Archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ Category

Heritage Second Amendment Expert Testifies to Congress Two Times Within Two Weeks – Heritage.org

The Heritage Foundation continues to influence state and federal decision-makers with impactful policy research, and the past two weeks were no exception with one Heritage expert testifying twice before Congress on Second Amendment issues.

Amy Swearer, a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, testified in front of the House Oversight Committee on June 8 to provide solutions to gun violence that do not infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Swearer also fielded outrageous statements from Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., including an accusation of perjury. In the exchange, Porter preferred to score political points and refused to let Swearer give any explanation. The exchange can be found here.

Swearers powerful opening testimony can be found here.

She noted:

I am fully aware that when youre burying your child, nuanced policy is irrelevant. It doesnt matter to a fourth grader hiding under a desk whether the real problem is a barrel shroud or the several dozen missed chances to intervene.

But it should matter to you.

Because you are the ones making policy decisions. Youre the ones implying that a lot of victims would be alive today but for a mass shooters pistol grip and a background check that he already passed. Youre the ones mocking anyone for talking about doors when a single locked door in Uvalde (Texas) would have saved 21 lives, and when all of us just walked into this building with its limited public access points, one-way locking security doors, and plethora of armed officers.

And she went on to explain why Heritage opposes many of the gun control policies being proposed by Congress and the president in response to recent mass shootings:

We oppose these policies precisely because the lives of these victims mattered, because the grief of their loved ones is real, and because we all want thriving communities where families are flourishing instead of burying their children.

The opposition has always been a genuine concern that those policies suffer from serious constitutional and practical defects. That they wont have the impact you promise people they will.

We have always proposed alternatives that would be more effective and less constitutionally suspect.

We have rarely been met with open ears.

Swearer testified again on June 15 in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on juvenile gun violence.

You can watch her full opening statement here and read her testimony here.

She noted:

The vast majority of juvenile gun deaths are out-of-school suicides and homicides, neither of which receives nearly as much attention. And suggesting that problem is simply guns does everyone a disservice.

Our kids are suffering from a decades-long downward spiral of mental and emotional unwellness, and its leading them to take their own lives at increasing rates, especially since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Roughly 1,000 high school-aged teens killed themselves with a firearm last year. Roughly 1,000 more killed themselves without a firearm.

Our kids are also increasingly uninterested in going to school, with chronic absenteeism rates in major districts reaching as high as 40% this year. This, unsurprisingly, correlates with kids increasingly engaging in serious criminal behaviors that make it more likely theyll victimize others or become victims of gun violence themselves.

She explained further:

The root of the problem is not guns. Its the underlying causes that create violent environments in the first place.

Parents, and especially low-income and working parents, need more choices when it comes to accessing mental health care for their kids. They also need more choices when it comes to adequate learning environments.

Statistics show clearly that when parents can more easily remove their kids from schools where they are bullied, face violent threats, or are not receiving necessary resources, it alleviates the risk of suicide and the likelihood they will participate in criminal behaviors that are most associated with violent outcomes, like gun-related deaths and injuries.

Kids deserve educational environments where they feel safe and are more likely to develop into thriving adults, regardless of income or ZIP code.

Heritage continues to lead the way in policies that promote human flourishing, respect the Constitution, and hold the government accountable. The Heritage Foundation has provided real solutions for making our schools safer and dealing with gun violence while also continuing to stand boldly for and defending the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. We will continue to work with Congress and other policymakers to implement those solutions.

If you are not already following Amy Swearer on Twitter, you can do so here. And if you wish to receive more Heritage news and content, you can subscribe on the bottom of this page.

Original post:
Heritage Second Amendment Expert Testifies to Congress Two Times Within Two Weeks - Heritage.org

Notes on the Second Amendment | Editor’s Inbox | stardem.com – The Star Democrat

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Link:
Notes on the Second Amendment | Editor's Inbox | stardem.com - The Star Democrat

How should the Second Amendment be interpreted as mass shootings continue to grow in our country? – Texas Public Radio

After several high profile mass shootings, debates on gun control measures have renewed. The nation is divided as many are calling for adequate gun laws to be enacted. At the center of these debates is the Second Amendment. Some cite the amendment as the reason to expand gun rights while others view that the original intent of the language does not reflect modern day society.

How should the Second Amendment be interpreted as the number of mass shootings increases and overall gun violence continues?

What was the original intent for the Second Amendment? How do originalists interpret the Second Amendment? How does the term a well regulated militia apply to modern society?

How can the Second Amendment best be understood for states to enact gun control laws?

Guest: Dru Stevenson, Wayne Fischer Research Professor at South Texas College of Law, visiting scholar at the University of Houston Law Center

"The Source" is a live call-in program airing Mondays through Thursdays from 12-1 p.m. Leave a message before the program at (210) 615-8982. During the live show, call 833-877-8255, email thesource@tpr.org or tweet @TPRSource.

*This interview was recorded on Wednesday, June 22.

Originally posted here:
How should the Second Amendment be interpreted as mass shootings continue to grow in our country? - Texas Public Radio

Uvalde police failure reinforces the need for the Second Amendment – Washington Examiner

It has been a month since a massacre at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas, took the lives of 19 children and two adults. The information that has come out about the Uvalde police response has only spurred more questions and a growing sense of righteous rage. The initial praise of the officers' response, even publicly shared by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, has turned to disbelief. Instead of heroism, disorganization and reluctance ruled the day. And as a result, innocent lives were lost.

Gun rights remain a key issue in American political discourse. Both sides debate what those rights should look like in the modern era. Conservatives firmly believe in the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms is a fundamental aspect of the American experience. Individuals are allowed to defend themselves, their families, and their property. It is a powerful tool against those who would seek to harm and a means of protection against tyrannical governments.

The Right can and should stand firm in protecting the Second Amendment. At the same time, conservatives collectively value law enforcement and its role. The Uvalde Police Department failed to protect members of the public. Its obvious inaction harmed the overall reputation of police nationwide. It also reinforces the need for personal defense.

If stopping a bad guy with a gun only required a good guy with a gun, the story of the Uvalde tragedy would look much different. According to reports, Uvalde officers not only had plenty of manpower and firepower but also ballistic shields. If needed, they could also get a Halligan bar, which could be used to get through locked doors. But they stood there in the hallway while 19 children and two adults met a terrifying and sudden end. And now, we know the classroom was unlocked.

It took more than an hour before Border Patrol killed the gunman. This week, Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw said the situation could have ended in minutes. McCraw also said, "The officers had body armor; the children had none. The officers had training; the subject had none. One hour, 14 minutes, and 8 seconds. Thats how long children waited, and the teachers waited, in Room 111 to be rescued."

Placing our entire sense of safety in the hands of governmental entities is not a wise idea. Just because police officers have sworn an oath doesn't mean they will uphold it at the crucial moment.

The gun control crowd is always eager to insist on more restrictions after deranged individuals attack and kill the innocent. But the horror in Uvalde and the coordinated ineptitude of the officers involved only highlights the need for personal protection. Private gun ownership is a good thing. There are millions of responsible gun owners. They should not be discounted when a lunatic goes on a rampage. Law enforcement is not always able to arrive in time. And when they do arrive, they're not always willing to act.

It appears the majority of conservatives have not looked kindly upon the Uvalde police officers who responded at Robb Elementary on May 24. There is no reason to give anyone involved a pass. Belonging to a police department should mean intense scrutiny, because lives are on the line. "Defend the police with no questions asked" is as harmful as "defund the police." Our communities need consistent, committed members of law enforcement. And when they do wrong, they should be held accountable.

Uvalde is a reminder that other "good guys with guns" won't always act. Officers sometimes fail to do their duty. Conservatives are proud supporters of law enforcement, but there is no reason to back the blue blindly. Power can be abused, and it can also be withheld when it is needed most. Uvalde shows the incorrect use of power can have deadly consequences. Gun control advocates say otherwise, but what happened in Uvalde only serves to reinforce the need for a strong Second Amendment.

Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog and a columnist at Arc Digital.

See the rest here:
Uvalde police failure reinforces the need for the Second Amendment - Washington Examiner

The So-called Boyfriend Loophole is About Undermining the Second Amendment – NRA ILA

At present, federal law generally barsanyone who is convicted in any court for a domestic violence felony, or any felony for that matter, from possessing firearms. But federallaw alsoimposes a lifetime firearm possession prohibition on those who have been convicted in any court of amisdemeanor crime of domestic violence (MCDV).Under the federal statute, in order for a misdemeanor conviction to trigger the firearm ban,the conduct musthave beenboth violent and domestic.

First, to meet the violence prong, the crime must have as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon. This may seem straightforward, but the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively read the violence component out of the definition of MCDV.

In U.S. v. Castleman (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a persons use of physical force need NOT be violent in order to trigger the firearm prohibition. Rather, such physical contact may consist of only the slightest offensive touching necessary for common law battery. In fact, under the common law battery standard, merely touching a persons clothing, bag, or something they are holding in their hand in a completely non-violent manner could give rise to a lifetime firearm prohibition.

Second, to meet the domestic component, the crime must have been committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim. These are categories that are readily understood.

This current lifetime firearm prohibition for a MCDV treats the Second Amendment as a second-class right. No other fundamental, enumerated Constitutional right is permanently lost for a misdemeanor conviction. There is good reason that rights are not extinguished for a lifetime based on misdemeanor convictions. In addition to the law viewing misdemeanor conduct less harshly than felony conduct, misdemeanor defendants are not always provided with the same level of exhaustive due process as those charged with felonies.

Proponents of the original MCDV firearm prohibition contended that the supposed unique nature of domestic violence required a firearm prohibition for those convicted of misdemeanors. They claimed domestic crimes that should have been felonies were often reduced to misdemeanors because abused spouses and children were reluctant to cooperate with prosecutors due to financial and emotional dependence on the abuser or a shared responsibility for raising children. Therefore, it was argued, the only way to keep firearms away from these should-be violent felons was to prohibit those convicted of a MCDV from possessing guns.

Here is where the so-called boyfriend loophole comes in.

Having done away with the violence requirement of the MCDV prohibitor through the courts, gun control activists now want to eliminate the domestic component by expanding the categories of relations that give rise to a prohibiting domestic violence conviction to include a dating relationship.

Under the current federal prohibition, boyfriends and other intimates are already covered if the relationship has an actual domestic component (children in common, cohabitation, etc.). Therefore, the proposed prohibition expansion to dating partners targets relationships without this domestic component and lacks the justifications involving emotional and financial attachment or interdependence that gave rise to the original MCDV prohibition.

Given the complexity of human relationships, the fluidity of modern dating culture, and Congresss express attempt to go beyond an actual domestic context, it is reasonable to ask: What constitutes a dating relationship? Good luck trying to find out.

No matter what Congress might put in statute, it will be up to anti-gun Attorney General Merrick Garland and the federal courts to flesh out the details. And Americans can be certain that the gun control lobby will be there every step of the way to ensure the definition is interpreted as broad as possible.

Imagine how the elimination of the domestic component of MCDV definition would interplay with the elimination of the violence component that has already taken place. Extending MCDV prohibition offenses to dating partners, a broad, vague term that involves none of the interdependence that purportedly justified the original prohibition, is a clear example gun control opponents attempts to vastly expand the list of Americans prohibited from possessing firearms.

The idea that there are loopholes for domestic violence perpetrators are false. The legal and criminal justice systems have the necessary tools to prohibit dangerous individuals from possessing firearms including prosecuting felonious level conduct as a felony.

Domestic violence crimes can and should be taken seriously under the law. The NRA supports that, just as we support empowering the abused to defend themselves and their families. We what do not support is exploiting real problems, like domestic violence, to opportunistically target civil rights, like the Second Amendment and constitutional due process.

See the original post here:
The So-called Boyfriend Loophole is About Undermining the Second Amendment - NRA ILA