Mediaboss Marketing

Former Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock received death threats when he lobbied for the passage of Colorados red flag gun law. It was a tense time in the Spurlock house. When the sheriff was out of town, he had security details following his wife around because threats were made by known individuals credible threats, he said.

Spurlock, who retired in January, is a Republican. His choice to support red flag gun laws broke ranks with local conservatives who sharply denounced the legislation, including sheriffs across the state. In response to the law, many Colorado counties declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuary cities, including commissioners in Spurlocks Douglas County. Some Colorado sheriffs said they would not implement the law, a move that highlights their sweeping authority and unique power as elected leaders.

Looking back, Spurlock said he has no regrets. I can tell you right now, I know for a fact that it has saved lives. And I also know that no ones constitutional rights under the Second Amendment were harmed. No one had their guns taken away by SWAT teams.

That is a sticking point for conservative sheriffs and other opponents of the law that it could violate a persons constitutional rights. Supporters say people do receive due process, especially in comparison to other laws. For example, recent research cites measures such as removing children from unfit parents or laws that involuntarily commit people during a mental health crisis.

Under the red flag law, police or family members can petition to disarm a person who poses a threat to themselves or others. Ultimately, a judge makes the final call which could result in the removal of a persons firearms temporarily or for one year.

Court documents show Spurlocks department filed seven red flag orders, four of which a judge approved, since the law was enacted in 2020. Those individuals are still alive today, Spurlock said. Their family members are still alive and they're contributing members of our society.

Among the states 64 counties, Douglas County is ranked 22 for firearm deaths per capita between 2018 and 2021. It lost 122 people to either suicide or homicide firearm deaths during that four-year period.

Before the law went into effect, Spurlock said he can draw a straight line between people who died because law enforcement had no way of intervening. That includes the death of one of Spurlocks own deputies.

On New Year's Eve in 2017, sheriff's deputies responded to a man suffering a mental health crisis. It wasnt his first encounter with sheriffs deputies.

His parents removed his guns from him, Spurlock said. He was hospitalized. He was diagnosed as having a mental health crisis. But he demanded to get his guns back.

The man ultimately used those guns to ambush police, killing 29-year-old Deputy Zack Parrish and injuring six others.

It was my responsibility to step up and say, wait a second, there is a solution. There is another way, Spurlock said.

Following the killing of Parrish, Spurlock was approached by then-state legislator Alec Garnett. The first draft of the Deputy Zackari Parrish III Violence Prevention Act failed in 2018. A year later it passed amid conservative pushback.

Who is watching?

Sheriffs alone can determine if they're going to set policy as well as enforce policy, said Emily Farris, a political science professor at Texas Christian University and an expert on sheriffs. She points out sheriffs are typically elected, not appointed like police chiefs. "So they don't feel the same kind of accountability that a police chief would to a mayor, to a county, to a city manager," she said.

Farris forthcoming book with co-author Mirya Holman unravels the history of sheriffs and examines their roles today.

She sees a historical parallel when it comes to the way sheriffs interact with the red flag law. The right-wing extremist Posse Comitatus movement of the 1970s encouraged sheriffs to use their authority to interpret the Constitution. "And so from there, really, up until today, we see sheriffs doing that with movements like the Second Amendment sanctuary counties, where sheriffs decide if they're going to be the ones to enforce laws like the red flag laws or not."

Turning back the pages of history even further, Farris said in the American West sheriffs were some of the first government officials enforcing so-called law and order. They were also closely associated with vigilantes.

There was this kind of organized, unlawful, violence. And so, numerous sheriffs, including those in Colorado, were either tolerating it or even collaborating with it, Farris said.

Today, some of that Wild West ethos persists. Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams once said he would rather go to jail than implement the red flag law. He declined an interview for this story. Court records show his department has filed zero red flag orders from the date the law went into effect through January of this year.

Weld County ranked 17 for firearm deaths per capita between 2018 and 2021. It lost 170 people to either suicide or homicide firearm deaths during that four-year period.

There's always going to be law enforcement in communities that say, We won't enforce these laws. You know, the Second Amendment sanctuary cities, the Second Amendment sheriffs, said Lisa Geller, director of state affairs at Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

Geller said reluctant sheriffs underscore the need to strengthen the law. I think it's important for that reason, but also because of the very real issues with some communities, particularly communities of color and law enforcement.

A new bill in the Colorado statehouse would help address this. It would allow people such as therapists, physicians, school nurses and school counselors, educators, and district attorneys to file red flag orders. It would also fund efforts to raise awareness about the law.

During a recent committee hearing, the bills co-sponsor Senate President Steve Fenberg noted red flag laws are proliferating nationwide. Colorado is among 19 states with such a law on the books. Last year, Congress passed a measure that earmarks funding to help more states pass red flag laws.

Since we put this law in place in Colorado, it has undoubtedly saved lives, Fenberg said. It has saved the lives of people that maybe we never knew were at risk. But it also saved the lives of many people who were in the middle of a crisis and were considering taking their own lives.

Still, Fenberg said the law is underutilized. We have some communities around our state that either cant or wont file extreme risk protection [red flag] orders.

Some sheriffs showed up to the hearing to testify against the bill, including Sheriff Tony Spurlocks successor, Douglas County Sheriff Darren Weekly. He was sworn in on January 10 and his testimony suggests an ideological shift is underway at the Douglas County Sheriffs Office.

Weekly pointed to what he sees as several flaws in the current law. For example, he said in his experience, judges deny orders if a person is on a mental health hold or incarcerated. Expanding the list of people who can file petitions, as the new bill proposes, would be harmful to those in crisis, he added.

The very people who need help will be reluctant to seek it if they believe those who can help them the most will result in a search warrant on their homes and removal of their firearms, Weekly said.

El Paso County Sheriff Joe Roybal also spoke against the bill.

Lets get people the help they need and not remove nearly one weapon at their disposal, Roybal said in his testimony.

This legislation comes after a mass shooting in El Paso County last November at Club Q, an LGBTQ nightclub where five people were killed and many more injured. Some argue a red flag order could have prevented the massacre. Thats because police arrested the suspected shooter back in 2021 in a bomb threat case. They did not file a red flag order.

In Roybals testimony at the statehouse, he alluded to the notion that the red flag law would not have applied because the shooters weapons may have been obtained illegally.

Court documents show the El Paso County Sheriffs Office initiated zero red flag orders from the time the law was enacted to January of this year in a county that ranks ninth in the state for per capita firearm deaths. From 2018 to 2021, 643 residents died by firearm suicide or homicide.

Roybal is El Paso Countys former undersheriff and was elected last November. He ran on a platform that included combating assaults on our constitutional rights.

Experts say it is difficult for new candidates to unseat an incumbent or insider in a sheriff's department and subsequently challenge problematic protocols and more broadly change the culture.

Retired army lieutenant colonel John Foley ran against Roybal in the November 2022 election. He supports the red flag law and worries about the ongoing opposition at the sheriffs department. It shows a certain ideological slant that should be taken out of our law enforcement organizations, Foley said.

Sheriffs' races often go uncontested because deputies are hesitant to go against their bosses and risk losing their jobs, said Farris of Texas Christian University. This tracks with Foleys experience on the campaign trail. He said multiple deputies worked on his campaign in secret because they feared retaliation from the department.

These are some of the dynamics that contribute to the homogenous makeup of sheriffs nationwide. The majority of sheriffs remain white, male and are conservative today, Farris said.

In the realm of red flag orders, conservative politics have shaped how many sheriffs handle the law. It is a messy concoction of policing and politics that Boulder County Sheriff Curtis Johnson said he is trying to avoid.

The challenge for me is not letting politics interfere with good progressive public safety and policing in our community, he told KUNC.

Johnsons predecessor, Joe Pelle, pushed hard for the passage of Colorados red flag gun law. Pelles son was among the Douglas County deputies injured during that fateful New Years Eve in 2017.

From the time the law was enacted to January of this year, Bould County Sheriff's Department filed four red flag orders. All were granted.

For his part, Johnson said he will implement red flag orders because, simply, its the law. But it is also the will of the people, he said. Theres a very low tolerance for gun violence and a very high expectation that law enforcement in Boulder County should follow the law.

Boulder County ranked 19 among the states 64 counties for firearm deaths per capita from 2018 to 2021. The county lost 146 people to suicide or homicide firearm deaths.

Boulder residents are still reeling from a tragedy that contributed to that statistic the 2021 mass shooting at a King Soopers grocery store where 10 people were killed. Many of Johnsons deputies were directly involved in the shooting and the response to it.

Since then, community appetite to enforce stricter gun measures continues to intensify. Boulder City Council passed expansive gun control measures in the wake of the shooting and Johnson said he is paying attention. In other parts of Colorado, though, sheriffs continue to push back against new measures aimed at curbing gun violence.

This story is part of an occasional KUNC investigative series this year exploring the power of Colorado sheriffs. Robyn Vincent is a reporter with KUNCs Northern Colorado Center for Investigative Reporting.

See original here:
Red flag reckoning reflects the sweeping power of Colorado sheriffs - KUNC

Gun safety and the reach of the Second Amendment is a controversial point of law in our modern culture. While the Supreme Court has issued recent rulings on the Second Amendment, states often continue to enact laws that contradict those rulings, prompting individuals or organizations to have to fight back in litigation.

One such example is occurring right now in New York.

Lawyers for His Tabernacle Family Church, a nondenominational church in Horseheads, N.Y., about 140 miles southeast of Buffalo, argued Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that New Yorks prohibition on firearms in houses of worship is unconstitutional. In December, the court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the states controversial law.

The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion and the right to bear arms in self-defense. New Yorks law violates both, said Jordan Pratt, senior counsel for the First Liberty Institute, one of the legal organizations defending the church.

There are several issues with the case. First, the Supreme Court has already issued an opinion on churches and their Second Amendment rights, and its not unclear. In a recent case involving New Yorks strict qualifications for concealed-carry licenses, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), Justice Clarence Thomas slammed New York officials efforts to suppress New Yorkers Second Amendment rights, particularly outside of their own homes.

To confine the right to bear arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendments operative protections. Moreover, confining the right to bear arms to the home would make little sense, given that self-defense is the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself, Thomas wrote, quoting a previous Supreme Court decision, 2008s District of Columbia v. Heller.

Second, days after the Bruen ruling, as though the state were governed by liberal lawmakers who make no attempt to abide by the law, New York enacted sweeping gun laws that created a ban on carrying firearms in many places, including houses of worship. That flies in the face of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Courts ruling, and plain common sense.

Churcheslike schools, businesses, and other organizations where people gatherare soft targets for crime, and increasingly so.

In fact, in his dissent in the Bruen case, then-Justice Stephen Breyer included houses of worship among places people go with guns. His argument was intended to persuade others that anywhere people go they can run into someone with a gun and an intent to do violence.

That may be true. If so, doesnt it also make sense that firearms pose dangers to criminals as well? Based on Breyers logic, thats exactly why people need guns for self-defense in all those placesbecause criminals have them, too.

Churches have increasingly been targets of ire, either because a criminal is anti-religious or simply looking for a place where he thinks no one will be armed or prepared for violence. Thatand blatant racismwere the reasons a white supremacist fatally shot nine black worshippers at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015.

That tragedy prompted people to begin to exercise their Second Amendment rights, albeit quietly, in church settings. At times, it has been proven to prevent loss of life. In 2019, a gunman opened fire at the West Freeway Church of Life in North Texas. An armed security guard targeted and killed the perpetrator. Although two churchgoers did diealong with the shooterthe loss of life, given a full building at church that morning, could have been much greater.

Its clear the armed security guard, trained in the use of firearms, surely saved many lives.

A livestream video captured the shootings, along with an interesting, pro-Second Amendment anecdote: If you look closely, you can see other people drawing their weapons as well. Are they preparing to commit crimes? Of course not. They were ready to defend themselves, as is their right. Texas gun laws are more pro-citizen and considerably less restrictive than New Yorks.

Churches in New York want the same rights as churches in Texas and other states: They want trained men and women to be allowed to defend themselves and others in places where violence can break out unexpectedly and without warning. Not all violent attacks can be prevented, but the best deterrent is people ready and willing to take action when necessary with firearms they are trained to use.

Its unfortunate that New York lawmakers have disregarded the obvious stance of the Supreme Court on gun laws and continue to burden the states residents with anxiety and worry over whether theyll be in a public placefor example, a church, a park or a schooland be unable to protect themselves and their loved ones with a firearm if they need to.

It will be interesting to see how the court rules on this case, and whether or not this one makes its way to the Supreme Court, too.

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please emailletters@DailySignal.comand well consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular We Hear You feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

See the original post:
Church Fights in Federal Court for Right to Defend Itself With Firearms - Daily Signal

NEW YORK (TNS) A three-judge panel of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals is weighing whether New Yorks Concealed Carry Improvement Act is constitutional.

The justices, during a hearing Monday, listened to arguments in four related cases concerning the CCIA, including one brought by Niagara Falls pastor Jimmie Hardaway Jr. of Trinity Baptist Church and others.

One of the three justices hearing the arguments suggested that whatever constitutional determination they make is likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Were going to have to make a rule, Justice Gerald F. Lynch said in discussing a challenge to a provision of the CCIA that requires private property owners, in particular businesses open to the public, to make known whether persons licensed to carry concealed weapons can bring those firearms into the property.

Pete Patterson, an attorney representing parties challenging the CCIA, told the justices that the plain text of the Second Amendment gives a right to carry to people entering private property.

Thats what the plain text means? Lynch asked, his voice rising. I cant tell you, You cant enter my home with a gun?

Patterson then agreed that Lynch could keep someone from bringing a gun into his home.

In the case of Hardaway and Rev. Larry Boyd, pastor of Open Praise Full Gospel Baptist Church in Buffalo, along with two national pro-gun groups, Las Vegas-based Firearms Policy Coalition and Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation, the justices were considering a challenge to a provision of the CCIA that bars individuals from bringing firearms into places of worship.

Hardaway and Boyd have argued that they would suffer irreparable harm, and that their Second Amendment rights would be violated, if the places of worship restriction was not blocked. In an affidavit accompanying the original lawsuit, Hardaway acknowledges that he is a member of the two pro-gun groups involved in the case and that he is licensed to carry a handgun in New York.

Prior to the enactment and enforcement of the Place of Worship Ban, I would consistently carry a firearm on Trinity Baptist Churchs premises, Hardaway said in an affidavit. I would intend to keep carrying for self-defense and to keep the peace at Trinity Baptist Church.

U.S. District Court Judge John L. Sinatra Jr., of the Western District of New York in Buffalo, granted Hardaway and Boyd a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction, blocking the enforcement of the places of worship restriction.

New York Attorney General Letitia James appealed Sinatras decisions to the Second Circuit and asked the appeals court to block his rulings.

A different panel of Second Circuit judges, other than the one that conducted Mondays hearing, heard that request and issued a stay of Sinatras decisions, which effectively reinstated the CCIA and the places of worship restriction.

Hardaway and Boyd asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and overturn the stay; they argued that their rights under the Second Amendment had been indefinitely suspend(ed).

In January, the high court, without any noted dissents, allowed the stay to remain in place while the Second Circuit proceedings continued.

Much of the controversy over the CCIA centers on restrictions, approved by the New York State Legislature on places were people are permitted to carry concealed weapons.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in its decision in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, found that the bearing of arms could be restricted in so-called sensitive places.

Sinatra acknowledged that ability in his ruling, but said New York went too far in designating sensitive places.

In Bruen, the (Supreme Court) made the Second Amendment test crystal clear: regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the regulation is consistent with the Nations historical tradition, Sinatra wrote. New York fails that test. The States exclusion is, instead, inconsistent with the Nations historical traditions.

Originally posted here:
Appeals court weighs constitutionality of NY concealed carry law - Olean Times Herald

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On March 24, 2023, Aytu BioPharma, Inc. ("Aytu" or the "Company") entered intoan Amendment No. 4 (the "Eclipse Amendment") to Loan and Security Agreementdated October 2, 2019 (as amended by Amendment No. 1, dated March 19, 2021,Amendment No. 2, dated January 26, 2022, and Amendment No. 3, dated June 1,2022, the "Eclipse Agreement"), by and among Neos Therapeutics, Inc., NeosTherapeutics Brands, LLC, Neos Therapeutics, LP, Neos Therapeutics Commercial,LLC, PharmaFab Texas, LLC (collectively, the "Neos Obligors"), as borrowers,Aytu Therapeutics, LLC, Innovus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Semprae Laboratories,Inc., Novalere, Inc., and Delta Prime Savings Club, Inc. (collectively withAytu, the "Aytu Obligors" and, together with the Neos Obligors, the "Obligors"),as obligors, Eclipse Business Capital LLC (f/k/a Encina Business Credit, LLC),as agent, and the lenders party thereto (agent and such lenders, collectively,the "Eclipse Lender").

The Eclipse Amendment, among other things, provided for an aggregate increase of$2,000,000 to the Eclipse Lender's commitment to make revolving loans from timeto time to the Neos Obligors, resulting in an aggregate revolving facility sizeof $14,500,000 (such facility, the "Eclipse Facility"). The ability of the NeosObligors to make borrowings and obtain advances of revolving loans under theEclipse Facility remains subject to a borrowing base and reserve andavailability blockage requirements.

The foregoing description of the Eclipse Amendment is not complete and isqualified in its entirety by reference to the Eclipse Amendment, which Aytuintends to file with its upcoming Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. The originalterms of the Eclipse Agreement and previous amendments were previously disclosedon Neos Therapeutics, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on October 3, 2019; the Company'sCurrent Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 22, 2021 ; andCompany's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 31, 2022 ,which are incorporated by reference herein.

In connection with the Eclipse Amendment, on March 24, 2023, the Obligorsentered into the Second Amendment to Loan Documents (the "Avenue Amendment")amending that certain Loan and Security Agreement dated January 26, 2022 (asamended by the First Amendment, dated October 25, 2022, the "Avenue Agreement"),by and among the Obligors, Avenue Venture Opportunities Fund II, L.P. and AvenueVenture Opportunities Fund II, L.P., as lenders (the "Avenue Capital Lenders"),and Avenue Capital Management II, L.P., as administrative agent (the "AvenueCapital Agent").

The Avenue Amendment, among other things, permitted the increase in revolvingloan commitment provided by the Eclipse Lender under the Eclipse Facility asprovided for in the Eclipse Amendment.

The foregoing description of the Avenue Amendment is not complete and isqualified in its entirety by reference to the Avenue Amendment, which Aytuintends to file with its upcoming Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. The originalterms of the Avenue Agreement were previously disclosed on the Company's CurrentReport on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 31, 2022 , which isincorporated by reference herein.

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under anOff-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant.

The information set forth under Item 1.01 of this Current Report on Form 8-K isincorporated herein by reference.

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Original post:
AYTU BIOPHARMA, INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance...

MIGOP receives national condemnation after tweet comparing gun bills to Holocaust

A tweet from the Michigan GOP is getting some criticism from both Republicans and Democrats in Michigan, relating to guns and the history of the second amendment. March 22, 2023. (Courtesy: Twitter/@MIGOP)

Michigan's Republican Party is receiving widespread condemnation, including by many within the party, after a tweet Wednesday morning that compared the collection of wedding rings during the Holocaust to gun control bills currently making progress in the state's legislature.

The Michigan Republican Party's officialTwitter account shared a statement Wednesday morning just before 8:30 a.m. reading "#History has shown us that the first thing a government does when it wants total control over its people is to disarm them. President Reagan once stated, 'if we lose #freedom here, there is nowhere else to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.'"

Attached to the tweet is a picture of hand reaching into a box of rings, with a caption reading: "Before they collected all these wedding rings... they collected all the guns."

The photograph of the wedding rings is a snapshot from May 1945, when the rings were found near Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany, according to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Nazis would remove valuable pieces of jewelry or metals from their victims for salvage, according to the Holocaust Encyclopedia.

The tweet quickly received pushback on social media, with users demanding it be removed over its insensitivity.

During a Wednesday evening press conference in Macomb Co. to address the tweet, MIGOP Chair Kristina Karamo stood by the tweet, which she said was posted by a "social media team," saying she would not take the message offline.

Karamo was selected to become chair of the Michigan Republican Party by Republican precinct delegates in mid-February. Previously a community college educator, Karamo joined the political sphere for the first time formally when she ran against Democrat Jocelyn Benson in the 2022 race for Secretary of State. Karamo, who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump in that election, lost to Benson by nearly 13 points but never conceded.

The Michigan Democratic Twitter account responded by saying: "This vile rhetoric should have no place in our politics. The @MIGOP must apologize and take down this disgusting tweet."

The Allegan County Democratic Twitter account disagreed with the MIGOP's tweet by mirroring the Michigan Democratic response and adding "This vile rhetoric from @MIGOP and their Chair @KristinaKaramo has no place in our politics. Shame on the Michigan GOP for sinking to another all-time low. #DoBetter"

Chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party, Kristina Karamo, stands by the tweet by saying "We will not be silent as the Democratic Party, the party who fought to enslave Black Americans, and currently fights to murder unborn children, attempt to disarm us."

"Our 2nd Amendment was put in place to protect us from aspiring tyrants. MIGOP stands by our statement," Karamo adds.

The rest of the tweet can be found here.

These responses by the Michigan Republican Party come almost a week after the Michigan Senate passed an 11-bill gun safety package whichwould put in place a number of gun restrictions aimed at reducing gun violence, including safe gun storage requirements, and universal background checks.

Continue reading here:
MIGOP receives national condemnation after tweet comparing gun bills to Holocaust - WWMT-TV