Mediaboss Marketing

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

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

Jonathan P. Baird lives in Wilmot.

With mass shootings practically a daily event, defenders of unrestricted gun owner rights typically invoke the mantra of the Second Amendment. Attention is rarely paid though to the historical circumstances surrounding the origins of the Second Amendment.

As part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is shrouded in a benevolent mist. That mist obscures more than it enlightens. The truth is that the Second Amendment was largely a response to Southern interests who feared slave revolts. Slaveholders wanted the firepower through militias to repress slave uprisings.

James Madison crafted the Second Amendment to strike a balance. He believed a strong central government was necessary but he also wanted to assuage pro-slavery interests. Southerners feared the federal government would try to destroy slavery and Madison was determined to keep the South on board as part of the United States. Patrick Henry and George Mason led the Southern advocacy. They had threatened to shatter the shaky union that did exist.

The historian Carol Anderson has best described the historical circumstances around the Second Amendment.

In her book, The Second, she wrote, The Second Amendment was, thus, not some hallowed ground but rather a bribe, paid again with Black bodies. It was the result of Madisons determination to salve Patrick Henrys obsession about Virginias vulnerability to slave revolts, seduce enough anti-federalists to get his Constitution ratified and stifle the demonstrated willingness of the South to scuttle the United States if slavery was not protected.

Anderson argues that the role of the militia is key to understanding the Second Amendment. Recall the Second Amendments language: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Andersons perspective is obviously quite a departure from the Supreme Courts recent jurisprudence as best exemplified by Justice Scalias opinion in the Heller case. Responding to the gun lobby, Scalia downplayed the militia part and emphasized the individual right to gun ownership. Anderson says the primary function of the militia was slave control.

As a historian, Anderson doesntdeny that militias in that era had multiple purposes. Many American revolutionaries feared a standing army. Militias were used to wage war against Native Americans and to quell slave revolts. They were also seen as needed to repel any possible foreign invasions.

The 18th century featured a huge importation of kidnapped Africans to America. Plantation owners brutalized the Africans with absolutely barbarous treatment. The goal was to induce submission in the quest for maximum profit. Slaves were the principal basis for Southern wealth.

As far back as 1639, Southern states prohibited Africans from carrying guns. In the 18th century, Black people were forbidden from owning or carrying firearms but white men were required to own a good gun or pistol to give them the means to search and examine all negro houses for offensive weapons and ammunition.

As noted, the right to own firearms generally did not extend to Black people. New Hampshire, Delaware, Massachusetts and New York banned Black peoplefrom military service in the Continental Army and the militias. It was only when there was a manpower shortage during the revolutionary war that the Continental Army reconsidered its whites only policy.

There was also the matter that in 1775 Virginias royal governor, the Earl of Dunmore, said the British would emancipate every male slave of a rebel who could and would bear arms for King George III. There was fear that the enslaved might opt for the British side.

A deep fear of slave revolts permeated the white power structure in the South. In 1739, the Stono Rebellion in South Carolina saw a series of pitched battles in which a bloody slave rebellion was mercilessly put down. According to Anderson, the enslaved were tortured, shot, hanged and gibbeted alive.Then another fifty slaves were taken by their Planters who Cut off their heads and set them up at every Mile Post they came to.Serving in slave patrols was required for all able-bodied white men.

Later in the 18th century and the early 19thcentury, the fear of slave uprisings only increased. The Haitian revolution which began in 1791 terrified American slave owners. Gabriel Prossers rebellion in 1800, the German coast rebellion of Louisiana in 1811 and Nat Turners rebellion in 1831 all demonstrated the slave desire for freedom.

Those slaves who did try to escape were hunted down by militias and bounty hunters. Both horses and dogs were used by slavers. Slave patrols subjected Black people to questioning, searches and floggings. Guns were a key instrument in a regime of systematic control.

In the 19th century, the fugitive slave laws contributed to the growth of militias. The South wanted escaped enslaved people to be returned to their masters. Before our civil war, huge political battles were fought around the issue of fugitive slaves rights.

Many on the political right seem to think the Second Amendment was carved in marble by God. On TV, I just saw a political ad about how President Biden was supposedly trying to take away our god-given Second Amendment rights. Former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke was spouting this.

The irony could not be more extreme. Instead of being god-given, the Second Amendment emerged as an instrument to protect slavery and slavers rights to control Black people. Its history is anything but noble.

Rights, even constitutional rights, dont come out of nowhere. Theyre rooted in a historical context. Those who want to whitewash American history ignore the centrality of slavery in our past.

Unlike other constitutional rights in the Bill of Rights which have had a more positive and civilized evolution, I would argue the Second Amendment is unique. It was a gift to Southern slave interests to bribe them to stay part of the U.S.

The historian W.E.B. Dubois once wrote, the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line.I think that statement is true for all of American history. Its impossible to understand where the Second Amendment came from without placing it in the middle of the American battle around the maintenance and preservation of white supremacy.

Read more from the original source:
Opinion: The dark history of the Second Amendment - Concord Monitor

If you have paid attention to Second Amendment litigation over the past decade, you have become familiar with the two-step framework. Under this framework, those challenging gun control laws usually prevail at step one, and lose at step two. The specifics are largely unimportant for the reasons that Judge VanDyke explained. And, over the past decade, there has been a mountain of scholarship that have endorsed the two-step test. During this time, the Supreme Court was asked over and over again to clarify the proper standard underHeller. And time and again, the answer was "cert denied."

Now,New York State Rifle & Pistol v. Bruen has bid farewell to the two-step test. And it did so very, very briskly:

In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a "two-step" framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.

I haven't checked Westlaw, but this paragraph probably placed red flags on dozens of circuit court cases. And almost all Second Amendment scholarship that was premised on the two-factor test has now been vitiated.

The lower courts are going to scramble, and try to find language in the majority, and in Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence, to stick to their old ways. But it will be much tougher.

Read this article:
Bruen Bids Farewell To The Two-Step Test - Reason

Bring charges after Jan. 6 hearings

Tuesdays Jan. 6 hearings showed Republican witnesses tie Trump directly to the fake electors plot. Moreover, a video produced by the House Select Committee detailed former President Donald Trump and his teams efforts to sway election officials and intimidate election workers by death threats and even a home break-in. This would be even more remarkable if the previous session didnt confirm a direct death threat to the vice president!

The truth is each session is more damning than the previous one and yet all of this will only serve history if our democracy survives this attack. Its important that the record is correct and accurate, but it is almost lost if there are no indictments or accountability and closure.

The U.S. has a proud history where the losing party is not persecuted; however, the previous administration has individuals that committed serious crimes. If we dont prosecute these criminals then I fear the hearings become little more than theater -- informative but passive. Ironically, no criminal charges would play right into the GOP conspiracy theories that this is all about politics and not about the insurrection or threat to democracy.

Henry Woodack, Bayonne

Listen to the people, not golfers

Please explain to me the problem with Liberty State Park. The people want to keep the park as is. How many letters and phone calls are you getting about this?

The people have spoken -- please take your fingers out of your ears AND LISTEN.

Ms. Agnes De Bethune (letter to the editor, Prohibit commercialization of Liberty Park) has suggested a few improvements with which I agree. We do not need a baseball stadium, a bigger or redesigned golf course. That seems to be the problem. The gentleman who owns the golf course is putting a lot of pressure on our elected officials to do his bidding. What he wants is something that will make his blasted golf course better. He has no concern about the damage he will do to the park. The wildlife in this park will be affected; this park is their home.

Our elected officials that are backing this project should be voted out of office. They are supposed to work for what the public wants, not what some golfers want. Next is the governor what in the name of God are you waiting for? tell this greedy man to keep his hands off our park.

Mr. Governor, do you want the demise of this park as your legacy? Please stand up and do the right thing what the people want and need.

Fred Regenye, Bayonne

Back then, it was BYO weapons

The Second Amendment is only one sentence and 27 words long. Theres a lot of controversy about it, but have we taken a good objective look at it in a while? Here it is:

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 first part of the sentence is not to be ignored. Its presence there is for some reason. It not only establishes the purpose for which the amendment was thought to be needed, it is in itself a sort of regulation on the keeping and bearing of arms, which implies to me that some sort of regulation is possible within the basic rights given here.

In the original militias, as I understand it, the individual members had to bring their own rifles, powder and ammunition, since they werent given any. Therefore, the troops had to be allowed to own and maintain their own firearms, as the amendment provides.

Further details are not given in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers apparently thought they could rely on the citizens to develop rational regulations as needed for the future.

The rest is up to us.

David Mahler, North Bergen

Cops in schools a bad idea

In response to the stories dealing with police in schools, I can say this. After 38 years teaching in the deepest part of the inner-city in the second largest city in New Jersey, I believe that my experiences in this matter should be considered.

An armed policeman in a school will provide a false feeling of security. An armed policeman will become the first target for those that are sick enough to consider killing children and teachers. After the policeman, the perpetrator will continue on until he/she achieves his or her murders.

Entrance doors that are locked from the outside but remain open from the inside are probably the best solution. Individuals that can monitor these entrances would also be a help in keeping everyone safe. An armed policeman is not likely to use his weapon within a school building because of the real possibility of missing his target and hitting a child or possibly his bullet could penetrate a wall into a classroom. Many older schools have marble or some other stone inside the building and a misdirected bullet can kill an innocent individual.

A far better way to control this problem is to absolutely refuse to allow gun manufacturers to sell their guns to people under, I would say, 25 years old. These sales should be and must be approved by the local police. The potential buyer must pass a psychological exam by a licensed medical professional at his or her own expense and has trained under police guidance, again at their own cost, regarding on how and when to use this weapon. As of now, any mentally deranged individual can obtain a gun and shoot anyone he pleases until stopped by the police. You can even get the parts of a gun, from internet sales, and put it together yourself! These are ghost guns and will kill you as fast as a registered gun.

Gun manufactures look the other way! They make their living making guns and care not who buys them as long as they make a profit. They claim they are not responsible for the deaths that occur. Now lets be honest. If you cant buy a gun without some reasonable training and background check, wed all be better off. America needs to clean up its act regarding the liberties we enjoy. If not, well continue killing babies because of in-action.

James K. Aumack, Retired Jersey City Educator, Cape May

Send letters to the editor and guest columns for The Jersey Journal to jjletters@jjournal.com.

See the original post:
Prosecute them; Listen to the people on LSP; Second Amendment open to regulation; Cops in schools a bad idea - NJ.com