Mediaboss Marketing

Media

By Gabriel Hays, Fox News

April 19, 2023 | 2:16pm

2024 presidential candidateVivek Ramaswamyangered CNN This Morning host Don Lemon during a debate on gun rights for Black Americans while on-air.

In the heated exchange, Lemon took offense to Ramaswamys recent statements at an NRA conference last week about Democrats in the south instituting gun laws to prevent African Americans from protecting their newfound rights in the post-Civil War era.

Lemon reduced Ramaswamys point to a declaration that the Civil War was fought merely to give Black people gun rights and berated him for it, telling him the statement insulted him as a Black American.

TheCNN hostfurther told Ramaswamy that he had no right to talk about the experience of Black people in America because hes not Black.

Ramaswamy pushed back and insisted that Lemon was misunderstanding his point.

He also argued that both men should be able to talk about the issue regardless of their skin color.

In the heated crosstalk, Lemon also snapped at his producers who were apparently distracting him over his earpiece.

The intense live debate came after the hosts played a moment from Ramaswamys speech to the NRA in Indianapolis.

During the clip, the businessman and presidential candidate addressed the crowd, saying, I want you to raise your hand if you know when the first anti-gun laws were passed in this country. Raise your hand if you do. 1865.

He continued, saying, We fought a civil war in this country to give Black Americans the equal protection under the law that we failed to secure them in 1776. But then you wanna know what happened? Southern states passed anti-gun laws that stopped Black people from owning guns. The Democrat Party, then as in now, wanted to put them back in chains.

After clarifying to co-host Poppy Harlow that he meant that modern Democratic Party policies (he mentioned former President Lyndon B. Johnsons Great Society) are bad for African Americans much like those post-Civil War gun laws, Lemon stepped in voicing some major disagreement with Ramaswamys statement.

He cut in, saying, I dont really see what one has to do with the other and using the Civil War to talk about Black Americans that war was not fought for Black people to have guns.

Ramaswamy clarified his stance, saying, That war was fought for Black people to have freedoms in this country. Actually, thats why the Civil War was fought.

Actually, a funny fact is Black people did not get to enjoy the other freedoms until their Second Amendment rights were secured, he said.

Lemon interjected again, But Black people still arent allowed to enjoy the freedoms as well in this country.

Ramaswamy dismissed that claim outright, declaring, I disagree with you on that Don I think youre doing a disservice to this country by failing to recognize that we have equality before the laws here.

Getting a little flustered, Lemon tried to shut down Ramaswamy by claiming he doesnt have the requisite skin color to make such a statement.

The anchor replied, Well, OK. When you are in Black skin and you live in this country then you can disagree with me.

The candidate shot back, saying, Don, I think we have to be able to talk about these issues in the open regardless of the color of our skin.

I think for you to compare 1865 and 1964 I think its insulting to Black people. Its insulting to me as an African American. I dont want to sit here and argue with you because its infuriating for you to put those things together, Lemon said.

He then declared, Its not right, your telling of history is wrong. Ramaswamy protested, asking what exactly was wrong, to which Lemon replied, Youre making people think that the Civil War was fought only for Black people to get guns.

Lemon called Ramaswamys talking points reductive, while the guest shot back that the hosts interpretation of theNRA speechwas reductive and actually insulting.

As Ramaswamy continued, Lemon scolded his producers who were apparently distracting him on his earpiece during the debate.

He snapped, Hang on please! I cannot keep a thought if you guys are talking in my ear.

The debate continued for another minute or so before Lemon concluded, The fact that I find insulting is that you are sitting here telling an African American about the rights and what you find insulting about the way I live, the skin I live in every day. And I know the freedoms that Black people dont have in this country, and that Black people do have.

Ramaswamy protested, stating, I think we should be able to express our views regardless of the color of our skin. We should have this debate without me regarding you as a Black man.

I think its insulting that youre sitting here whatever ethnicity you are splaining to me about what its like to be Black in America. Im sorry, Lemon said.

The candidate responded, Im an Indian American and Im proud of it.

Load more...

https://nypost.com/2023/04/19/vivek-ramaswamy-angers-don-lemon-in-debate-over-civil-war-second-amendment/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

Link:
Vivek Ramaswamy angers Don Lemon in heated exchange over Civil War, Second Amendment - New York Post

Under current law, the Ohio constitution can be amended when an issue is placed on the ballot and voters approve by a simple majority. In other words, Ohio's founding document, the keystone of our entire legal system, can be changed by one extra vote in the affirmative.

While the goal may have been to give "power to the people" and enshrine democratic principles in our state, the reality is much different. In the real world, money talks. And ballot issues are almost always won by whoever has the most money. So a wealthy individual or a political group with deep pockets could put an issue on the ballot, spend millions on advertising to voters, and change Ohio law forever.

Imagine billionaire, anti-gun crusader Michael Bloomburg flooding Ohio with a pile of cash to enact an AR ban, a red flag law, gun registration, or any number of gun control measures. You really don't need to imagine because this was happening right before the 2020 COVID shutdown, when paid activists were busy gathering signatures to put so-called "universal background checks" on the ballot.

These are the stakes in the effort to raise the voting threshold to 60% to approve changes to the Ohio Constitution. It's about protecting our rights and shielding our state constitution from big money meddlers so that we're not subject to the fickle political whims of the moment.

To accomplish this, two things must happen. First, House Joint Resolution 1 (HJR 1) and Senate Joint Resolution 2 (SJR 2), the resolutions to raise the vote to 60%, must both pass in their respective chambers. Second, Senate Bill 92 (SB 92), a bill to make an Aug. 8 election possible, must pass and be signed by the governor.

Here's where we are:

So it's now up to the House to pass HJR 1 and SB 92, and the governor must then sign SB 92. Resolutions do not require a signature. It's a heavy lift and it must all happen quickly for the amendment to finalize the process and appear on the ballot in August.

And even then, because this would be an unexpected election, turnout will be vital to make sure the measure passes.

Buckeye Firearms Association has been front and center on this herculean effort, lining up votes at the Statehouse and coordinating the efforts of a variety of interested organizations who seek to protect Ohio's Constitution and prevent it from being sold to the highest bidder.

In addition to BFA, proponents include Ohio Right to Life, Sportsmen's Alliance, Ohio Restaurant Association, American Center for Law & Justice, and others.

Ohio media have been shamelessly touting this issue as a threat to democracy, but it is exactly the opposite. It is about preserving our rights and making sure that voters broadly support changes to our constitution.

If we're able to get this 60% vote threshold amendment on the ballot in August, it will be vital that you vote for it. The future of our Second Amendment rights, and other rights, hang in the balance.

Read more about this vital issue here.

Dean Rieck is Executive Director of Buckeye Firearms Association, a former competitive shooter, NRA Patron Member, former #1 NRA Recruiter, and host of the Keep and Bear Radio podcast.

See the article here:
BFA-backed Ohio constitutional amendment threshold inches closer ... - Buckeye Firearms Association

DENVER School safety usually focuses on preventing anything bad from happening. But were at a point where bad things seem to happen so often, legislators want teachers and staff to be prepared to save lives.

A bill in Colorado that would provide schools with materials and training to stop bleeding is one step closer to becoming law.

If saving lives is the goal, these Stop the Bleed kits are critical, but only once something has already gone terribly wrong.

"This investment is to help someone survive," said Rep. Mary Bradfield (R-Colorado Springs). "I certainly hope that they gather dust, that theres never a need for them. I just want them to be there if there is a need."

Bradfield is one of the sponsors of the bill. She said the goal is to have the kits at the ready in case someone cuts themselves or falls down, or yes, if theres a shooting.

"Whatever we can do for schools to keep students and staff safe and well, we are all in," Bradfield told 9NEWS.

Bradfield did not support the gun bills that passed earlier this year, which Democrats said would help prevent shootings before they even happen. Republicans have argued they would not make people safer.

Bradfield says the state should instead focus on making mental health help more accessible to help prevent more shootings.

"Second Amendment. The United States constitution and the Second Amendment," Bradfield said of why she didn't support the gun bills limiting access to firearms.

Bradfield says she has worked on committees addressing mental health solutions and giving people access to behavioral health help, which she said is where the focus should be in making schools safer.

The goal is for the Stop the Bleed kits to never be used. Think of them like AED kits that are in nearly every public building, just in case they are needed.

Many school districts across the state, from Greeley to Cherry Creek, already have these kits inside classrooms. Its worth noting that thee kits add to the long list of things teachers are now responsible for, beyond actually teaching.

"It definitely intersects with school safety," said Rep. Mary Young (D-Greeley). "We are very familiar with CPR training and AED training, but not as familiar with Stop the Bleed."

Young also sponsored the bill but supported the gun laws passed earlier.

"I really do think we need to continue to look at common sense gun laws because thats what students and families are asking for," said Young. "Were not trying to violate anyones second amendment rights, but we have to have a whole compliment of things that will provide safety in schools."

These kits arent totally just for a mass shooting situation.

"Accidents happen. Theyre unfortunate. And if the school has something that can help, then absolutely, use it," said Bradfield.

But its impossible not to think of them in the context of all of the shootings that weve seen recently at schools. In fact, this training was started in 2016 in the U.S. in response to active shooter situations.

SUGGESTED VIDEOS:Full Episodes of Next with Kyle Clark

Read the rest here:
Stop the Bleed kits bill moves closer to becoming law - 9News.com KUSA

This is the case I wrote about in March, and again last week, when I noted the amicus briefs from state attorneys general, from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and from two financial and business law scholars. I also noted last week that the New York state government defendants didn't file a response to the petition.

Today, the Supreme Court called for a response; this doesn't guarantee that the Court will agree to hear the case, but it does suggest some interest on the part of at least one Justice. It also gives an extra 30 days for any other people or groups to file amicus briefs in support of the petition: "An amicus curiae brief submitted in support of a petitioner before the Court's consideration of a petition for a writ of certiorari" may be "filed within 30 days after a response is called for by the Court." It will be interesting to see whether any other amicus briefs come in. And it will of course also be interesting to see what the state argues in opposing the petition, and whether there will be amicusbriefs filed in support of the state.

Here again is the Introduction from the cert. petition:

It also permits selective investigations and penalties targeting business arrangements with disfavored speakers, even where the regulator premises its hostility explicitly on an entity's political speech and treats leniently, or exempts, identical transactions with customers who lack controversial views. In sum, it lets government officials, acting with undisguised political animus, transmute "general backlash" against controversial advocacy into a justification for crackdowns on advocates (and firms who serve them), eviscerating free speech rights.

Reaching this result, the Second Circuit disregards basic pleading standards and undermines fundamental First Amendment freedoms. It also departs from this Court's precedent inBantam Books, Inc.v.Sullivanand from the Seventh Circuit's precedent inBackpage.com, LLCv.Dart.

This case arises from a series of actionsincluding press releases, official regulatory guidance, and contemporaneous investigations and penaltiesissued by or on behalf of New York's powerful Department of Financial Services ("DFS") against financial institutions doing business with the NRA. Among other things, the Complaint states that Superintendent Maria Vullo: (1) warned regulated institutions that doing business with Second Amendment advocacy groups posed "reputational risk" of concern to DFS; (2) secretly offered leniency to insurers for unrelated infractions if they dropped the NRA; and (3) extracted highly-publicized and over-reaching consent orders, and multi-million dollar penalties, from firms that formerly served the NRA. Citing private telephone calls, internal insurer documents, and statements by an anonymous banking executive to industry press, the Complaint alleges that numerous financial institutions perceived Vullo's actions as threatening and, therefore, ceased business arrangements with the NRA or refused new ones.

The NRA brought First Amendment claims against Vullo and Governor Andrew Cuomo in their official and individual capacities. The individual-capacity claimsagainst Vullo, which were the subject of the Second Circuit's decision, withstood two motions to dismiss. But when Vullo appealed the District Court's refusal to grant her qualified immunity at the pleading stage, the Second Circuit held that the NRA's allegations fail to state a First Amendment claim at all.

In effect, the Second Circuit holds that a government official must explicitly threaten adverse consequences for disfavored speechand must do so in the absence of any contemporaneous assertion of a regulatory interestfor a First Amendment retaliation claim to arise. The Second Circuit's opinion thereby creates a circuit split with the Seventh Circuit's decision inBackpage.com, which held that a government official violated the First Amendment in circumstances closely comparable to these.

In addition, the Second Circuit refuses to accept the Complaint's allegation that Vullo clearly and unambiguously threatened insurers in private meetings, and selectively parses Vullo's official communications to disregard key passages and deny NRA the favorable inferences to which it is entitled on a motion to dismiss. The Second Circuit's decision thus defies this Court's command that, in evaluating qualified immunity, "courts must take care not to define a case's 'context' in a manner that imports genuinely disputed factual propositions."

The Second Circuit denudes Vullo's regulatory guidance of the "context" that made it ominous, while importing favorable "context" to frame Vullo's contemporaneous, selective targeting of NRA business associates as benign. "The 'context' here," the Circuit opines, "was an investigation, commenced months before the meetings, that was triggered by a referral from the DA's Office." The Circuit ignores boasts by Vullo's boss, Governor Cuomo, that her regulatory actions were "forcing the NRA into financial jeopardy." And the Second Circuit's suggestion that Vullo had non-retaliatory motives for investigating the insurance policies at issue is rebutted by the facts pleaded in the Complaint.

The Second Circuit goes on to suggest that even if Vullo did make threats, such threats were justified by the "general backlash" against the NRA "and businesses associated with them" which "was intense after the Parkland shooting." Indeed, this backlash "continues today," with many people "speaking out" against the NRA's gun rights advocacy. Such "backlash" against a speaker's viewpoint, the Second Circuit opines, "likely" has financial consequences that would justify financial blacklisting of that speaker for its controversial advocacy.

In support, the Second Circuit cites a "diversity, equity, and inclusion" consultant who charges companies for "consulting packages" to implement "corporate social responsibility" programs, as well as a "survey" commissioned by a marketing company that "strives to insert the brand's social mission and innovations into mainstream conversations through traditional and social media." The reliance on such sources underscores the unsoundness of the opinion below.

This Court has not hesitated to summarily overturn circuit court decisions, like the Second Circuit's, that disregard the applicable pleading standard in determining qualified immunity. Here, the Second Circuit makes the same error as the lower courts inLombardov.City of St. Louis, Missouri, 141 S. Ct. 2239 (2021) (per curiam),Sausev.Bauer, 138 S. Ct. 2561 (2018) (per curiam), andTolanv.Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) (per curiam). In all three, this Court summarily reversed because the circuit courts refused to accept well-pleaded facts and draw reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party in determining qualified immunity.

The public importance of this case cannot be overstated. A regulatory regimeeven a facially content-neutral onethat "inhibit[s] protected freedoms of expression and association" violates the First Amendment. SeeNAACPv.Button, 371 U.S. 415, 437-38 (1963);NAACPv.Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460-62 (1958). An overt campaign by state officials to wield regulatory power against a disfavored civil rights organizationhere the NRAprecisely because of its disfavored speech at least as clearly merits this Court's attention and reversal.

Reversal is urgent because the Second Circuit's opinion threatens basic First Amendment rights at a time when the First Amendment is under widespread attack. As the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") has warned, "If the NRA's allegations were deemed insufficient to survive the motion to dismiss, it would set a dangerous precedent for advocacy groups across the political spectrum."

(Note: William Brewer, Sarah Rogers & Noah Peters of Brewer Attorneys & Counselors and I are the counsel on the petition.)

Originally posted here:
S. Ct. Calls for Response in NRA v. Vullo - Reason

OAKLAND As part of National Crime Victims Rights Week, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today highlighted resources available through the California Department of Justices (DOJ) Victims Services Unit (VSU), and through additional outlets to support and empower victims, survivors, and their families. Attorney General Bonta urges service providers and all members of the public to use these resources to help ensure all those who have been the victim of a crime are aware of many of the key rights, resources, and protections available to them in California.

Victims of crime deserve our unwavering support and compassion as they navigate the criminal justice system,said Attorney General Bonta.During National Crime Victims Rights Week, and all year round, I urge Californians to take advantage of these life-saving resources to better serve all members of our community. At the California Department of Justice, we are committed to empowering those impacted by crime as they rebuild their lives.

CA DOJ Victims Services Unit

VSU works to provide victim-centered, trauma-informed, and culturally-sensitive support services to all crime victims, including underserved, at-risk, underrepresented, and vulnerable populations. Through the units services, victims can track the status of appeals, recusal cases, and other matters being handled by DOJs prosecutors. VSU has a dedicated and well-trained team of advocates who provide appeal notifications to victims and their families. These updates allow victims and their families to exercise their rights to address the court or otherwise participate in criminal justice proceedings.

VSU also supports service providers and members of the public in tracking the progress of sexual assault evidence kits as they are processed both at the state and local level through the Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Tracking (SAFE-T database). Importantly, VSUs advocates work to help victims and their families access available resources that are a critical part of the healing process, such as mental health services, safety net services, and assistance through the California Victim Compensation Board for related crime expenses.

Additional Resources Available for Victims

Attorney General Bonta is committed to protecting all victims of crime and violence. In April, the Attorney Generaljoined a multistate coalitionin a legal effort asking the United States Supreme Court to review and overturn the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision inUnited States v. Rahimi,which held that the federal prohibition on possession of firearms by an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order violates the Second Amendment.

To receive information on resources, notification of an appeal, or notification on a case the Attorney General's Office is prosecuting, visithttps://oag.ca.gov/victimservices/notification, call VSU at (877) 433-9069 or email VSU atVictimServices@doj.ca.gov. To learn more about the work of VSU, please watch ourDemystifying the DOJ Presentation on the Victims Services Unit.

Go here to read the rest:
As Part of National Crime Victims' Rights Week, Attorney General ... - California Department of Justice