Mediaboss Marketing

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

"Cross Country" host Lawrence Jones said Americans can no longer rely on the government for their safety in Saturday's monologue and offered his own story where the Second Amendment impacted him.

LAWRENCE JONES: President Biden-appointed Gov. Hochul and Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown: Not only do you miss the cause of the problem, you're miles away from offering a solution. That's why people don't trust you. And that's why people trust the Second Amendment. But the Left has long made their contempt for the Second Amendment and their disgust for anyone who supports it very clear.

NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST BLASTED FOR INACCURATE CLAIMS IN CALLING FOR FULL BAN ON 'SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES'

I had just witnessed an attempted carjacking, a car crash, and all four suspects were fleeing the scene. I went over to the owner to make sure he was OK. We called the cops, but sadly they didn't show up for about 25 minutes. We respect our men and women in blue, but they are understaffed, and they're discouraged about the job they're being asked to do. The reckless rhetoric from our leaders in the recent years hasn't helped either. The reality of it is we can no longer put our safety in the hands of government. They've let us down. My hero, Frederick Douglass, once said, "A man's right rests in three boxes. The ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box." We have constitutional rights. And we have the right to use them all, period.

WATCH HIS FULL COMMENTS BELOW:

See the original post here:
Lawrence Jones gives testimony on the Second Amendment from personal experience - Fox News

The United States Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on a case that started in New York state and could affect the ease with which people nationwide are allowed to carry guns in public.

A lawsuit filed by two Rensselaer County men challenges the states requirement that gun owners must have a justifiable reason referred to as proper cause to get a concealed carry permit. Permit applicants must now state why they have a need to carry a gun in public. For example, it could be because they have been threatened or their job places them in danger.

The Rensselaer County men are making the case that applicants should not have to give a reason for why they want to carry a concealed gun in public. They argue they have that right under the Second Amendment.

The court could rule a number of ways, ranging from throwing out the requirement, keeping it entirely or limiting it to certain places.

The ruling is expected this court term which ends late June or early July. It will mark the first time in more than a decade that the nations top court will decide a major Second Amendment case.

The decision will be made at a time when the court has become more conservative and is considered sympathetic to gun rights.

Republican President Donald Trump appointed three of the nine justices to the bench during his term. That is thought to have resulted in an ideological shift in the court. A leaked draft opinion recently revealed the new court is poised to reverse Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that established abortion rights.

Since 2019, 4,332 gun permit applications have been submitted in Onondaga County. About 90 percent of them have been granted, according to a sheriffs office spokesman. The sheriffs office does not track how many are concealed carry permit applications.

A statewide analysis submitted by the states defense team to the Supreme Court found that 65% of applications for unrestricted concealed carry were approved in 2018 and 2019.

The impact of the decision will reach beyond New York. Seven other states have a similar law. The eight states govern 80 million people.

The decision would follow 40 years of state-level legislative rollbacks of concealed carry regulation in the United States. Since 1981, the number of states with a law similar to New York has decreased by more than two-thirds, according to a review of state-level gun laws by SUNY Cortland professor Robert J. Spitzer.

The next-day ramifications of striking down this gun law would be greater than the next-day ramifications for any other Second Amendment case that the Supreme Court has decided, said Eric Ruben, a Second Amendment expert and assistant law professor at Southern Methodist University.

Locally, law enforcement officials dont expect the decision will affect the policing of guns or safety.

I think (the court is) going to take the narrowest route possible, said Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick.

He said most local gun crimes do not involve weapons for which owners have a concealed permit. Most guns recovered by officers are stolen, come from states with less restrictive purchasing laws or are guns without serial numbers and cant be traced, he said.

Police already deal with legally and illegally owned guns, said North Syracuse Police Chief William Becker, the secretary for the Central New York Chiefs of Police Association.

Two experts contend a decision to strike down the law could have greater implications beyond who can and cant carry a concealed weapon in New York. Such a decision could create an atmosphere in which other gun restrictions come under scrutiny.

We will see more states laws struck down, predicted Susan Liebell, a professor at St. Josephs University whose work focuses on law and gun rights.

She and Ruben said striking down the law could invite legal challenges to New Yorks SAFE Act, which broadened the definition of an assault weapons, required background checks for ammunition sales, forced gun owners to report when their guns were lost or stolen within a day and required mental health professionals to report patients to police if they believe the patient is likely to harm others.

Ruben said other laws that could come under attack place restrictions on magazine capacity, impose zoning requirements for shooting ranges and limit the possession of firearms by those who have been deemed mentally ill or have past convictions.

The two experts were interviewed before a gunman this month killed 10 people and wounded three others in a grocery store in Buffalo. After the mass shooting, Gov. Kathy Hochul said she will push for tougher gun legislation.

The two men behind the concealed-carry case, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, initially sued a Rensselaer licensing officer and then-Superintendent of the New York State Police George P. Beach II because their applications for concealed carry permits were denied.

In New York, concealed carry is governed by the Sullivan Act, which requires that New Yorkers establish proper cause to carry a concealed weapon. The law was passed in 1911.

Nash appealed the decision by the licensing office, citing his need for self-protection because of a string of robberies in his neighborhood. His appeal was denied.

Koch separately argued that he had taken the proper safety courses to have the gun and should be issued a concealed carry permit.

Both men are members of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and together sued Beach and the licensing officer in federal court in 2018. They lost when a judge cited a 2012 decision in a federal lawsuit that determined the Sullivan Act did not infringe on a gun owners Second Amendment rights.

A federal appeals court upheld the decision.

The pair then appealed to the Supreme Court which agreed in April 2021 to hear the case.

Ruben and Liebell listened as oral arguments were heard in November 2021. They believe it is likely New Yorks law will at least be partially struck down based on the justices questions and prior rulings.

It did not seem that there was a majority of the court in favor of upholding New Yorks law, Ruben said.

She said justices could leave room for state or local governments to impose restrictions in a few places.

Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, asked if Koch and Nash wanted to carry their guns into a larger city, like New York City. The justices also asked if concealed guns could be carried into places like Times Square or the campuses of New York and Columbia universities.

That indicated to Liebell and Ruben the justices were open to treating densely populated areas differently.

Its possible to strike it down, but then make clear that the state can still restrict the carrying of firearms in subways or other places that might present security concerns, Ruben said.

But he said, there are a lot of permutations and its impossible, based on the two-hour oral argument, to speculate.

Got a tip, comment or story idea? Contact Chris Libonati by phone at 585-290-0718 or by email at clibonati@syracuse.com.

See more here:
Supreme Court to rule soon on Upstate NY case that could make it easier to carry guns across US - syracuse.com

At midnight on Wednesday, the Alaska Legislature adjourned from its 2022 Legislative Session. Second Amendment legislation both pro-gun ownership and anti-gun ownership died that night.

Mandatory firearm storage legislation, House Bill 203, failed to gain enough votes to pass in committee.

Second Amendment emergency powers protection legislation, Senate Bill 136, fell short by just two votes in the House for final passage.

House Bill 203 (Safe Storage) sought to give law enforcement the ability to issue a fine to gun owners of up to $1,000 if an unauthorized individual gains access to a firearm and proceeds to injure themselvesor another.The bill essentially required firearms to be locked and rendered inaccessible for self-defense in the home. HB 203 was an attempt to punish law-abiding gun owners for the crimes of criminals, while current state law already provides an avenue for cases where true negligence with a firearm is present.

Senate Bill 136, (Emergency Powers Protections) sponsored by Sen. Rob Myers and co-sponsored by 23other legislators, sought to provideprotections for gun stores, ranges, or any other entity that engages in the lawful selling or servicing of firearms, components, or accessories. This measure would have prevented the prohibition, regulation, or seizure of citizens Second Amendment rights during a declared State of Emergency. SB 136 was a direct response to infringements on the Second Amendment that occurred across the country during the COVID-19 pandemic.The bill fell short of passage by two votes in the House on the final day of the legislative session.

SB 136 had unanimously passed the Senate on March 16, and spent nearly two-months in the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee before receiving its passing vote of 5-2, on May 17. The House companion bill, House Bill 179, sponsored by House Minority Leader Rep. Cathy Tilton, has sat in the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee since its introduction on April 16, 2021. That bill never received a hearing.

SB 136 was advanced to the House Floor where it needed a 3/4 vote to advance from second to third reading. The bill received hours of debate and amendments were offered, including an attempt by Rep. Adam Wool, the sponsor of HB 203, to add his government-issued firearms storage programs into the emergency powers bill this amendment failed to pass by a vote of 16-24.

One amendment, offered by Rep. Sara Rasmussen was adopted; it would have required K-12 grade school districts to offer hunter safety education courses.

SB 136 ultimately needed 30 votes to pass from second to third reading, but the final vote was 28-12. Blocking the bill from making it to a final vote were Rep. Harriet Drummond, Rep. Zack Fields, Rep. Sara Hannan, Rep. Andy Josephson, Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Rep. Daniel Ortiz, Rep. Ivy Spohnholz, Rep. Andi Story, Rep. Geran Tarr, Rep. Chris Tuck, and Rep. Adam Wool.

The NRA thanked Sen. Rob Myers (R-Fairbanks) and Minority Leader Rep. Cathy Tilton (R-Wasilla), both 2A champions who sponsored the emergency powers bills and worked with leadership on both sides of the aisle.

(This story is adapted from NRA Institute for Legislative Action, NRAILA.org).

Like Loading...

Here is the original post:
How did gun legislation fare this session? - Must Read Alaska

The Senate budget debate next week could determine how competitive Gateway Cities will be in the post-pandemic economy. At a key moment when housing and transportation investments could help make these communities more attractive for an age of remote work, the danger of missing out on the opening and backsliding is real.

Housing: Housing Development Incentive ProgramMassINC and economic development leaders have been banging the drum for years now that Gateway Cities are ready and able to build much of the housing supply that our state needs to stabilize prices. However, the only tool designed to unlock that investment is the Housing Development Incentive Program (HDIP), which is woefully underfunded and has a six-year backlog.

Sen. Eric Lesser has filed amendments#212and#213to address the issue. The first would triple the annual cap for the program from $10 million to $30 million, something that Gov. Baker has already proposed in his economic development bill. It would also raise the per-project limit from $2 million to $3 million to take into account rising costs since the program was established. Lessers second amendment would allocate $57 million in operating funds to address the existing backlog of HDIP projects waiting to be built.

Gateway City legislators made a valiant effort to pass similar amendments in the House budget debate, but unfortunately, they did not prevail. This may be because the House intends to follow Gov. Bakers lead and take the issue up in the economic development bill. However, the budget is a more favorable vehicle because it would increase the cap for FY 23, whereas changes in the economic development bill would not be effective until FY 24.

Fully funding the HDIP backlog would pump over $700 million in project investment into Gateway Cities even before accounting for permanent jobs, residents, and positive impact on local businesses. MassINC estimates that tripling the program on an ongoing basis would generate over 10,000 units of housing and nearly $4 billion in private investment over 10 years.

Transportation: Regional TransitGov. Bakers budget level-funds the regional transit authorities (RTAs) at $94 million, which in this inflationary environment means a significant cut. The problem is exacerbated when accounting for the driver shortage that has already forced service reductions at many agencies. The RTA Advocacy Coalition (RTAAC)recommendsproviding at least $7 million in additional base funding to compensate for the effects of inflation and provide the hiring incentives and workforce training needed to deliver full service.

Unfortunately, the House Ways and Means budget mirrored the Governors proposal. And despite more than half of the chamber signing on to amendments to boost the bottom line, they were not adopted in the final House budget.

Additionally, Amendment#857by Sen. Adam Hinds would meet a recommendation in the 2019 Report on RTA Performance and Funding to create a dedicated source of revenue for RTAs by carving out a portion of the proceeds from corporate excise taxesperhaps its the ultimate solution to this annual dance.

More:
Senate budget key to future of housing and transportation in Gateway Cities - massinc.org

On May 17, the Department of Justice announced the release of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives publication titled the National Firearms in Commerce and Trafficking Assessment (NFCTA). The report is the result of the Biden-Harris Administrations April 2021 Initial Actions to Address the Gun Violence, which called for the creation of an annual report on firearms trafficking. The May 17 release is the first volume in a planned four-volume series.

Despite the presidential mandate, the first volume of the NFCTA is long on commerce and short on trafficking. Most of the document is a collection and presentation of firearm industry data that is available elsewhere. To the extent that the document is a convenient compilation of firearm industry data, it is useful. Gun rights supporters inclined to delve into the 308-page document will find much of interest.

Those who appreciate Second Amendment rights will be less enthused by portions of the document devoted to touting ATFs recent controversial regulatory moves and the frequent editorializing.

The document spends significant space defending ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F concerning the Definition of Frame or Receiver and Identification of Firearms, which seeks to make it more difficult for Americans to exercise their longstanding right to make their own firearms for personal use. NRA-ILA filed extensive comments opposing ATFs perversion of federal law, which readers can examine here.

Likewise, the NFCTA attempts to justify ATF Proposed Rule 2021R-08 Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces. That rule seeks to re-classify millions of commonly-owned pistols as short-barreled rifles, items that are required to be registered under the National Firearms Act, based on the pistols being equipped with a stabilizing brace that allows for more accurate one-handed shooting. NRA-ILA also filed comments on this rule, which can be read here.

Some of ATFs editorializing makes it into what should otherwise be a straightforward presentation of facts. Consider the following passage on Constitutional Carry:

Permit-less Concealed Firearm Carry

Following the issuance of the Heller decision, several states enacted statutes allowing the concealed carrying of firearms without a permit, often referred to as "constitutional carry" states. These permit-less concealed firearm carry laws allow any person lawfully allowed to possess a firearm to also carry that firearm in a concealed manner. In 2008, Vermont became the first state to enact one of these statutes, and as of the writing of this report an additional 23 states have enacted similar statutes. These changes in state laws continue the expansion of concealed firearm carry abilities first from "may issue" to "shall issue" and then to an automatic right to carry a concealed firearm for non-prohibited persons.

Vermont did not enact Constitutional Carry in 2008. Rather, the state never prohibited the practice of carrying a concealed firearm. Vermonters Right-to-Carry without first obtaining government permission was affirmed in the 1903 case of State v. Rosenthal, where a plaintiff challenged a local ordinance that prohibited the carrying of pistols, among other items, within the city without the express approval of the mayor or chief of police. The Vermont Supreme Court determined that the ordinance was so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the laws of the state and therefore void. Moreover, Alaska recognized the Right-to-Carry without a permit in 2003.

An innocent mistake by those who purport to be the nations foremost experts in firearms law? Maybe. Or maybe those seeking to restrict gun rights are determined to undermine the historical legitimacy of permitless carry and are reluctant to acknowledge that the vast majority of Vermonts conspicuously peaceful existence coincided with the state having almost no gun control.

Where the NFCTA verges directly into gun control advocacy is in its recommendations section.

As to be expected with any bureaucracy, the several recommendations are aimed at increasing the agencys budget, power, and regulatory footprint. While some of the recommendations are rather benign, others could have a severe impact on gun owners.

For instance, ATF recommends a change to the criteria governing curio or relic firearms, and therefore the types of firearms collectors would be able to obtain using a Type 03 FFL. At present, 27 CFR 478.11 defines C&R firearms to include Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof.

Seeking to further regulate the transfer of firearms that fall into that category, ATF stated, DOJ should review the C&R criteria in 27 C.F.R. 478 to determine if the more than 50 years old factor is still valid in determining that a firearm is truly a curio or relic. ATF goes on to whine about the types of firearms that have more recently become C&Rs. Tellingly, ATF doesnt allege that the current C&R scheme has had a detrimental effect on public safety.

Another ATF recommendation is for increased hiring of Industry Operations Investigators. IOIs are tasked with performing compliance inspections on Federal Firearms Licensees (gun dealers). ATF is seeking to more than double the number of field IOIs from 655 to 1,509.

This demand for more IOIs must be viewed in the context of the ongoing war on FFLs.

On June 23, 2021, the Biden-Harris Administration announced a new policy of zero tolerance for rogue gun dealers that willfully violate the law. The policy further specified that [a]bsent extraordinary circumstances that would need to be justified to the Director, ATF will seek to revoke the licenses of dealers the first time that they violate federal law . . . for certain specified violations.

This zero tolerance policy can result in the revocation of a well-meaning gun dealers license for minor mistakes, including simple paperwork errors. The new zero tolerance policy has a clear aim of reducing the number of federally licensed dealers, which will in turn make it more difficult for law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. More than doubling the number of bureaucrats tasked with carrying out Bidens confused anti-gun scheme would further this attack on gun rights.

Unsatisfied with its limited ability to produce gun control advocacy, of which the NFCTA is an example, ATF recommends the creation of a permanent Analytics Division. The document noted that Analysis generated by the Analytics Division should be incorporated into publications designed for distribution to firearm industry members, policymakers, and the general public. As with the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions efforts in the 1980s and 90s, ATF appears intent on using taxpayer resources to advocate for gun regulation and its own power.

If this vague recommendation and other portions of the NFCTA have the distinct flavor of previous taxpayer-funded attacks on gun rights, thats because the document was produced in partnership with a veritable whos who of anti-gun researchers. With CDCs anti-gun advocacy funding restriction and fading reputation, these academics may be searching for another trough to gorge at.

The acknowledgements section of the NFCTA explains, The heart of this project is a unique partnership between ATF and members of academic institutions. The document then goes on to list those who contributed immeasurably to the report. This list includes such longtime gun control advocates/researchers as Anthony Braga, Philip J. Cook, and Garen J. Wintemute. Also included is Alaina De Biasi of the California Firearm Violence Research Center (that states taxpayer-funded gun control propaganda outfit).

Braga and Cook have both advocated for the imposition of severe gun control measures. In a December 2000 working paper titled Gun Control, the pair promoted a prohibitive federal tax on guns and ammunition. Acknowledging that such a tax would price lower-income individuals out of exercising their rights, the researchers wrote, we recognize that this tax is repressive, and will be particularly burdensome on poorer people who want a gun. Braga and Cook also endorsed federal legislation to criminalize the private transfer of firearms and contended that the government should advance devices to personalize guns, commonly understood as so-called smart gun technology.

The researchers looked favorably on the use of frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers as a form of leverage to secure acquiescence to state gun control measures. In endorsing public policy by lawfare, the two recalled events in one state, noting, the plaintiff's lawyers were successful in improving the terms of political trade by changing the status quo, and the result, while still quite moderate, went farther to control guns than otherwise would have been possible. The paper also endorsed state gun rationing schemes.

In a 1981 article for the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology titled, The Saturday Night Special: An Assessment of Alternative Definitions from a Policy Perspective, Cook argued in favor of the efficacy of a ban on the manufacture and sale of small handguns. In a 1995 piece for the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Cook advised, Gun shows should be regulated or abolished.

Perhaps best known to gun owners for having spent years skulking around gun shows with a hidden camera, Wintemute is the Director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis - which is the site of Californias state-funded anti-gun factoid factory. Wintemute is a vocal critic of the CDC anti-gun advocacy funding restriction and has previously collaborated with handgun prohibition organization the Violence Policy Center.

There is no indication on when the remaining volumes of the NFCTA will be published. However, a reasonable person might expect this anti-gun collaboration to be wrapped up before January 3, 2023 the date the 118th Congress will be seated.

Go here to see the original:
ATF Partners with Anti-gun Researchers to Expand Agency's Power - NRA ILA