Mediaboss Marketing

For years, the NRA has been litigating a Florida law that bans young adults aged 18-20 from purchasing a firearm. In 2021, a federal judge begrudgingly upheld the law, despite finding that it imposed several restrictions on the peoples right to keep and bear arms while affording very few public safety benefits. The judge, however, felt like he was bound by Eleventh Circuit precedent that forbid him from striking the law.

That decision was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021. After sitting on the case for over a yearand after the Supreme Court ruled in NYSRPA v. Bruena three-judge panel of the court upheld the law. That panel ruled that the Second Amendment should be interpreted as it was understood in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified thereby incorporating the Second Amendment to the states, as opposed to 1791, when the Second Amendment was originally ratified. But the Supreme Court could not have been clearer in Heller and Bruen that 1791 is the more appropriate timeframe for interpreting the Second Amendment: As we recognized inHelleritself, because post-Civil War discussions of the right to keep and bear arms took place 75 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment, they do not provide as much insight into its original meaning as earlier sources.

It also appears that the NRA is not the only one who recognized the error in the panels decision. Within six hours of the decision coming down, the court issued a separate order indicating that a judge on the Eleventh Circuit has requested that the full en banc court hear the case. And now the NRA is also asking that the full court reconsider the panels decision.

The case is captioned National Rifle Association v. Bondi.

Please stay tuned towww.nraila.orgfor future updates on NRA-ILAs ongoing efforts to defend your constitutional rights.

See original here:
NRA Asks Entire Eleventh Circuit to Hear Case Challenging ... - NRA ILA

Though the Second Amendment is most closely associated with guns, several legal decisions over the last few years have recognized the amendment doesnt only pertain to firearms.

Now, a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Diego argues the Second Amendment should also protect the right of Californians to own and carry automatically opening knives more commonly known as switchblades.

This story is for subscribers

We offer subscribers exclusive access to our best journalism.Thank you for your support.

California is one of the last states to still outlaw them, with the ban dating back some 65 years, when they were viewed thanks in large part to popular culture as particularly dangerous and the weapon of choice for menacing street gangs.

The recently filed lawsuit filed by lead plaintiff Knife Rights, an Arizona-based organization claims the states enforcement of switchblade laws denies (California residents) ... their fundamental, individual right to keep and bear these common, constitutionally protected arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense.

The suit is part of two separate but related trends. One is a years-long effort to expand Second Amendment rights to weapons that are not firearms, such as nunchucks, stun guns and batons. The other is a more recent effort since the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in June in a New York concealed-carry gun case to liberalize weapons laws.

Doug Ritter, the founder, chairman and CEO of Knife Rights, said it was certainly no coincidence that his group and the other plaintiffs brought this legal challenge after the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which he said set the table for such actions.

Now we have a very clear decision from the Supreme Court regarding possessing and carrying of arms for self-defense, Ritter said. There are clear limits on what is allowed, and what is not allowed, to be prohibited.

Most bans on switchblades, both at the federal and state levels, were put in place in the 1950s. That includes Californias ban, which was adopted in 1957. The state defines switchblades as knives with blades 2 inches or longer that open automatically by the flick of a button, flip of the wrist, pressure on the handle or by gravity.

Why did lawmakers enact the bans? And why did they consider switchblades so dangerous?

Movies in the 50s always made the bad guy have a switchblade, so switchblades became synonymous with bad guys, said Paul Clark, a New Jersey attorney and professor of philosophy and legal theory at Hudson County Community College in Jersey City. Attitudes about switchblades were more formed by Hollywood depictions than real life.

Clark has authored several articles on what he describes as obscure areas of the law, including bans on bayonets and switchblades. In the switchblade article, published in the Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, he endeavored to determine whether there was a correlation between crime rates and bans.

There is no evidence whatsoever that banning switchblades reduces crime, Clark said, adding that there was very little empirical research in the 1950s and 60s that went into banning them.

When Clark studied three states that legalized switchblades after previously banning them, his preliminary results showed an overall decrease in the percentage of crimes committed with knives.

He wrote that there are two possible explanations, including that there may be no relationship between legalization of switchblades and their use in crimes. The second theory he posed is that if knives are more prevalent, would-be criminals turn instead to guns so as to be more heavily armed than someone who might be legally carrying a knife.

What evidence did exist as to the unique dangers of switchblades at the time bans were imposed appears to have been anecdotal. But Clark argues outlawing the knives was an idea primarily rooted in entertainment citing movies like 12 Angry Men and Rebel Without a Cause, and the Broadway play-turned-film West Side Story that portrayed them as the weapons of choice for discontented youth and street gangs.

Ritter agreed that popular culture is largely to blame for the switchblades bad reputation, saying many people have adverse opinions about switchblades as the result of movies.

There were other factors. Blade magazine, which bills itself as The Worlds #1 Knife Publication, points out that in November 1950, the then-popular Womans Home Companion magazine published an article titled The Toy that Kills. The last word was printed in red and underlined, and the story made bold claims about switchblades being deadly as a revolver.

In a 2015 blog post, the Brooklyn Public Library recounted how a judge, several state lawmakers and the Brooklyn Daily Eagle newspaper waged a three-year campaign against switchblades starting in 1950 that ultimately ended with New York becoming the first state to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of the knives.

Clark and Ritter both said there were also racist undertones to banning switchblades, because it was a weapon often associated with Puerto Rican migrants in New York, like those depicted in one of the gangs from West Side Story.

In modern times, switchblade laws are often selectively enforced based on race, according to Clark, who said police officers he interviewed admitted as much.

A lot of cops said to me, If youre not doing anything you shouldnt be doing, were not going to pick on you for having a switchblade, Clark said. But is that the same for a middle-aged White guy versus an 18-year-old Black guy?

Ritter, the Knife Rights president, said racial discrimination in the enforcement of switchblade and other knife laws is a reason his organization often gets bipartisan support.

Too often we find restrictions and prohibitions that are enforced against minorities and people of color disproportionately, he said, adding that was often the case when such laws were implemented, too. There is definitely a history of knife restrictions that has nothing to do with knives and everything to do with the attitude of people in government toward certain groups of people.

Thats part of the reason why its unclear how much resistance the switchblade lawsuit could meet, especially among the public. There appears to be no local, state or national anti-knife groups such as the ones that advocate for gun control, such as Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and Everytown for Gun Safety.

Ritter said that in the nearly 15 years Knife Rights has been fighting to overturn knife bans, hes never run into organized opposition. His group claims to have helped repeal or block 41 knife bans in 26 states since 2010.

The switchblade lawsuit names as defendants Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Diego County Sheriff Kelly Martinez and District Attorney Summer Stephan. A sheriffs lieutenant spokesperson and a spokesperson for the district attorney both declined to address the lawsuit, citing policies against commenting on pending litigation. A spokesperson for Bonta also declined to comment, saying his office was reviewing the complaint and will respond in court.

Bonta has already responded in a limited capacity, in opposition to the plaintiffs assertion that the switchblade lawsuit is closely related to litigation challenging the states ban on assault weapons.

The plaintiffs appear to be trying to take advantage of an obscure local court rule that allows attorneys to get related cases in front of the same judge, even when theyve been randomly assigned to different judges. The practice is meant to promote efficiency and consistency, but has led to allegations of judge shopping.

The switchblade lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Judge James Simmons, Jr., one of the districts newest judges. But the plaintiffs are trying to get it re-assigned to U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who has consistently ruled to overturn California gun laws, earning him the nickname St. Benitez among Second Amendment enthusiasts.

The knife-rights advocates argue both lawsuits challenge California statutes that outlaw weapons based on specific characteristics or features, that the suits involve many of the same plaintiffs and defendants, and that they address substantially the same facts and questions of law.

Assigning the switchblade lawsuit to Benitez, who is already presiding over the assault weapon case and three other Second Amendment cases, would (save) ... judicial effort and avoid or minimize the risk of multiple, inconsistent rulings and judgments within the same District, the plaintiffs argue.

Bontas deputies quickly filed a motion opposing the related cases claim. They argued there were few similarities in the cases beyond the fact that both deal with the Second Amendment.

Plaintiffs here challenge an entirely different set of laws regulating completely different weapons, the deputy attorneys general wrote in their motion.

As of Friday, the case remained assigned to Simmons.

Its unclear exactly what arguments Bonta might make to defend the challenged switchblade statutes, but recent filings in the other Second Amendment cases being heard by Benitez perhaps offer a hint.

In those cases, Benitez ordered attorneys for the state to compile lists of historical weapons restrictions that might meet the new text, history and tradition standard established by Bruen, the recent Supreme Court case. The governments list of laws does not address switchblades such knives did not exist until later but does include several bans on bladed weapons, including dirks, daggers, Bowie knives and a long, slim dagger known as an Arkansas Toothpick.

The government could try to point to those as historical analogies in arguing why switchblades should remain banned.

Benitez is expected to rule or in some cases, re-rule on the four pending Second Amendment challenges within the next few weeks or months.

Originally posted here:
For subscribers: Bans on switchblades have been overturned ... - The San Diego Union-Tribune

It happened again.This past week, three 9-year-old students and three teachers were senselessly murdered in a school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee. How long this tragedy stays in the news is debatable since the facts of this incident do not fit the established political narrative that typically follows incidents of school violence.Sadly, Colorado and Littletons Columbine High School will always be infamous for school violence.

In the case of the Covenant School shooting in Nashville, the assailant was reportedly a transgender 28-year-old who methodically planned the violent attack on a private Christian school. The popular cultural narrative is supposed to be a conservative white Christian male who is seeking vengeance on a vulnerable minority population and, therefore, it is a prima facie case of domestic terrorism.Regardless, the ideological reaction of the national news media and prominent politicians to the Covenant School tragedy was swift and predictable, and not enough attention was focused on the loss of six human beings and the devastation wrought on their families and the Nashville community.

Following this pointless and depraved act of violence, President Biden shuffled his way onto the White House podium to call for an assault weapons ban, and gun control advocates called for a day of anti-gun protests at the Tennessee Capitol.The Tennessee governor, and other Republicans, called for prayer and more school resource officers to be deployed at both public and private schools.Still others wondered why there are not more Red Flag laws, and why these laws are not more effective?

In theory, Red Flag laws are mechanisms to block individuals with potentially troublesome mental or behavioral problems from gaining access to firearms, an idea that has some merit if the adjudication of each case was certifiably unbiased and fact based.However, many signs of mental or behavioral problems are hidden, obfuscated or impacted individuals are afraid to speak up for fear of being retaliated against, ostracized or cancelled.On the other side, there is legitimate concern that Red Flag laws could be deployed against political opponents, invoked in family disputes or used against neighbors. There is a lot of room for unscrupulous abuse.

Leftists want to project select violent crimes committed with firearms as proxies to disarm law-abiding citizens and repeal citizens Second Amendment rights to own and possess firearms.Meanwhile, conservatives want to preserve Second Amendment rights at all costs, so the terms of the debate are intractable, and nothing will change so long as we keep rehashing the same old political narratives.

The root causes of school shootings and other societal violence are much deeper, and there are ways to make a difference if our leaders are willing to rethink their ideological comfort zones. All you need to do is tune into NFL game advertising, social media or other widely viewed programming to see that Hollywood is obsessed with gratuitous violence.For the sake of argument, Hollywood means movies, broadcast, cable and streaming television programming, video games, music videos and a myriad social media platforms and content.

Hollywoods portrayal of firearms use is ridiculous, if not grossly negligent.The way many Hollywood characters wield large caliber firearms would land them flat on their backs after the first shot in the real world.

Just as I support law-abiding citizens Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, I support Hollywoods First Amendment free speech rights to create and distribute violent content within reasonable, and age-appropriate, limits.Most people can separate reality from fiction. However, it is nave to think that Hollywoods violent content does not adversely impact vulnerable individuals and influence their behavior.

Therefore, I am calling on left-wing media and Hollywoods producers and personalities to support a gratuitous violence tax on fictitious violent content not hard news, legitimate sports, or historic documentaries.Similarly, I am asking conservatives to place aside their visceral opposition to new taxes, to address endemic cultural violence and mental and behavioral health challenges.The gratuitous violence tax proceeds could be used to fund firearms safety training and mental and behavioral health programs.Absent public pressure, Hollywood has no intention of self-policing violent content, so the Hollywood tax is a sustainable source of beneficial mental and behavioral health funding for years to come.

Bruce Butler's column "Common Sense Conversations" publishes biweekly on Tuesdays in the Summit Daily News. Butler is a former mayor and council member in Silverthorne, where he has lived for 20 years. Contact him at butlerincolorado@gmail.com.

See the rest here:
Opinion | Bruce Butler: Let's try a Hollywood tax - Summit Daily

Videos by OutKick

We did it, you guys. We broke John Feinstein.

Last week, the Washington Post writer published a column stating he was staying home from the Final Four because he is unhappy about gun laws in the state of Texas. Both the mens and womens tournaments held their Final Four in Texas this year.

So we at OutKick published our own column in response. We called out Feinsteins hypocrisy. He blames red states like Texas for gun violence but seems to have no issue with the rampant crime in his hometown of Washington, D.C. And we pointed out the sheer audacity of suggesting that an entire tournament should boycott a state just because he said so.

Well, Feinstein didnt like what we had to say, and he decided to embark on a Twitter feud with OutKick founder Clay Travis.

But it wasnt just Clay. The sanctimonious sportswriter proceeded to fight with everyone in Clays mentions. He threw around words like dumb and fascists and even called for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

But like a hamster sprinting on a wheel and getting nowhere, Feinstein finally ran out of steam.

OutKick readers wore him down, and hes giving up the fight.

Except to promote himself.

Good morning. After the events of the last three days (not 5 Clay, three) Ive decided to finally take the advice of my family and friends and not tweet anymore except to promote books, Washington Post columns or to promote friends work, he tweeted. Lifes too short to spend most of a weekend deleting tweets from people who are profane, beyond insulting and take swipes at my work which most have never read. I apologize to followers who I have enjoyed exchanges with and there are many but, as my wife says, Im over it.'

It takes a special kind of entitlement to constantly preach from your soapbox and then play the victim when people dont agree with you.

But I have a feeling this Twitter hiatus is only temporary. Eventually, Feinstein wont be able to resist the temptation to tell us all how wrong and stupid we are.

So this probably isnt goodbye just farewell. And thanks for reading, John.

See the article here:
John Feinstein, Sportswriting Martyr, Throws In Towel, Will Only Use ... - OutKick

A resolution affirming the Second Amendment rights of McLeod County residents was approved by the County Board in a 3-2 vote March 21 during a well-attended regular meeting.

The resolution states McLeod County is, dedicated to the Second Amendment; and, The McLeod County Board of Commissioners hereby affirms the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of McLeod County, Minnesota. The McLeod County Board of Commissioners hereby declares its opposition to any infringement on the right of law-abiding citizens, except as otherwise restricted under current law as of the date of this resolution, to keep and bear arms to the extent of its legal authority.

Board Member Doug Krueger, who said board members and county staff worked hard on the resolution during workshops, acknowledged, some people wanted to have teeth in (the resolution). But he hoped the version presented for a vote was in such a state that it could receive unanimous approval. Before commissioners voted on the matter, members of the public were invited to speak. Several took the opportunity.

Attendees who addressed the board largely supported the resolution, though some worried about the language used within it. One speaker said the language regarding law-abiding citizens could be too broad and leave room for rights to be infringed due to unforeseen laws in the future. Another resident questioned language in the resolutions supporting fact statements, which focuses on self-defense within the home. Others expressed concern about the states DFL-controlled House, Senate and governors office, which has allowed for several left-leaning bills to be passed this legislative session.

Gun safety and control bills have also been among those with traction. Worries about such legislation prompted speakers to ask the County Board to act quickly. One resident who spoke against the resolution said supporters appeared to want it rushed through without sufficient public scrutiny, and shared her fears for the safety of two sons in law enforcement.

The resolution considered this past week is independent of a resolution passed in a 3-2 vote by a prior McLeod County Boad 10 years ago. That resolution declared all federal gun control laws null and void.

Until we agree on a new (resolution), Im personally not interested in revoking ... the (resolution) thats in place now, Krueger said. We were kind of pushed by our public to take this up, and (pushed) by whats going on in St. Paul.

He pointed to the oaths he took to uphold the Constitution when he enlisted in the military, and again when he was elected, as motivations for supporting the resolution. He told residents in attendance he thought the language contained in the resolution could be believed in and enforced.

Theres a couple of you that feel it was watered down a little bit, he said. I (had that) knee jerk reaction at first, too, that it did not say what the first one says. But I think our county attorney did a nice job of not putting things in there that were a wish.

Board Chairman Paul Wright said he was not impressed one bit with gun control laws currently in discussion in St. Paul.

Somebody is going to say, Oh my gosh, either you have to support this (resolution) or you must be a gun control advocate. Im telling you that I am not a gun control advocate by any means, he said. Im a firearms owner, Ive spent hundreds of hours in youth firearm training. ... But Im looking at my role here as a county board member.

Wright said he felt the resolution was symbolic, and not a matter under the jurisdiction of the county government. The county acting beyond its authority calls into question, he argued, its integrity when it has many other matters to balance. He said his oath as an elected official was for the entire Constitution, and one amendment should not receive special attention. He suggested he would be more in favor of a resolution supporting the entire Constitution, and that picking one issue felt like a partisan act.

Krueger said it was the state government that has made the issue of the Second Amendment partisan.

My friendly argument back is it is a county matter. We took an oath. Its not partisan, he said.

Board Member Nathan Schmalz had trouble becoming all in for the resolution, because even some of the people who may be supporting, lets say, the gun rights issue, state they still have issues with the language.

He also wondered if the issue was appropriate for a county board.

When I ran for this office, I took it seriously that I ran nonpartisan, and I still have that belief, he said. Maybe youll say that this is nonpartisan, and that may be.

I do not feel the partisan issue in supporting the Constitution. I just dont feel it, Krueger said.

The resolution ultimately passed with a 3-2 vote. Krueger, Board Member Joe Nagel and Board Member Daryl Luthens voted in favor. Krueger and Schmalz voted against the resolution.

View post:
County passes new Second Amendment resolution | Local ... - Crow River Media