Mediaboss Marketing

Republicans are quietly laying the groundwork to potentially impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. | Mariam Zuhaib/AP Photo

House Republicans dug in Wednesday on a two-track strategy to project commitment to border security. Both tracks seem headed toward failure.

On one side, Judiciary Committee Republicans are in the midst of an hourslong debate on a sweeping border and immigration plan theyll vote to advance Wednesday afternoon after weeks of closed-door negotiations.

Meanwhile, Republicans are also quietly laying the groundwork to potentially impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas as he appears before the Homeland Security panel ostensibly to talk about his departments budget request but instead facing a cascade of GOP fury over his handling of the border.

The border bill and Mayorkas impeachment already faced heavy skepticism from a coalition of GOP centrists thats showing no signs of fading. Centrists have raised fears that the immigration plan goes too far in limiting asylum claims, while also blanching at conservative demands to take the historic step of impeaching a Cabinet official.

Though neither House GOP effort has a chance at success in the Democratic-controlled Senate, a failure to get border security measures through the one chamber of Congress they control would mark a significant stumble for Republicans on an issue highly important to their base.

I am confident leadership will not bring anything to the floor that does not have the votes to pass. However long that takes, thats what you want, said Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), a vocal critic of the Judiciary Committees bill.

Criticism from purple-district Republicans amounts to a political tee-ball pitch for Democrats, who are all too happy to cite their GOP colleagues in making their case against the immigration legislation.

This bill has no chance of being enacted into law, and most of its provisions cannot even pass on the House floor because of opposition from Republicans, said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), his partys top member on the Judiciary panel.

In a nod toward Gonzales, Nadler added that Republicans should heed the advice of one of their own.

While the intra-GOP fight has blasted to the forefront, given the Judiciary Committees advancement of the border security bill Wednesday, Gonzales remains locked in a monthslong public spat with Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who has vocally pushed more conservative immigration measures.

Though Roys bill isnt in the Judiciary package, pieces of the committees proposed changes to asylum laws closely reflect sections of the Texas Republicans plan.

Many Republicans defended the Judiciary Committee bill, arguing it was needed to push back against more than two years of Biden administration policies and, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) added, to restore the successful Trump policy. Republicans argue the border influx was much more manageable under the former president, when the Trump administration placed drastic limits on migrants ability to claim asylum.

Meanwhile, Democrats arent making it easy for Republicans to pass the legislation, offering a slew of potential changes that could appeal to skeptical centrists.

The first Democratic amendment would have stripped out so-called e-verify requirements, which require that certain businesses check the citizenship status of their employees a bid to turn agriculture-minded Republicans like Reps. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) and Don Bacon (R-Neb.) against the broader bill.

That failed in the Judiciary Committee along party lines. A second amendment from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) that would have delayed the implementation of the e-verify mandate also failed.

Im surprised that this bill is in here, frankly. Its never been able to pass on the House floor, Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said.

The immigration package is likely to clear the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday without getting tangled in GOP infighting, in part because the panel is stocked with conservatives. But what can clear that panel, Republicans acknowledge, isnt automatically reflective of what could get 218 votes on the House floor.

And Republicans have set an ambitious goal to clear legislation through the chamber by the middle of next month.

In the meantime, the House Homeland Security Committee will hold a vote on its own border bill next week. The Rules Committee is then expected to merge the two proposals, allowing Republicans to make more changes before a final product gets to the floor.

The Homeland Security panel had initially been expected to hold a vote on its proposal this week, but that was delayed by Mayorkas scheduled testimony. And Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), the panels chair, reportedly told donors this month that he believed his committee was making the case for Mayorkas impeachment a move that would require near-total House GOP unity to succeed.

Republicans have so far rolled out two impeachment resolutions against Mayorkas, and neither has won over even close to a majority of the House GOP conference.

One, from Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas), currently has 42 cosponsors, while a separate resolution from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) has 32. Democrats, and some GOP lawmakers, have warned that their colleagues are equating a policy disagreement namely, that Mayorkas isnt appropriately handling increased migration levels to a high crime or misdemeanor.

I was dismayed to see that, speaking to a group of campaign contributors last week about todays hearing, the chairman said, and I quote, Get the popcorn, its going to be fun. I think that tells Americans all they need to know, said Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee.

During Wednesdays hearing, Green zeroed in on the GOPs argument for impeachment, telling Mayorkas that you have not secured our borders, and I believe youve done so intentionally.

More:
House GOP plows ahead on risky immigration plan - POLITICO

Back in 1998a decade before HellerProf. Carl Bogus claimed to have discovered a "hidden history" showing that the Second Amendment was adopted to ensure that militias could enforce slave control. Since that theory crops up now and then, in 2021 I posted a comprehensive historical refutation in SSRN, which was subsequently published in Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy.

Bogus has now rehashed his 1998 theory in Madison's Militia: The Hidden History of the Second Amendment (Oxford University Press, 2023), which adds nothing new on point. He states up front that he will not address how legal scholars or the courts have interpreted the Amendment, except to assert, without any support, that James Madison and his colleagues "would have been astonished" at the Supreme Court's holding that the Amendment "grants individuals a right to have guns." ("Grants?" No, confirms.)

Bogus failed to address or even mention my paper, which is the only comprehensive critique of his 1998 article, even though it was first published a year-and-a-half before his book. Oxford University's readers who vetted his manuscript were either asleep at the wheel or biased in favor of his argument. This is good example of why courts today, when searching for historical analogues under Bruen, should rely on original historical sources and not skewed declarations by "historians."

Bogus calls his tome "a mystery book" about "why James Madison decided to write the Second Amendment," because "there is no direct evidence about what the Founders intended." But his agenda is clear: instead of "the Minuteman at Lexington, with a musket in his hands the more accurate image [of the Second Amendment] is that of the musket in the hands of the militiaman on slave patrol in the South."

Denigrating America's patriots in order to infect the Second Amendment with racism makes it easier today to criminalize the right to keep and bear arms, and is consistent with other contemporary efforts, such as the 1619 Project, to demonize America and its founders. Not surprisingly, Bogus served on the board of directors of Handgun Control Inc., the anti-gun lobby which morphed into the Brady Center.

Bogus focuses on the militia and ignores what he considers to be the non-existent individual right. The mystery supposedly reveals itself in the Virginia ratification convention of 1788. "Without spelling it out in so many words," Bogus writes, Patrick Henry objected to an exclusive federal power over the militia because it would "subvert the slave system indirectly." George Mason's warning that the disarming of the militia could lead to tyranny was actually a ruse; such were "encoded discussions" about slave control, Bogus speculates, that could not be made "directly" because "public discussion of it was often frowned upon."

According to Bogus, Madison supposedly knew he was wrong in arguing that the states had a concurrent power with the federal government to arm the militia, so he wrote the Second Amendment to "fix this problem." Bogus doesn't realize that most of the debate was about the militia clauses in the text of the Constitution, not what became the noncontroversial right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. He keeps hitting the state militia piata while ignoring the individual right.

Bogus next pilots his time machine to the American Revolution. Through his hidden history lens, the colonists were concerned only with preventing a slave insurrection instead of defending against attacks by the British army. Yet he quotes a historian as noting: "No white person was killed by a slave rebellion in colonial Virginia."

In real history, on April 21, 1775, Virginia's governor Lord Dunmore seized the gunpowder from the public magazine at Williamsburg. Per Bogus, "This left [Virginians] vulnerable to slave revolts." But Virginians were incensed by Dunmore's confiscation because it left them vulnerable to arbitrary Royal authority. Then they got word of Lexington and Concord. Patrick Henry saw the opportunity to rouse the people to arms, observing, "tell them of the robbery of the magazine and that the next step will be to disarm them, and they will then be ready to fly to arms to defend themselves."

Bogus paints Henry as fearing a non-existent slave revolt rather than what it was a British attempt to disarm the Americans to subjugate them. Henry organized an independent militia to counter the Redcoats, not to do slave patrol duty. Read the original source, ch. XII of Patrick Henry (1891), which explains how Dunmore seized the gunpowder to disarm the Americans, who in turn formed militia for defense against the British.

Bogus doesn't know what to do with the fact that, during the Revolution, four states adopted arms guarantees in their bills of rights, and three of them were in the North. Most states thereafter adopted arms guarantees, almost all of which were read to protect individual rights.

In 1776, Pennsylvania declared "that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state." That language clearly included self-defense and defense of the Commonwealth.

But to Bogus, this was a collective right only. The hidden meaning of "themselves," he says, is found in a 1754 (actually it was 1755) militia act providing that it "may be lawful for the freemen of this province to form themselves." Yes, that's a typo; the law said "form themselves into Companies." That law also declared "their Duty to fight in Defence of their Country, their Wives, their Families and Estates."

Plainly, the law and, later, the constitution recognized arms bearing for defense of self, family, and the Commonwealth. It wasn't to protect slavery, which Pennsylvania became the first state to ban in 1780.

Vermont adopted the same arms right as Pennsylvania, but its purpose wasn't to support slavery, which was prohibited by the same constitution that adopted the arms guarantee. Per Bogus, it was again a collective right only. Sorry Ethan Allen and your Green Mountain Boys, your gun toting was only at the sufferance of the state.

North Carolina simply declared that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of the state." According to Bogus, that was "to make it clear that the right to bear arms for the defense of the state only [sic]." So "themselves" meant something after all?

Massachusetts was the first to add, in 1780, keeping arms: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence." Bogus says one couldn't keep for individual reasons, but the law didn't preclude using arms for self-defense. And by the way, beginning the very next year, judicial decisions in the Commonwealth declared slavery to be unlawful.

So Bogus fails to acknowledge that three of the first four state constitutions to recognize the right to bear arms also abolished slavery at the same time or shortly thereafter. Nothing to see here.

While devoting scores of pages to irrelevant subjects like biographies of contemporaries and battles in the Revolution, Bogus ignores critical demands for a federal bill of rights with an arms guarantee. George Bryan, who led the effort to abolish slavery in Pennsylvania, helped draft the antifederalist Dissent of the Minority in that state's ratification convention which included "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state."

Bogus ignores the proposal of Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts convention which would have prohibited the federal government from preventing the people "from keeping their own arms." And he ignores that New Hampshire, whose 1780 constitution was interpreted to abolish slavery, was the first state to ratify the constitution and demand a bill of rights, including that "Congress shall never disarm any citizen." Its leading advocate was Joshua Atherton, whose most prominent argument against the constitution was that it sanctioned slavery.

Were all of these abolitionists naively duped into supporting the right to bear arms before the Second Amendment was even drafted a year later by the crafty James Madison?

Jumping forward to Madison's proposal of the Bill of Rights to Congress in 1789, Bogus imagines that "had" Madison told Roger Sherman of the need to ensure Congress couldn't "undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, Sherman would have been supportive.We shall never know whether such conversation took place." Right, but there's no evidence that Madison said any such thing, and "had" Madison said something else, we wouldn't know that, either.

"Haunted" by Patrick Henry's ghost, Madison proposed the Second Amendment to address Henry's supposed (but nonexistent) argument that Congress must not disarm the militia and thus undermine slavery. Yet despite all, "Madison paid relatively little attention to his right-to-bear-arms provision." The same could be said for this book, which says virtually nothing about that part of the Amendment and instead focuses almost entirely on the militia clauses in the text of the Constitution.

An anticlimactic chapter on the English Declaration of Rights of 1689 is squeezed in at the end, but Bogus doesn't know what to do with its provision that "the Subjects which are Protestants, may have Arms for their Defence," as it had nothing to do with slavery.

The Bogus thesis was picked up by Prof. Carol Anderson in The Second (2021), where she maintains: "The Second Amendment was not some hallowed ground but rather a bribe, paid again with Black bodies." Her argument, a condensed version of which appears in Nikole Hannah-Jones, The 1619 Project, focuses on the deprivation of Second Amendment rights as applied to African Americans.

But the defect at the Founding was not recognizing all individuals as among "the people" referred to in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments. That failure did not taint the Amendments themselves, but instead led to the belated inclusion by the Fourteenth Amendment of all persons, including African Americans, within the scope of those constitutional rights.

In Arming America, Michael Bellesiles fraudulently made stuff up and invented sources to back it up. To his credit, Professor Bogus alerts readers that he is making stuff up and doesn't pretend to cite sources. One only wonders why Oxford University Press would publish such fiction.

More here:
Second Amendment Roundup: To Preserve Liberty, Not Slavery - Reason

A federal judge in Texas recently agreed with a federal judge in Oklahoma that the national ban on gun possession by cannabis consumers violates the Second Amendment. Kathleen Cardone, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, also concluded that the federal ban on transferring firearms to an "unlawful user" of a "controlled substance," first imposed by the Gun Control Act of 1968, is unconstitutional.

The case involves Paola Connelly, who was charged with illegal possession of firearms under 18 USC 922(g)(3) after El Paso police found marijuana and guns in her home while responding to a domestic disturbance in December 2021. Connelly, who said she used marijuana "to sleep at night and to help her with anxiety," also was charged with violating 18 USC 922(d)(3) by transferring guns to her husband, a cocaine and psilocybin user. Both gun offenses are punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

As a preliminary matter, Cardone held that Connelly's Second Amendment claims were not precluded by prior decisions in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which includes Texas, upheld Section 922(g)(3). Those decisions, she noted, preceded the Supreme Court's June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which said gun control laws must be "consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

Last February in United States v. Rahimi, the 5th Circuit concluded thatBruen required it to reconsider decisions upholding the federal ban on gun possession by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders. By the same logic, Cardone says in an order published last week, the 5th Circuit's precedents regarding Section 922(g)(3) are no longer binding.

As it has in previous cases involving the same law, the Biden administration argued that the gun ban for marijuana users meets the Bruen test because it is "relevantly similar" to colonial and state laws forbidding people to publicly use or carry guns while intoxicated. Like U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, who deemed that ban unconstitutional in an Oklahoma case last February, Cardone was unpersuaded by that analogy.

"The historical intoxication laws cited by the Government generally addressed specific societal problems with narrow restrictions on gun use, while 922(g)(3) addresses widespread criminal issues with a broad restriction on gun possession," Cardone notes. "The laws, therefore, are not relevantly similar in how and why they regulate firearms, and do not suffice to establish the constitutionality of 922(g)(3)."

A 1655 Virginia law, for example, prohibited "shoot[ing] any gunns at drinkeing (marriages and ffuneralls onely excepted)." To show why that law is not "relevantly similar" to the ban that Connelly challenged, Cardone draws an analogy with contemporary laws that prohibit driving under the influence (DUI).

"The Virginia law regulated guns in much the same way," Cardone writes. "It prevented individuals from using dangerous equipment while intoxication might impair their abilities and judgment. Consider instead a law that would prevent individuals from possessing cars at all if they regularly drink alcohol on weekends. Nobody would say that this hypothetical law is similar to DUI laws in how it regulates cars. The hypothetical law's focus on possession, rather than use, of the vehicle imposes a much greater burden on drivers. A similar distinction exists between 922(g)(3) and the Virginia law."

State laws enacted in the 19th century likewise were aimed at people who publicly carried or fired guns when they were drunk. By contrast, Section 922(g)(3) covers all cannabis consumers, including those who live in states that have legalized marijuana, even when they are not intoxicated, and it applies to private as well as public possession. A truly analogous rule regarding alcohol would categorically ban gun ownership by drinkers.

The government also argued that Section 922(g)(3) is consistent with a purported tradition of disarming "unvirtuous" people. "It is unclear whether legal authorities at the founding era would consider Connelly's homebound drug use 'unvirtuous,'" Cardone says. She notes colonial-era jurist William Blackstone's distinction between "public and private vices": While the former are subject to the "punishments of human tribunals," he said, the latter are subject only to "eternal justice." Blackstone explicitly applied that distinction to drunkenness.

"Connelly's alleged drug use more resembles private drinking than public drunkenness, casting doubt on the idea that history supports criminalizing or disarming her for this behavior," Cardone writes. "And more generally, nothing in 922(g)(3) limits its applicability to public dangers or active intoxication, putting it out of step with colonial-era attitudes."

Cardone was equally unimpressed by the government's argument that Connelly was disqualified from owning guns because she was not "law-abiding." While her marijuana use, if proven, "would violate federal law," Cardone says, that offense is a nonviolent misdemeanor, and "no one even today reads [Second Amendment history] to support the disarmament of literally all criminals, even nonviolent misdemeanants."

Notably, Cardone is quoting a 2019 dissent that Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Barrett argued that the federal ban on gun possession by people with nonviolent felony records sweeps too broadly. In making that case, she took it for granted that a nonviolent misdemeanor is not enough to justify depriving someone of his Second Amendment rights.

As applied to Connelly, such a rule seems especially perverse given President Joe Biden's position that marijuana use should not be treated as a crime at all. Cardone notes Biden's "blanket presidential pardon" for people convicted of simple marijuana possession under federal law. Because that pardon applies to conduct that occurred before October 6, 2022, it would cover the marijuana that police found in Connelly's home.

What about the government's claim that marijuana users like Connelly are too "dangerous" to be trusted with guns? "Even if history broadly supports disarming dangerous individuals, there is little evidence that Connelly herself is dangerous," Cardone says. "The Government has not alleged that she committed any violent or threatening acts. Instead, its core allegation is that she possessed and used marijuana."

Cardone notes that more than 20 states "have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, and millions of U.S. citizens regularly use the substance." She thinks "it strains credulity to believe that taking part in such a widespread practice can render an individual so dangerous or untrustworthy that they must be stripped of their Second Amendment rights."

Cardone also notes that Section 922(g)(3), unlike restrictions that hinge on a conviction or a judicial order, deprives people of their Second Amendment rights "without a hearing or any preliminary showing from the Government." They "must choose to either stop their marijuana use, forgo possession of a firearm, or continue both practices and face up to fifteen years in federal prison."

Cardone extended her analysis to the charge that Connelly illegally transferred guns to her husband. His behavior, unlike Connelly's, did indicate that he posed a danger to others: Police arrested him after "they heard several shots and observed [him] standing at his neighbor's door with a shotgun." But that fact, Cardone says, does not preclude Connelly's facial challenge to Section 922(d)(3), which applies even to nonviolent drug users.

Because banning gun transfers to drug users is tantamount to banning possession, Cardone concluded, that provision raises the same concerns as Section 922(g)(3). She therefore dismissed both charges against Connelly.

Unlike Cardone and Wyrick, Allen Winsor, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, thought the government's "historical analogues" were close enough. Last November, Winsor dismissed a lawsuit in which Florida medical marijuana patients sought to recover their Second Amendment rights. The plaintiffs are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to overrule Winsor.

In response, the Biden administration continues to argue that forbidding cannabis consumers to own guns is like telling people not to carry guns when they're drunk. The Justice Department, meanwhile, is appealing Wyrick's decision, and it can be expected to appeal Cardone's as well.

For those keeping partisan score, it is notable that all three of these judges were appointed by Republican presidents: Cardone by George W. Bush, Wyrick and Winsor by Donald Trump. Their disagreement seems to reflect evolving conservative views of marijuana as well as the impact ofBruen.

Whatever you make of that, cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(3) will soon be considered by three federal appeals courts: the 5th Circuit, the 10th Circuit, and the 11th Circuit. Assuming they reach different conclusions, the Supreme Court is apt to intervene, decisively settling the question of whether the right to keep and bear arms includes an exception for people who dare to consume a psychoactive substance that legislators deemed intolerable more than two centuries after the Second Amendment was ratified.

Read this article:
Another Judge Rejects the DOJ's Argument That Cannabis Users Have No Gun Rights - Reason

OTTAWA COUNTY, MI The Ottawa County Board of Commissioners have eliminated an obstacle blocking a plan to pass a Second Amendment sanctuary county resolution.

During the Tuesday, April 11 meeting, the board officially rescinded a rule that prevents the commissions far-right majority from adopting resolutions outside of the county boards authority. The original resolution, adopted in 2021, limited the boards resolutions to items they had the authority upon which to take action.

Now that the rule has been eliminated, it paves the way for board members who belong to the conservative group Ottawa Impact to move forward with the Second Amendment sanctuary county resolution.

The motion to rescind Tuesday said the policy established by the prior board limited the boards ability to speak on important issues. It is unclear when the resolution will come before the full board.

Related: Should West Michigan be a 2nd Amendment sanctuary? Kent, Ottawa GOP groups say yes

One of the things that I know a number of people on this board have advocated for in the last couple years is that citizens use their voice, board Chairman Joe Moss said at an April 4 committee meeting. I think its great that the board also be able to use their voice on important issues, whether its Second Amendment or parental rights or constitution or whatever the board might take up.

Declaring a county or city a Second Amendment sanctuary is often mostly symbolic but could include a local governing body passing a resolution rejecting state or federal gun laws like universal background checks, red flag laws and assault weapon bans. These resolutions can, however, become legal liabilities to local sheriffs who dont enforce laws on the books.

Ottawa County Prosecutor Lee Fisher said he was sent a proposed resolution to review but did not say who shared it.

As far as a sanctuary county, my position is I dont believe its appropriate for me to publicly support or not support a political statement, Fisher said during the Tuesday meeting. If theres a violation of the gun laws, I have to objectively and fairly review those complaints to decide if somebodys going to be charged with violating the law.

In February, the Ottawa County Republican Party requested the county board pass such a resolution, proposing language that includes requesting the sheriff and prosecutor do everything in their power to defend the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Ottawa County from any and all infringements.

Related: Ottawa County board wants to weigh in on political issues outside their authority

Since the new conservative majority took over the county board in January, some residents have requested the board take up a Second Amendment sanctuary resolution.

The county voted for this board to be representative of the people, not to be ignored, said Grand Haven Township resident Stephen Rockman on Tuesday. One of the first resolutions Id like this board to take up is a Second Amendment resolution. Ottawa County is a conservative county. Responsible gun ownership is proven to save lives.

Others residents opposed the board taking up a Second Amendment resolution, questioning whether the resolution would actually make citizens safer.

Im here to express my anger over Ottawa Impacts desire to turn Ottawa County into a Second Amendment sanctuary county, said Grand Haven resident Cindy Spielmaker. If having more guns would make us safer as you believe, why does the United States have so many gun deaths? Im angry you want to disregard common sense gun laws.

Have any of you been through an active shooter drill? I have and I can tell you it was terrifying. Maybe you need to experience that before making Ottawa County a Second Amendment sanctuary county.

Outspoken Holland Township resident Joe Spaulding called potential Second Amendment resolution an attempt to nullify state law.

Theres going to be more mass shootings, Spaulding told the commissioners. When those happen, theyre going to look at politicians that did nothing. Youre going to nullify state law and make Ottawa County more dangerous.

More from MLive:

Ottawa County had highest number of jury trials ever in 2022

Police video shows pursuit that led to arrests of 5 teens in stolen car

Spring Lake boards $49.8M bond request would fund new classrooms, secure entrances at high school

Originally posted here:
Ottawa County commissioners remove obstacle to proposing a Second Amendment sanctuary resolution - MLive.com

Repeal the Second Amendment

I appreciate the concerns behind HB 23-1230 to ban assault weapons in Colorado. However, this proposal clearly violates the independent clause of the Second Amendment. The proper first step towards gun control would be repealing the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment was a product of a different time, predating modern weapons of mass destruction. It was rooted in armed slave patrols to suppress potential slave uprisings.

The U.S. Constitution is an archaic document with no legitimate authority, yet legislators take an oath to uphold it. If the United States continues to exist as a political entity, a new constitution should be designed and approved by a new constitutional convention.

The original constitutional convention was held in secret by a handful of rich white men predominantly slaveholders who designed a system to preserve their own wealth and power. The constitution they drafted excluded about 94 percent of the population from the right to representation in government.

I would support a vote at a new constitutional convention to repeal the Second Amendment as a precursor to debating legislation regulating personal weapon ownership.

Slaveholder Thomas Jefferson wrote that a constitution could not bind future generations. He argued that a constitution should expire after one generation. I agree that future generations should not be bound by the dictates of their barbarous ancestors. Each generation should hold its own constitutional convention to create a new system of government, at least once every 20 years.

Gary Swing, Boulder

I dont understand why Marcia Martin and the City Council object to proposed SB 23-213 on allowing apartments and condos to be built everywhere and anywhere (Times-Call, April 6), as the proposed law codifies what the city of Longmont has been doing for some time. SB 23-213 is as good as gold to developers as it allows for uncontrolled rape and pillage.

Bill Butler, Longmont

Best in Local News

Your email is already registered. Please subscribe to Longmont Times-Call to continue.

$1 for 6 Months of Unlimited Digital Access

Get this deal

Already a subscriber? Login

View more onLongmont Times-Call

Continued here:
Letters: Second Amendment; SB 23-213 - Longmont Times-Call