Mediaboss Marketing

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

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

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