Archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ Category

Rep. Nancy Mace says her party’s stance on abortion has gotten too … – NPR

Rep. Nancy Mace speaks to reporters as she leaves the U.S. Capitol Building on January 27, 2023. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images hide caption

Rep. Nancy Mace speaks to reporters as she leaves the U.S. Capitol Building on January 27, 2023.

Welcome to the NPR series where we spotlight the people and things making headlines and the stories behind them.

Rep. Nancy Mace isn't convinced about some of the stances her party is taking. And she's already facing blowback for it.

Who is she? Nancy Mace is a South Carolina congresswoman and Republican.

What's the big deal? While Mace sees eye to eye with many GOP members on other issues, reproductive health and action on mass shootings have become a point of contention.

Want more politics? Listen to Consider This explore what the phrase 'tough on China' really means.

What are people saying?

Mace on abortion during her CNN appearance:

This is an FDA-approved drug. I support the usage of FDA-approved drugs, even if we might disagree. It's not up to us to decide as legislators or as the court system that- whether or not this is the right drug to use or not. This is an issue that Republicans have been largely on the wrong side of. We have, over the last nine months, not shown compassion towards women, and this is one of those issues that I've tried to lead on as someone who's 'pro-life' and just have some common sense.

Everybody's welcome to their own opinion. I represent a very purple district that is really a bellwether for the rest of the country. And I can tell you, far more than the vast majority of 60-70% of Americans are not going to agree with this decision. And there are many pro-life people that, also while they're pro-life, they don't want the government to intervene in this radical of a manner, and the FDA has a rigorous process.

And during another TV appearance:

We've got 14 counties in South Carolina that don't have a single OBGYN doctor. So if we're going to ban abortion, what are we doing to make sure women have access to birth control?

Mace on gun control during a FOX News appearance:

Every mass shooting, there's just silence, and prayers are offered, Easter baskets are offered, but no real solutions,

Republicans can no longer be silent on this issue. And it's not about the Second Amendment. There are plenty of things that we can be doing besides offering prayers and silence,

Those kinds of common sense things are all things that every American on either side of the aisle can get behind, but yet every time there's a mass shooting, and they're increasing every year, every week, we don't say anything. We want to bury our heads in the sand and hope that it goes away. But guess what? It's not going away.

So, what now?

Learn more:

Excerpt from:
Rep. Nancy Mace says her party's stance on abortion has gotten too ... - NPR

NRA runs this building: Frustration boils over after gun-related provision killed by Alabama House panel – AL.com

An Alabama House committee killed legislation on Wednesday that would have added criminal penalties for violating a provision within the states new permitless carry law.

The vote by the House Public Safety & Homeland Security Committee prompted its frustrated sponsor to tell AL.com afterward that the supermajority GOP in Alabama is owned by the National Rifle Association.

Related:

We have to figure out who we are serving, state Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, said. Is it our citizens, or a special interest group that apparently wont allow us to do any reasonable restrictions on firearms?

He added, To be honest with you, the NRA runs this building.

State Rep. Allen Treadaway, R-Birmingham and the committees chairman, disagreed and said there are occasions in which the GOP members of his committee will vote against legislation the NRA supports.

A lot of folks are very serious about the Second Amendment and their right to bear arms, said Treadaway, a former assistant police chief in Birmingham. This argument comes up every time when there is, unfortunately, a tragedy. Its tough depending on what side of the issue you are on. If you believe in the Constitution, its not a real issue. Folks are going to be sensitive about that and vote (in opposition to gun control).

He added, You might have a political organization that supports one side of the issue or the other, and thats how they will vote. Its not because they are being pressured not everyone in that situation.

The comments come after National Rifle Association boss Wayne LaPierre, during the NRAs national convention Saturday in Indianapolis, warned that gun-hating politicians should never go to bed unafraid over their political careers, which he warned his group could end.

It also comes as Alabama Democrats pitch gun control measures that are unlikely to advance far. A group of Democratic lawmakers, in Hueytown this week, called on their Republican colleagues to pass red flag legislation in the wake of a mass shooting during a Sweet 16 birthday party in Dadeville on Saturday that left four people dead and over 30 injured.

Republicans say they are concerned about what they called the politicizing of the Second Amendment following a deadly shooting. The partys leadership, including Gov. Kay Ivey, was also criticized on Wednesday by the gun control group, Giffords, for ignoring gun violence.

I dont know if there is any gun bill that could have prevented what happened in Dadeville, Alabama House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter, R-Rainville, said. We put money in for security in schools. We are spending more on mental health in this state than weve have before. At the end of the day, I dont know if gun laws will change bad people.

England, though, said even legislation backed by Democrats calling for common sense approaches are not going anywhere.

His latest measure HB12 -- aimed at making it a misdemeanor if, during a traffic stop, a person in possession of a firearm fails to inform a law enforcement officer that he or she has a concealed gun.

England said the legislation was needed because the permitless carry law the Alabama Legislature adopted last year included a provision of a duty to inform law enforcement about the presence of a concealed gun inside a vehicle during a traffic stop.

He said the law was toothless if penalties were not included.

To be honest with you, going through the permitless carry law passed last year, there are obvious problems with it, said England, sponsor of HB12.

For whatever reason we left off a penalty, England said. When (the new law) went into effect this year, I worked with law enforcement officers and they asked if its enforceable or not since it doesnt have a penalty associated with it. Its almost like wed prefer confusion.

Treadaway said the permitless carry legislation was debated at length last year and is not in need of wholesale changes.

Alabama became the 25th state in the U.S. to adopt permitless carry called constitutional carry by supporters despite concerns expressed by many law enforcement officers including sheriffs who are typically strong GOP allies.

That part of the bill was vetted in the Senate and House last year, over and over, Treadaway said. There were a lot of public meetings held on constitutional carry. That area is a concern to everyone in how you apply penalties. The committee felt here today they were not ready to move on it as written (in HB12).

England blamed GOP lawmakers for not moving on anything related to gun-related safety.

Anything like permits or background checks and things like that, or limiting access to trigger activators that turn pistols to automatic weapons, is for public safety purposes, said England. Its not to restrict a responsible gun owner from owning a weapon. Its to make sure we balance their rights with the publics rights to be safe in going to class, to school, to church or a birthday party.

Link:
NRA runs this building: Frustration boils over after gun-related provision killed by Alabama House panel - AL.com

Navigating the exemption labyrinth – Pitfalls in the way of charitable … – Lexology

Under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) educational and medical institutes have the option of availing the benefit of two exemption regimes, namely under Section 10(23C) and Section 11 of the IT Act. Prior to 1 July 2020, these institutes had the option of availing the benefit of both the exemption regimes simultaneously which was exercised by numerous such institutes. Thus, the income of such institutes could be exempt if they satisfied the associated conditions laid down in either of the regimes.

The changing landscape of exemption regimes Finance Act, 2014 to Finance Act, 2023

The Legislature sought to change the aforesaid position by inserting a proviso to Section 11(7) of the IT Act vide the Finance Act, 2020. In order to understand the background for the same it is important to refer to the legislative history of Section 11(7).

Section 11(7) of the IT Act, which was inserted into the IT Act vide the Finance Act, 2014, provides that a charitable institution availing an exemption under Section 11 could not simultaneously claim exemption under Section 10 of the IT Act with the exception of clauses (1) and (23C) thereto. The said provision was inserted in the IT Act to address the problem of educational and medical institutes being registered to claim the benefit of Section 11 but claiming exemption under the general provisions of Section 10 without having to comply with the conditions relating to application of income laid down in Section 11.

The Legislature also noted that a similar situation also existed with respect to institutes approved under Section 10(23C), and in order to remedy the same, inserted the erstwhile eighteenth proviso to Section 10(23C). Therefore, educational and medical institutes registered under Section 10(23C) which did not apply their income in accordance with the said provision could not fall back on other clauses of Section 10 to claim income-tax exemption.

Subsequently, in 2020 the Legislature took note of the fact that in certain cases educational and medical institutes were registered in both Section 12AA and Section 10(23C) and were claiming exemption interchangeably in either of the provisions. Noting that since the provisions relating to such charitable institutes constitute a complete code, it was felt that once an institute had voluntarily opted for one of the aforesaid exemption regimes, the option of switching between the two regimes at convenience should not be available.

Consequently, Section 11(7) of the IT Act was amended vide the Finance Act, 2020 by way of insertion of two provisos. The first of the said provisos provides that the registration of a charitable entity claiming exemption under Section 11 would become inoperative from the date on which it is approved under Section 10(23C) or in case of institutes which were already availing the benefit of both the exemption regimes, on the date on which the first proviso come into effect i.e., 1 June 2020. Thus, educational and medical institutes claiming exemption under Section 11 and Section 10(23C) were shifted to exemption regime under Section 10(23C) alone by virtue of this proviso.

However, by way of the second proviso, a one-time opportunity to switch back to the exemption regime under Section 11 was also provided to these institutes. The second proviso lays down that charitable entity whose registration becomes inoperative because of the first proviso may apply for re-registration, in which case the approval received by such charitable entity under Section 10(23C) would stand cancelled and the charitable entity would not be entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C).

In addition to the above changes, the Finance Act, 2020 also introduced a new set of provisions for grant of approval under Section 10(23C) and registration for claiming exemption under Section 11. As per the said amendments, all charitable entities had to make an application for fresh approval or registration in order to continue to enjoy the benefit of either Section 10(23C) or Section 11 respectively.

Therefore, with effect from 1 June 2020, a charitable entity which was availing the benefit of the exemption regimes under Sections 10(23C) and 11 of the IT Act, was forced to choose between one of the said regimes. Firstly, due to the operation of the first proviso to Section 11(7), the charitable entitys registration for availing exemption under Section 11 would become inoperative and it would have had the option to either apply for approval under clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 10(23C) or for registration under clause (iv) of Section 12A(1)(ac). Thereafter, the one of following sequence of events could take place:

Further amendments were made by the Finance Act, 2022 to align both the aforesaid exemption regimes and insert certain additional compliances and conditions. One of these amendments was in relation to the cancellation of registration/approval under the two exemption regimes which provided that the relevant authority could cancel the registration/approval of a charitable entity in case of a specified violation, i.e., the happening of certain specified events.

Now vide the Finance Act, 2023, even more amendments have been made to the exemption regimes under Sections 10(23C) and 11 of the IT Act. For the purposes of the present discussion, three amendments must be considered.

The first pertains to the expansion of the meaning of specified violation as used in Sections 10(23C) and 12AB, the occurrence of which would result in the cancellation of approval under Section 10(23C) or registration for availing exemption under Section 11. The Memorandum states that one of the issues which was being faced under the new system of registration/approval was that charitable institutes were being granted provisional registration/approval or re-registration/re-approval automatically without any scrutiny because of which even defective applications containing incorrect or incomplete information were being passed. Thus, in order to curb such practice, an amendment has been made to expand the scope of the expression specified violation to include the filing of an incomplete application or an application containing false or incorrect information.

The second amendment relates to Section 115TTD of the IT Act which deals with the taxation of accreted income of charitable entities in case they are inter-alia converted to a form which is ineligible for grant of registration for availing exemption under Section 11 or approval under Section 10(23C). As per the amendment to Section 115TD, a charitable entity is considered to ineligible for registration/approval if it fails to make an application within the time specified either under the first proviso to Section 10(23C) or under Section 12(1)(ac). The said amendment has been made to address the situation whereby a charitable entity would seek to opt out of the exemption regimes without having to pay tax on accreted income under Section 115TD.

The third amendment is with respect to the registration/approval process under the two exemption regimes. The residual clause for application under both Section 12A(1)(ac) and Section 10(23C) has been amended so that registration/approval would only be given to those trusts who have already commenced activities if they have not previously claimed exemption under either Section 11 or Section 10(23C).

Therefore, the provisions relating to the exemption regimes under Sections 10(23C) and 11 of the IT Act have undergone a multitude of wide-ranging changes having an impact on nearly every aspect associated with the operation of educational and medical institutes. As will be discussed in this write-up, this has resulted in a situation where a mere procedural lapse can have far reaching consequences.

Procedural lapse or a fatal mistake?

A problem which has arisen on account of the complex nature of these provisions is with respect to educational and medical institutes which were availing the benefit of both the exemption regimes. As has been discussed above, due to the first proviso to Section 11(7), the registration for availing exemption under Section 11 became inoperative with effect from 1 June 2020. However, since no order was required to be passed by any statutory authority to give effect to the said provision, numerous such institutes continued to operate under the assumption that they were still covered under the purview of Section 11 and therefore, applied under clause (i) to section 12A(1)(ac) for automatic re-registration.

Thus, this has resulted in certain procedural irregularities. Firstly, such educational and medical institutes have applied for re-registration for exemption under Section 11 under the incorrect provision of law. Secondly, they have also failed to make the application for re-approval under Section 10(23C) within the time stipulated under the said section.

The consequence of the first of the two irregularities is that following the amendment to expand the definition of the expression specified violation, the application made by the charitable entity may be considered to be one containing false or incorrect information. Thus, it may result in the cancellation of registration for availing exemption under Section 11. In addition to the above, the consequence of the second irregularity would be that the charitable entity would be considered to have been converted to a form which is ineligible to seek approval under Section 10(23C) of the IT Act.

The ultimate consequence, therefore, would be that the charitable entity would then become liable to pay tax on its accreted income under Section 115TD of the IT Act. Moreover, such a charitable entity would no longer be eligible to apply for exemption under either Section 10(23C) or Section 11 since neither does the first proviso to Section 10(23C) nor does Section 12A(1)(ac) contain any clause which would allow application by a charitable entity which has commenced operations and also previously claimed exemption under Section 10(23C).

Hence, any charitable entity which has even inadvertently committed the afore-mentioned procedural lapses would potentially face a heavy tax burden. Not only would such a charitable entity have to pay tax on its accreted income, but it would also be barred from making a fresh application in the future for claiming exemption under either Section 10(23C) or Section 11 of the IT Act.

While it is a settled position of law that the benefit of a substantive provision of law cannot be denied due to a mere procedural lapse, considering the express intention of the Legislature behind the amendments introduced vide the Finance Act, 2023 as well as the host of other amendments to both the exemption regimes, it would be interesting to see how the income-tax department deals with the situation discussed above.

The rest is here:
Navigating the exemption labyrinth - Pitfalls in the way of charitable ... - Lexology

The message is the message – The Fulcrum

Goldstones latest book is Not White Enough: The Long, Shameful Road to Japanese American Internment. Learn more at http://www.lawrencegoldstone.com.

That Democrats have long suffered from poor messaging is no secret. Every few weeks, it seems, brings a new lament about the failure of the party to persuade voters, even their own, that their programs and their vision is superior to the false promises peddled by Republicans. As Michael Tomasky wrote, Theres always a lot of grumbling about Democratic messaging, and for good reason: Its generally pretty baddefensive and unimaginative.

One common criticism is that the Democrats message is excessively policy-oriented, too dense and too boring for even most party loyalists to care about. Former Republican strategist Mike Murphy noted, Theyre forgetting a lot of voters dont follow this detailed stuff because theyre busy with their life. Pick a simple thing people understand thats popular, thats smaller.

That some Democratic strategists demur could be part of the problem. In 2022, Vanity Fair featured an article by Dan Pfeiffer, the former Obama communications director, provocatively titled, Why Do Democrats Suck at Messaging? The body of the piece belied the title, however. In it, Pfeiffers main contention was that Democrats were no worse than Republicans, who seem to be winning the messaging war in spite of themselves. As he pointed out, Kevin McCarthy looks like he just woke up from a nap and cant gure out where he is or what he is doing. Mitch McConnell, one of the worst communicators in modern political history, sounds like he is reading The Almanac of American Politics with a mouthful of marbles. He did grudgingly admit, The right has effectively created a narrative about Democrats and has stuck to it. Make America Great Again is one of the most successful political branding efforts in history.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Indeed it was and that is the point. Democrats messaging fails, because, unlike Republicans, they seem to lack an appreciation for the power of effective use of language.

That may be changing.

Recently, there have been subtle shifts in the basic approach to two key issues and Democrats have since been making progress on both. In abortion, pro-choice has been supplanted by reproductive rights, and in the Second Amendment debate, gun control has been replaced by gun safety. Each reflects increased cognizance of how the terms are absorbed by voters who are not ideologically frozen to one side of the debate or the other.

The term pro-choice was, as Murphy noted, purely defensive, a reaction to pro-life, an abbreviation of Right to Life, a phrase that had gestated among anti-abortion groups in the 1960s.

In 1972, Jimmye Kimmey, an Episcopal priest and executive director of the Association for the Study of Abortion, wrote a memo to the associations members in which she expressed the need to find a phrase to counter the Right to Life slogan. Fully aware of the critical need for a potent catchphrase, her suggestions were Freedom of Conscience and Right to Choose. She preferred the second because, Right to Life is short, catchy, and is composed of monosyllabic words (an important consideration in English). We need something comparableRight to Choose would seem to do the job.

Conscience, she noted is an internal matter while choice has to do with actionand it is action we are concerned with. Finally, she brought the issue to its core. What we are concerned with is, to repeat, the womans right to choosenot with her right (or anyone elses right) to make a judgment about whether that choice is morally licit.

After Kimmeys suggestion began to percolate among pro-abortion groups, Right to Life, was shortened to pro-life, likely by anti-abortion activist Nellie Gray. Gray also favored preborn rather than unborn, which gave a stronger sense that a fetus was already an actual human being. (Use of the pre suffix has since been adopted by ad agencies everywhere, as in presold rather than used cars.)

Soon after Right to Life was abbreviated, pro-abortion groups countered, truncating Right to Choose to pro-choice, where it remained for decades.

Although the change seemed innocuous and to proponents of legalized abortion, fundamental to a womans individual liberty, pro-choice did not seem to sway those whose beliefs were in the center to the degree proponents had hoped.

The problem was that, while pro-choice seems a wholesome enough phrase, when matched against pro-life, it can easily be seen as something else. The natural alternatives would be either anti-life or pro-death. While many who advocate for abortion rights would dismiss either term as ludicrous and nothing that any reasonable person would believe, in a nation where conspiracy theories are as popular as the Game of Thrones dragons, anti-life might strike a more responsive chord than they assumed.

Rights, on the other hand, has become a word with a bell attached to it, the key in any number of disputesvoting, gun possession, stand-your-ground legislation, even legalized cannabis. And it cuts across political ideology. Rights mean the ability to make decisions for oneself, a cornerstone of conservative and libertarian ideology. It is an active termone must be allowed to assert ones rights. Those who believe in the right to bear arms will have more difficulty dismissing the right of a woman to make reproductive decisions for herself.

Which is why those advocating for stricter gun laws have a different problem. Use of rights has been appropriated by the gun lobby, used in virtually every public statement, advertisement, and article. Any attempt at meaningful legislation, therefore, has been assailed as an attempt to deprive law-abiding citizens of their Constitutional rights, casting those who wish to make it more difficult for disaffected individuals to shoot up a school or workplace as fascist storm troopers.

But gun safety, although not swaying the hardcore, avoids the red flag word control, and thus seems a good deal more palatable to gun owners, the majority of whom favor the safe use and storage of weapons. Even Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, as hard-core right wing as they come, was forced to advocate for improved gun safety laws, not because nine-year-olds were gunned down in a Christian school, but because the Tennessee legislature expelled two young black members who were advocating for that very thing.

What caused Democrats to realize that how one says something can be every bit as important as what one says is not clear. But if they wish to convince independent voters that their vision is superior, they will need to continue to express that vision in terms that ordinary people respond to.

Read the original here:
The message is the message - The Fulcrum

House GOP plows ahead on risky immigration plan – POLITICO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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