Mediaboss Marketing

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

A recent letter pleaded for legislative action to ban the weapons of war (Its guns, and we must fix the problem, April 5, TribLIVE), while another wanted to make things more difficult on the criminals (We must make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, April 3, TribLIVE). Neither writer presented a cogent argument to achieve their objective without violating the Second Amendment. Yeah, that pesky Second Amendment.

The second writer even opined: Americans lost the privilege of owning an AR a long time ago, equating lawful gun owners with criminals.

Criminals have little fear of our current judicial system. They know they will rarely see the inside of a courtroom and have to answer for their crime.

Heres what could be done to put the fear of our judicial system into the minds of the criminals, without violating the rights of lawful gun owners:

Enforce existing gun laws. Duh!

Dont allow plea bargaining on a crime involving a gun.

Try and imprison anyone guilty of using a gun to commit a crime within one year of their arrest, with no early release or parole.

Try and imprison or execute anyone guilty of killing someone using a gun during the commission of a crime within two years of their arrest. One year for the trial and one year for appeals, if necessary.

The lawyers and judges wont like this because they will actually have to do their job in a timely manner. To that I say, manage your dockets and give priority to these type of cases. Or get more judges. We have enough lawyers.

Ralph Dunsworth

Oviedo, Fla.

The writer is a former Murrysville resident.

Follow this link:
Letter to the editor: Improve judicial system rather than violate ... - TribLIVE

NASHVILLE, Tenn. Today, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee called on the Tennessee General Assembly to pass legislation for a new Order of Protection law before the end of the legislative session to strengthen the safety and preserve the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. This bill, which was drafted with input from legislative leadership, the Governors office and relevant departments, will improve Tennessees existing Order of Protection framework. By guaranteeing due process and enhancing access to mental health support, this proposal is the best way to help individuals who intend to harm themselves or others, protect constitutional rights and keep our communities safe.

Following the tragic Covenant shooting, the Governor asked the legislature to bring forward proposals to ensure dangerous individuals who are a threat to themselves or others do not have access to weapons, while requiring due process and a high burden of proof to preserve the Second Amendment.

Gov. Lees video message can be viewed here.

Full transcript:

Tennesseans I want to share an update with you. The past few weeks have been some of our most difficult as a state.

Weve been working really hard on solutions and have reached a pivotal moment, and I want to speak to that today.

There have been times in American history when great tragedy caused those who are elected to serve to come together and respond with thoughtful actionaction to improve laws, preserve rights and protect communities.

We hear stories of pragmatic leaders who collectively stepped outside of their party lines to do what they thought was the right thing, changing the course of history for the better.

But what the history books dont always capture is the difficulty of those moments when leaders are standing at a crossroads, choosing between the easy path and the right path.

I believe we find ourselves at that moment today. We are standing at a crossroads.

Tennesseans are asking us to set aside politics and personal pride. They are depending on us to do the right thing.

Since the tragedy at Covenant, weve worked with the General Assembly to pass our school safety legislation by wide bipartisan margins.

I signed an Executive Order to make sure that law enforcement, the judicial system, and mental health professionals are sharing information effectively, so the background check process works like it should.

I also called on legislators to come together and find a solution for the most difficult challenge of all.

We all agree that dangerous, unstable individuals who intend to harm themselves or others should not have access to weapons. And that should be done in a way that requires due process and a high burden of proof, supports law enforcement and punishes false reporting, enhances mental health support, and preserves the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens.

Tennesseans agree with this. Legislators agree with this. Second Amendment advocates agree with this.

And so, throughout the last couple of weeks, I have worked with members of the General Assembly constitutionally minded, second amendment protecting members to craft legislation for an improved Order of Protection Law that will strengthen the safety and preserve the rights of Tennesseans.

To be specific, Im proposing that we improve our states law so that it protects more Tennesseans and reaches more individuals who are struggling and in need of mental health support.

There is broad agreement that this is the right approach. It should be that simplebut sadly, its not.

Political groups began drawing their battle lines before the bill was even completed.

These are the moments for which the people of Tennessee elected us to listen and to act. Im not saying its easy, but it is possible when were talking about the safety of our children, our teachers and innocent lives.

The only thing standing in our way is politics on both sides of the aisle.

National politicians and pundits even the White House are calling our proposal something that its not. Red flag is nothing but a toxic political label meant to draw lines in the sand so nothing gets done. This is about Tennessee and the unique needs of our people. It should be reviewed on its own merits not lumped in with laws from other states, many of which, I believe, dont strike the right balance of preserving rights and protecting society.

And some advocates of the Second Amendment say something called involuntary commitment is the answer, but that would restrict all kinds of constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment. Its not the best way.

Efforts like the ones I just mentioned dont deliver the right results. They dont actually preserve the constitutional rights of Tennesseans in the best way possible, and they dont actually get to the heart of the problem of preventing tragedies.

This is hard. Ive said that all along.

But in Tennessee right now, if a husband threatens to hurt his wife, an Order of Protection would temporarily restrict his access to weapons to protect the spouse.

If that same man threatens to shoot himself or a church or a mall, our proposal will provide that same level of protection to the broader public.

We have a proven solution that gets to the heart of the problem an improved Order of Protection law to save lives and preserve the Second Amendment.

This is a pivotal moment. But both sides are at risk of standing in the way of a thoughtful, practical solu

Why?

Politics. Division.

But we cannot give up. We cannot shy away from the hard decisions.

And so, once again, Im asking the General Assembly to take a vote on this improved Order of Protection proposal before they end the legislative session.

We owe Tennesseans a vote.

The tragedy at Covenant didnt create the problem. Rather, it has shown more clearly than ever before that we can do more to protect students, teachers, communities and Constitutional rights.

This moment doesnt have to be defined by tragedy alone. It can also be defined by hope and results.

Weve done this before the Governors office working together with the legislature to rise above politics and lead through divisionto search our hearts and do that which I believe Tennesseans have elected us to do.

Tennesseans are depending on us.

I believe we live in the greatest state in the country, and this is our chance to show it once again.

###

Read more from the original source:
VIDEO: Gov. Lee Calls on General Assembly to Pass 'Order of ... - tn.gov

Yellow Scene welcomes Letters to the Editor and is happy to publish your thoughts, within limit. Please send all love letters, hate mail, curious thoughts, and open letters to editorial@yellowscene.com.

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 US 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 twenty years.

Gary SwingBoulder, Colorado

Read more here:
Repeal the Second Amendment - Yellow Scene