Mediaboss Marketing

A 16-year-old boy rang the wrong doorbell. A 20-year-old woman turned into the wrong driveway. Teenage cheerleaders stopped outside a supermarket, and one of them got into the wrong car.

In all three cases, banal and seemingly harmless occurrences culminated in horrific gun violence. Ralph Yarl was shot in the head. Kaylin Gillis was shot dead. Payton Washington and a friend were injured.

In an era of frequent mass shootings, Americans know all too well that tragedy lurks nearly everywhere: schools, churches, offices, grocery stores, movie theaters. But these three incidents in the span of just six days have deepened a gnawing sense that no place is truly safe not even the front porch of an ordinary house on an ordinary street in suburban Kansas City.

The truth is that we are living in a nation that is increasingly shooting first and asking questions later. I think people are outraged and sickened by it, said John Feinblatt, the president of Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization that advocates for gun control measures. I think parents are asking: Is my child next?

The three shootings have each attracted national attention, drawing an outpouring of sympathy, grief and confusion. The incidents may feel especially senseless because the victims are all young people looking ahead to the future.

Yarl is a gifted student and musician. Gillis aspired to become a marine biologist. Washington already has a tumbling scholarship to Baylor University after high school graduation.

Yarl, who is Black, was picking up his younger twin brothers from a friends home last Thursday night and rang the wrong doorbell. The homeowner, who is white, shot him in the head, cracking his skull and leaving him with a traumatic brain injury, police have said. The homeowner fired a second time when the teenager was on the ground.

Prosecutors in Clayton County, Missouri, have filed two felony counts against the 84-year-old homeowner, Andrew Lester: assault in the first degree and armed criminal action. He has pleaded not guilty. Yarl is recovering from his injuries.

Gillis was in a car with three friends when they pulled into the driveway of an upstate New York home they mistakenly believed belonged to someone they knew, police have said. The suspect, 65-year-old Kevin Monahan, allegedly fired twice at the car from his porch; one of the shots fatally struck Gillis, who was sitting in the passenger seat.

Monahan has been arraigned on a charge of second-degree murder. He has pleaded not guilty and he has been remanded without bail.

In the Texas town of Elgin, four cheerleaders were on their way back to the Austin area just after midnight Tuesday when they stopped at an H-E-B supermarket, where some had parked their cars. When one of the girls accidentally tried to get into the wrong car, the armed man inside got out and fired five times, according to the owner of the gym where they trained.

He struck two of the girls, including Washington, 18. The suspect, Pedro Tello Rodriguez Jr., 25, has been charged with deadly conduct, a third-degree felony, police said.

The incidents have renewed and intensified calls for stricter gun control legislation, which will almost certainly be fiercely resisted by Republican legislators at the national and state level.

The recent shootings have also put scrutiny on stand your ground self-defense laws including the one in Missouri. Kansas City Police Chief Stacey Graves said investigators would consider whether Lester was justified under the states self-defense law.

Dave Workman, a spokesman for the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group, said his organization was alarmed by the news of the shootings, adding that the criminal charges brought in the shooting of Yarl were probably justified.

We all have the right of self-defense and we all have the right to be secure in our own homes, but over and above that there has to be a definable threat to your safety. Its not just because somebody rang your doorbell, said Workman, who is a certified firearms instructor.

The incidents came in the wake of mass shootings in Nashville and Louisville, and amid concerns about local crime and public safety in some American cities.

In one poll released last year, 8 in 10 Americans said gun violence was increasing and three-fourths identified it as a major problem. In a survey published this year, a majority of Americans said they or a family member had experienced gun violence.

In the eyes of some observers, the shootings point to a more fundamental sickness in American life: the toxic brew of paranoia, distrust and suspicion that poisons so many of our day-to-day interactions and sometimes leads to bloodshed.

In an interview, Christian Heyne, the vice president of policy and programming for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control organization, partly blamed the increasingly violent rhetoric in mainstream political discourse.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., one of the most vocal advocates for gun control in Congress, described the state of affairs in stark terms on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Wednesday.

We are becoming a heavily armed nation so fearful and angry and hair-trigger anxious that gun murders are now just the way in which we work out our frustrations, Murphy said. This is a dystopia, and Im here to tell you that its a dystopia that weve chosen for ourselves.

It doesnt have to be like this, Murphy added. Cheerleaders dont need to be shot when they walk into the wrong car. Teenagers dont need to be murdered because their music is too loud. Kids shouldnt fear for their life when they go to school, or when they pick up their siblings from a house in the neighborhood.

We can do better, Murphy continued. We can adjust the dials in order to decide not to live in this dystopia.

Daniel Arkin is a national reporter at NBC News. He specializes in popular culture and the entertainment industry, particularly film and television.

Here is the original post:
Shot for making a mistake: America reels from shootings of Ralph Yarl, Kaylin Gillis and Texas cheerleaders - NBC News

Rep. Nancy Mace speaks to reporters as she leaves the U.S. Capitol Building on January 27, 2023. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images hide caption

Rep. Nancy Mace speaks to reporters as she leaves the U.S. Capitol Building on January 27, 2023.

Welcome to the NPR series where we spotlight the people and things making headlines and the stories behind them.

Rep. Nancy Mace isn't convinced about some of the stances her party is taking. And she's already facing blowback for it.

Who is she? Nancy Mace is a South Carolina congresswoman and Republican.

What's the big deal? While Mace sees eye to eye with many GOP members on other issues, reproductive health and action on mass shootings have become a point of contention.

Want more politics? Listen to Consider This explore what the phrase 'tough on China' really means.

What are people saying?

Mace on abortion during her CNN appearance:

This is an FDA-approved drug. I support the usage of FDA-approved drugs, even if we might disagree. It's not up to us to decide as legislators or as the court system that- whether or not this is the right drug to use or not. This is an issue that Republicans have been largely on the wrong side of. We have, over the last nine months, not shown compassion towards women, and this is one of those issues that I've tried to lead on as someone who's 'pro-life' and just have some common sense.

Everybody's welcome to their own opinion. I represent a very purple district that is really a bellwether for the rest of the country. And I can tell you, far more than the vast majority of 60-70% of Americans are not going to agree with this decision. And there are many pro-life people that, also while they're pro-life, they don't want the government to intervene in this radical of a manner, and the FDA has a rigorous process.

And during another TV appearance:

We've got 14 counties in South Carolina that don't have a single OBGYN doctor. So if we're going to ban abortion, what are we doing to make sure women have access to birth control?

Mace on gun control during a FOX News appearance:

Every mass shooting, there's just silence, and prayers are offered, Easter baskets are offered, but no real solutions,

Republicans can no longer be silent on this issue. And it's not about the Second Amendment. There are plenty of things that we can be doing besides offering prayers and silence,

Those kinds of common sense things are all things that every American on either side of the aisle can get behind, but yet every time there's a mass shooting, and they're increasing every year, every week, we don't say anything. We want to bury our heads in the sand and hope that it goes away. But guess what? It's not going away.

So, what now?

Learn more:

Excerpt from:
Rep. Nancy Mace says her party's stance on abortion has gotten too ... - NPR

An Alabama House committee killed legislation on Wednesday that would have added criminal penalties for violating a provision within the states new permitless carry law.

The vote by the House Public Safety & Homeland Security Committee prompted its frustrated sponsor to tell AL.com afterward that the supermajority GOP in Alabama is owned by the National Rifle Association.

Related:

We have to figure out who we are serving, state Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, said. Is it our citizens, or a special interest group that apparently wont allow us to do any reasonable restrictions on firearms?

He added, To be honest with you, the NRA runs this building.

State Rep. Allen Treadaway, R-Birmingham and the committees chairman, disagreed and said there are occasions in which the GOP members of his committee will vote against legislation the NRA supports.

A lot of folks are very serious about the Second Amendment and their right to bear arms, said Treadaway, a former assistant police chief in Birmingham. This argument comes up every time when there is, unfortunately, a tragedy. Its tough depending on what side of the issue you are on. If you believe in the Constitution, its not a real issue. Folks are going to be sensitive about that and vote (in opposition to gun control).

He added, You might have a political organization that supports one side of the issue or the other, and thats how they will vote. Its not because they are being pressured not everyone in that situation.

The comments come after National Rifle Association boss Wayne LaPierre, during the NRAs national convention Saturday in Indianapolis, warned that gun-hating politicians should never go to bed unafraid over their political careers, which he warned his group could end.

It also comes as Alabama Democrats pitch gun control measures that are unlikely to advance far. A group of Democratic lawmakers, in Hueytown this week, called on their Republican colleagues to pass red flag legislation in the wake of a mass shooting during a Sweet 16 birthday party in Dadeville on Saturday that left four people dead and over 30 injured.

Republicans say they are concerned about what they called the politicizing of the Second Amendment following a deadly shooting. The partys leadership, including Gov. Kay Ivey, was also criticized on Wednesday by the gun control group, Giffords, for ignoring gun violence.

I dont know if there is any gun bill that could have prevented what happened in Dadeville, Alabama House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter, R-Rainville, said. We put money in for security in schools. We are spending more on mental health in this state than weve have before. At the end of the day, I dont know if gun laws will change bad people.

England, though, said even legislation backed by Democrats calling for common sense approaches are not going anywhere.

His latest measure HB12 -- aimed at making it a misdemeanor if, during a traffic stop, a person in possession of a firearm fails to inform a law enforcement officer that he or she has a concealed gun.

England said the legislation was needed because the permitless carry law the Alabama Legislature adopted last year included a provision of a duty to inform law enforcement about the presence of a concealed gun inside a vehicle during a traffic stop.

He said the law was toothless if penalties were not included.

To be honest with you, going through the permitless carry law passed last year, there are obvious problems with it, said England, sponsor of HB12.

For whatever reason we left off a penalty, England said. When (the new law) went into effect this year, I worked with law enforcement officers and they asked if its enforceable or not since it doesnt have a penalty associated with it. Its almost like wed prefer confusion.

Treadaway said the permitless carry legislation was debated at length last year and is not in need of wholesale changes.

Alabama became the 25th state in the U.S. to adopt permitless carry called constitutional carry by supporters despite concerns expressed by many law enforcement officers including sheriffs who are typically strong GOP allies.

That part of the bill was vetted in the Senate and House last year, over and over, Treadaway said. There were a lot of public meetings held on constitutional carry. That area is a concern to everyone in how you apply penalties. The committee felt here today they were not ready to move on it as written (in HB12).

England blamed GOP lawmakers for not moving on anything related to gun-related safety.

Anything like permits or background checks and things like that, or limiting access to trigger activators that turn pistols to automatic weapons, is for public safety purposes, said England. Its not to restrict a responsible gun owner from owning a weapon. Its to make sure we balance their rights with the publics rights to be safe in going to class, to school, to church or a birthday party.

Link:
NRA runs this building: Frustration boils over after gun-related provision killed by Alabama House panel - AL.com

Under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) educational and medical institutes have the option of availing the benefit of two exemption regimes, namely under Section 10(23C) and Section 11 of the IT Act. Prior to 1 July 2020, these institutes had the option of availing the benefit of both the exemption regimes simultaneously which was exercised by numerous such institutes. Thus, the income of such institutes could be exempt if they satisfied the associated conditions laid down in either of the regimes.

The changing landscape of exemption regimes Finance Act, 2014 to Finance Act, 2023

The Legislature sought to change the aforesaid position by inserting a proviso to Section 11(7) of the IT Act vide the Finance Act, 2020. In order to understand the background for the same it is important to refer to the legislative history of Section 11(7).

Section 11(7) of the IT Act, which was inserted into the IT Act vide the Finance Act, 2014, provides that a charitable institution availing an exemption under Section 11 could not simultaneously claim exemption under Section 10 of the IT Act with the exception of clauses (1) and (23C) thereto. The said provision was inserted in the IT Act to address the problem of educational and medical institutes being registered to claim the benefit of Section 11 but claiming exemption under the general provisions of Section 10 without having to comply with the conditions relating to application of income laid down in Section 11.

The Legislature also noted that a similar situation also existed with respect to institutes approved under Section 10(23C), and in order to remedy the same, inserted the erstwhile eighteenth proviso to Section 10(23C). Therefore, educational and medical institutes registered under Section 10(23C) which did not apply their income in accordance with the said provision could not fall back on other clauses of Section 10 to claim income-tax exemption.

Subsequently, in 2020 the Legislature took note of the fact that in certain cases educational and medical institutes were registered in both Section 12AA and Section 10(23C) and were claiming exemption interchangeably in either of the provisions. Noting that since the provisions relating to such charitable institutes constitute a complete code, it was felt that once an institute had voluntarily opted for one of the aforesaid exemption regimes, the option of switching between the two regimes at convenience should not be available.

Consequently, Section 11(7) of the IT Act was amended vide the Finance Act, 2020 by way of insertion of two provisos. The first of the said provisos provides that the registration of a charitable entity claiming exemption under Section 11 would become inoperative from the date on which it is approved under Section 10(23C) or in case of institutes which were already availing the benefit of both the exemption regimes, on the date on which the first proviso come into effect i.e., 1 June 2020. Thus, educational and medical institutes claiming exemption under Section 11 and Section 10(23C) were shifted to exemption regime under Section 10(23C) alone by virtue of this proviso.

However, by way of the second proviso, a one-time opportunity to switch back to the exemption regime under Section 11 was also provided to these institutes. The second proviso lays down that charitable entity whose registration becomes inoperative because of the first proviso may apply for re-registration, in which case the approval received by such charitable entity under Section 10(23C) would stand cancelled and the charitable entity would not be entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C).

In addition to the above changes, the Finance Act, 2020 also introduced a new set of provisions for grant of approval under Section 10(23C) and registration for claiming exemption under Section 11. As per the said amendments, all charitable entities had to make an application for fresh approval or registration in order to continue to enjoy the benefit of either Section 10(23C) or Section 11 respectively.

Therefore, with effect from 1 June 2020, a charitable entity which was availing the benefit of the exemption regimes under Sections 10(23C) and 11 of the IT Act, was forced to choose between one of the said regimes. Firstly, due to the operation of the first proviso to Section 11(7), the charitable entitys registration for availing exemption under Section 11 would become inoperative and it would have had the option to either apply for approval under clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 10(23C) or for registration under clause (iv) of Section 12A(1)(ac). Thereafter, the one of following sequence of events could take place:

Further amendments were made by the Finance Act, 2022 to align both the aforesaid exemption regimes and insert certain additional compliances and conditions. One of these amendments was in relation to the cancellation of registration/approval under the two exemption regimes which provided that the relevant authority could cancel the registration/approval of a charitable entity in case of a specified violation, i.e., the happening of certain specified events.

Now vide the Finance Act, 2023, even more amendments have been made to the exemption regimes under Sections 10(23C) and 11 of the IT Act. For the purposes of the present discussion, three amendments must be considered.

The first pertains to the expansion of the meaning of specified violation as used in Sections 10(23C) and 12AB, the occurrence of which would result in the cancellation of approval under Section 10(23C) or registration for availing exemption under Section 11. The Memorandum states that one of the issues which was being faced under the new system of registration/approval was that charitable institutes were being granted provisional registration/approval or re-registration/re-approval automatically without any scrutiny because of which even defective applications containing incorrect or incomplete information were being passed. Thus, in order to curb such practice, an amendment has been made to expand the scope of the expression specified violation to include the filing of an incomplete application or an application containing false or incorrect information.

The second amendment relates to Section 115TTD of the IT Act which deals with the taxation of accreted income of charitable entities in case they are inter-alia converted to a form which is ineligible for grant of registration for availing exemption under Section 11 or approval under Section 10(23C). As per the amendment to Section 115TD, a charitable entity is considered to ineligible for registration/approval if it fails to make an application within the time specified either under the first proviso to Section 10(23C) or under Section 12(1)(ac). The said amendment has been made to address the situation whereby a charitable entity would seek to opt out of the exemption regimes without having to pay tax on accreted income under Section 115TD.

The third amendment is with respect to the registration/approval process under the two exemption regimes. The residual clause for application under both Section 12A(1)(ac) and Section 10(23C) has been amended so that registration/approval would only be given to those trusts who have already commenced activities if they have not previously claimed exemption under either Section 11 or Section 10(23C).

Therefore, the provisions relating to the exemption regimes under Sections 10(23C) and 11 of the IT Act have undergone a multitude of wide-ranging changes having an impact on nearly every aspect associated with the operation of educational and medical institutes. As will be discussed in this write-up, this has resulted in a situation where a mere procedural lapse can have far reaching consequences.

Procedural lapse or a fatal mistake?

A problem which has arisen on account of the complex nature of these provisions is with respect to educational and medical institutes which were availing the benefit of both the exemption regimes. As has been discussed above, due to the first proviso to Section 11(7), the registration for availing exemption under Section 11 became inoperative with effect from 1 June 2020. However, since no order was required to be passed by any statutory authority to give effect to the said provision, numerous such institutes continued to operate under the assumption that they were still covered under the purview of Section 11 and therefore, applied under clause (i) to section 12A(1)(ac) for automatic re-registration.

Thus, this has resulted in certain procedural irregularities. Firstly, such educational and medical institutes have applied for re-registration for exemption under Section 11 under the incorrect provision of law. Secondly, they have also failed to make the application for re-approval under Section 10(23C) within the time stipulated under the said section.

The consequence of the first of the two irregularities is that following the amendment to expand the definition of the expression specified violation, the application made by the charitable entity may be considered to be one containing false or incorrect information. Thus, it may result in the cancellation of registration for availing exemption under Section 11. In addition to the above, the consequence of the second irregularity would be that the charitable entity would be considered to have been converted to a form which is ineligible to seek approval under Section 10(23C) of the IT Act.

The ultimate consequence, therefore, would be that the charitable entity would then become liable to pay tax on its accreted income under Section 115TD of the IT Act. Moreover, such a charitable entity would no longer be eligible to apply for exemption under either Section 10(23C) or Section 11 since neither does the first proviso to Section 10(23C) nor does Section 12A(1)(ac) contain any clause which would allow application by a charitable entity which has commenced operations and also previously claimed exemption under Section 10(23C).

Hence, any charitable entity which has even inadvertently committed the afore-mentioned procedural lapses would potentially face a heavy tax burden. Not only would such a charitable entity have to pay tax on its accreted income, but it would also be barred from making a fresh application in the future for claiming exemption under either Section 10(23C) or Section 11 of the IT Act.

While it is a settled position of law that the benefit of a substantive provision of law cannot be denied due to a mere procedural lapse, considering the express intention of the Legislature behind the amendments introduced vide the Finance Act, 2023 as well as the host of other amendments to both the exemption regimes, it would be interesting to see how the income-tax department deals with the situation discussed above.

The rest is here:
Navigating the exemption labyrinth - Pitfalls in the way of charitable ... - Lexology

Goldstones latest book is Not White Enough: The Long, Shameful Road to Japanese American Internment. Learn more at http://www.lawrencegoldstone.com.

That Democrats have long suffered from poor messaging is no secret. Every few weeks, it seems, brings a new lament about the failure of the party to persuade voters, even their own, that their programs and their vision is superior to the false promises peddled by Republicans. As Michael Tomasky wrote, Theres always a lot of grumbling about Democratic messaging, and for good reason: Its generally pretty baddefensive and unimaginative.

One common criticism is that the Democrats message is excessively policy-oriented, too dense and too boring for even most party loyalists to care about. Former Republican strategist Mike Murphy noted, Theyre forgetting a lot of voters dont follow this detailed stuff because theyre busy with their life. Pick a simple thing people understand thats popular, thats smaller.

That some Democratic strategists demur could be part of the problem. In 2022, Vanity Fair featured an article by Dan Pfeiffer, the former Obama communications director, provocatively titled, Why Do Democrats Suck at Messaging? The body of the piece belied the title, however. In it, Pfeiffers main contention was that Democrats were no worse than Republicans, who seem to be winning the messaging war in spite of themselves. As he pointed out, Kevin McCarthy looks like he just woke up from a nap and cant gure out where he is or what he is doing. Mitch McConnell, one of the worst communicators in modern political history, sounds like he is reading The Almanac of American Politics with a mouthful of marbles. He did grudgingly admit, The right has effectively created a narrative about Democrats and has stuck to it. Make America Great Again is one of the most successful political branding efforts in history.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Indeed it was and that is the point. Democrats messaging fails, because, unlike Republicans, they seem to lack an appreciation for the power of effective use of language.

That may be changing.

Recently, there have been subtle shifts in the basic approach to two key issues and Democrats have since been making progress on both. In abortion, pro-choice has been supplanted by reproductive rights, and in the Second Amendment debate, gun control has been replaced by gun safety. Each reflects increased cognizance of how the terms are absorbed by voters who are not ideologically frozen to one side of the debate or the other.

The term pro-choice was, as Murphy noted, purely defensive, a reaction to pro-life, an abbreviation of Right to Life, a phrase that had gestated among anti-abortion groups in the 1960s.

In 1972, Jimmye Kimmey, an Episcopal priest and executive director of the Association for the Study of Abortion, wrote a memo to the associations members in which she expressed the need to find a phrase to counter the Right to Life slogan. Fully aware of the critical need for a potent catchphrase, her suggestions were Freedom of Conscience and Right to Choose. She preferred the second because, Right to Life is short, catchy, and is composed of monosyllabic words (an important consideration in English). We need something comparableRight to Choose would seem to do the job.

Conscience, she noted is an internal matter while choice has to do with actionand it is action we are concerned with. Finally, she brought the issue to its core. What we are concerned with is, to repeat, the womans right to choosenot with her right (or anyone elses right) to make a judgment about whether that choice is morally licit.

After Kimmeys suggestion began to percolate among pro-abortion groups, Right to Life, was shortened to pro-life, likely by anti-abortion activist Nellie Gray. Gray also favored preborn rather than unborn, which gave a stronger sense that a fetus was already an actual human being. (Use of the pre suffix has since been adopted by ad agencies everywhere, as in presold rather than used cars.)

Soon after Right to Life was abbreviated, pro-abortion groups countered, truncating Right to Choose to pro-choice, where it remained for decades.

Although the change seemed innocuous and to proponents of legalized abortion, fundamental to a womans individual liberty, pro-choice did not seem to sway those whose beliefs were in the center to the degree proponents had hoped.

The problem was that, while pro-choice seems a wholesome enough phrase, when matched against pro-life, it can easily be seen as something else. The natural alternatives would be either anti-life or pro-death. While many who advocate for abortion rights would dismiss either term as ludicrous and nothing that any reasonable person would believe, in a nation where conspiracy theories are as popular as the Game of Thrones dragons, anti-life might strike a more responsive chord than they assumed.

Rights, on the other hand, has become a word with a bell attached to it, the key in any number of disputesvoting, gun possession, stand-your-ground legislation, even legalized cannabis. And it cuts across political ideology. Rights mean the ability to make decisions for oneself, a cornerstone of conservative and libertarian ideology. It is an active termone must be allowed to assert ones rights. Those who believe in the right to bear arms will have more difficulty dismissing the right of a woman to make reproductive decisions for herself.

Which is why those advocating for stricter gun laws have a different problem. Use of rights has been appropriated by the gun lobby, used in virtually every public statement, advertisement, and article. Any attempt at meaningful legislation, therefore, has been assailed as an attempt to deprive law-abiding citizens of their Constitutional rights, casting those who wish to make it more difficult for disaffected individuals to shoot up a school or workplace as fascist storm troopers.

But gun safety, although not swaying the hardcore, avoids the red flag word control, and thus seems a good deal more palatable to gun owners, the majority of whom favor the safe use and storage of weapons. Even Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, as hard-core right wing as they come, was forced to advocate for improved gun safety laws, not because nine-year-olds were gunned down in a Christian school, but because the Tennessee legislature expelled two young black members who were advocating for that very thing.

What caused Democrats to realize that how one says something can be every bit as important as what one says is not clear. But if they wish to convince independent voters that their vision is superior, they will need to continue to express that vision in terms that ordinary people respond to.

Read the original here:
The message is the message - The Fulcrum