Mediaboss Marketing

EXCLUSIVE: Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem took firm action over the weekend to strengthen the Second Amendment rights of people in her state, signing an executive order on stage during her address to the annual National Rifle Association convention to stop what she called "discriminatory action" against those rights.

Speaking with Fox News Digital immediately after signing of the order, the rumored 2024 presidential candidate stressed the need to "lead by example" when it came to the Second Amendment, and shared what was on her mind as she mulls a potential run for the White House.

"We've recently seen in this country that banking institutions are discriminating against firearm companies or ammunition companies. So what I did was sign an executive order that would prevent the state of South Dakota from doing any business with financial institutions that would do that type of discriminatory action against our Second Amendment rights," Noem said when asked about the order she signed in front of the thousands of NRA convention attendees.

WATCH: GOP VOTERS WEIGH IN ON 2024 CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT, SHRED BOGUS TRUMP CHARGES

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem speaks to guests at the 2023 NRA-ILA Leadership Forum on April 13, 2023, in Indianapolis, Indiana. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

"It's incredibly important that we set and lead by example. And this executive order is one way that we can do that, to continue to stand for constitutional rights of the people in our state," she said.

In addressing the numerous recent deadly shootings snatching headlines across the country, Noem argued there were laws already in place needing to be enforced that she said would protect citizens and ensure the safety of children.

"Now, it's more important than ever that those of us who value this country, that value what our founders gave us as our rights, to continue to defend them and to explain why they're in place. They're in place so a normal, everyday citizen has the chance to deter a corrupt government that would come in and take away their ability to provide for their families," she said.

GOP CONGRESSMAN ENDORSES TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT DESPITE POSITIVE MEETING WITH DESANTIS

With NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre by her side, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem signs an executive order to protect gun rights in her state at the 2023 NRA-ILA Leadership Forum on April 14, 2023, in Indianapolis, Indiana. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

When asked about the rumors swirling around the possibility she might launch a campaign for president, Noem said she wasn't going to announce a decision just yet, but instead said she saw a country "desperate for a president" that would fight for the values and principles America was built on.

"I'm looking for an individual like that. I hope that people in this country are as well, because now more than ever, we're seeing federal government come in and take away our ability to even conduct business, to raise our families as we see fit and to use our values that we were raised with," she said.

"I do think that it's important that we keep our eye on the ball and make sure that we have the best individuals stepping forward to take on that role because we've got some big fights ahead and we need to make sure that we have a president who will hang in there with us," she added.

TRUMP, HALEY, DESANTIS? HERE'S EVERYONE RUNNING, RUMORED, OR SITTING OUT THE GOP 2024 PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem takes part in a panel discussion, Nov. 15, 2022, in Orlando, Fla. (AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack, File)

Concerning the 34 felony falsification of business records charges facing Trump in a New York court, Noem described them as "unprecedented action," and argued district attorney Alvin Bragg was ignoring the statute of limitations on the former president's alleged crimes.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"It's clearly all politics. You know, I'm sure President Trump will go through the process and will come out recognizing that these kinds of attacks can be withstood and that he will continue to work for the people in this country," she said.

See the rest here:
South Dakota's Kristi Noem takes action on Second Amendment as 2024 rumors ramp up - Fox News

On Friday, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem provided the umpteenth example of how dark and strange todays Republican politicians have gotten, when she told the crowd at an NRA event about how her granddaughter (who is under the age of two) already has two guns.

Little Miss Addie, who is almost two, and Branch whos just a few months old, they have brought us so much joy. Theyve brought us purpose, Noem said, adding: Now Addie, who you knowsoon will need them, I wanna reassure you, she already has a shotgun, and she already has a rifle and shes got a little pony named Sparkles too, Noem continued. So the girl is set up.

When she says the child has guns, its not clear to me what that means. One supposes (hopes!) this simply means that her parents have earmarked guns for when she is an appropriate age (i.e., when she needs them), the way some sports nut dad might buy a baseball glove for his newborn. Regardless, because we have been left to figure this out for ourselves, lets call this what it is: bizarre. Its weird. Itscrazy.

In the wake of all the violence we have seen in recent decades, I would expect Second Amendment advocates to go out of their way to demonstrate responsible gun ownership (remember the Party of Personal Responsibility?); instead, it seems like Republican politicians are going out of their way to fetishize guns. They are more than just for protection or sport. They are a way of life, a religion, a culture.

This behavior is nothing new. Just before Noems speech, there was a story about how Rep. Andy Ogles, the congressman who represents the Tennessee district where six people (including three little children) were murdered at a school shooting last month, had sent out a 2021 Christmas card photo with him and his family posing with guns.

Asked if he regretted the picture, Ogles responded, Why would I regret a photograph with my family exercising my rights to bear arms?

Think of how insensitive, creepy, and ghoulish that photo must now seem to his constituents who just lost their children.

Im not nut-picking; this is a trend. Reps. Lauren Boebert and Thomas Massie have sent out similar Christmas photos. (Even if the props were something more benign, why pose with them? Say you loved baseball? Would you pose with your whole family holding baseball gloves?)

Others, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, dont even need a special occasion to pose with a gun.

Clearly, what we are seeing is some sort of vice signaling, presumably because the demand to be perceived as a performatively tough Second Amendment advocate is so intense that mere words (and past votes) are no longer persuasive enough. In addition to supporting the right to bear arms, you now also have to demonstrate that you are a gun fanatic.

Before we go any further, I should probably say that I grew up around gun culture (and I also currently live in a state that supports gun culture). Theres a picture of me when I was little with my dad, and Im holding up a gun. Granted, Im pretty sure it was just a BB gun, but I can imagine that the mere sight of a child gleefully bearing a weapon given to him by his grinning Daddy might trigger the libs (or at least make them clutch their pearls).

It didnt stop there. When I was around ten, my grandfather gave me a (real) shotgun. My dad intervened to make sure that I did not have unfettered access to it, and that I could only shoot it with his direct supervision. My dad was a prison guard and an avid hunter. He took gun ownership seriously.

All this to say, Im not a gun-grabbing city slicker (though I do think there are common sense reforms we should consider, including red flag laws and background checks). Im not offended by law-abiding Americans who have guns for hunting and protection. What I am offended by are weirdos who want to go out of their way to constantly remind you that they are armed to the teeth, and that to present as anything less than but reverent and defined by ones arsenal is to be a squishy RINO.

And honestly, I am less tolerant of this weirdness than I once was. The context here is important. Starting with the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, the past two-plus decades have seen a huge uptick in mass shootings, many of which have targeted children.

Even if you dont believe that these repeated incidents call for increased gun control, you should still think they warrant some additional compassion, reverence, and (yes) responsibility. In my view, this includes not posing with a weapon that is designed to kill like its a trophy. It also includes learning proper firearm safety, and making sure guns are secured safely (and away from kids). Frankly, it also includes leaders using responsible rhetoric about guns.

This brings us back to Kristi Noem, and the notion that its cute to boast about kids having guns.

Not only are kids victims of shootings, but earlier this year in Virginia, a six-year-old child shot a teacher (the mother was just arrested for felony child neglect and misdemeanor recklessly leaving a loaded firearm so as to endanger a child.)

Even if you assume Noem was joking when she boasted about a two-year-old having two guns (Im not so sure), the larger question remains: Is this the kind of thing a serious political leader living in 2023 should be joking about?

Noem may already be a grandmother, but shes clearly not even close to being an adult.

See more here:
You Can Support Gun Rights Without Making It a Creepy Fetish - The Daily Beast

To the Editor:

I must respond to Dr. Gene Tinellis letter to your newspaper (To stop mass shootings, regulate weapons of war, April 13, 2023). The letter was not accurate and misleading.

First, the Second Amendment does not establish a well-regulated militia. That is done in the body of the Constitution, which was done to correct the lack of the ability of the government to create and pay for a military under the Articles of Confederation. The amendment has three commas that separate but connect four concepts.

The Amendment recognizes that a well-regulated militia is necessary to protect the country but has issues from what transpired with England. Therefore, the people had to have and be able use those arms in case the military tried to overthrow the government. Please read the Federalist Papers. And the Founders did not want this right to be infringed.

Being a Vietnam Vet, I am well aware of the use and operation of an M-16. The M-15 civilian version of the M-16 is an accurate and effective hunting rifle. If the hunter hits the target in the vital organ area, no meat is destroyed and there is little suffering of the animal. It is my right to own such a weapon if I so choose (I dont), but I dont have a right to drive under the Constitution.

All that said, as a political scientist, I recognize that assault style weapons can be made illegal if the courts found that there is a clear and present danger. The courts have used this concept to outlaw machine guns and yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. However, I would like to see anyone get this radical right-wing Supreme Court rule that these weapons are a clear and present danger to the populace of this country. Good luck with that.

Joseph W. Sallustio

Blossvale

More:
Founders did not want Second Amendment to be infringed (Your Letters) - syracuse.com

Today the United States Supreme Court has a 6-3 majority of justices considered conservative.Among other views, this 2-1 majority appears to favor practically unrestricted availability of firearms to civilians who meet minimal qualifications in many states these requirements are extremely lax.

Historically, conservative justices proclaim they are strict constructionists, meaning that if they can simply ascertain the intent of the framers of the Constitution, they will have the correct determination of what is constitutional and what is not.

With that standard in mind, it would seem their interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution today is anything but that of a strict constructionist.The amendment says, A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.Its obvious the framers intended that the right to keep and bear arms had something to do with participating in a militia.

This interpretation embodies the idea of the individual protecting the realm in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence.It goes back to the days of Queen Elizabeth I in England(late 1500s). It was the concept of the citizen-soldier, identical with our Minutemen of 1776, ready, willing and able to fight for the nation on a moments notice.

But the original idea of the SecondAmendment being a group right changed by a 5-4 vote of the conservative majority of the Supreme Court in 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In Justice Anton Scalias majority opinion, the right to keep and bear arms became an individual right, chiefly for self-protection, ignoring the reference to the clause linking it to the nations need for a well-regulated militia. In his opinion the country would be a safer place the easier the access to firearms. He felt these firearms would be used almost exclusively for self-protection.

It is ironic that the departure of the conservative majority from their old principal of theintent of the framers to a new pragmatic standard of enhancing public safety has achieved neither.The resulting proliferation of firearms has hindered rather than enhanced public safety.Instead of making citizens safer, it has led to mass killings.In the first 100 days of 2023 we have had 144 mass killings, and the numbers are increasing daily.

One other important aspect of the current proliferation of mass killings is the destructive capability of modern arms.Again, considering the conservative acknowledgment of the importance of the framers views, the common firearm with which they were familiar was the musket, a single-shot rifle with a long barrel which took about a minute to reload.One wonders if the framers, in their acknowledged wisdom, would have put any reference in the Constitution to civilians bearing arms had they foreseen the appalling capabilities of modern weapons.

Ed Jones is a former member of the Thousand Oaks City Council and a former Ventura County Supervisor.

Read more:
Guest column: Judges have shifted from 'intent of framers' in regards to 2nd Amendment - VC Star

By Leo Wolfson, State Politics Reporter

Leo@CowboyStateDaily.com

An African American Second Amendment scholar is bringing a perspective challenging many of the mainstream narratives that firearms increase crime in America. Instead, he believes gun control laws exacerbate racial bias in the criminal justice system.

We need to take a harder look at those programs, rather than pursuing what we call the modern orthodoxy, said Nicholas Johnson at the University of Wyomings Firearm Research Center on Thursday night. The community would be better if we took a case-by-case policy look. We need a hard-look approach that is pursued with rigor.

Hequestions gun control laws from a perspective he acknowledges many will find uncomfortable, showing a connection to racial and criminal justice questions. He said those who believe bias pervades the criminal justice system should also be opposed to the modern gun control movements, where he says the same biases translate into gun law enforcement.

In his"A Race-Sensitive Hard Look at Firearms and the Black Community" presentation, Johnson explains that studies show many of the same laws leading to disproportionate incarceration of African Americans and other minorities are interconnected with gun control laws that Democrats and many of the same people impacted by the policies support.

Theconservative tough on crime policies cross paths with the liberal paths to solve gun control at all costs, he said. Conservatives and liberal progressives have tried to outdo each other to be progressively punitive.

The Fordham University School of Law professor wants lawmakers to consider firearms regulation from a new lens.

More Gun Control Leads To More Prosecution

In his presentation, Johnson mentioned a 2022 University of Pennsylvania study analyzing nine decades of federal gun laws. The study found that prosecutorial power is magnified when it comes to gun control, due to the prevalent ownership of firearms in America and criminal activity throughout the country.

The UPenn study found that this both permits broad federal jurisdiction and allows prosecutors to use their equally broad discretion to leverage severe sentences to obtain plea bargains. When charging penalties and mandatory minimums start high, Johnson said this leads directly to plea bargains likely to end in incarceration.

According to the study, as of 2016, about 15% of all people in federal prisons were convicted of gun offenses carrying a mandatory minimum penalty.

One of the most common gun offenses in America is illegal possession of a firearm by a felon, amounting to nearly of all felony gun charges.

Johnson said there are also racial disparities in the prosecutions of gun laws, with studies showing African Americans are much more likely to be charged with this crime than other groups of people and twice as likely to be charged for mandatory minimums as white people.

Harsh gun laws ended up being utilized as fodder in the prosecution, he said.

Benjamin Levin said in the Fordham Law Review the same policies used in Americas war on drugs are also being used to address the ownership of firearms. Levin argues that the same critique of these policies and mass incarceration should also extend to gun laws.

Johnson cited the example of his home of New York City, which has particularly strict gun laws.To own a handgun in NYC, you need a valid city handgun license and to possess a rifle or shotgun, you need a city-issued permit.

Johnson argues these restrictions have had adisproportionate effect on working class residents of the city, who have a difficult time understanding the Byzantine laws and taking time off from work if they have appear in court on gun charges, leading to further legal problems.

People who are poor or on the bottom half of the economic scale, its simply harder to work through the legal process, he said.

Johnson also brought up a few instances of people traveling to NYC with firearms and being charged with crimes they had no idea they would be committing beforehand.

Yale Law professor James Forman Jr., has questioned whether the bias in modern gun laws is worth tolerating because of the perceived benefits.

In 2019, the United States had the second highest rate of firearms deaths in the world and in 2020, moreAmericans died of gun-related injuriesthan in any other yearon record, according to the Pew Research Center.

Cost Benefit Analysis

The Rand Corporation determined in 2018 and 2020 insufficient data exists to determine whether firearms protections lead to fewer gun-related deaths, except for isolated incidents related to gun storage laws.

Johnson said a supply side ideal exists among gun control supporters, many of whom believe by shrinking the number of firearms owned, gun violence will correspondingly decrease in America to rates seen in other countries. In 2018, Americaranked eighth out of 64 for homicides by firearm, a rate 23 times higher than Australia, which has extremely strict gun laws.

How does that dynamic play into modern orthodoxy? Johnson questioned.

Johnson said gun control laws started becoming much stricter in the 1960s and 1970s, and by the 1980s, the first municipal bans on handguns emerged, aimed at addressing the problem by restricting supply.

The modern gun control movement says fix it with banning handguns, Johnson said. It was a plausible idea. But thats becoming less and less and less plausible.

He said when state legislatures fell short in controlling firearms, gun control advocates usually turned next to public referendums. One such referendum held in California in the 1980s failed by roughly of the vote.

Flaws In The Narrative

Johnson brought up a few different examples of major African American civil rights figures who, despite advocating for peaceful change, were surrounded by supporters bearing firearms or were themselves doing so.

Johnson said there is a realization developing in minority communities that traditional gun control efforts are not working. He wants people of these communities to think critically on this issue before they stake a claim of allegiance to a certain politician.

Lets not have an automatic allegiance with people like (former New York City Mayor) Michael Bloomberg, he said.

Johnson believes that by effectively studying this topic, neither supporters or opponents of gun control would be able to take African American support for granted in the future. He said there are various studies showing Second Amendment support is growing steadily in African American communities, approaching 50% in a few. There are also a number of African American pro-gun organizations that have developed in recent years.

As we sharpen the critique, the modern orthodoxy doesnt have as great a hold as we previously think, he said.

Johnson said de facto alliances between African American progressives and tough on crime conservatives have led to over policing.

Michael Nutter, the second African American mayor of Philadelphia from 2008-2016, instituted a stop and frisk program that Johnson said led to more discriminatory arrests than in other urban cities.

This suggests an uncritical embrace of traditional gun control may be incompatible in the broader interests of the community, he said.

Author and historian Carol Anderson has argued that the Second Amendment was designed to benefit slave owners and to keep African Americans vulnerable and powerless. In her book, she mentions the 2016 murder of Philando Castile, a legally armed African American man who was killed by a police officer when he found out Castile hada gun in his possession.

Although he does believe there are flaws in modern policing, Johnson does not agree with Andersons conclusion, calling it reflexive orthodoxy and saying no law can lead to perfect results.

Using an episode like Castille as a foundation for making a broad poltical assessment that the Second Amendment has no promise for Blacks is wrong empirically, he said. Guns are crucial resources for the Black citizen.

It's folly to make a sort of limiting decision on your future resources based on something horrible that happened to someone else.

Visit link:
Second Amendment Scholar Challenges Gun Control Narrative ... - Cowboy State Daily