After the South lost the Civil War, Southerners knew they needed to change the terms of the debate. They knew that if everyone thought they had simply been fighting to maintain slavery they would lose sympathy. They knew they had to do something to preserve any vestige of their traditions (you know, white supremacy). So they rebranded. They starting to refer to the war as The Lost Cause. This just sounds mundane, non-offensive. It made it sound not much different than the loss of a hard-fought, though honorable, soccer match. Simply a Lost Cause, never mind the fact that they were seeking to preserve the enslavement and systematic brutalization of millions of human beings, or the fact that Confederate soldiers routinely and summarily executed Black Union soldiers on the spot. Reality often is bad, and so sounds bad. Much better to hide behind banality, behind The Lost Cause.

When systemic and frequently violent racism in the 1950s started to get bad press, Southerners wisely rebranded it from white supremacy to States Rights. This sounds so much more noble, and hearkens back to the nations founding. Who could argue with a state simply seeking to preserve its own rights?

Perhaps the most recent example of rebranding involves Parental Rights. This is how conservatives now sell book bans and restrictions on medical care for transgender youth. After all, what kind of monster doesnt support the right of a parent to protect and safeguard their own child? Were not banning books, they say, were not discriminating against gay or transgender children, conservatives add, were simply protecting the rights of parents to safeguard their children. That just sounds so much better, doesnt it?

Clearly, we Americans have a long history of successfully rebranding difficult issues. Or more accurately, I should say that conservatives have a long and successful history of rebranding troubling issues.

Now there are nearly daily news reports about mass shootings. And in nearly every news story there is also someone, a liberal politician or a grieving family member, demanding a solution. More often than not they call for restrictions on access to guns.

Mass Shooting has such a negative connotation, particularly when paired with Mass Casualties. The term is scary, and frankly it almost seems as if the biased liberal media has coined the term to embarrass gun rights advocates, and to make them look callous and uncaring. This must change.

Ive batted the idea around in my mind for a while now, trying to come up with something more palatable or benign. And I think Ive finally got it. Heres my proposal.

Lets changed Mass Shooting to Second Amendment Celebration. That shifts the tone from scary to laudatory, and when people hear about it (for example on Twitter at the hashtag Active Shooter) it will put a smile on their faces. They will know that somewhere a true patriot is expressing his God-given Constitutional right. This will also change the unwilling victim (victim is another downer of a word) from a casualty to a patriot, since they are nobly sacrificing their lives to preserve one of the primary rights in our revered Constitution.

This way, at each mass shooting sorry, old habits die hard at each Second Amendment Celebration, Americans can be reminded of what the Second Amendment means to all of us.

View post:
Opinion | Rebrand 'Mass Shootings' as 'Second Amendment ... - Common Dreams

As much as Id like to delve into a different topic, Bill Gouveias column on Monday was a telling essay that seems to reinforce the distinction between constitutional originalists and those who believe gun control regulation falls to individual, sovereign states.

His column (We need sensible gun regulations May 15) got my attention and commands a response.

I would imagine those who subscribe to the notion of strong individual state sovereignty will take exception to Gouveias comment that questions the mental health of those who believe more gun regulation delivered by the federal government is not warranted.

He suggests anyone not advocating for unified, presumably federal mandated laws is, in fact, part of the gun violence problem.

Ignorant political crap, silly pro-gun propaganda lies, chief among the nations mental health problems are those who do not believe guns need better regulation, if such people cant see what is going on, they are a big part of the problem ... hows that for a sample of from a we need more gun laws proponent? Not exactly the basis of a reasonable, civil dialogue.

Gouveia then goes on to contradict his first thoughts when early in his essay he notes that those who oppose more legislature at the federal level are in fact a large part of the problem. He then asks readers to spare the garbage approach when less-rules-supporters argue guns are not the problem.

Its not clear if he thinks guns are the problem or those who believe people are the issue behind gun violence. I guess it is both in his mind.

Gouveia then suggests that it ought to be made harder for criminals to get guns, all while suggesting virtually no one wants to ban guns yet suggesting the guns are not the problem view is garbage.

I suppose his diatribe against constitutionally supported laws and individual state sovereignty describes an approach that has been advocated by many who oppose interpretation of the Second Amendment as a right for all Americans, tempered by laws and regulation meant to straddle a rocky compromise of originalist constitutional interpretation.

My intuition hints that a large number of those who do not support private gun ownership and/or more restrictive regulations for ownership, are unaware of Massachusetts laws in that regard.

When people demand stronger laws for gun ownership the argument invariably moves to federal regulation and then, as Gouveia notes, the legislature cant seem to find the wisdom or courage to dig into new, more restrictive gun control.

What Gouveia fails to acknowledge, for example, are actions like proposals forwarded by the Obama-Clinton administrations at enrolling the country in an international gun control treaty. While such an accord with other nations had/has the proverbial snowballs chance of passing, just discussion of such a charter suggesting gun control imposed by other countries, raised hackles with irrational fears of gun confiscation that drove increased gun ownership.

Only ardent no-guns advocates would ever entertain the United States accepting another nations gun control rules.

Hyperbolic rhetoric and tagging those who view the Second Amendment through an originalist lens as being the problem and having mental health problems is not going to advance any sort of meaningful discussion for so-called increased gun control or banning of certain firearms.

There are many people who say things like I dont know why anyone would want a gun. Obviously they are entitled to that perspective. However, the Constitution, in originalist interpretation, says such ownership is a right, not to be infringed.

If you are not in agreement, your argument should be that the Constitution needs to be amended.

Bob Foley is a Sun Chronicle columnist. His essays are published here each Friday.

More here:
Bob Foley: Change the Constitution if you are unhappy with the ... - The Sun Chronicle

Gov. Tim Walz Friday signed into law a sweeping public safety and judiciary budget bill that creates two new restrictions on firearm possession and sales.

In a Capitol reception room packed with gun control advocates, lawmakers, survivors of gun violence and others, the second-term DFL governor credited the DFL trifecta for getting the bills across the finish line. And he said the measures will make Minnesota a safer place to live.

I understand our rights as Americans to do these things. But I refuse to allow extremists to define what responsible gun ownership looks like and to make this about the Second Amendment, Walz said. This is not about the Second Amendment. This is about the safety of our children in our communities.

The plan makes Minnesota the 20th state to enact what are known as red flag protections designed to remove firearms from those deemed a danger to themselves or others. It also expands criminal background checks to private transfers of firearms.

MPR News is Member supported public media. Show your support today, donate, and ensure access to local news and in-depth conversations for everyone.

The gun provisions of the bill had long faced a roadblock at the Capitol under divided government and gun control advocates on Monday said the vote broke down that roadblock and would prevent some gun-related homicides and suicides.

Under the proposals, more firearm sales will be subject to background checks and it will be easier for concerned family members and law enforcement to temporarily remove guns from people in crisis.

After every mass shooting, the airwaves are filled with thoughts and prayers. And with the follow up phrase, which is, It's too emotional, too hard right now, now's not the time to talk about legislative solutions, Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-Saint Louis Park, said. Is there ever a right time, if not in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy, that identifies for all of us the need for those legislative solutions? Well, here, right now, the time is now.

Gun rights advocates mounted strong opposition to the measures as they moved through the Capitol and they said the laws will not address the underlying issues that spur gun violence.

The impact of these laws will only be felt by peaceable gun owners, who are being imposed with unreasonable barriers to the free exercise of a Constitutionally protected right, said Rob Doar, senior vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.

Minnesota police chiefs, public health officials, mental health groups and survivors of gun violence urged the bills passage. And they said the state could keep rewriting its laws around firearms to reduce instances of gun violence.

Stopping gun violence takes courage. The courage to do what's right, former Arizona U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords said. Now is the time to come together, be responsible. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, we must never stop. Fight, fight, fight, fight. Be bold. Be courageous. The nation counting on you.

The broader public safety law will also:

Boost funding for Minnesota courts to improve courtroom technology and raise salaries of judicial branch workers and legal aid programs.

Expand youth intervention and restorative programs with the aim of changing the direction of young people before they commit more serious crimes.

Rework the pardons process so decisions of the three-person panel the governor, attorney general and Supreme Court chief justice wont have to be unanimous. The governor will have to be part of any vote where a pardon is awarded.

Allow prison inmates to shave time off their incarceration by participating in rehabilitative, substance abuse or educational programs while behind bars. The credits couldnt cut their prison time to less than half but it could mean inmates serve less than the standard two-thirds of a sentence in custody before supervised release is permitted.

Include gender identity, gender expression or perception of those in the definition of bias-motivated assault when the crime is believed to be driven by those factors.

Limit the use of no-knock search warrants by police and changing the protocol for how they will be conducted should a judge issue one.

Ensure that families of people killed by police get access within five days to body camera footage, with the requirement that it be released to the general public within two weeks.

Fund police recruitment, given a shortage of licensed officers.

The law will also create the first in the nation Office of Missing and Murdered African American Women and Girls. It will be similar to the states Office of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Read more here:
Walz signs red flag orders, universal background checks for guns ... - MPR News

Payne agreed and struck down the law, noting that there was no evidence of a historical tradition of such a ban. He also rejected the federal governments counterargument that the people to which the Second Amendment refers did not apply to 18-to-20-year-olds in 1791 and thus could not apply to the plaintiffs today for gun restrictions. He noted in rebuttal that the people of that era bore only a partial resemblance to the American citizenry of today.

This is neither the time nor the place to thoroughly define and discuss each contour of the people at the time of the Founding, Payne explained in a footnote. But it appears that, at the minimum, all those of African descendent [sic] (many of whom were still enslaved), Native Americans, and likely many white married women would not be included. Though this is doubtlessly not the governments intent, this is the logical end of the governments argument, and it is a view to which the court simply cannot subscribe.

In U.S. v. James Gould, the West Virginia case, that analysis came out a little differently. A federal grand jury indicted the defendant with unlawful possession of a firearm in May 2022. As a result of his mental illness, he had been involuntarily committed on four different occasions and had also been the subject of multiple emergency protective orders over the years for domestic violencerelated allegations, which disqualified him for gun ownership under federal law. He then challenged the constitutionality of his arrest after the Bruen ruling came down, arguing that it now violated the Second Amendment.

View original post here:
Who Gets to Own a Gun in America? - The New Republic

Major gun-rights groups are jumping into court to challenge Marylands latest gun-control law.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association filed Kipke v. Moore against the states new law increasing concealed carry permitting fees and vastly expanding gun-free zones on Tuesday. The Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Maryland Shall Issue filed Novotny v. Moore the same day. Maryland lawmakers, who passed the new restrictions as a response to the Supreme Court striking down their previous restrictive permitting law in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, argued the law will make the state safer.

Governor Wes Moore (D.) said the bill strengthened common sense gun laws during his signing ceremony. Lieutenant Governor Aruna Miller (D.) argued the new restrictions will keep Marylanders, particularly children, safe from gun violence.

The gun-rights groups argued the law is an unconstitutional response to the Breun ruling. Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said the law leaves Marylanders with fewer options to carry a gun in self-defense than before the Court recognized carrying is protected by the Second Amendment.

Instead of trying to comply with the new guidelines set down in that decision, Maryland lawmakers scrambled to make gun laws more restrictive than they were before, he said in a statement. Indeed, the additional restrictions make it nearly impossible to legally carry firearms for personal protection, even on public land. This is government regulation at its worst.

The new law and legal brouhaha it has spawned come in the wake of similar Bruen-response bills in New York and New Jersey. Those restrictions, which almost entirely eliminate the ability of residents who have obtained permits to actually carry a gun for self-defense, have faired poorly in court thus far. Multiple federal judges have ruled they are unconstitutional, and at least two Supreme Court justices have indicated they likely agree. A federal judge ruled on Tuesday most of the new gun-free zones New Jersey created in response to Bruen violate the Second Amendment under the standard the Supreme Court set in that case.

Marylands new restrictions also represent further momentum for gun-control activists in the states where Democrats gained control of all levers of government following the 2022 midterm elections. Democrats have enacted new gun laws in Michigan, Minnesota, and Maryland after beating poor Republican candidates, such as Trump-backed Maryland gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox who garnered just 32 percent of the vote in a state whose popular Republican governor had just retired after finishing his second term.

Now, gun-rights activists are stuck fighting in court to push back on the sweeping changes enacted by Moore. House Bill 824 increases some of the fees associated with applying for wear and carry permits by two-thirds and expands the list of minor infractions that can result in an applicant being denied. Senate Bill 858 institutes new gun storage requirements. Senate Bill 1 adds a wide variety of new gun-free zones that are off-limits to anyone other than police or other authorized groups carrying a gun, even if they have a permit.

The new restricted areas include state parks, rest stops, transit facilities, state buildings, stadiums, racetracks, many casinos, museums, health care facilities, and amusement parks. Permittees will no longer be able to carry anywhere that serves alcohol or weed, even if they dont drink or smoke. The law also bars anyone from carrying within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration, including inside their car. And it outlaws carrying a gun on any publicly-accessible private property, such as a store, unless the owner expressly says it is alloweda reversal of how gun carry has been regulated in every state up to this point.

The NRA argued that the new restrictions are the exact opposite of what the state should be doing.

Here are some sad facts: the mere mention of the word Baltimore invokes an immediate vision of a violent, unsafe city. Thats because of the woeful lack of prosecution of violent criminals in the state. It is vital for law-abiding Marylanders to have an effective means of defending themselves and their loved ones, Randy Kozuch, the new executive director of the groups Institute For Legislative Action, said in a statement. Our laws should burden criminals and aid good, lawful people. It is evident that those in power in Maryland care more for criminals and less for the law-abiding.

Adam Kraut, who runs legal operations for the Second Amendment Foundation, argued the lawsuits were inevitable once the bill passed.

There is no well-established, representative historical analogue for the carry prohibitions included in SB1, which appears to be in direct conflict with the Supreme Courts directive set forth in Bruen, he said in a statement. These restrictions are facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, forcing us to take this action in court.

Other members of the legal team greeted the law with a bit more flare. The Firearms Policy Coalition posted a message to supporters warning, Maryland lawmakers, once again, are attempting to unilaterally disarm peaceable people and announcing their suit with a clip of famed boxing announcer Michael Buffer belting out, Lets get ready to rumble!

The law is set to take effect in October.

Follow this link:
Lawsuits Roll in as Maryland Passes Sweeping Gun-Carry ... - The Reload