Judges Confused by Supreme Court’s Historical Test for Gun Laws

Confusion over the US Supreme Court’s last gun rights ruling is likely to persist even after the justices decide a new Second Amendment case next term.

Establishing a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public in a landmark 2022 decision forced lower courts to play historian and look to Colonial-era laws to justify the lawfulness of gun restrictions, a duty that has frustrated some judges.

“Judges are not historians,” Judge Carlton Reeves of the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi said in dismissing a case after finding no history or tradition to support upholding the federal ban on convicted felons having guns. “We were not trained as historians. We practiced law, not history.”……………….

This is rank, ripe, stinking BS.
1, It’s from Bloomberg, so should a posteriori be suspect.
2, They’re not confused. They’re not stupid. They’re subversives.
If a federal judge is incapable of looking up and analyzing legal and legislative history, they shouldn’t have a job. As an appellate judge, it is literally a core part of their responsibilities, and a big part of why our tax dollars pay for them to have clerks.

3,“We were not trained as historians. We practiced law, not history as an excuse? Judges do history all of the time. Even worse, Bruen doesn’t ask them to be historians of the 18th century in general. It only asks them to research historical laws.
One of the experts the article quoted admitted this is hard because most gun laws are from the twentieth century. That isn’t so much an attack on the Text/History/Tradition test as it is a condemnation of the last century’s purposeful rejection of a constitutional standard.

4, Historical revisionism is at the core of the modern gun control movement. It’s why Biden repeats the lie about people not being able to buy cannons and why news organizations wring their hands about how judges having to understand history is an unprecedented attack on our legal system.

5, The end goal is to make the following the only publicly acceptable opinion to hold:
a, There is no such thing as a right to own firearms
b, The very idea that there could be such a thing was created by NRA lobbyists and far-right conspiracists in the 70’s.
This is the gun control ‘Big Lie’.

California Democrats Block Bill Making Trafficking of Minors a Serious Felony

Democrats on the California Assembly’s Public Safety Committee have blocked a bill that would make the trafficking of minors a serious felony.

The inexplicable move was met with outrage from human trafficking victims who have been advocating for the bill.

The bill, HB 14, noted that “California consistently ranks number one in the nation in the number of human trafficking cases reported to the National Human Trafficking Hotline.”

“Human trafficking is among the world’s fastest-growing criminal enterprises and is estimated to be a $150,000,000,000 a year global industry,” it adds.

The legislation would have made human trafficking of a minor subject to California’s Three Strikes Law.

Under the law, someone convicted twice could be sentenced to life in prison.

The bill had already passed unanimously in the State Senate.

However, not even one of the six Democrats on the committee would vote on the bill.

The only yes votes were cast by two Republicans, Assemblymen Juan Alanis and Tom Lackey.

Los Angeles Democrat Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, the Assembly Public Safety Committee’s chairman, opposed the bill.

GOP state Sen. Shannon Grove, who co-authored the bill, said she had spoken with Democrats on the committee prior to the hearing.

“They all thought it was a good bill and said they would consider it, but there is this issue of rolling the chair, so I don’t think anyone was going to stand up against the chair,” she said.

“You’re horrible!” yelled members of the audience at the meeting.

July 13

587 BC – Babylon’s siege of Jerusalem ends following the destruction of Solomon’s Temple.

100 BC – Julius Caesar is born in Rome.

1787 – The Congress of the Confederation (under the Articles of Confederation), enacts the Northwest Ordinance establishing governing rules for the Northwest Territory (Northwest, that is of the Ohio River)

1863 – In New York City, opponents of conscription begin 3 days of rioting

1973 – Alexander Butterfield reveals the existence of a secret White House Oval Office taping system to the Senate Watergate Committee

1977 – New York City experiences an electrical blackout lasting nearly 24 hours

2008 – The Battle of Wanat begins when Taliban and al-Qaeda guerrillas attack US Army and Afghan National Army troops in Afghanistan. SSG Ryan Pitts is later awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions during the battle.

Translation of Bureaucrapish: He’s sure

Christopher Wray ‘Not Sure’ There Were FBI Assets at Capitol on Jan. 6.

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Director Christopher Wray claimed that he doesn’t know how many assets his agency had on the ground on January 6—or whether there were any at all.

[Watch the full hearing here]

Rep Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) asked Wray, “Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund reportedly has asserted that the protest crowd was filled with federal agents. Are you aware of his assertion?”

“I am not,” Wray said.

“Would you agree with him that it was ‘filled with federal agents’ on January 6?” Biggs asked.

“I would really have to see more closely exactly what he said and get the full context to be able to evaluate how many agents, or actually agents or human resources, were present at the Capitol complex and the vicinity on January 6,” Wray said. “It’s gonna get confusing because it depends on when we were deployed and responded to the breach that occurred anywhere under federal agents.”

Biggs called him out for obfuscating: “You and I both know that we’re talking different things here, and please don’t distract here because we’re focusing on those who were there in an undercover capacity on January 6. How many were there?”

Wray played dumb: “Again, I’m not sure that I can give you the number as I sit here. I’m not sure there were undercover agents on the scene.”

“I find that kind of a remarkable statement, Director,” Biggs claimed. “At this point, you don’t know whether there were undercover federal agents, FBI agents, in the crowd or in the Capitol on January 6?”

Wray then changed his tune and claimed he couldn’t say how many there were because of ongoing legal cases.

“I say that because I want to be very careful. There have been a number of court filings related to some of these topics, and I want to make sure that I stick with what’s in them,” he claimed.

“I understand that, but I thought I heard you say you didn’t know whether there were FBI agents or informants or human sources in the Capitol or in the vicinity on January 6. Did I misunderstand you?”

“I referred very specifically to FBI agents,” said Wray.

“And so are you acknowledging then there were undercover agents?” Biggs demanded.

“As I sit here right now, I do not believe there were undercover agents on the scene,” said Wray.

“Did you have any assets present that day?” Biggs shot back.

“In the crowd, when it comes to what you’re calling assets or what we would call confidential human sources, that’s a place where, again, I want to be careful, as I said in response to an earlier question. There are court filings that I think speak to this that I’m happy to make sure we get to you, assuming they’re not under seal, and that can better answer the question,” said Wray.

Wray is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He claims at once that he doesn’t know the number of agents involved in the Jan. 6 protest, doesn’t believe there were any agents, and that he can’t talk about how many agents were there because of ongoing court cases. Which is it?

It’s absurd to believe that Wray doesn’t know how many agents and confidential human sources were on the ground on January 6. He knows exactly how many there were and how they were deployed, but he doesn’t want the American people to know. Why?

The detention of J6 protesters. The Russia collusion hoax. The arrest at gunpoint of a Catholic father. The monitoring of parents speaking at school board meetings. The failure to investigate attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers. The corruption runs deep at the FBI.

Think Fast: Your reaction to a violent encounter might depend on your ability to out-think your opponent.

A young police patrolman of my acquaintance was checking his buildings while on late-night patrol. One of those businesses was an auto parts store that was in a stand-alone building. As the officer eased up in front of the dark building, he clearly saw someone inside the store. Late at night… no lights on… most probably a burglar. But, the building had a front door and a back door so the officer was in a quandary as to what to do until his backup arrived.

This young officer merely turned on his siren and all of the lights on the squad car and drove in tight, fast circles around the building until backup arrived. At which point two burglars were arrested inside the building without incident. One of them later told investigators that he wasn’t about to come out with that maniac out there trying to play like a race-car driver.

In another case, in another city, a man was accosted by a robber, armed with a large knife, who demanded his wallet. Appearing to be nervous and scared, the gentleman fished for his wallet with his left hand that was shaking so bad that the wallet hit the pavement about three feet from him. The robber’s eyes followed the falling wallet for just an instant and when he looked back at the victim, he was looking down the barrel of a .45 semi-automatic.

This citizen had planned for just such an encounter possibly happening. He purposely carried his wallet where it was accessible to his support hand and practiced the nervous routine. It gave him that split second to turn the tables.

It is a simple fact of human nature that some of us can think faster than others. But we can all work to improve our ability to successfully respond to a surprise encounter with criminals. Part of it is to realistically imagine the things that could happen and work up a variety of realistic responses. You need several ideas because this is definitely not a “one-size-fits-all” kind of deal. For example, a face-to-face encounter might be handled one way while the same situation with the criminal approaching from behind can change the whole thing.

Another excellent way to improve our ability to successfully respond is to take force-on-force classes using the little paint cartridges called Simunitions or other similar marking cartridges. These are much different than an afternoon spent playing with paintball guns and a group of friends. Proper force-on-force classes are carefully scripted. The only thing is that everyone knows the script except you, the victim, sorta like real life in that regard. Equally important is the fact that you, the victim, are debriefed after each scenario. An instructor talks with you about what you did right and what you could have done better.

The idea is to improve your ability to think fast and apply good solutions to the problem. In doing so, you have the best chance of taking control of the situation away from your attacker.

What’s up in space

EARTH-DIRECTED CME (UPDATED): A magnetic filament in the sun’s southern hemisphere erupted on July 11th (movie #1) and hurled a CME toward Earth (movie #2). According to a NASA model, most of the CME will sail south of our planet, but not all. The northern flank will likely strike our planet’s magnetic field during the late hours of July 14th possibly causing a G1-class geomagnetic storm. Aurora alerts: SMS Text

A HYPERACTIVE SUNSPOT: New sunspot AR3372 is seething with activity. In the last 24 hours alone it has produced eight M-class solar flares (graph) To the extreme ultraviolet telescopes onboard NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, it looks like the northeastern limb of the sun is on fire:

The rat-a-tat-tat of solar flares from AR3372 is causing a rolling series of shortwave radio blackouts around all longitudes of our planet. Ham radio operators, mariners and aviators may have noticed loss of signal below 30 MHz on multiple occasions since July 11th. In addition, episodes of sudden ionization in the atmosphere are doppler-shifting the frequency of time-standard radio stations such as Canada’s CHU and America’s WWV (data).

If current trends continue, we should expect more strong M-class flares during the next 24 hours with a chance of X-flares as well. This sunspot will become even more geoeffective in the days ahead as it continues to turn toward Earth. Solar flare alerts: SMS Text

Biden’s anti-gun executive orders falling one by one

The purpose of an executive order is for the president to tell others in the executive branch precisely how they’re to carry out the laws passed by Congress. It was never intended as a way to create laws without the legislature.

However, President Joe Biden, like so many before him, does just that.

Take gun control, for example. Biden can’t pass it. Not like he wants. Congress just isn’t interested in banning things like so-called ghost guns.

So, Biden uses an executive order, directs the ATF to essentially declare them illegal, and calls it a day.

Only, that didn’t work out.

Numerous federal gun control policies enacted by the Biden administration via executive order have faced extensive scrutiny in federal courts with jurisdiction over matters arising in Texas, the latest being a rule implemented last year seeking to regulate home-build firearms kits.

Texas residents Jennifer VanDerStok and Michael Andren, along with the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), challenged the new rule expanding the definition of a “firearm receiver” to include kits that contain partially manufactured parts and are marketed to be completed into functioning firearms, which are also referred to as “ghost guns.”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) issued a statement when the rule was published last year, explaining that it was prompted by a proliferation of untraceable guns without serial numbers from being used in crimes. The ATF claimed it would help prevent those prohibited by law from obtaining a gun, such as convicted felons, from easily obtaining one.

The ATF claimed there were 692 instances of ghost guns being used in homicides or attempted homicides.

Of course, from what we’ve seen, those 692 instances were spread out over a significant period of time, meaning that they’re a statistical drop in the bucket when looking at so-called gun deaths.

But this wasn’t the only example of Biden’s executive orders showing signs of trouble.

There’s trouble brewing for Biden’s other big-ticket executive order, the ban on pistol braces. There’s already some judicial skepticism and the membership of the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition are already exempt from it by court order.

In fact, it’s so bad it’s not unreasonable to ask whether any of Biden’s executive orders will stand.

Oh, I’m sure a few will. Parts of this order are just about speeding up the process of collecting data the government already collects, which isn’t likely to be overturned.

But that same executive order also deals with the so-called rogue gun dealers who appear to just be FFL holders who make administrative errors, and that is likely to end up in court sooner or later. Based on what we’ve seen, that’s going to be bad news for the Biden administration.

At the end of the day, most of Biden’s executive orders will probably be overturned, but not without a lot of time and resources spent fighting this power grab.

And none of it should be happening. The truth is that the legislative branch is who should be passing laws, not the executive, but with Congress having basically turned a blind eye to the ATF’s repeated “reinterpretations” of gun control laws, we have the mess we’re currently in.

If only that would fall in court.

Gun groups appeal Delaware ‘assault weapons’ ban ruling

(The Center Square) — Gun rights groups are asking a federal appeals court to overturn a lower court ruling upholding Delaware’s “assault weapons” ban and other firearm restrictions.

In April, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Andrews rejected a request by the Delaware Sportsmen’s Association and other groups who sued the state for a preliminary injunction blocking the new regulations from being enforced as he considers the lawsuit.

But the groups have filed an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, urging the three-judge panel to overturn Andrews’ ruling that upheld Delaware’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines.

“The district court wrongly held that Delaware’s bans, which affect some of the most popular firearms and magazines in the country, could be justified by reference to a pattern of historical regulation targeting a variety of arms, from ‘slung shots’ to machine guns,” lawyers for the group wrote in the 64-page brief.

“But the state has not put forward, and the district court did not cite, a single law that banned possession or carriage of an arm that was in common use at the time like the Delaware bans do.”

Last year, Gov. John Carney signed a package of gun control measures that included a ban on the sale of so-called assault-style weapons, an increase in the age to purchase firearms from 18 to 21, strengthened background checks and limits on large-capacity magazines. It also banned the use of devices that convert handguns into fully automatic weapons.

The bills were pushed through the Democratic-controlled Legislature in the wake of several mass shootings, including the massacre of 21 at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

The sportsman association, a state-level affiliate of the National Rifle Association, filed the lawsuit shortly after Carney signed the bills arguing they violate Second Amendment rights and Delaware’s Constitution, which guarantees a right to own and carry firearms.

The plaintiffs argued the new law “criminalized” the purchase and ownership of common firearms used by labeling them as “deadly weapons” and making it a felony “for law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear such arms.”

The lawsuit is one of hundreds of legal challenges across the country filed in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the N.Y. State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen’s case, which struck down a New York law requiring applicants to show “proper cause” to get a permit to carry a firearm.

The ruling has prompted reviews of firearm licensing laws in Delaware and other Democrat-led states to tighten their gun laws to further restrict firearm carrying, spurring other legal challenges from Second Amendment groups.

“No matter what the State of Delaware thinks, the guns and magazines it banned are protected by the Second Amendment and thus cannot be prohibited,” Richard Thomson, a spokesman for the Firearms Policy Coalition, said in a statement. “We look forward to the Third Circuit getting right what the district court got wrong when it declined to preliminarily enjoin Delaware’s bans.”

Second Amendment group files lawsuit against ATF over ‘zero tolerance’ policy for closing gun stores

FIRST ON FOX: A Second Amendment advocacy group filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) over the agency’s “zero tolerance” policy to shut down gun stores.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed a suit against the ATF on Tuesday over the agency’s rigid inspection guidelines for federal firearms licensees (FFLs) from January 2022 that makes it easier to revoke a gun store’s federal license.

“This zero tolerance policy towards lawful commerce guaranteed by the Second Amendment is just the latest example of this Administration weaponizing federal agencies against their political enemies,” GOA senior vice president Erich Pratt told Fox News Digital.

Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) board member Sam Paredes told Fox News Digital it’s “ridiculous that good people trying to make an honest living are facing this assault on their livelihoods simply over inconsequential paperwork errors.”

“GOF is proud to be lending our support in defense of Bridge City Ordnance and all of those small businesses facing devastating consequences if this Administration’s hostility towards firearms is permitted to go unchecked,” Paredes said.

On Tuesday, the GOA filed the lawsuit Morehouse Enterprises v. ATF (II), following the first lawsuit filed by North Dakota gun store Morehouse Enterprises and backed by the Second Amendment advocacy group over the Biden administration’s frame and receiver rule, also known as the ghost gun rule.

Continue reading “”

July 12

70 – The armies of Titus begin the attack on the walls of Jerusalem after a 6 month siege

1191 – Saladin’s garrison surrenders to Philip Augustus, ending the 2 year long siege of Acre during the 3rd Crusade

1804 – Alexander Hamilton dies the day after being shot by Aaron Burr in a duel.

1812 – The American Army of the Northwest briefly occupies the Upper Canadian settlement at what is now Windsor, Ontario during the War of 1812.

1862 – The Medal of Honor is authorized by Congress.

1967 – Riots, lasting over 4 days, begin in Newark, New Jersey over an incident of police brutality, resulting in 26 deaths

1973 – A fire destroys the entire 6th floor of the National Personnel Records Center of the United States in St Louis.

2001 – Space Shuttle Atlantis is launched on mission STS-104, carrying the Quest Joint Airlock to the International Space Station.

 

Is the FBI Helping Ukraine’s Secret Service Censor Americans?
The Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government releases a damning new report, revealing even more speech-smashing misbehavior by the federal government.

I spent much of the weekend combing through the Twitter Files for examples of the “Censorship Enterprise” described by the Attorneys General in the landmark Missouri v. Biden lawsuit. As I was about to publish, a new report was issued by the House Weaponization of Government Committee that takes the Twitter Files theme in several crazy new directions.

A month ago, Aaron Maté of The Grayzone published a new piece about a bizarre finding in the Twitter Files. An FBI agent named Alexander Kozbanets had forwarded to Twitter a list sent to the FBI by Ukraine’s Security Service, the SBU. These accounts, Kozbanets said, were “suspected by the SBU of spreading fear and disinformation.” Of the 170-odd account names on the list, most were Russian, but one stood out: Aaron’s! Here he is, along with the popular Russian newspaper “Rush Hour” (Chas-Pik) and a host of Cyrillic names:

The shame of this story wasn’t that the SBU sent this list over, but rather that the FBI collaborated in the effort, even having the gall to forward the name of a respected, award-winning Canadian journalist to Twitter. To its credit, Twitter Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth pushed back, noting Aaron’s name and saying, “authentic news outlets and reporters who cover the conflict with a pro-Russian stance are unlikely to be found in violation of our rules.” Nonetheless, the fact that the FBI even tried this lunatic stunt was damning.

Now, thanks to the Weaponization Committee, we find out this situation with Aaron appears not to have been a one-off incident.

Jewish camp leaders challenge carry law due to anti-semitism.

If you’re part of a group that may well be targeted by someone simply because you’re part of that group, it’s probably a good idea to take steps to protect yourself.

Anti-semitism, homophobia, racism, and so many other forms of hatred are, unfortunately, real and if you’re someone who is concerned about any of those, it makes sense to arm yourself and to carry a firearm everywhere you can.

In New York, though, the people who run a camp for Jewish kids are challenging the state’s carry laws because it makes it impossible for them to protect the kids.

The CEO of Kars4Kids, a Jewish charity with a catchy advertising jingle, is challenging New York state’s concealed carry law in court — claiming that it leaves children vulnerable to antisemitic attacks.

Eliohu Mintz, who heads Kars4Kids, is also the CEO of Oorah, a Jewish outreach nonprofit funded by Kars4Kids that runs a summer camp in upstate New York. In a federal lawsuit filed Friday, Mintz and a camp administrator, Eric Schwartz, say the law exposes the camp to antisemitic attack because it bans private citizens from carrying guns in places where religious activities are conducted.

“The violent attacks on Jewish people targeting places of worship and places where children are — the most vulnerable of the population — are random and provide the victims with no notice or advance warning,” Mintz said in a declaration attached to the lawsuit. “I cannot be left unprepared and unarmed in the event that an evildoer decides to attack one or both of the [camp’s] campuses nor can the other licensed staff members.”

Now, there’s a provision that amended the law in question that allows for armed security personnel at places of worship. The problem?

“The plaintiffs are staffers who have carried for personal protection and want to continue carrying,” Amy Bellatoni, the attorney for Mintz and Schwartz, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “They are not designated security personnel and, therefore, not part of the exemption.”

And therein lies the problem.

Obviously, I side with Mintz and Schwartz here. The carry law was written to include as much of the state of New York as possible and removes any possibility of a so-called sensitive location to decide for itself whether it allows firearms or not. New York decided and a lot of people are paying the price.

And anti-semitism is very real and isn’t likely to go away. Those who want to harm Jews aren’t going to be deterred by the idea that these places of worship are gun-free zones, either. I mean, if the laws against murder aren’t going to deter them, a Ghostbuster-like side with a gun in the center instead isn’t likely to do anything either.

So it’s my heartfelt desire to see this change. The people of New York deserve better than they’re getting from their so-called leadership. Concerns of racism or anti-semitism or anything else like that should be taken seriously and people should be empowered by the constitutionally protected rights granted them by being human beings to combat them, with words when appropriate and with bullets when their lives are threatened.

Feds Argue First Amendment Causes ‘Irreparable Harm’ in Bid to Save Censorship Regime
In seeking to stay the injunction against their speech policing in Missouri v. Biden, the government betrays its view that your right to speak is conditional, while its power to censor is absolute

U.S. Government Says Inability to Censor You Causes It ‘Irreparable Harm’

The U.S. government betrayed its total and utter contempt for the First Amendment in a recent filing in the landmark Missouri v. Biden free speech case.

The filing—a motion responding to U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s bombshell Independence Day injunction freezing federal government-led speech policing—calls for the judge to permit the federal government to continue its censorship activities while it fights the injunction.

While Judge Doughty has now smacked the federal government down, ruling against its motion for a stay, the feds’ perverse position merits scrutiny, especially given it’s likely to persist in it for as long as this case is litigated, and as high as it will reach, perhaps up to the Supreme Court.

The crux of the government’s argument for staying the injunction was this: Prohibiting federal authorities from abridging speech, directly and by proxy, could lead to “grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes,” thereby causing the government “irreparable harm.”

Another way to read the government’s argument is that if it can’t interfere in elections or engage in rampant viewpoint discrimination, that causes it “irreparable harm.”

Still another way to read the government’s argument is that your right to free speech causes it “irreparable harm.”

I explain why in a new piece at the Epoch Times.
As I conclude in part:

The government’s fight for the right to censor reveals a conception of free speech, and its own authority, that is totally backward.

The government operates as if speech is a privilege over which it holds total power, ceding to us only the ability to talk on heavily circumscribed terms—rather than that we have a natural right to speak freely, and that the government’s ability to regulate our speech is heavily circumscribed.

Government derives its powers from us, and with our consent, not the other way around.

At stake, therefore, in Missouri v. Biden is more than free speech.

At stake—and currently on display—is the very nature of what remains of our republican system of government.

Read the whole thing here.

Skynet brags…..

AI Robots Admit They’d Run Earth Better Than ‘Clouded’ Humans

A panel of AI-enabled humanoid robots told a United Nations summit on Friday that they could eventually run the world better than humans.

But the social robots said they felt humans should proceed with caution when embracing the rapidly-developing potential of artificial intelligence.

And they admitted that they cannot – yet – get a proper grip on human emotions.

Some of the most advanced humanoid robots were at the UN’s two-day AI for Good Global Summit in Geneva.

Humanoid Robot Portrait

Humanoid Robot Portrait
Humanoid AI robot ‘Ameca’ at the summit. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP)
They joined around 3,000 experts in the field to try to harness the power of AI – and channel it into being used to solve some of the world’s most pressing problems, such as climate change, hunger and social care.

They were assembled for what was billed as the world’s first press conference with a packed panel of AI-enabled humanoid social robots.

Continue reading “”

Here’s how Ohio Issue 1 will appear on Aug. 8 special election ballot

It is vital that all gun owners in Ohio VOTE YES on Issue 1 in the Aug. 8 special election.

A YES vote on Issue 1 protects our Constitution and Second Amendment rights from deep-pocketed, out-of-state interests. By passing Issue 1, the People of all 88 counties will ensure constitutional changes are widely accepted and declare that Ohio’s Constitution is not for sale to gun grabbers like Mike Bloomberg and his paid minions.

Currently, special interests target Ohio, seeking to inject their own personal views and objectives into our state’s most sacred document. Why? Because Ohio is one of the few states that allow these interests to directly enshrine their preferences and motives into the Constitution at the same threshold as everyday laws.

Common sense tells us that this should not be the case. Instead, our constitutional rights should be broadly supported and shielded from well-financed special interests.

You should familiarize yourself with the ballot language before you cast your vote. Here’s how Issue 1 will appear on the Aug. 8 special election ballot.

Issue 1

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

ELEVATING THE STANDARDS TO QUALIFY FOR AN INITIATED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND TO PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Proposed by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly

To amend Sections 1b, 1e, and 1g of Article II and Sections 1 and 3 of Article XVI of the Constitution of the State of Ohio

A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass.

The proposed amendment would:

  • Require that any proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of Ohio receive the approval of at least 60 percent of eligible voters voting on the proposed amendment.
  • Require that any initiative petition filed on or after January I, 2024 with the Secretary of State proposing to amend the Constitution of the State of Ohio be signed by at least five percent of the electors of each county based on the total vote in the county for governor in the last preceding election.
  • Specify that additional signatures may not be added to an initiative petition proposing to amend the Constitution of the State of Ohio that is filed with the Secretary of State on or after January I, 2024 proposing to amend the Constitution of the State of Ohio.

If passed, the amendment will be effective immediately.

SHALL THE AMENDMENT BE APPROVED?
YES NO

Buckeye Firearms Association urges every gun owner in the state to VOTE YES ON ISSUE 1 to protect our constitution and our Second Amendment rights. Early and absentee voting begins July 11.

 

Nice when PID is provided.

Law professor: ‘Unfortunate’ that Michigan anti-free speech bill likely unconstitutional.

A constitutional law professor at Georgia State University recently said it’s “unfortunate” that the Michigan “pronouns” bill making its way through the state legislature is likely unconstitutional.

Georgia State College of Law Professor Eric Segall told Newsweek this was his “personal view” regarding House Bill 4474, which would criminalize sparking “frightened” feelings in someone in a protected class such as sexual orientation or gender identity.

The proposal “is probably in trouble under American law. I also think that’s unfortunate because my personal view is the law should be constitutional, but I think it’s likely not,” he said.

“In a sane world, which is most free countries on Earth, you just outlaw all threats,” said Segall (pictured). “And if you threaten somebody, you go to jail. It’s much more complicated in America. Guns and free speech. America is crazy about both.”

But the author of “Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges” emphasized what makes the U.S. rather unique regarding free speech.

“The [Michigan] law basically says you can’t threaten somebody with speech that will discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity,” Segall said. “And here’s the deal. Hate speech and threats aren’t the same thing.”

Segall noted “the fact that I can stand on a street corner and say ‘All Jews should be sent back to Israel’—which I can do in America—does not mean that I can go up to a Jewish person and get in their face and say, ‘You should be sent back to Israel.’”

The U.S. Supreme Court would strike down the Michigan law, Segall added, “both because it protects LGBTQ speech, which this court no longer wants to do at all, and because of their definition of free speech which is way overbroad.”

The College Fix asked Segall via email if he indeed would favor fining or jailing someone who, for example, told a transgender female in a non-threatening manner that she (he) “really is a man.” (Someone violating HB 4474 could face a $10,000 fine and up to five years in jail.)

Segall reiterated that “threats are unprotected speech” and repeated his point about someone saying (peacefully) that Jews should go back to Israel “should probably be protected speech.”

However, he added that such “depends on context” and he “could be talked out of” his current view.

As previously noted by The Fix, Western Michigan University Law Professor William Wagner warned that those in favor of the Michigan legislation will use it “as a weapon capable of destroying conservative expression or viewpoints grounded in the sacred.”

The Michigan Democratic Party’s Andrew Feldman told Newsweek that HB 4474 was being “deliberately misinterpreted to polarize voters and cause outrage among conservatives.”