Mediaboss Marketing

SALEM, Ore.

Dozens of tenants and landlords associations showed up Monday to testify for and against a bill that would adjust the state's rent cap laws.

Oregon's rent cap laws, passed in 2019, allow landlords to increase rent up to 7% plus the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), which adjusts with inflation.

The CPI for 2023 was set at 7.6%. When added to the base of 7% it comes out to a total allowed rent increase of 14.6%, meaning renters who were paying, for example, $1,600 a month in rent last year could be seeing their monthly rent go up to $1,830 in 2023.

If passed, Senate Bill 611 would change the base amount to 3% plus CPI with an max increase of 8% regardless of inflation.

"I think every single member of the Legislature has heard from their constituents about the housing affordability crisis that Oregonians are facing, and I think that we all agree that something has to be done," said the bill's sponsor Sen. Wlnsvey Campos, D-Aloha.

The bill would also require the landlord to pay the tenant three months' worth of rent if serving them with a no-cause eviction.

Currently, newer homes, with certificates of occupancy issued in the past 15 years, are exempt from Oregon's rent caps. This bill would change that to buildings with certificates of occupancy issued in the last three years.

Campos noted that in an attempt to strike a compromise with landlords she and Sen. Kayse Jama, D-Portland, drafted two amendments to the bill.

"I cannot accurately say that we have brought forth a compromise, but what I can say is that we have taken into account feedback from a number of different stakeholders," she said. "We also wanted to take into account the folks that are providing housing."

Oregon renters, landlords testify on bill that would increase rent control (KATU - 5 PM)

The first amendment would change the base cap from 7% plus CPI to 5% plus CPI with a max of 10% regardless of inflation. It would only require two months rent reimbursement for nonpayment evictions and would exempt properties with first certificates of occupancy issued within the last 10 years.

The second amendment calls for the same modifications as the first but also keeps the exemption at its current 15-yearcertificate of occupancy requirement.

Neither landlords nor tenant groups supported the amendments, with landlords saying they are unable to get on board with any portion of this bill and tenants complaining that much of the "predatory rent increases" they experience are in units that have been occupied for fewer than 15 years.

"I am voicing my support for the original SB 611 rent stabilization bill. I am a resident atCannery Row Apartments in Sherwood and in addition to being a wife and a mother to a small child," said Jessica Israel. "I am currently fighting cancer and my husband was permanently injured as an essential worker during the pandemic. But now I am also fighting a predatory rent increase of 32 to 50%."

Israel notes that her home is less than 15 years old, and if the dash-two amendment passes, the bill would not help people in her situation.

Sybil Hebb, an attorney with the Oregon Law Center and a lobbyist for tenant groups pointed out that the dash-one amendment would bring the rent cap in line with what it is in California but noted that California lawmakers are considering readjusting their rent cap as well because of the impacts of inflation.

Landlords told lawmakers that they will not support any bill that would decrease the allowed rent cap and said they believe the solution is to pay out more in rent assistance and build more housing.

"If I was going to use a common phrase for what I feel like is happening right now is would be biting the hand that feeds you and the hand being landlords," saidKennedy Amundson, who owns a property management company. "Oregon needs investors and landlords alike to not only have a desire to be here but to develop rental housing in Oregon; they need to be able to continue to own and manage their existing rental here."

More here:
Oregon renters, landlords testify on bill that would increase rent control - KATU

We dont meant to kick off your work week with a scolding via public service announcement but please, dont leave your guns unsecured in your cars. If you do, they may not be your guns for very long.

Guns stolen from cars are now the largest source of stolen guns in America, the New York Times reports based on an analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation data by the gun control group Everytown For Gun Safety. Thieves will sweep through neighborhoods, parking lots and garages, particularly during sport events and concerts, when drivers from the suburbs park in urban areas for long periods or vehicles that proudly display their support for the second amendment via stickers and decals. Perhaps the most ironic fad in the last few years are stickers reading molon labe which means come and take them in ancient Greek.

A bipartisan group of Tennessee lawmakers introduced a bill that would, rather meekly, address the problem after years of record gun thefts. But even a simple law requiring gun owners to store their weapons in a locked box in their cars, and receive nothing more than a court-ordered gun safety class for ignoring the law, is receiving staunch pushback, from NYT:

...some experts say widespread adoption of the boxes may require a dramatic cultural change akin to the revolution in seatbelt use. And it may prove to be even more polarizing than seatbelts ever were. The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates believe car lockbox mandates to be an onerous burden a reflection of how the avalanche of guns is creating new sources of conflict.

Many lockboxes are relatively cheap. Simple versions that can attach to the underside of a car seat with a cable can be found for about $40, and some cities have even begun developing programs to give them away. In Houston, where more than 4,400 guns were stolen from cars last year, the police have given away roughly 700 such boxes this year, according to Houston Police Sgt. Tracy Hicks, and have plans to give away 6,300 more.

Some skeptics doubt even widespread use of the boxes would make much of a dent in gun violence in a nation with more than 400 million firearms in circulation. Its like peeing in the Gulf of Mexico, said Peter Scharf, a criminologist at the Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans, which had one of the nations highest homicide rates in 2022.

G/O Media may get a commission

With Memphis leading the country in gun car thefts and Nashville not terribly behind in 15th place. Gun thefts have skyrocketed in Nashville over the last decade, from 152 thefts in 2012 to 1,378 in 2020. Tennessee is particularly focused on promoting safe gun storage. Though to be fair to Tennessee, only 15 states require thereporting of lost or stolen guns, so there is no clear picture on just how widespread the problem really is. Predictably, groups like the NRA are against these safety proposals, which they say will make gun owners wary of reporting a gun theft for fear of reprisal.

Representative John Gillespie, a Memphis Republican who co-sponsored Mr. Hemmers bill, was frustrated by such arguments. Im more than willing to increase the penalties for people stealing a gun, he said. But are we really that burdened by asking someone to properly lock up their gun in a vehicle so it cant be stolen?

Its not just guns in cars that are on the rise. The Transportation Security Administration if finding more guns than every in carry-on luggagemany of them loaded. You can read the entire New York Times report here.

See more here:
Over 40,000 Guns Stolen from Unlocked Cars in 2020 - Jalopnik

Missouri Republicans are making a push to allow firearms to be carried inside religious establishments and lessen restrictions on access to firearms.

House Bill 485, heard in the House Emerging Issues Committee Wednesday evening, would override existing Missouri law that restricts the possession of a concealed carry firearm in places of worship without consent or knowledge of persons in charge.

Rep. Ben Baker, R-Neosho, is sponsoring the bill, which he said the purpose of the bill is to ensure Missourians constitutional right to carry firearms when attending places of worship.

Private property rights would still stand, and if religious organizations want to not allow firearms in their spaces they may still choose to do so by posting signage outside, under the bill. Opponents questioned if that would put them at further risk.

William Bland spoke in support of the bill, stating that mass shootings in churches are real and would allow other concealed carry permit holders to strengthen the force against them.

By granting permission, the church is exposed to liability in the event of a CCW permit holder is involved in an unfortunate event involving the firearm even if that action is justified, Bland said. He said that removing the restriction of firearms would keep the church from being liable.

JT Young, a pastor at Concord Trinity United Methodist Church and also a member of Moms Demand Action, said that this bill would force guns inside of worship spaces.

In addition to preaching and counseling and presiding over funerals and weddings, I would have to spend time developing active shooter plans, Young said.

Another set of bills were also discussed that would disregard any federal statute that would enforce a red flag gun law, designed to have a court take weapons from someone considered to be dangerous.

Both House Bill 712 and House Bill 701 disallows any use of federal money to seize firearms in the event that a federal order comes down restricting firearm access. HB 712 Bill Sponsor Bill Hardwick, R-Waynesville, said that both bills are similar, but do have differences between them.

Students and staff from Central Visual and Performing Arts High School spoke against the three bills. On Oct. 24, 2022, a former student entered the building and began firing his AR-15 style rifle. Two individuals and the shooter were killed and seven others were injured.

Kristie Faulstich, teacher at CVPAHS and an Army veteran, started off her public testimony telling the committee that shooter Orlando Harris had told a staff member he was suicidal. Faulstich said that a red-flag law would have saved the lives of three people, including Harris.

Chloe Ong, senior at Collegiate School of Medicine and Bioscience, which shares a building with CVPAHS, was present at school the day of the shooting.

Orlando Harris, if a red flag law would have existed, would not have had the gun that he used to commit these crimes, Ong said.

Ron Calzone, from Missouri First, said that red-flag laws have the potential for guns to be taken away from women who are experiencing abuse.

You will see red-flag laws weaponized against people, Calzone said. He went on to say that if a woman who owns a firearm for protection, had their partner claim they were not fit to possess it, would lose their protection from their gun via a red flag law.

According to the bill summary, confiscating any firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition from law-abiding citizens is considered an infringement on the right to bear arms provided by the Second Amendment.

Red flag laws allow people to petition to a court to have an individuals firearms confiscated from them if they pose a threat to themselves or others. Currently, there are no red- gun laws in place in Missouri. Moms Demand Action leader Kristin Bowen said these bills would make it difficult for Missouri to enact laws restricting gun access for those who are considered a danger to themselves and others.

Hardwick said anti-red flag laws are in place in order to ensure due process for Missouri citizens.

Someone who hasnt done anything wrong could have their rights taken away, Hardwick said. He added he doesnt think it is just protecting the Second Amendment, but also the First and Fourth Amendments.

In so furiously protecting the Second Amendment, we are putting folks at risk, responded Rep. Ashley Aune, D-Kansas City.

Earlier this month, a federal judge struck down a state law, passed in 2021 as House Bill 85, which fined officers who knowingly enforce federal bans on firearms $50,000. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey promised an appeal.

This story originally appeared in the Columbia Missourian. It can be republished in print or online.

Excerpt from:
Missouri legislation seeks to allow guns in places of worship ... - Missouri Independent

This report is a part of "Rethinking Gun Violence," an ABC News series examining the level of gun violence in the U.S. -- and what can be done about it.

In the bitter debate over gun control, battle lines are often drawn around the Second Amendment, with many in favor of gun rights pointing to it as the source of their constitutional authority to bear arms, and some in favor of tighter gun control disagreeing with that interpretation.

But if the purpose of the debate is to reduce the tragic human toll of gun violence, the focus on Second Amendment is often misplaced, according to many experts on guns and the Constitution.

They say the battle lines that actually matter have been drawn around state legislatures, which are setting the country's landscape on guns through state laws -- or sometimes, the lack thereof.

Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.

Demonstrators gather for a Second Amendment rally at the Washington State Capitol, March 20, 2021, in Olympia, Wash.

David Ryder/Getty Images

"Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."

Watch ABC News Live on Mondays at 3 p.m. to hear more about gun violence from experts during roundtable discussions. And check back tomorrow to read about background checks and how effective they are.

Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, also said the Second Amendment is losing its legal relevance in distinguishing lawful policies from unlawful ones as the gap between what he calls the "judicial Second Amendment" and the "aspirational Second Amendment" widens.

Winkler defines the "judicial Second Amendment" as how courts interpret the constitutional provision in their decisions, and the "aspirational Second Amendment" as how the amendment is used in political dialogue. The latter is "far more hostile to gun laws than the judicial one," he said -- and also more prevalent.

Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

"The aspirational Second Amendment is overtaking the judicial Second Amendment in American law," he wrote in the Indiana Law Journal in 2018, a sentiment he repeated in a recent interview with ABC News. "State law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America's gun laws."

A member of the public carries a pistol during a second amendment rally on Oct. 12, 2019, in Greeley, Pa.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images, FILE

Winkler told ABC News the aspirational or "political" Second Amendment has become the basis for expanding gun rights in the last 40 years.

"In the judicial Second Amendment, gun rights advocates haven't found that much protection," Winkler said. "Where they found protection was by getting state legislatures, in the name of the Second Amendment, to legislate for permissive gun laws."

The debate around the Second Amendment (and why some say it might be overrated)

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads in full:

"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."

The role of the Second Amendment, like many constitutional rights, is to put limits on what regulations the federal government can pass, and scholars and lawyers have debated its scope since it was ratified in 1791.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, much of the debate revolved around the meaning of a "well-regulated militia." The Heller decision struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and established the right for individuals to have a gun for certain private purposes including self-defense in the home. The court expanded private gun ownership protection two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago, determining that state and local governments are also bound to the Second Amendment.

Number of Gun Deaths by Intent, 2019

ABC News, CDC

"The Bill of Rights, by its terms, only applies to the federal government, but the Supreme Court, through a doctrine known as incorporation, has made almost all of its guarantees applicable against state and local governments as well. That's what the question was in McDonald," Blocher said. "But some states have chosen to go above and beyond what the court laid out."

Notably, the court in Heller carved out limitations on that individual right and preserved a relatively broad range of possible gun regulation -- such as allowing for their restriction in government buildings, schools and polling places -- but in many instances, state legislatures have decided not to use the authority that the court has granted them.

"Most states have chosen not to use their full regulatory authority," Blocher said. "If a state decides not to forbid people from having large-capacity magazines, for instance, that doesn't necessarily result in a law. It can be the absence of a law that has the most impact."

It goes back to that widening gap between the judicial Second Amendment as the courts interpret it and the aspirational Second Amendment as used in politics, according to Winkler and Blocher.

"There's a difference between the Second Amendment as interpreted and applied by courts and the Second Amendment as it's invoked in political discussions. And for many gun rights advocates, the political version of the Second Amendment is quite a bit more gun protective than the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court and lower courts have applied it," he said.

Laws based on the 'aspirational' Second Amendment

There are a few laws many experts say bolster gun rights in ways the Second Amendment does not explicitly require.

In more than 40 states, preemption laws expressly limit cities from regulating guns -- with some going so far as to impose punitive damages such as fines and lawsuits on officials who challenge the state's rules. This means, even if a highly populated city had overwhelming support to pass a local ordinance regulating guns, a preemption law in the state would restrict local officials from taking any action.

Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York have no state laws expressly preempting local authorities from regulating firearms or ammunition. Nebraska, California and Colorado allow local governments to retain substantial authority in regulation, but the state legislature has removed this authority in certain areas.

ABC News

After the National Rifle Association formed its own political action committee in 1977, it began targeting state legislatures with the preemption model and found it was a more effective way to bolster the rights of gun owners than going through Congress.

The effort picked up momentum when a challenge, on Second Amendment grounds, to a local ordinance in Illinois banning handgun ownership failed in 1982 -- years ahead of the 2008 Heller decision. So, he said, the NRA raised the specter of Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove to lobby for preemption laws in order to lessen local governments' abilities to regulate guns in the first place.

In 1979, two states in the U.S. had full preemption and five states had partial preemption laws. By 1989, 18 states had full preemption laws and three had partial, according to Kristin Goss in her book "Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America."

"There's been a concerted effort by gun rights organizations to enact gun-friendly legislation in the states. And they do so using the rhetoric of the Second Amendment, even though nothing about the Second Amendment necessarily requires the state to pass such legislation," said Darrell Miller, another expert on gun law at Duke University School of Law.

While a densely populated area with a high crime rate may want to enact stricter gun policies not necessarily suited for other areas in a state, preemption laws restrict local governments from doing so.

For example, in Colorado, a preemption law had prevented cities and municipalities from passing gun regulation measures. Boulder tried to ban semi-automatic weapons in 2018 after a gunman with an AR-15-style rifle opened fire at a high school in Parkland, Florida, leaving 17 dead and surpassing the Columbine High School shooting as the deadliest high school shooting in American history.

There's been a concerted effort by gun rights organizations to enact gun-friendly legislation in the states. And they do so using the rhetoric of the Second Amendment, even though nothing about the Second Amendment necessarily requires the state to pass such legislation.

But a state court struck down the ban on March 12 of this year -- 10 days before a 21-year-old man with a semi-automatic Ruger AR-556 pistol killed 10 people at a King Soopers grocery store in Boulder. The judge's decision did not hang on the Second Amendment but rather a violation of Colorado's preemption law.

People comfort each other at a makeshift memorial outside a King Soopers grocery store, March 25, 2021, in Boulder, Colo.

Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

Colorado in June became the first state to repeal its preemption law -- a move gun-regulation activists such as those at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence have hailed as a reflection of what voters want. More than half of Americans support more gun regulation, according to data from recent surveys by Pew Research Center and Gallup.

There's also the presence of "permitless carry regimes," said Jake Charles, another gun law expert at Duke University, which is when legislatures interpret the Second Amendment as giving individuals the right to bear arms in public without a permit, an interpretation the Supreme Court has not made.

In all 50 states, it is legal to carry a concealed handgun in public, subject to varying restrictions depending on the state, but at least 20 do not require permits for either open or concealed carry of firearms, with Texas becoming the latest to enact what advocates call "constitutional carry."

Permitless or "constitutional carry" is not something the Supreme Court's reading of the Second Amendment currently calls for.

Experts say that could change.

Demonstrators carrying riffles attend the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) Lobby Day rally at the state capitol in Richmond, Va., Jan. 20, 2020.

Yuki Iwamura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

In New York state, a person is currently required to prove a special need for self-protection outside the home to receive a permit to carry a concealed firearm. A challenge to the constitutionality of a "may-issue" permit law, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett, will be heard by the Supreme Court this fall -- the court's first major case on guns in a decade, coming as the makeup of the court swings right due to three appointments from former President Donald Trump.

"There are about half a dozen states which have laws similar to New York's, so if the court strikes it down, we can expect to see challenges to those states' laws in short order," Blocher said.

The partisan debate continues

Allison Anderman, senior counsel at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, stressed that, in part because of the influence of state statutes, the Second Amendment should not be a barrier to gun regulation.

She also said that because the Second Amendment's political definition is entrenched in the true, judicial one, the debate surrounding it gets muddied up and the passion is, perhaps, misplaced.

"It's a rallying cry. It's easy. It's a sound bite," she said. "But the Second Amendment gets thrown around politically in a way that's not based in law."

It's a rallying cry. It's easy. It's a sound bite.

Blocher agreed and argued the Second Amendment debate is among the most partisan in the nation.

"The gun debate has gone far beyond judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment and these days has much more to do with personal, political and partisan identity," he said.

See more here:
Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate

Marshall University Prof: Cops and Vets Earn Their Second Amendment Rights Through Months of Training  The Truth About Guns

Excerpt from:
Marshall University Prof: Cops and Vets Earn Their Second Amendment Rights Through Months of Training - The Truth About Guns