Mediaboss Marketing

It is hard to tell which of the following Colorado Democrats hate more: the Second Amendment, or local control of government. A newly drafted bill sponsored by Dems allows them to continue to attack both.

Fewer than three years ago, Sen. Sonja Jaquez Lewis of Longmont, Sen. Chris Kolker of Littleton and Sen. Tom Sullivan of Centennial, all Democrats, voted with their party to blow up Colorados long-standing law which ensured a predictable, statewide approach to firearm regulation. Senate Bill 21-256, passed by all Democrats, created a patchwork of local gun laws that create confusion for law-abiding gun owners. The change in the law did not change the behavior of gun-toting criminals, but that is not the goal of the modern Democrat blame-the-guns approach to governance. Purportedly libertarian-ish Democrat Gov. Jared Polis signed the bill into law without hesitation.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

SB 21-256 made clear the General Assembly believes (o)fficials of local governments are uniquely equipped to make determinations as to regulations necessary in their local jurisdictions and to make determinations as to where concealed handguns can be carried in their local jurisdictions.

Fewer than 30 months later and without any data to support a change Jacquez Lewis, Kolker and Sullivan have changed their minds and now believe local governments are too stupid to determine what laws are necessary in their communities and too untrustworthy to determine where concealed handguns can be carried. No legislator has yet explained what happened to the uniquely equipped local governments. Once again, Democrats show up to save the day with a solution in search of a problem.

Sans any data let alone new data justifying the need for change the bill drafters hijack local control of the regulation of firearms at parks, playgrounds, rec centers, stadiums for any sport and at every level of competition, amusement parks, carnivals, circuses, water parks and any property in any way connected to local government or the grounds next to it. No joke.

This bill draft is the equivalent of the energy-company-crushing setbacks for oil rigs in Colorado. Remember that one? The proposed ballot measure excluded drilling from so many places by creating setbacks from so many sensitive areas that oil production could have lawfully only occurred in Weld County Sheriff Steve Reamss driveway and nowhere else.

This bill draft seeks to push Colorado toward becoming a statewide sensitive space.

Current law prohibits the open carrying of firearms at a polling place, because it may intimidate, threaten, or coerce voters The new law prohibits concealed carrying of weapons for the exact same reasons. To be clear: these gun-hating Dem law makers believe voters may become intimidated, threatened, scared to death, or worse by firearms they cannot see and do not know are there.

After the property owners suck approach of the special legislative session last year, this years legislature and Polis continue their assault on private property rights with this bill. This would-be legislation would ban carrying firearms at numerous private businesses, organizations and on private property, to include: private colleges; churches, synagogues, or other places of worship unless expressly authorized; private nursing homes; any private hospital or place at which medical or health care services are provided, and others.

The most insidious and potentially life-threatening provision of the law is the intended elimination of local school districts authority to protect the children in their charge. For 20 years, rural districts across Colorado the ones with schools 25-plus minutes from law enforcement response to emergencies have had the ability to provide an on-site, immediate response through highly-trained school faculty. Faculty Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response (FASTER) has trained more than 400 people to carry concealed in their schools across 41 districts in Colorado. The participating schools and school districts have eagerly jumped on the opportunity to better protect their students and faculty. But that is not enough, when it comes to those who hate guns.

Despite not a single bad incident having occurred in the seven years FASTER has been training faculty, the Dems under the Gold Dome appear poised to eliminate it as an option for those communities whose law enforcement protectors are relative eons away.

What could be the penalty for the commission of such damning acts with firearms at sensitive places? In 2021, a concealed carry holder who ran afoul of local gun regulations faced only a civil penalty of no more than $50. The new bill by the same folks who voted in the 2021 bill ups the ante to a criminal misdemeanor and a $250 fine. That's 500% more than the just-enacted bill. There is a bigger question here: If carrying concealed in places prohibited by local or state law is a matter of such supreme importance, that as the bill claims it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, why a small fine? Why no chance for jail and there is none no matter how many times the law is violated?

The answer is obvious. The Democrats in the legislature (and Polis) hate guns and do not value the Second Amendment. Instead, they take any and every opportunity to chisel away at that right.

Whether this draft bill becomes official or not, the one constant in Colorados experience with Democrat-dominant rule in state government is the gun-hating ends always justify the hypocritical means when it comes to hating firearms and infringing on Second Amendment rights.

George Brauchler is the former district attorney for the 18th Judicial District. He also is an Owens Early Criminal Justice Fellow at the Common Sense Institute. He hosts The George Brauchler Show on 710KNUS Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. Follow him on Twitter(X): @GeorgeBrauchler.

See the original post here:
Dems bow to local control on guns then take it away | BRAUCHLER - coloradopolitics.com

As they ring in 2024, New Yorks concealed-carry pistol permit holders will have a little something to celebrate besides the start of the New Year.

A panel of federal judges recently struck down key parts of the states misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act, thus giving these law-abiding gun owners some of their constitutional rights back.

Unfortunately, though, in upholding other sections of the draconian law, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals split a baby that never should have been birthed in the first place.

Still, if youre a gun owner in New York, where Democrats control all three branches of executive and legislative power, you take your victories where you can get them.

This one comes in the 2nd Circuits ruling striking down part of the law prohibiting concealed-carry in so-called restricted places open to the public. That catch-all provision would have banned permit holders from carrying their weapons anywhere in the state without the expressed consent of property owners, turning on its head the idea of a constitutional right actually guaranteeing the right to do something.

The three-judge panel also knocked down a ban on bringing guns into houses of worship.

On the other hand, the court upheld prohibitions on carrying in so-called sensitive locations such as government buildings, schools, theaters, parks and other places in a list too long to enumerate here but which includes practically anywhere people might congregate. The law, and the 2nd Circuits concurrence, means that only criminals will be able to carry guns in such places.

This split-the-baby approach could also be seen in other aspects of the ruling. For instance, it struck down a requirement that people applying for a permit give licensing officers access to their social media posts, including pseudonyms. The judges said such overreach violates Second Amendment rights while also presenting serious First Amendment concerns because it is uncontroversial that the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously.

Yet the judges upheld the laws requirement that applicants be of good moral character. While a lower court judge had struck down that provision as unconstitutionally vague, the appeals court judges deemed it a proxy for dangerousness.

In fact, a district court judge had excoriated practically the entire law, but let it stand on purely technical grounds pending appeals. The 2nd Circuit judges agreed in part and disagreed on other parts all of which underscores the ideological fragility of what are supposed to be fundamental American rights.

The cases stem from last years U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down New Yorks prior law that required law-abiding citizens to show proper cause before being allowed to carry a concealed weapon for protection outside the home.

That decision in the so-called Bruen case, named for one of the government defendants, prompted Hochul and the Legislature to ram through the draconian CCIA in response, stripping New Yorkers of practically any ability to carry a concealed weapon. They took such steps despite clear warnings from the justices against using the latitude granted in Bruen to go to such extremes.

Now the 2nd Circuit panel has knocked down at least of some those unconstitutional restrictions on law-abiding gun owners who just want a chance to protect themselves against criminals who, by definition, will ignore any such law.

With the appeals court doing only half the job, it will be up to the Supreme Court to strike down the rest of Hochuls prohibitions, once the case reaches its docket again.

Mike Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, said that in restoring the rights of law-abiding gun owners to carry their weapons in some public places such as gas stations and grocery stores it seems the 2nd Circuit judges were sensitive to events like the massacre at the Tops supermarket here. Even though the stores armed security guard was thwarted by the fact that the killer had scouted the site and had on body armor, most such murderers will not be so well-prepared.

GOA, which has been out front helping plaintiffs oppose laws like the CCIA, will back an appeal, but is still deciding whether to ask the full 2nd Circuit to take up the case or to take it directly to the Supreme Court.

The Hochul administration did not respond to a request for comment. But Hammond said that if gun rights advocates appeal the parts of the ruling they dont like, the administration would probably file a cross-appeal opposing the restoration of some Second Amendment rights which New York Democrats obviously dont believe in.

That means the Supreme Court could end up revisiting the whole issue all over again. In fact, it already is considering another case resulting from its Bruen framework, which determined that current gun laws have to be consistent with the nations historical tradition of firearm regulation. That has led to some obviously misguided lower court rulings, such as ones allowing domestic abusers to own guns because there were no domestic violence laws when the Constitution was written.

But New York officials should take little confidence from that limited reconsideration, given that the CCIAs overreach is so clearly at odds with the entirety of what the justices laid out in restoring meaning to the Second Amendment.

It would be nice if the governor and state legislators would just make a New Years resolution to respect the Constitution and the rights of law-abiding gun owners not to mention respect taxpayers by not making them pay state lawyers to defend the indefensible.

But dont hold your breath waiting on that. Instead, wait for a more thorough judicial restoration of the right to defend yourself once New Yorks misguided law again reaches the high court.

In the meantime, when confronted by a mugger in one of New Yorks so-called sensitive places, you can just call the police. They will do a very thorough job of collecting evidence, after drawing a chalk outline around your body.

Or you can hire security, like the governor does, if you think your life is as valuable as hers. The only difference is, you wont be able to charge the taxpayers for having someone else defend what you should be able to defend yourself.

Subscribe to our Daily Headlines newsletter.

See the article here:
Rod Watson: In gun ruling, court splits a baby that should never have been birthed - Buffalo News

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals ruling upheld most of New York state's new restrictions on acquiring and carrying concealed handguns in public.

Nobodys expecting that to be the final word.

The Dec. 8 ruling by a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit was the most significant decision on firearms since the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. Inc. v. Bruen struck down the state's highly restrictive, century-old handgun law in June 2022.

Gov. Kathy Hochul and the Legislature quickly followed the Supreme Court decision by enacting a host of new restrictions on acquiring and carrying concealed handguns in public measures the appellate court has now largely approved.

"All Things Considered" host Sean Carlson recently discussed the appellate courts ruling and whats ahead with Jacob Charles, a constitutional scholar and gun law expert at Pepperdine University's Caruso School of Law in Los Angeles who's been following the New York case.

Heres a transcript of their conversation, which has been lightly edited for clarity.

Charles: There are three main parts to this opinion. One is that the court analyzed the changes to the handgun licensing law that New York made in direct response to the decision that struck down the states handgun law. In response, New York enacted provisions that restricted guns from a whole host of locations that it deemed sensitive. And then, finally, the appellate court addressed one other aspect of the law, which presumptively made it off limits to carry guns on private property unless you had an owner's permission to do so.

And in each one of those aspects, the court upheld most of the provisions and struck down some parts of it. So, with the licensing law, the court said it's OK for New York to require an individual to show good moral character in order to get a permit to carry a gun in public, but New York can't require individuals to disclose all of their social media accounts as part of that review, including those that they might use anonymously.

With respect to sensitive places, the court said it's OK for New York to restrict guns in places like behavioral health centers and public parks and zoos. But the court did say that the First Amendment, the free exercise clause of religion, restricts the state from banning guns in places of worship.

And with respect to restricted locations, the court said that New York cannot tell gun owners that it's presumptively off limits to carry guns in private places that are open to the public, like say malls, unless a property owner gives permission to do so. Instead, a property owner can object to that and can say no guns on the property, but New York can't change the default presumption about allowing guns on that property.

I think what we've seen in lower courts as a response to the Supreme Court's decision last year is that there's a lot of difficulty applying this new historical methodology, where the court requires a regulation today to be consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation in order to be constitutional.

What the Second Circuit does in this opinion is it views the historical record at a higher level of generality. And it reads the Supreme Court's decision to say, "We look at that record holistically," not looking for, "Was there a regulation on guns in parks in 1791? Instead, we say, "What was the rationale for restricting guns in certain places in the olden days? And does that rationale support regulations today?"

So to give just one example, the court said, Well, we find from the historical record that there's a tradition of regulating guns in public forums in quintessentially crowded places, and that kind of principle can support a modern regulation.

I think one of the flashpoints, if this does go up to the Supreme Court, is going to be this good moral character requirement. One of the things that the Supreme Court faulted in New York's prior licensing law was for having too much discretion in the hands of licensing agents.

Here, the good moral character requirement has a statutory definition, so it kind of constrains discretion more than the prior framework had. And the Second Circuit here read that as just a proxy for dangerousness. But I think there could be debate. So the flashpoint, I think, if there's further appeal on that licensing provision, will be whether this good moral character requirement actually does constrain the discretion of licensing officials to the extent that the Supreme Court seems to suggest the Second Amendment demands.

Yeah, I think certainly as a result of the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court's decision that struck down the old licensing law, there is undoubtedly going to be more guns in public spaces.

As a result of this ruling, [however,] I'm not quite sure that's right, because the only places that this ruling says that New York cannot restrict guns to are places of worship and private property that's held open to the public. But the opinion also makes clear that those private property owners can themselves prohibit guns in those spaces.

So if a place of worship doesn't want guns, they can just say, "No guns are allowed here." If a mall or shopping center or other business that's held open to the public doesn't want guns, this ruling doesn't make them accept guns on their property. So, as a result of this decision, it's only those places that actually want guns on their property, that the decision mandates they have those guns.

Read the original here:
Handguns in public places: where a 2nd Amendment expert sees NY headed - Gothamist

The Second Amendment wasnt written to preserve hunting rights or to promote self-defense. It was penned by men who had just liberated a nation and were oriented toward maintaining the rights and freedoms of the people. One of the hurdles they had to overcome from the beginning of the Revolutionary War was largely because of a British ban on firearms and ammunition, making it nearly impossible to fight against an oppressive governing body.

The Founding Fathers built a system of checks and balances. Executive, legislative and judicial branches were designed to be able to provide some accountability. The Second Amendment was the ultimate check and balance on government, where power was designed to remain in the hands of the people if things ran amok.

Situations like what happened in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Israel and Gaza are hard to fathom in America, but not impossible. It doesnt take a lot of imagination to envision a president refusing to yield the executive branch of government after losing an election. That is exactly the type of situation that the Second Amendment was designed to empower us to fight against.

We all agree that mass shootings are horrific abominations. School-aged children are currently taught to live in perpetual fear and anxiety and have never been more mentally strained. Students need to be assured that we can keep the monsters at bay. Practical solutions must be sought without giving up our most fundamental of rights.

Ted Bennett Scarborough

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

Follow this link:
Letter to the editor: Second Amendment exists for a reason - Press Herald

A looming Supreme Court decision involving firearms and domestic violence will have wide-ranging implications on how gun laws are interpreted and enforced nationwide, and a Fordham Second Amendment expert may play a role.

Research from Saul Cornell, the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham, is included in the scholarship being published by the Fordham Urban Law Journal before the scheduled oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi on Nov. 7. In the case, the court will decide whether a 30-year-old law banning firearms for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment on its face.

Just over a year ago, the Supreme Court ruled in another case (NYSRPA v. Bruen) that gun regulations must reflect the ways such laws were applied at the time of the Second Amendment, which led the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ban on domestic abusers.

Saul Cornell, Ph.D. , the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History Photo by Gina Vergel

The Fifth Circuit said, well, domestic violence has been around for a long time. They didnt take away peoples guns. Therefore, you cant take away peoples guns.

But Cornell argued there is a good reason why guns werent taken away in the 18th Century. Although domestic violence is not new, at the time of the Second Amendment, domestic violence perpetrated with guns was just not an issue, because guns took too long to load and were not a good choice for impulsive acts of violence.

Theres a lot of complicated problems with how you would even begin to in good faith apply their method, Cornell said. Theres a huge opening for some kind of scholarship to give the court some direction, Cornell said.

The work being published includes statistical analyses, historical analyses such as Cornells, and descriptions of the ramifications of different legal decisions from some of todays most influential experts in the fields of gun violence, public health, gun regulation, and the Second Amendment. These scholars author amicus briefs, which judges rely on for insight, and serve as expert witnesses in court.

The Fordham Urban Law Journals editor-in-chief, Joseph Gomez, said he expects their work to be used as source material when the justices write their opinions in Rahimi. These scholars will be the most relevant source of expertise, he said.

The field of weapons and gun law historians is small, and Cornell is in high demand as an expert witness in firearms regulation cases across the country. He said he currently is involved in 20 active cases ranging from extreme risk protection order decisions to whether people applying to be foster parents should have to lock up their weapons.

Ive been working on gun regulation and the Second Amendment now since 1999, said Cornell. And because the Supreme Court last year issued this opinion that has created chaos in the lower courts, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. versus Bruen, it was clear to me and lots of people I talked to that since they changed the framework for evaluating laws, nobody knows how to implement the framework.

Before the Bruen decision in 2022, lower courts looked to both historical tradition of gun regulation and important government interest, such as public safety considerations, he said. But in the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court said public safety can only be considered if there were comparable laws at the time of the Second Amendment that took public safety into account. Cornell said this basically means you either have to find an analogous law, or at least a tradition, that seems to resemble the law in question today. And the big problem is life was very different in the 18th Century.

Lower courts must rely on the Supreme Courts guidance when interpreting gun laws. The pending Rahimi case provides the court with an opportunity to clarify how lower courts should apply the new framework laid out in Bruen, according to Kelly Roskam, J.D., the director of law and policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, who participated in the scholarship as well as the 2023 Cooper-Walsh Colloquium on Public Health, History, and the Future of Gun Regulation After Bruen that Cornell helped organize at the Fordham School of Law on Oct. 13.

The Fordham Urban Law Journal, Northwell Health Center for Gun Violence Prevention, and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Gun Violence Solutions co-hosted the event.

Cornell said, I know a lot of people in the gun violence prevention community, and many of them were concerned that if history is whats going to drive [the decision], does that mean all this great research we do about what actually is the problem and what is the solution is now irrelevant? It would be kind of crazy that they would just rely on what was known back then. I mean, thats usually not how we do things.

The Supreme Court is expected to announce its decision next June.

Go here to see the original:
Fordham Second Amendment Expert Could Help Shape SCOTUS ... - Fordham News