Home Blog

White House Launches Yet Another Task Force To Try To Curb Online Abuse – Techdirt.

The White House is once again launching another task force, this time to tackle the issue of online abuse. The goal of this task force is to combat online harassment that is becoming a big problem. Continue reading this story from Techdirt:
from the you-can’t-curb-abuse-by-ignoring-legitimate-concerns dept

Apparently missing the entire controversy the White House faced just a few weeks ago regarding Homeland Security’s poorly explained Disinformation Governance Board (which has since been put on hold), the White House is trying yet again, with its new White House Task Force to Address Online Harassment and Abuse. At least this time, they didn’t launch it without any details at all. This time, there’s an official document explaining the taskforce, and the announcement came complete with a speech from VP Kamala Harris and a meeting with a strikingly one-sided group of “experts.”

So, once again, as we said with the previous disinformation board, if the goal is really to better understand the flow of information online, and how to counter it without running afoul of the 1st Amendment, that could be interesting. Harassment and abuse is a real issue on the internet. And, there are many lessons to be learned, including some really unique and creative approaches to dealing with the challenges related to such speech. Unfortunately, there are already many reasons to be concerned about this new task force — mainly in that many of the participants come from the world that believes in questionable approaches to dealing with this — such as by removing Section 230 and making companies somehow “liable” for speech, even when it’s legal.

That’s not an approach that is (1) constitutional or (2) workable. We’ve seen such systems get regularly abused to silence perfectly legitimate speech. And, of course, part of this is because while abuse and harassment are very real, there is no clear definition of what constitutes abusive speech. Hell, one of the “experts” at last week’s panel once openly harassed a supporter of Section 230 for merely reporting, neutrally, on a Supreme Court decision, suggesting that people should set up fake profiles on sites and send people to rape the supporter.

It is difficult to take the White House seriously in trying to “stop” online harassment when it would platform a harasser like that.

There are also other concerns about the task force. An unnamed White House official brushed off free speech concerns that were raised by a Washington Post reporter:

“We are very mindful of the First Amendment issues,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss the White House’s plans. “But banning threatening speech is not protected by the First Amendment. So while we are going to carefully navigate those issues, we are also going to remain laser-focused on the non-speech aspects.”

There’s some awkward wording here. Even though this official says that “banning threatening speech is not protected” it sounds like they mean “threatening speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment, and therefore okay to ban.” But… that’s just fundamentally wrong in nearly all cases. There is a very, very, very narrow sliver of threatening speech — that focused on inciting imminent lawless action — that is not protected, but almost none of the actual abuse and harassment that occurs online goes anywhere near that level.

There are some good things a task force like this could obviously do — some of which appears to be part of its mission. Things like the following seem great:

increasing access to survivor-centered services, information, and support for victims, and increasing training and technical assistance for Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments as well as for global organizations and entities in the fields of criminal justice, health and mental health services, education, and victim services;

That seems like a useful thing. However, where it gets scary is when it starts dipping into “examining existing Federal laws, regulations, and policies.”

And, look, at this very moment, there’s a half decent chance that in 30 months we’ll have a President DeSantis in office. And let’s remember that, in Florida, DeSantis has put in place programs to effectively block teachers from teaching about race or gender issues out of fear that they could get sued. He’s also directly punished companies like Walt Disney, falsely claiming that it’s a “woke” corporation. How do you think a President DeSantis will make use of a task force that suggests new laws and regulations to stop “harassment” and “abuse?”

This is not difficult to play out, but for whatever reason, supporters of these kinds of things seem to think that their friends will always be in power. That’s not how it works.

Again, there could be something useful in bringing together experts in harassment, along with various organizations that have experimented with ways of countering harassment, not through legal enforcement, but with design choices and tools that minimize such things. Invite company CEOs like Blockparty’s Tracy Chou who has thought deeply about how to use technology to fight harassment.

Instead, we always end up with the same people, who seem to think that the law is the only way to fight harassment, even as it’s protected by the 1st Amendment.

And, of course, just as with the Disinformation Governance Board, Republicans are already going after this effort, once again claiming that this is just a “ministry of truth” designed to target conservative speech. Even if that’s not true, just the fact that they believe it is gives them even more justification the next time they’re in power to use the very same tools and setup to actually stifle speech they dislike.

You would think that after four years of a Trump administration abusing the levers of power that once the Democrats regained power they would, maybe, put in place more safeguards, rather than putting more weapons in place for Republicans to use next time they’re in power. But, apparently, they can’t think even that far ahead, and that should disqualify them from being taken seriously.

Read on [here] from the article source

“Bipartisan Safer Communities Act” – The Senate’s Gun Control Package 


We finally have text on the Senate’s Gun Control proposal. It is 80 pages, and not an easy 80 pages to decipher, but we are going to try.



That is what this section covers. Money, mental health specific grants and funding, especially in relation to medicaid. 25 pages worth of funding allocations and where it can and cannot be spent.


Here’s where we care, right? What are they changing with regards to guns?

Improving NICS Examination of Juvenile Records

Sorry, kids. Your adulting has been further provisionalized should this pass.

The 18-20 year old crowd are set to get an up to 3 day waiting period, with an up to 10 day (total) examination period if a record is determined to exist, before the transfer of a firearm is completed. The actual period will be based upon how quickly records can be accessed.

For mental health institutionalization, they are looking at commited dates starting from age 16 now. This may start a deconfliction fight with HIPAA. The FFL will have a specific UIN for these younger purchasers, unknown if it will be per transfer or per person, to reference the specific NICS check and reference for state records.

The traditional Brady Transfer Date, in a case where NICS does not provide a final result immediately, given with a check from NICS. For under 21 it is now the date plus 3 business days without any notification, and then 10 days if NICS indicates a record exists but no final determination is delivered. Brady for 21 and up is 3 business days and 18-20 will be up to 10 business days. My assumption is NICS will continue to list this date in their system and a subsection will be created for this additional check period in their software.

These are business days based upon state offices being open. NICS is directed to check with the State for both juvenile and mental health records and the appropriate local law enforcement agency of the purchase/residence. It is the state and local agencies who have 3 business days to respond to the direct inquiry from NICS, if there is a record they have an additional 7 business days to make a determination on whether or not that record is a disqualifying one.


This enhanced NICS check provision sunsets on September 2032, unless renewed or made permanent by Congress.

Weird Terrorism Proviso…

Unless I am reading this wrong, this law exempts criminals and terrorists from having to prove they are profitable… I’m serious. Page 32. “Provided, that proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism.”

I am genuinely confused on why this line is needed. To the cartels just get a tax break? The Taliban don’t need a profit and loss statement? Why does this text exist? Is this just, ‘anyone or group with an FFL need not prove they are trading in guns for profit if they are in prison for gun running’?

Like, duh. Prison.

Firearm Trafficking and Straw Purchases

Still feloniously illegal, extra illegal if for terrorism or in support of drug trafficking.

Seriously, all this covers is if you’re proven that you knew or should have known you are selling to a prohibited person, or someone who you knew was going to commit a crime that will make them a prohibited person, that is a felony. 15 year penalty in general and 25 for terrorism or drug trafficking.

To be honest I’d like to see human trafficking and armed robbery/aggravated assault added to the 25 year list.

FFL Employment Background Checks

In an odd little bonus, but one that makes sense, licensees (FFLs) will be able to use NICS on prospective employees, with informative consent of the prospect. NICS, if you do not know, may only be used by FFLs to conduct a check with the intention to transfer a firearm.

FFL Access to Stolen Firearms Database.


If you were under the impression that a gun dealer could check the national database on stolen firearms to see if a firearm in their possession had been reported stolen, you’d be wrong. Is this stupid? Extremely. Literally the most likely point for reliably locating a stolen firearm and they had no way to check unless an LE organization communicated specific firearms to them to BOLO.

That’s two solid provisions in this bill.

Also, no liability is established if an FFL doesn’t catch a stolen firearm and it later turns out it was stolen. This covers down on inconsistent data or incomplete data entry into the stolen firearm information database, which is common. Basically no duty is established to check all transfers for being stolen but the ability to is finally there.

‘Dating Relationship’

One of the biggest questions, what would a ‘dating relationship’ be defined as outside cohabitation and/or having a child in common to be applied to misdemeanor DV convictions.

(A)“The term ‘dating relationship’ means a relationship between individuals who have or have recently had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.

Okay, that’s specifically vague. I understand why, but I am always annoyed when a law has this much room for interpretation without hard numbers. This is dating and romance though, it is a variable topic.

“Whether a relationship constitutes a dating relationship under subparagraph (A) shall be determined based on consideration of – (i) length of the relationship; (ii) the nature of the relationship; (iii) and frequency and type of interaction between individuals involved in the relationship.”

Also specifically vague, but I do understand. This is to cover if adjudicators and not those involved in the relationship need to define the relationship, if one party says yes it was dating and the other says no it wasn’t and so forth. It will also only be applicable if there is an associated DV conviction with this determination.

‘‘(C) A casual acquaintanceship or ordinary fraternization in a business or social context does not constitute a dating relationship under subparagraph (A).’’

Cool. I suppose. Again this appears to be a very niche and nuanced determination if there is conflict between those involved on their definition of the relationship.

This will also only be applicable to convictions after date of enactment. This will still be subject to the provisions of expunged and set aside convictions which restore the firearm rights.

…and that is it.

That covers the bill. No attempt at “assault” weapons, magazines, mandatory wait periods (this one is procedural and dependent on state and local agency response times), or any other of the anti-gunner nonsense. No barrel shroud shoulder things that go up, no ‘all gun owners subject to yearly mandator mental health abuse’ (I mean “screening”), no social media scores, no mandatory licenses, no mandatory insurance, and no 1000% taxes.

I don’t like taking an L on anything when it comes to gun control, but I will be honest that this L could’ve been structured much worse and we would not be in a position to bring enough pressure to bear to block it. We would need to rely on FPC, ACLU, and other organizations to bring lawsuits against offending items in the law.

The NICS change, the most affrontary portion of the law that is changing, isn’t written as permanent. It has a decade test period for efficacy and will sunset unless renewed. With the annual reporting NICS will be delivering we should have the data pool to judge efficacy too, on whether or not this change has positively had an impact on interdicting impulary crimes of violence and improved our efforts on weapons trafficking. We should also see resulting reports out of the mental health resource funding and school security resources which comprise most of the bills substance.

In reality this gun control bill doesn’t touch a single gun, which means that, surprisingly enough, the legislators on both sides here actually tried to make this effective. I don’t know if it will be effective, I also don’t have any easily projectable data on plausible negative effects.

If this ends up passing as is, we can call it a near miss. Ideally, an annual renewal provision with evidentiary substantiation, instead of the decade currently written in, would be preferable if we are testing alterations to the NICS process. I’d additionally like to see the detail in records keeping and reforms to removing prohibited persons from NICS making certain that our reformative justice system is acting the part.

We’ll see where it ends up after the reading and amendment process.

As is, we don’t have to like it but it could be worse. After amending, this could be a much spicier dumpster fire.

Supreme Court bars excluding religious schools from state tuition program – WSGW

The Supreme has made another ruling that will bring big changes. The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Maine’s tuition assistance program was unconstitutional. Continue reading this story from WSGW:

Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday said schools that provide religious instruction cannot be excluded from a Maine tuition assistance program available to students in rural areas of the state, finding the state’s requirement that only nonsectarian schools can participate in the program violates the First Amendment.

The court’s decision fell along ideological lines, with the six conservative justices finding that Maine’s tuition assistance program did not pass constitutional muster under the free exercise clause and the three liberal justices in dissent. The high court reversed a decision by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the program.

“The state pays tuition for certain students at private schools— so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. “A state’s antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise.”

The program, he concluded, “operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.”

Writing in dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called it “irrational” for the Supreme Court to rule that the free exercise clause prohibits Maine from giving aid to parents to fund a religiously neutral education.

“This court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build,” she wrote.

The ruling from the court, now with a 6-3 conservative majority, is the latest in a growing line of decisions favoring religious parties. In a 2020 case involving a Montana scholarship program, a divided court ruled 5-4 that states cannot exclude schools from receiving public benefits solely based on their religious status or identity. 

Michael Bindas, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice who argued the case before the court, praised the decision, saying it “makes clear, once and for all, that the government may not bar parents from selecting religious schools within educational choice programs, whether because of their religious affiliation or the religious instruction they provide.”

The program at issue in the Maine case, Carson v. Makin, allows families who live in rural areas with school districts that don’t have their own secondary school to contract with another institution to receive state-funded tuition to send their children to a public or private school — in Maine or out of state — of their choosing. But the state will only cover tuition under the program at schools that are nonsectarian, or those that do not provide religious instruction or present material through a religious lens.

Maine has nearly 180,000 K-12 students, of which a small fraction, 4,565, are secondary school students who attended private schools through either a contract for schooling or the tuition program.

In 2018, two sets of parents, David and Amy Carson and Troy and Angela Nelson, challenged the program in federal court, arguing the state’s exclusion of religious schools unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of religion.

The Carsons wanted to use the tuition program to pay for their daughter’s schooling at Bangor Christian School, while the Nelsons wanted to send their son to Temple Academy, which aligns with their religious beliefs. Neither of the two schools are eligible for the state’s program, though it’s unclear whether they would accept the public money.

The 1st Circuit ruled in favor of Maine, finding the program doesn’t discriminate based on schools’ religious status, and the parents appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Read on [here] from the article source

Opinion | It is time for leadership from Republicans on guns – The Washington Post

Frustration has grown among politicians regarding Republicans not doing enough regarding the 2nd amendment. Politicians believe that the Republican party needs to stand up for the 2nd amendment and implement better gun control laws. Read more below from The Washington Post.
From The Washington Post:

Regarding the June 13 front-page article “Guns bill finds common ground”:

After a mass shooting, politicians say “Now is not the time for politics.” It has been 10 years since Sandy Hook, and the Republican Party has done nothing. Isn’t 10 years long enough to wait? Now is the time for leadership, not politics. Who in the Republican Party will stand up and say: “We were wrong; enough is enough. The Second Amendment is here to stay, but we can provide common-sense gun controls — including background checks and an assault-weapons ban”?

Police officers should not have to face assailants carrying AR-15s. Leaders stand on the right side of history. What do Republicans want their legacy to be? It’s time for leadership; time for them to explain to their constituents why they agree with common-sense gun controls. As a nation, we are saddened by the deaths in Uvalde, Tex. — as well as those deaths that came before and those that have occurred since. Surely, now is the time for change. Republicans should lead with their conscience and vote for common-sense gun laws.

Jacqueline Carney, Chevy Chase

Read on [here] from the article source

The New York Body Armor Law Forgot the Buffalo Shooter’s Body Armor…

Nope, not kidding. The confusing new law in New York that is attempting to disarm would be shooters by denying everyone body armor (not sure how that one adds up, but okay…) forgot to specify the hard armor, reported as steel plates, that the shooter used in Buffalo.

New York’s body armor rules miss vest worn during Buffalo mass shooting

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York’s new law barring sales of bullet-resistant vests to most civilians doesn’t cover the type of armor worn by the gunman who killed 10 people at a Buffalo supermarket, a gap that could limit its effectiveness in deterring future military-style assaults.

During the May 14 attack, Payton Gendron wore a steel-plated vest, an armor strong enough to stop a handgun round fired by a store security guard who tried to halt Gendron’s rampage.

A law hastily enacted by state lawmakers after the attack restricts sales of vests defined as “bullet-resistant soft body armor.”

AR500 (Abrasion Resistant) steel was a popular hard armor alternative for several years since the steel plates were much cheaper than the composite ceramic plates used in professional circles. It has some serious downsides, since it relies on shattering and deflecting an incoming round rather than catching it like a composite plate will, but it was the only way to get a vest of nominally effective armor under $1,000. That is no longer the case, level III and IV composite plates are much more affordable nowadays and anyone electing to buy steel to save money is no longer making a smart decision.

So New York banned soft body armor. Which consist of levels II and IIIA soft armors and one newly created and fairly expensive level III armor. It didn’t address plates. Level III, III+, IV, and ‘Special Threat’ hard plates are not addressed.

“Governor Hochul was proud to sign the groundbreaking new law passed by the legislature to restrict sales of body armor, and will work with the legislature to expand the definitions in the law at the first available opportunity,” said the Governor’s office in response.

Translation: “We screwed up, just like we did with the S.A.F.E Act (remember they forgot to exempt cops, whoopsie) and now we have to fix it in post because it is more important to virtue signal than get things right.”

New York’s ban is aimed at stopping criminals from gaining an advantage over peace officers, or security guards like Aaron Salter, who was killed trying to stop the gunman’s racist attack on the Buffalo supermarket.

Body armor is not magic. It’s an extra 6 seconds of life, a saving throw in gamer parlance. It’s presence did not make or break what the brave Aaron Salter was able to accomplish by resisting Gendron’s assault. It certainly didn’t help Salter, who would’ve needed the time to deliver more shots into effective unarmored areas to stop Gendron, but even had Salter fatally wounded Gendron because he was unarmored we know that a pistol wound can take time to effect the target (North Hollywood).

Of the shooters who killed four or more people in a public space since 1966, 12% wore body vests, said sociologist James Densley, a co-founder of The Violence Project, a nonprofit think tank with a database on mass shootings.

Meaning that 88% did not, and that the presence of a vest is not a substantial factor in how lethal an attack is or how difficult an assailant or assailants are to stop. Armor is a complication, but a minor one in scale. We might as well outlaw a mass shooter using cover while we are at it. Maybe Governor Hochul can put that in the law too.

No pistol armor, no rifle armor, no using things that stop bullets to hide behind so we must make sure everything is the opposite of bullet resistant.

‘Boyfriend Loophole’ – The Roadblock on Gun Control?

Like most loopholes, this really isn’t one. We’re stuck arguing over what the meaning of ‘is’ is, more or less. We’re not talking about the definition of domestic violence, we are setting a new definition for what a domestic relationship is.

We remember the ‘Gun Show’ loophole, right? The panic generating fact that a private non-FFL’d individual could sell a firearm to another non-FFL’d individual, under the rules of the state governing private sales, and most of those didn’t involve a NICS check because it wasn’t a federally regulated transfer. But because it could happen at a ‘gun show’ too, as well as just about anywhere else, this was a bad thing.

This is truly more of the same.

What ‘Boyfriend Loophole’ implies is that somehow a domestic partner outside of marriage, familial, cohabitation, or other traditional definitions of domestic partner, gets special immunity during their background check for a firearm, even if they are a convicted domestic abuser at the misdemeanor level. Yes, it is weirdly specific.

Defining beyond these physical parameters is difficult, current or former cohabitation. What will constitute serious ‘dating’ that didn’t end up in a cohabitation situation and resulted in a misdemeanor violence conviction? The Senate is working hard on defining this, a crucial element in legislation. What a non-cohabitant domestic relationship would look like to trigger an appropriate domestic violence conviction and make firearm purchase prohibitive.

Again, if this seems weirdly nuanced it is. It is a serious nuance and deserves attention as dating partners, even serious ones, did not necessarily cohabitate, but it is still a very select situation.

Democratic lawmakers have long sought to expand the law to extend that coverage to dating partners, convicted stalkers and any individual under a protective order. But as of now, it doesn’t apply to other types of dating partners, hence the label “boyfriend loophole.”CNN

People subject to a protective order are already prohibited persons, CNN. It is the question just before the domestic violence question on the 4473 form, 21 h. current version, and a yes to either (in fact a yes to ANY except the one establishing you are the transferee) is an automatic denial of transfer.

So then this becomes a reporting concern within NICS, updating federal and compelling an update to state DV conviction reporting to the NICS system and making certain that the answers on the 4473 can accurately be verified with the NICS check. This also means covering down on definitions of domestic relationships state to state, a not so simple task.

We’re talking about a dramatic change in what will be considered domestic violence base upon the expansion of the definition of what is a domestic relationship, and the equivalence of cohabiting partners who have not lived together and have no familial relationship. This is probably a relevant question in 2022, with digital communication and online harassment being what they are and the expansion of polygamous style relations, the highly complicated question is what will the new line for the digital and more socially distanced age look like?

Domestic violence isn’t changing, domestic relationship definition is. This has very far reaching implications for several other avenues of law too. Inheritance, power of attorney, and so forth.

Also important, which types of relationship are non-permanently prohibitive and which ones are able to be removed through establishment of proper behavior. This assumes a new definitive relationship, a domestic violence conviction under the new relationship, and the conviction is not otherwise covered under prohibited person definitions. This is a really narrow selection of actions.

If your answer is ‘none’ than you do not believe in a rehabilitative justice system. Permanently removing a civil right through adjudication should never be a step lightly taken. It should remain under strict and constant scrutiny, however when this question involves firearms the Democrats are willing to throw every possible variable under the denial format and damn the consequences. They very prominently disregard the negative impacts of current firearm law on poor and minority communities. This while LE branches and research consistently comeback and do not enforce or recommend enforcing these provisions, because they acknowledge they are low threat the majority of the time.

This practice consistently undermines current gun regulations. This undermining needs to stop, either by shifting the regulations back to the consistently enforceable limits or by enforcing them at their currently prescribed limits.

The new domestic relationship definition is unlikely to change much on the legal front, other than generating more court cases and NICS denials that are not followed up with even an inquiry. Again, we are talking about non-cohabitation. People who did not live together and have no other familial connection, this is a difficult relationship situation to define.

I do not know how many convictions exist which would fall under the expanded domestic relationship, as domestic violence as a misdemeanor, that are not already under a different prohibitive category. That is an important number to know as we look at the efficacy of this change. Additionally, how many estimated crimes would be intervenable upon under the new definition and vs how many have law enforcement failed to under current definitions that resulted in a serious injury or death.

Like the Red Flag language, which is the other main hangup, the expansion of relationship definition must be causative and effective if the bill is to have any positive influence. We will see, we still have not seen the text of this agreed to framework.

Rep. Matt Gaetz: Biden's IRS Spent Approximately $700,000 on Ammo 'Between March and June 1'

According to Rep. Matt Gaetz, President Biden’s IRS bought $700,000 on ammunition between March and June 1st of this year 2022. This heavy purchase of ammunition raised some eyebrows as to what would be the purpose behind this purchase. Read more below from BreitBart News.
From BreitBart News:

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) told Breitbart News Saturday the IRS spent approximately $700,000 “between March and June 1” purchasing ammunition.

Gaetz described the ammunition acquisition as “bizarre.”

He noted he and his Republican colleagues are trying to ascertain why the ammunition was purchased, noting, “There is concern that this is part of a broader effort to have any entity in the federal government buy up ammo to reduce the amount of ammunition that is in supply, while at the same time, making it harder to produce ammo.”

Gaetz noted a scenario where federal entities are buying up ammo puts citizens in a place where the exercise of the Second Amendment is limited due to the inability to get ammunition.

He painted a dire scenario where the government reduces ammunition production “and, on the other hand, [soaks] up the supply of it.”

A usaspending.gov search lists the IRS’s ammunition purchases, which occurred over a period of months in increments ranging from $3,201 worth of ammo at one time to $92,000+ worth of ammo at one time.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkinsa weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio and a Turning Point USA Ambassador. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Read on [here] from the article source

Supreme Court could soon make it easier to carry guns in six states – HotAir

The Supreme Court could soon lift some restrictions for concealed carry in six different states. The states the restrictions would be potentially lifted in are New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, and Massachusetts. Read more below from HotAir News.
From HotAir News:

It will be the first major Second Amendment decision from the court in more than a decade. And if the justices strike down New York’s century-old restrictions on carrying concealed firearms, as appeared likely when the case was argued last fall, similar regulations in California, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, and Massachusetts would be vulnerable.

Elected leaders in those liberal-leaning states and gun-control advocates throughout the country are bracing for a decision that extends the constitutional right to gun ownership beyond a person’s home to gathering spots such as restaurants and shopping malls. And they fear that, depending on how broadly the court may rule, related restrictions, including state bans on high-powered, semiautomatic firearms, also could be at risk…

New York’s law requires a gun owner to obtain a license to carry a handgun. To get the license, they must demonstrate to local authorities a specific need for carrying the gun. Gun-rights advocates say citizens should not have to justify the need to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. If New York’s “proper cause” requirement is invalidated, the Second Amendment groups will be closely monitoring states with similar laws to ensure that officials take steps to loosen permitting rules.

“If they don’t do that,” said Matthew Larosiere, policy director for the Firearms Policy Coalition. “We’ll certainly be suing them.”

Read on [here] from the article source

Lauren Boebert says America is wrong when declaiming the 2nd Amendment

Lauren Boebert speaks out on people who are against the second amendment and where she stands. She believes that gun control is one thing but tampering with the second amendment is off limits. Read more about it below from Bharat Express News.
From Bharat Express News:

Rep. Lauren Boebert raged against the Senate gun control bill while spelling America incorrectly.

Boebert tweeted:

Boebert was trying to argue that the Constitution is absolute when there have been many changes in the Constitution. For example, slavery is illegal and Lauren Boebert can vote and hold elected office. If we didn’t compromise/change the Constitution, Boebert wouldn’t be where she is today.

The Second Amendment has also been subject to judicial interpretation and is not absolute. The courts have ruled that the Second Amendment is not an absolute right.

In the House, the votes of a scholar and constitutional expert like Jamie Raskin and someone who can spell America like Lauren Boebert are equal.

Rep. Boebert has no idea what she’s talking about, but if Republicans regain a majority in the House, she’ll have more power in the legislature than Rep. Raskin.

Boebert warned that anyone who votes for gun control is not on Ameirca’s side, which is good considering the vast majority of Americans want tougher gun control laws.

Mr. Easley is the editor. He is also a member of the White House press pool and a congressional correspondent for PoliticusUSA. Jason holds a bachelor’s degree in political science. His graduate studies focused on public policy, with a specialization in social reform movements.

Awards and Professional Memberships

Member of the Society of Professional Journalists and the American Political Science Association

Read on [here] from the article source

Twitter Hate Trolls Attack Calif. for Equal Rights Foundation Exec. Dir. Over Reparations


Trolls chose to go on twitter to attack an equal rights foundation executive director over reparations. Those comments they made were derogatory and racist and even spilled over on the Facebook platform. Read more about it below from California Globe.

From California Globe:

It’s open season on those right-of-center, conservatives, and moderate Democrats, and the media is mostly silent about it. The assignation attempt of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh went unreported in major media outlets. The homemade explosive device found outside the home of San Jose City Councilwoman Dev Davis also received little to no coverage, except for the Globe’s.

Dr. Wenyuan Wu, Executive Director of Californians for Equal Rights Foundation and the historic No on Proposition 16 Campaign, has become fodder for an anonymous group of haters on Twitter for daring to question the California Reparations Task Force. Dr. Wu notes that the the Reparations Task Force is a nine-member team of Democratic politicians, activists, and scholars.

In a recent article Dr. Wu wrote for for Minding the Campus titled “Reparations or Ransom?” she was critical  of the California Reparations Task Force’s recent 500 page report, and the “sweeping policy recommendations such as zero-interest home loans, free college tuition, free healthcare, tree-planting for environmental equity, voting rights for the incarcerated, and monetary compensation at both the state and federal levels.”

She did an interview with NBC San Diego, and the Twitter trolls started attacking.

The Twitter trolls starting trolling all of her Twitter posts. She said within a day, “the attacks started bleeding over to Facebook.”

The Twitter trolls don’t use their real names and say vile, racist things:

Wu has been viciously targeted by hate groups on Twitter:

In her article, Dr. Wu challenges the Task Force’s findings:

The jaw-dropping findings from this “first-in-the-nation effort by a state government to study slavery, its effects throughout American history, and the compounding harms” rest upon the sole premise that systemic racism is a permanent feature of America. Slavery and its legacy institutions, including white supremacy, housing segregation, employment discrimination, and a lack of education funding, are the chief culprit behind contemporary racial disparities in wealth, health, and learning. The report’s grim outlook on American society, a nihilist stance that discounts any socioeconomic progress in advancing racial equality, makes a mockery of our multi-racial democracy.

Wenyuan Wu said some of the Twitter trolls called for a boycott of Asian-owned businesses:

Dr. Wu continued her challenge of the California Reparations Task Force report:

Conveniently, the report does not make a distinction between descendants of African slaves and black Americans, a diverse group encompassing 46.8 million people with ancestral roots across the globe, 10% of whom are foreign-born. In a similarly cartoonish fashion, the extensive endeavor uses whites as the baseline for crude, dichotomous comparisons to justify alleged institutionalized harms, although many observed disparities exist between non-white groups as well.

Dr. Wu points out actual historical inaccuracies:

The authors argue that during American slavery and even after the Civil War, white supremacy created insurmountable obstacles for black children to obtain quality education, the effects of which are still felt today. This dark reality is said to be true even in California, where white-led state legislatures allegedly passed a series of laws to racially segregate public schools and severely underfund black schools, although the state joined the Union in 1850 as a free state and the state constitution at the time contained an anti-enslavement clause.

Dr. Wu says “they are stoking hate between minority groups.” The report authors note:

“A California law passed in 1855 withheld state funds from schools that taught Black and Chinese children. So although California taxed African Americans to pay for the state’s public schools, a Black Californian’s taxes only paid for the education of white children, and they had no right to education for their own children.”

Dr. Wu responded:

The addition of Chinese students to the equation is one of the few exceptions to the black-vs-white contrast throughout the report. Ironically, if pre-Civil War racist laws still have long-lasting effects in the present day, how can one explain the fact that the biggest academic achievement gap today by every measurable metric is not the one between white and black students, but that between Asian and black students?

She said much of this can be traced back to 2020 and the No on Proposition 16 campaign, which sought to remove the following from California Constitution:” The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public jobs, schools, and contracting.”

Dr. Wu said she was similarly attacked during the No on Prop. 16 campaign. “They want to intimidate me,” Dr. Wu said.

Voters soundly defeated Prop. 16, and the merit-based system remains in place, even if schools and government don’t actually practice it.

As for Dr. Wu reporting to Twitter the harassment she received with these hateful and racist Tweets, she said Twitter claimed there was no harassment.

“They are calling for my employer to fire me,” Dr. Wu said. “They are cowards. This is not about exercising 1st Amendment rights – this is trolling others who disagree with them, and that’s attacking my 1st Amendment rights.”

You can watch Dr. Wu’s NBC San Diego interview here:

Dr. Wu writes for Minding the Campus of the National Association of Scholars and sits on the board of Parents Defending Education Action and is a contributor to California Globe. You can read “Reparations or Ransom?” at Minding the Campus.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Latest posts by Katy Grimes (see all)
Spread the news:


Read on [here] from the article source