Mediaboss Marketing

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

The right to keep and bear arms is a lot like the right to freedom of speech. In each case, the Constitution expressly protects a liberty that needs to be insulated from the ordinary political process. Neither right, however, is absolute. The First Amendment, for example, has never protected perjury, fraud, or countless other crimes that are committed through the use of speech. Similarly, no reasonable person could believe that violent criminals should have unrestricted access to guns, or that any individual should possess a nuclear weapon.

Inevitably, courts must draw lines, allowing government to carry out its duty to preserve an orderly society, without unduly infringing the legitimate interests of individuals in expressing their thoughts and protecting themselves from criminal violence. This is not a precise science or one that will ever be free from controversy.

One judicial approach, however, should be unequivocally rejected. During the nineteenth century, courts routinely refused to invalidate restrictions on free speech that struck the judges as reasonable. This meant that speech got virtually no judicial protection. Government suppression of speech can usually be thought to serve some reasonable purpose, such as reducing social discord or promoting healthy morals. Similarly, most gun control laws can be viewed as efforts to save lives and prevent crime, which are perfectly reasonable goals. If thats enough to justify infringements on individual liberty, neither constitutional guarantee means much of anything.

During the twentieth century, the Supreme Court finally started taking the First Amendment seriously. Today, individual freedom is generally protected unless the government can make a strong case that it has a real need to suppress speech or expressive conduct, and that its regulations are tailored to that need. The legal doctrines have become quite complex, and there is room for disagreement about many of the Courts specific decisions. Taken as a whole, however, this body of case law shows what the Court can do when it appreciates the value of an individual right enshrined in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment also raises issues about which reasonable people can disagree. But if the Supreme Court takes this provision of the Constitution as seriously as it now takes the First Amendment, which it should do, there will be some easy issues as well.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) is one example. The right of the people protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like the right[s] of the people protected by the First and Fourth Amendments. The Constitution does not say that the Second Amendment protects a right of the states or a right of the militia, and nobody offered such an interpretation during the Founding era. Abundant historical evidence indicates that the Second Amendment was meant to leave citizens with the ability to defend themselves against unlawful violence. Such threats might come from usurpers of governmental power, but they might also come from criminals whom the government is unwilling or unable to control.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) was also an easy case under the Courts precedents. Most other provisions of the Bill of Rights had already been applied to the states because they are deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition. The right to keep and bear arms clearly meets this test.

The text of the Constitution expressly guarantees the right to bear arms, not just the right to keep them. The courts should invalidate regulations that prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying weapons in public, where the vast majority of violent crimes occur. First Amendment rights are not confined to the home, and neither are those protected by the Second Amendment.

Nor should the government be allowed to create burdensome bureaucratic obstacles designed to frustrate the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The courts are vigilant in preventing government from evading the First Amendment through regulations that indirectly abridge free speech rights by making them difficult to exercise. Courts should exercise the same vigilance in protecting Second Amendment rights.

Some other regulations that may appear innocuous should be struck down because they are little more than political stunts. Popular bans on so-called assault rifles, for example, define this class of guns in terms of cosmetic features, leaving functionally identical semi-automatic rifles to circulate freely. This is unconstitutional for the same reason that it would violate the First Amendment to ban words that have a French etymology, or to require that French fries be called freedom fries.

In most American states, including many with large urban population centers, responsible adults have easy access to ordinary firearms, and they are permitted to carry them in public. Experience has shown that these policies do not lead to increased levels of violence. Criminals pay no more attention to gun control regulations than they do to laws against murder, rape, and robbery. Armed citizens, however, prevent countless crimes and have saved many lives. Whats more, the most vulnerable peopleincluding women, the elderly, and those who live in high crime neighborhoodsare among the greatest beneficiaries of the Second Amendment. If the courts require the remaining jurisdictions to stop infringing on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, their citizens will be more free and probably safer as well.

Go here to see the original:
Interpretation: The Second Amendment | Constitution Center