Mediaboss Marketing

President Joe Biden announced new regulations to curb the proliferation of so-called "ghost guns,"unserialized firearms made from kits.

Biden spoke of codifying a prohibition on manufacturing these firearms without serial numbers, requiring sellers to conduct a background check on prospective buyers, among other rules. He also detailed his desire to see assault weapons and high-capacity magazines banned.

Then the president invoked history to support his stance.

"From the very beginning, the Second Amendment didnt say you can own any gun you want, big as you want," Biden said at the press conference. "You couldnt buy a cannon when, in fact, the Second Amendment passed."

This isnt the first time Biden made such an assertion about the Second Amendment. Or even the second.

During his presidential campaign, he made a similar claim about cannon ownership in the Revolutionary War. We rated that False.

Then, in 2021, Biden said the Second Amendment "limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own." False again.

The Second Amendment did not place limits on individual ownership of cannons.

Historians have previously told PolitiFact that Biden mischaracterized the history of gun regulation and its ties to the Second Amendment.

The White House did not return PolitiFacts request for comment.

For Biden, the third time isnt the charm. We rate this claim False.

Continued here:
Joe Biden recycles false claim that the Second Amendment limited gun ownership - PolitiFact

Denver City Councils Safety, Housing, Education and Homelessness Committee on Wednesday postponed its vote on a bill restricting concealed carry in buildings owned, leased by or leased to the city, as well as Denver parks, to April 27 to give city staff more time to answer council members' questions.

The proposal is part of Mayor Michael Hancocks 2022 Public Safety Action Plan. Assistant City Attorney Reggie Nubine said this proposed legislation is part of the national conversation to reduce gun violence and came about after the state legislature passed SB21-256, allowing local governments to prohibit firearms in certain parts of a governments jurisdiction.

Exemptions would apply to law enforcement officers, military personnel in performance of duties and licensed security guards with firearms endorsements in performance of duties. People carrying for use in a legitimate sporting event would also be exempt, as well as individuals with a valid authorization at Denver shooting ranges, and those lawfully traveling with a firearm.

Proposed penalties would be no more than a $50 fine on first offense and up to a $999 fine and/or up to 300 days in jail for a second offense depending on circumstances.

Several council members wondered if this could be considered a violation of the Second Amendment, but Nubine said jurisdictions are allowed to reasonably limit constitutional rights and that this legislation could be seen as parallel to firearm bans in public schools.

You still have to follow reasonable regulations that might be enacted by the state or the local government, Nubine said. This is why we have a concealed carry permit just generally we can limit a person's ability to carry in a certain manner, in certain places as long as theres a necessity for it or theres a reasonable basis for why we are enacting that legislation.

In terms of enforcement, Assistant City Attorney Erica Rogers said people working in city buildings and parks are not responsible and are encouraged to call law enforcement if they suspect someone is carrying an unauthorized firearm. She also said signage must be displayed in prohibited areas to notify the public for the bill to be enforced, per state statute.

Nubine also clarified for council members that this doesnt apply to entities like the Denver Water building or Denver Health hospitals if the city doesnt own them despite their close association to the city. It does apply to city-owned property in other counties, though.

One of the key items many council members were curious about is data on crimes committed by concealed weapon carriers, also in city parks and facilities. Officials with the city attorneys office didnt have this information on hand, and they said theyd provide what they could before it comes back to the committee at the end of the month.

While several council members wanted to see this data to answer what problem the bill is trying to solve, Councilwoman Robin Kniech said she thinks it's important to pass legislation to set expectations based on values. She also emphasized that no one piece of legislation will completely solve a problem.

Fundamentally, do we think our community is safer with more guns walking around or less safe? Kniech said. The data is actually quite clear on this fact. Countries with fewer guns walking around are safer than our country with more guns walking around. Thats a fact that is very well researched.

After learning that this doesnt apply to parking lots weapons are allowed to be properly stored in a permitted carriers vehicle Councilwoman Candi CdeBaca, while not a voting member of the committee, said she wants data on crimes committed with guns stolen from cars, which she said the council has been repeatedly told is one of the primary ways guns are obtained.

CdeBaca also said she wants more info on other constitutional rights that are allowed to be limited or banned on public property. Additionally, she said she wants to see demographic data on who is applying for and obtaining permits for concealed carry and fully outlined protocol on how law enforcement will respond to a report of a concealed weapon.

I want to see that data as well to make sure that we are not creating more opportunities for pretextual types of interactions with police while were simultaneously trying to reduce unnecessary contact with police in historically marginalized communities, CdeBaca said. ... What were saying with this is that anyone can say theyre afraid of someone in the park, call the cops and have them checked for a concealed carry weapon whether they have proof of it.

Read the original:
Denver committee postpones vote on concealed weapon ban in city-owned facilities - The Denver Gazette

A House committee advanced legislation Tuesday that would remove the permits and training that goes with it required for carrying concealed weapons. Then it approved a bill that would forbid state and local authorities to enforce future federal rules that would "chill" gun ownership in Louisiana.

But the committee also defeated a measure that would have made it harder to confiscate weapons from an abuser in a domestic relationship. And the sponsor voluntarily postponed consideration of whether property owners could to shoot-to-kill for the prevention of imminent destruction of property.

Tuesday was Gun Day in the House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice. Under the watchful eye of proponents of expanding gun rights, wearing red t-shirts, who packed the hearing room, representatives debated nine bills concerning the Second Amendment rights to bear arms.

Every bill we have discussed here today has been an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, said Shreveport Republican state Rep. Alan Seabaugh said as he presented the last bill of the four-hour committee hearing. If the Second Amendment were read as broadly as the First Amendment as the Interstate Commerce Clause, then every single bill that were discussing here today would be unconstitutional.

Seabaughs House Bill 464 would strengthen evidence necessary when a protective order is issued that would take away the persons firearms. The level of proof is preponderance of the evidence, that is more yes than no. HB464 would raise the level of proof a court would need to consider to the clear and convincing standard that the weapons need to be removed.

New Orleans filmmaker Donna Dees testified that HB464 would remove protections added in 2014 and return Louisiana to second in the nation for the number violent acts against women using guns.

The committee voted 5-6 to reject the legislation.

Voting 10-3 along party lines, the committee approved legislation to allow people over the age of 21 to carry concealed weapons without a permit, meaning without training on how to use a handgun.

House Bill 37 sponsor Rep. Danny McCormick, R-Oil City, says he's not against training, but criminals dont often have a permit when they carry a gun. Why shouldnt a law abiding citizen have conceal carry when the criminals can, said Rep. Ray Garofalo, R-Chalmette.

Get the Louisiana politics insider details once a week from us. Sign up today.

Louisiana State Police Superintendent Col. Lamar Davis said in the 12 months of 2021, the state issued 20,000 of the five-year permits; 7,000 lifetime permits; renewed 12,000 permits; denied 1,438 permits; revoked 37; and suspended 255 permits.

Davis added that one reason is that the training required to obtain a permit includes what to do when dealing with law enforcement while carrying a gun. Lack of knowledge about the rules of engagement training could create an adversarial situation that could easily escalate. Civilians are trained that they need to tell officers about their concealed weapons.

Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards last year vetoed similar legislation, Senate Bill 118, that both chambers approved with veto-proof majorities. But when it came to overriding Edwards veto, the Senate couldnt corral enough votes.

Edwards noted that many police officials opposed the measure. He also noted that supporters had argued that they believe they have a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit or any training. If true, supporters could have filed a constitutional challenge in court, he said. They have chosen not to do so, and instead have brought this bill to change the law, Edwards wrote in his June 29 veto message.

On a 10-1 vote, the panel also advanced House Bill 43, which would prevent local, parish, state authorities from enforcing federal regulations that could be considered infringements of gun ownership in Louisiana. Sponsor Rep. Larry Frieman, R-Abita Springs, explained that doesnt mean the federal government wouldnt enforce its rules and that the state ban would only be for future federal rules.

The state voters passed a Constitutional amendment in 2012 guaranteeing the right to bear weapons. Frieman said the federal government, particularly under Democratic President Joe Biden, appears to possibly be open to more restrictions for gun ownership. And if that happens this bill would deny funding to local and state entities if they enforce those federal rules.

House Bill 68, by Erath Republican Rep. Blake Miguez, would require the Louisiana State Police to create a two-hour online course to train people how to safely use firearms. Both sides backed the idea of more education for gun owners, though Rep. Joe Marino, No Party-Gretna, had some indigestion over the voluntary nature of the training.

Still, Rep. C. Denise Marcelle, a Baton Rouge Democratic progressive, joined Miguez, the conservative Republican majority leader in the House, in sponsoring the legislation, which advanced without objection.

If Rep. Marcelle and Miguez can work together, we can surely fix all the problems in Louisiana, Miguez said.

View post:
Lawmakers may remove permits, training required for concealed carry in Louisiana; see all Gun Day bills - The Advocate

Recently we saw a letter to the editor encouraging us to recalibrate our thoughts on the last election.

Whether the election was stolen, or 100% flawless, one thing is certain, many citizens have lost confidence in the process. That is undeniable!

In our own county we had attempts to close outlying voting locations (Park County did in the Primary) to create centralized voting centers. As a result absentee voting morphed into mail-in voting, especially since voters can vote early in Wyoming.

Some counties, Park County included, counted ballots three days early per the unauthorized guidance of the Secretary of State. Theres a reason why early counting is prohibited bad players can use this information to sway an election.

Ballot boxes were unattended in some counties, Park County included, even though they were placed outside government buildings and polling places. There is no way to guarantee that those boxes and ballots werent tampered with.

There were improprieties nationwide illegal aliens being allowed to vote, ballot harvesting, boxes of unaccounted for ballots being discovered, disqualification of military absentee ballots. Each state had their own issues, and Wyoming likely had these things going on here.

At the end of this past legislative session our own legislature was unable to pass a cross-over voting bill. For 10 years Republicans have asked the legislature to clean up the laws that allow Democrats to participate in the Republican candidate selection by forcing the use of the primary ballot for the selection process. They again refused to address the issue even though many in Wyoming phone calls from a special interest group encouraging voters to register as Republicans before the 2018 primary, which lead to the election of the least conservative candidate for governor that year.

The Secretary of State has added to the voters concerns. He condoned a physical resident of Colorado to run for governor in Wyoming. This person registered for election using a Laramie business address. The Secretary allowed a Wyoming senatorial candidate to register using a room in his business as his residence to qualify for a run for office in that district.

Most recently he punted on ruling on the residency requirement in the matter of a Wyoming representative living outside of his legislative district. On the last matter, elected representatives undertook private conversations with the legislator in question and felt he was not violating the law. Of course, those conversations were also not held under the penalty of perjury. Adding insult to injury, the legislator in question was acting as co-chairman of the legislative redistricting committee. Legitimate? Please!!!

Lawfare, the use of frivolous or baseless lawsuits to bully and financially break an opponent has also found its way to Wyoming. In January 2022, 16 Wyomingites some of whom are/were prominent Republicans, one a former Speaker of the House and another a former representative from Park County, sued the state of Wyoming, the Republican Party and the Governor citing a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. and the equal protection provisions of the Wyoming Constitution. A process to fill a vacancy in an elected office is spelled out in statute and requires the Republican Party to submit names of three qualified candidates to the Governor. This time it was to fill the vacated seat of the superintendent of public instruction. This is a process thats been in place for 60 years, but they chose to file two days before the Governor needed to appoint a replacement.

Last, but not least, a director of a chamber of commerce complained to the secretary of states office about a second amendment organization allegedly lobbying for a candidate during the last election. It took a federal lawsuit to show the second amendment groups first amendment rights were violated by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General.

Organizations and individuals are involved in using these tactics and more to erode the electoral system and achieve their personal goals at the expense of the rights of the individual voter to participate in government by the people. There has to be strong voices opposing this or were headed to third-world status in voting and/or rights as citizens.

(Vincent Vanata is aState Committeemanfor thw Park County Republican Party)

See the original post:
Op Ed: Many reasons to be concerned about voting - Cody Enterprise

The Rowan Republicans and Rowan Democrats hosted their annual debate on Tuesday, April 12. The debate: transgender people in sports, COVID-19, voter ID laws and gun rights.

The event was held inside the Chamberlain Student Center Pit and started at 7 p.m.

Representing the Democrats was Rory Newman, Anushree Chauhan, Andrew Park, Trevor Jedwabnik, Mike Zupko, Nick Dannenfelser, Rory Newman, William Kaminer, Trevor Jebwabnik, Nic Lawniczuk, Andy Park and Anna Bray.

Representing the Republicans was Madison Laganella, Elizabeth Guinta, Reilly Kerr, Danny Tepper, Vikas Addanki, Eric Holmes and Armani Rodriguez.

The first topic of the night was transgender people in sports. Both the crowd and representatives of each party were not afraid to hold back their opinions as the debate grew increasingly more enthusiastic.

Athletes such as Lia Thomas were mentioned at the debate, as they discussed whether or not transgender athletes should be able to compete in the Olympics.

Republican representatives made the claim that trans women are biologically male. Whereas Democratic representatives argued that trans women are women.

Focusing on biological sex, Republicans made the argument that transgender athletes, such as Lia Thomas, have a biological advantage since trans women are biologically female.

Republicans also argued that allowing for transgender athletes to compete in the Olympics, or any sports, is not fair to biological women. Republicans claimed not to deny trans women as women but did not directly say that trans women are women.

The opposing side, the Democrats, argued that trans people should be allowed to compete in sports.

Much of the crowd cheered, Trans women are women!

Republicans used debating trans athletes as a wedge to slowly chip away at trans rights, William Kaminer, a Democratic representative and sophomore political science major, said.

The second debate of the night focused on everything COVID-19-related. From vaccines and masks to the economic shutdown of the United States.

The focal point of this debate was the vaccine against natural immunity.

Democrats acknowledged that natural immunity is real, but claimed that getting the vaccine improves an individuals chances of survival.

On the other hand, Republicans argued that natural immunity is much stronger than the vaccine.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) there are different types of immunity. In both cases, natural and vaccine-induced immunities are types of active immunity.

According to the CDC, natural immunity is acquired from exposure to the disease organism through infection with the actual disease.

However, vaccine-induced immunity is acquired through the introduction of a killed or weakened form of the disease organism through vaccination.

The CDC concludes, either way, if an immune person comes into contact with that disease in the future, their immune system will recognize it and immediately produce the antibodies needed to fight it. Active immunity is long-lasting, and sometimes life-long.

The second to last debate was voter rights and ID.

Democrats argued that voter ID should be less strict and intensive whereas Republicans argued that voter ID should always be required to vote.

Eric Holmes is the President of the Republican party at Rowan University.

Voting is the pinnacle of our republic, Holmes said.

According to Ballotpedia, As of April 2021, 35 states enforced (or were scheduled to begin enforcing) voter identification requirements.

In New Jersey, voters are not required to show identification while voting but must do so beforehand if choosing not to present identification at the place of voting.

Some forms of identification include a drivers license, military or other government ID, student ID, store membership card, bank statement, and more.

The last debate of the night was the most passionate. It was on gun rights.

The second amendment of the United States constitutes that its citizens have the right to bear arms. Both parties agree to the second amendment but there are fundamentals both parties disagree on.

Democrats pitched for common-sense legislation regarding gun rights. Keeping guns out of the hands of felonies and the mentally ill would significantly reduce crime.

With common-sense legislation, obtaining a gun permit would be more difficult. Democrats argued that this would be the best solution to keep the United States safe.

Republicans also agreed that felonies and the mentally ill should not possess guns but were ultimately opposed to the idea of common-sense legislation.

Republicans argued that gun rights, especially focusing on New Jersey, are much too strict.

The crowd grew wild and passionate, oftentimes yelling, booing, and shouting.

At the end of the event, both parties shook hands and ultimately kept the debate civil.

For comments/questions about this story tweet @TheWhitOnline or email thewhitnews23@gmail.com.

Related

Original post:
Rowan Republicans and Democrats Host Annual Debate - The Whit Online