Mediaboss Marketing

Regarding Militias were the intent (Letters to the Editor, June 16): As a historian of the Second Amendment, I agree with historian Joe La Salas letter about its intent and the fallacy of originalism, but not that its misinterpretation today is the fault of identity politics.

Identity politics were embedded in the Constitution, written by white men, excluding Indian, Black people and women, plus Mexicans once the U.S. had forcibly annexed half of Mexico. Each group would experience oppression and struggle for citizenship and formal equality.

La Sala also fails to mention research about what the white militias codified in the Second Amendment were for: killing Indians to occupy their land and to guard against slave revolts.

The Second Amendment needs to be abolished for the white supremacist entity that it is.

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, San Francisco

Regarding Alameda County should end mask mandate (Insight, June 12): A quick look at virus numbers across the area, state and country shows yet another large spike. Why? Because careless individuals like the authors of Sundays opinion piece think their personal freedoms trump everyone elses right to be safe.

As long as an attitude that somehow having to wear a mask in public is so horrific that you need to risk the health of others continues, this virus will continue to spike over and over.

Lets get real, so-called personal freedom is an illusion. You pay taxes, obey traffic laws, wear clothing, use a helmet on a bike or motorcycle, use a seat belt; these are just a few examples of curbs on your freedoms. Why are you not screaming about these attacks? Irony much?

Im really tired of all this whining of personal freedoms. We need to put this virus to sleep, and if that means a bit of inconvenience for all of us to get healthy, suck it up. Its really sad how self-centered so many have become. Its not all about you.

Time to stop being so selfish and consider a greater good.

Owen Rubin, San Leandro

Regarding Muni bond narrowly rejected voters (Bay Area & Business, June 15): Is the Chesa Boudin recall to blame? Connecting Measure A to the Boudin recall does little to address the root cause of the bonds failure: Proposition 13.

In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13, which placed limits on property tax increases but also stipulated that any tax increase or bond measure, local or statewide, could only pass with a two-thirds super-majority vote. Over the past four decades, raising needed funds for critical public services has become increasingly difficult.

Measure A didnt fail because of pro-recall voters, we simply cant expect to pass $400 million for Muni when 66% of San Franciscans are required to vote yes. If our state representatives in Sacramento truly care about lifting our city out of this pandemic, then the answer is simple: Lower the super-majority threshold. Theyve already done this with school construction bonds, now its time to attend to our crippling infrastructure.

Madeline Cook, Oakland

See the article here:
Letters: What the real intent of the Second Amendment's militias was - San Francisco Chronicle

Submitted by Aaron Arkin.

In the 1963 movie of the same name, Billy Liar (played by Tom Courtenay) is an aggrieved young man, described as ambitious but lazy, living at home in a middle-class English family. Unable to free himself from his dependency and lacking the strength of character to move himself into the world of adult choices, he resorts to constant lying (thus the name) and frequent fantasizing. Of the latter, the most striking is when in response to a harangue from his parents, we see him armed with a machine gun angrily mowing down his entire family. For the movie audience, the contrast between Billys fantasy and what is actually and mundanely taking place at the family dinner table is shocking, and maybe for some, even vindicatory.

Of course, Billy wouldnt really murder his family, and in England he wouldnt have ready access to a machine gun. But experiencing grievance is not rare, and in our country awash in assault weaponry, the aggrieved dont always settle for just fantasy.

When establishing responsibility for a criminal act, three elements are sought: means, motive, and opportunity. In the case of mass murder, means is easy access to guns. Here in the US, their ubiquity was turbocharged by the Supreme Courts most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which reads: 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.

Historian consensus for most of American history however, was that the Second Amendment limited the un-infringed possession of Arms to a citizen militia. They concluded the Founding Fathers were focused on keeping state militias from being disarmed in the absence of a national armed service. The revised interpretation of the Amendment, giving individuals that constitutional right, was provided by the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia. Writing for the 5 to 4 majority in District of Columbia v. Heller (June 20, 2008), he ignored both the Amendments historical context, and its grammatical construction.

The Second Amendments grammatical construction, it is built on two clauses, the building blocks of sentences. Clauses are groups of related words (phrases) that contain both a subject and a verb. When a clause can stand alone as a complete sentence with a clear meaning, its considered independent. If it only makes sense when you join it with another clause, its dependent (or subordinate). A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is a dependent clause because it makes sense, that is, it is only a complete thought when combined with its following clause the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Another way we know that the Second Amendments grammatical construction is a complete and logical thought only when the two clauses are combined is because, according to the grammar text, Writing and Thinking, Foerster and Steadman, revised by McMillan, the meaning of the independent and dependent clauses holds if the full statement can be preceded by the terms if, in case that, provided that, unless, since, as, because, inasmuch as, in that, or and now that, without changing the thought of the sentence. For example: Inasmuch as 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 has the same meaning as the Second Amendment.

Summing up, the complete thought and logic of the two Second Amendment clauses is that, if militias are necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms wont be infringed. The converse of that statement is that, if militias are not necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms does not automatically follow. Since we no longer have or utilize self-armed citizen militias to secure the State, the Second Amendments rationale became irrelevant or inapplicable when the United States created its own armed services. One could reasonably argue that, in effect, the Second Amendment repealed itself.

As an avowed constitutional textualist (by the way, a questionable and controversial mode of legal interpretation of historic documents), who supposedly focused on the plain meaning of the text of legal documents to understand and emphasize how the terms in the Constitution would be understood by people at the time they were ratified, as well as the context in which those terms appeared, it is striking and ironic that Judge Scalia chose to ignore both the grammatical construction of the Amendment, and its historical context. In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, David Souter, and Steven Breyer) argued that the courts judgment was a strained and unpersuasive reading which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law. One may fairly conclude that in his desire to provide individual citizens the right to have Arms for self-protection, Judge Scalias commitment as a constitutional textualist was conditional.

Many supporters of Scalias interpretation do seem to sense that his reading of the Second Amendments intent rests on shaky legal ground; seeing any restriction on gun rights as a hole in the dike or a slippery slope, if you will, that could cause Scalias legal edifice to fail. Pointedly, we dont see similarly strenuous advocacy in service to the other nine Bill of Rights Amendments which, presumably, sit on firmer legal grounds. Shaky grounds or not, with the Courts ruling, we are now left to deal with its unintended consequences.

When it comes to grievance as a common human experience for motive (the second element of a criminal act) at the heart of mass shootings, I am brought in mind of an ironic saying, Lucky the man who knows who his enemy is. I take this to mean that if ones focus is on an enemy for ones difficulties or failures, it is not necessary to look within. And unfortunately as it turns out for us, for many people with that need there is no lack of enemies: different races, religions, political views, sexual identity and preferences, immigrants, economic classes, event attendees, people in power, people without power, high achievers, old people, young people, people who criticized, bullied, bested, insulted, or made fun of you; who cut you off on the highway, drove too slowly, wore the wrong color clothing, said something you didnt like, looked at you funnily, had something you were lacking. In other words, the other.

Opportunity (the third element of a criminal act) for mass murder is provided by so-called soft targets: night clubs, houses of worship, places of employment, grocery stores, schools, restaurants, malls, public gatherings, festivals, highways, homes, neighborhood streets. There is really no limit. Considering all of the above, we have a perfect storm for increasing the number of mass killings using semi-automatic and what are effectively automatic weapons.

Even in the face of this horrific violence however, there has been little appetite for meaningful political solutions. There is even refusal by many politicians to accept that the proliferation of lethal weaponry contributes to the slaughter. Instead we get the mantra: Guns dont kill people; people kill people, followed by arguments for increasing funding for mental health care (which ironically many politicians on the right have voted to defund in the past), hardening all soft targets (as if that were really possible), and getting tougher on criminals (although we incarcerate more people than any other nation on earth): anything but meaningful restrictions on access to guns and banning the most dangerous weapons.

Supporters of least restrictive gun laws also make the argument that we would be safer with more arming of the citizenry, including teachers, more open carry laws, and fewer restrictions on concealed weapons. As it is estimated there are already more guns in private hands in America then there are people, by that measure we should already be the safest country in the world. In fact, we have the second highest number of gun deaths in the world.

A more rational approach would be the one that has been adopted by other advanced democracies. They ignore any right to bear Arms type of construct, and balancing the interest in of public safety against providing self-protection for responsible citizens, just regulate the sale of weapons and the kinds of weapons permitted.

But back to Billy Liar: at the end of the movie, he finds himself in a position to make an actual grownup choice. Hes met a free-spirited young woman (Julie Christie, in her break-out role) who is ready to meet the challenges of the adult world and who offers him the opportunity to join her and start life on their own. And part of him wants this: to overcome his need for dependency; to have an adult relationship, and to make his own way. Sitting on a train about to leave the station, poised for an entry into an adult future, Billy chooses to leave the train to get some milk to drink (what could be more emblematic of dependency and lack of real agency?), promising Julie there is plenty of time for him to get back before the train leaves.

The audience instantly realizes Billy will not be coming back. True to form, he delays his return, described by one critic as the train leaves the station without him as, . . . shrugging on the platform and settling for the mediocrity he despises and probably deserves. Turns out Billy reserved the worst lies for himself. Seems he is not alone.

Read more:
Letter: Billy Liar: Coming Soon To a Theater Near You The Suburban Times - The Suburban Times

Jerry Nowicki| Capitol News Illinois

In a 4-3 decisionwith a blistering dissent from the Republican minority, the Illinois Supreme Court declined to rule on a question of whether Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Act is unconstitutional.

It was the second time the case of the People v. Vivian Brown came before the court and the second time the court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the state statute requiring Illinoisans to receive a permit to legally own a gun.

The majority opinion released Thursday was written by Chief Justice Anne M. Burke and was procedural in nature. It contended that the White County Circuit Court failed to adhere to the Supreme Courts previous2020 rulingin the case, so it once again vacated the lower courts ruling that the FOID Act was unconstitutional.

Previous story: Illinois Supreme Court rules on gun cases, upholds Deerfield ban on assault weapons

Burke was joined in the majority by Democrats Mary Jane Theis, P. Scott Neville Jr. and Robert Carter.

Justice Michael Burke who is not related to the chief justice wrote the dissent, making up 11 of the 21 pages in the Thursday order.

He argued the majority decision was based on a misunderstanding of the record and a misreading of this courts precedents, and that it could keep the defendant in legal limbo for an untold period of years.

The case involves a White County resident, Vivian Claudine Brown, who was charged in March 2017 with possession of a firearm without a FOID card after police responded to her estranged husbands call that she had fired a gun in her home.

Police found the rifle but no evidence that she fired it. Nonetheless, she was charged with the crime.

Previous story: Judge finds Illinois firearm ownership card law unconstitutional as applied to 1 resident

But a circuit judge in White County threw out the charge, ruling that the fees and forms required to receive a FOID imposed an unconstitutional burden on Browns Second Amendment right to keep a firearm in her own home.

But it was an alternative ruling made by the same court without prompting from Browns legal team that allowed the states high court to decline to rule on the constitutional grounds.

That alternative ruling contended that the Illinois General Assembly, when it passed the FOID Act, never meant for it to apply in the home, because if it did, it would mean anybody with knowledge of a firearm and exclusive control over the area where it was kept could be construed as possessing the gun.

As a general rule, courts decline to rule on constitutional matters when a case can be decided on other grounds.

Because the circuit court ruled on an aspect of the FOID Act pertaining to state law, the Supreme Courts 2020 decision vacated the order pertaining to constitutionality and sent the matter back to White County to permit the normal appellate process to run its course.

The ruling was essentially a win for Brown, but her legal team contended it wouldnt stand up to an appeal. Thus, Browns attorneys filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the inevitable loss on appeal would delay clarity in the case.

The circuit court agreed and reinstated the charges. Browns attorneys then filed a new motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds,which the judge upheld, finding that any fee associated with exercising the core fundamental Constitutional right of armed self-defense within the confines of ones home violates the Second Amendment.

Thus, the state appealed the rulingback to the Supreme Court, leading to the Thursday ruling in which the majority decided the lower court had no authority to reconsider the case after the Supreme Courts 2020 ruling.

When a cause is remanded by the reviewing court with instructions to the circuit court to enter a specific order, the reviewing courts judgment is, with respect to the merits, the end of the case, and there is nothing which the circuit court [is] authorized to do but enter the decree, the court wrote, quoting other case law.

If the lower court were allowed to make changes to the Supreme Courts ruling, the majority wrote, it would set a precedent upending our hierarchical judicial system.

The dissent from Michael Burke, however, argued that the majority asserted finality of its ruling while also suggesting that the proper place for review is now an appellate court, which is itself a lower court.

In reality, the judgment of the circuit court was not a judgment of this court that was final and conclusive on all the parties because this court declined to reach the merits of the statutory analysis and only vacated the circuit courts judgment on procedural grounds, Michael Burke wrote in the dissent. Accordingly, the trial court was free to reconsider the merits of that ruling, and nothing about it doing so upends our hierarchical judicial system.

Michael Burke argued that the majoritys supposition that Brown received complete relief when the circuit court vacated her charges was faulty, because the legal reasoning backing that decision is unlikely to hold up upon appeal.

Thus, he predicted, the case will ultimately end up back at the Supreme Court on the constitutional basis, only after a significant delay to Browns detriment as the case moves through the appellate court.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government that is distributed to more than 400 newspapers statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

Read the original post:
Why the Illinois Supreme Court declined to rule on constitutionality of FOID Act again - The State Journal-Register

When I entered teaching in 1974, schools held fire and storm drills for the safety of students and staff. They still do because one never knows.

By the time I retired from education thirty years later, teachers were also instructing their students on what to do if an intruder was in the building. This was an awareness of potential danger that did not previously exist. I remember explaining to my students how to hide and stay quiet if an event occurred. There was no delusion about real danger on their part or mine.

It seems incredible that such extraordinary measures have to be taken to protect kids at school from maniacs with weapons. Something changed.

Our gut reaction to the mass shooting of innocents in Uvalde, Texas, is to rush out and somehow stop such insanity, but unfortunately much of the response exploits disaster while little changes in our tragic and violent national psyche.

I want to be fair here, but I also want readers to understand everything.

Whenever a tragedy like Uvalde happens, liberal politicians, pundits and big media rush in with their demands for gun reform. Thats fine--theyre within their rights--but there is truth beyond the shouting, finger pointing, and impassioned theater. The fact is events like this can force the right to the defensive, a desirable result for the left in an election year. Their camp is clearly prepped to work that angle for their voice is too instantaneous and too in unison for it to be otherwise.

President Biden, for example, immediately blamed the gun lobby for Uvalde. Of course a big part of the stated lobby is the National Rifle Association, an old and powerful organization that leans right and donates moolah to Republican candidates for office. The left sees the NRA as a nettle in its side and lets no tragedy escape without accusation aimed at it. Democrats would love to end the NRA and the power it wields with voters, states and candidates. Tragedy lends purpose, but it also affords opportunity to diminish a political rival.

When Joe Biden tells listeners the Second Amendment is not absolute, he is misleading them. His side absolutely wants to end the protection the amendment affords citizens because without it their radical endeavors would be much more certain of success. The whole truth is the NRA is determined to preserve the Second Amendment contrary to leftist wishes, and thats a big reason Beto is bent and Uncle Joe is in the pulpit.

Of course Biden knows the Second Amendment is absolute. It is part of the Bill of Rights which guarantees the right to bear arms just as the First Amendment guarantees the right to protest. Its intent is to help protect citizens from the tyranny of oppressive government, but it gives no one the right to shoot another person. One does not allow the other.

The left sees election opportunity in linking gun possession with abortion as key issues in its offensive against the right. Liberals believe this duo is a winner for them in contrast to the ever rising cost of living compelled by their lousy, self-serving leadership. It defines a cause and an emotional connection to voters while separating the left from the right. It provides cover and distraction.

What they do is manipulative and exploitative. The practice should stop but wont because it works.

Personally I believe we can preserve the Second Amendment while seeking effective ways to protect kids and shoppers from the horror of a crazed mind. Part of that is a national determination to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. Obviously that isnt easy, but constitutional rights have to be protected too.

I know beyond doubt if Democrats succeed in eliminating sales and/or ownership of AR-15s as they demand, they will count that as a victory and then go after whatever firearm they designate next. Elimination of all firearms is their real goal, and they are disingenuous when they claim differently to gain momentary political advantage.

I have seen what happens to countries where citizens are stripped of their means of self-defense, but we have all seen what can happen when deadly weapons end up in the wrong hands.

Larry W. Anderson is a retired educator.

Link:
My Word: The whole truth | Opinion - The Maryville Forum

By Rich Moniak

Jeff Lowenfels was at the bottom of my short list in the special primary election to complete Congressman Don Youngs term. Then Alaska Public Media asked all 48 candidates if theyd support a ban on the manufacture and importation of semiautomatic assault weapons, as defined in the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. And Lowenfels won my vote with his unfiltered honesty.

Absolutely he replied. Military style, semiautomatic weapons were not contemplated by the second amendment, but even if they were, Id be in favor of the bans.

Lowenfels isnt he only one who understood banning such weapons is necessary to turn back the ugly tide of mass murder in this country. Within the 50-word limit imposed by APM, Santa Claus offered the most comprehensive answer. But hes not competing for a full term. And its unlikely Congress will take any action on this issue between the special election and the start of the next session in January.

Now, its hard to write Santa Claus in a sentence about politics without explaining the two-term councilman and current mayor pro tem from the city of North Pole legally changed his name in 2005. YES IF AMENDED (emphasis original) began his reply to the question. He then pointed to loopholes in law and called for additional changes.

One problem with the original law is it banned 18 specific weapons and similar models that had two specific features. But gun manufacturers could evade the laws intent by making slight modifications to those. The law also allowed the resale of any banned weapon that had been manufactured before it went into effect.

Its no wonder that studies of the bans effectiveness found little to no measurable reduction of the crimes it targeted.

Adam Wool, a Democrat who currently represents Fairbanks in the state House of Representatives, believes we need to limit access to these types of weapons but the details matter. However, he wasnt suggesting those loopholes be closed because the ban that was previously in law was acceptable. The problem now is its different political landscape.

His response, as well as those from Chris Constant, Mary Peltola, and Al Gross, displayed one critical difference. There are too few candidates on the left with the courage to state an important factLike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It does not include a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Those words were written Justice Antonin Scalia in the majority opinion of the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller. It represented the first time in American history that the constitutional right of an individual to keep and bear arms was not connected to service in a militia. Scalia, the original originalist in interpreting the Constitution, went on to defend the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Simply put, Congress has the constitutional power to ban the ones in question.

Constant qualified his support for doing so by stating We have to carefully navigate the Second Amendment.

Without mentioning assault weapons, Peltola said she supports the creation of a bipartisan congressional committee tasked with bringing common sense gun legislation that respects our 2nd amendment rights.

Gross didnt let the Second Amendment get in his way of supporting universal background checks. But he thinks that and a nationally standardized interview with local authorities constitute an appropriate level of scrutiny for anyone who wants to buy an AR-15.

Those positions concede too much authority to the Second Amendment.

And to Republican candidates who argue a national ban on assault weapons, or any other reasonable restriction on gun sales and ownership, violates it.

Michael Gerson referred to such beliefs as somewhere on the far side of laughable ignorance.

A former senior policy adviser to President George W. Bush and the Heritage Foundation, Gerson isnt one of the 48 candidates. In the conservative commentary he writes for Washington Post, hes free to speak his conscience.

Thats a challenge for candidates seeking public office. But voters who want sensible gun restrictions should think twice before supporting a candidate who is afraid to declare that the Second Amendments rights are not absolute.

Rich Moniak is a Juneau resident and retired civil engineer with more than 25 years of experience working in the public sector. Columns, My Turns and Letters to the Editor represent the view of the author, not the view of the Juneau Empire. Have something to say? Heres how to submit a My Turn or letter.

Read more from the original source:
Opinion: How the Second Amendment informed my special election primary vote - Juneau Empire