ReportWire

Tag: Gun politics

  • Tennessee university reinstates professor fired for Charlie Kirk post and settles for $500k

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Austin Peay State University has reinstated a professor who was fired for his social media post after the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The Tennessee school is also paying the teacher $500,000 in the settlement.

    Austin Peay spokesperson Brian Dunn said Darren Michael returned to his position as a tenured faculty member at the public university in Clarksville effective Dec. 30. A copy of the settlement agreement obtained through a public records request includes a $500,000 payment and reimbursement of counseling, as reported earlier this week by WKRN-TV.

    Tennessee’s governor, attorney general and comptroller signed a document authorizing the settlement payment.

    Michael, a theater and dance professor, was among people who reported facing a conservative backlash and punishment at work for their online posts about Kirk’s fatal shooting in September. He was later moved to a suspension status.

    In a Dec. 30 email to the university community, Austin Peay President Mike Licari said the school did not follow the required tenure termination process. The communication was another requirement under the settlement.

    Licari added, “I deeply regret and apologize for the impact this has had on Professor Michael and on our campus community. I am committed to ensuring that due process and fairness are upheld in all future actions.”

    Two days after Kirk’s killing, Republican U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee circulated a screenshot indicating Michael on Sept. 10 had posted the headline of a 2023 news article reading, “Charlie Kirk Says Gun Deaths ‘Unfortunately’ Worth it to Keep 2nd Amendment.” Blackburn, who is also a candidate for governor, included a photograph and biography of Michael. She wrote, “What do you say, Austin Peay State University?” and tagged the university’s account.

    Blackburn’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the settlement.

    David L. King, Michael’s attorney, said the professor said “nothing that was threatening or otherwise offensive.” King decried the pressure applied by “outside forces” and said the ordeal “caused a great deal of harm” to Michael and his daughter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Appeals panel says California’s ban on open carry is unconstitutional

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal appeals panel has ruled that a California law prohibiting open carry of firearms in heavily populated counties is unconstitutional.

    The ruling was issued Friday by two judges on a three-judge panel for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judges found that the state’s policy of limiting open carry to counties with a population of less than 200,000 is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

    “California’s legal regime is a complete ban on open carry in urban areas — the areas of the state where 95% of the people live,” they said in the decision.

    The dissenting judge disagreed and said California could limit open carry in more populated areas because it allows for concealed carry throughout the state.

    The ruling comes in a long-running debate over gun laws in the United States and in California, which has passed a series of restrictions.

    It came after Mark Baird, a Siskiyou County resident, filed a lawsuit asking the courts to restore the historical practice of open carry being allowed.

    Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said he expected state officials will seek a review of the ruling by the full appeals court.

    “It’s a very significant opinion,” Michel said, adding that a key question in the case is how a 2022 Supreme Court decision expanding gun rights should be applied.

    The press office for Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement on social media that the state’s law was carefully crafted to comply with the Second Amendment.

    “California just got military troops with weapons of war off of the streets of our cities, but now Republican activists on the Ninth Circuit want to replace them with gunslingers and return to the days of the Wild West,” the statement said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hunter Biden disbarred in Connecticut after complaints about gun, tax convictions

    [ad_1]

    WATERBURY, Conn. — A judge on Monday disbarred Hunter Biden in Connecticut for violating the state’s attorney conduct rules, a decision that comes after complaints were made about the federal gun and tax charges Biden was convicted of before being pardoned last year by his father, former President Joe Biden.

    In an agreement with the state office that disciplines lawyers, Hunter Biden consented to being disbarred and admitted to attorney misconduct, but he did not admit to any criminal wrongdoing. He was disbarred in Washington, D.C., in May.

    Hunter Biden did not speak as he and his lawyer, Ross Garber, appeared via video at a virtual court hearing before Judge Trial Referee Patrick L. Carroll III in Waterbury.

    Hunter Biden was convicted last year in Delaware federal court of three felonies for purchasing a gun in 2018 when, prosecutors said, he lied on a federal form by claiming he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.

    He had been set to stand trial in September 2024 in a California case in which prosecutors accused him of failing to pay at least $1.4 million in federal taxes. He agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor and felony charges hours after jury selection was set to begin.

    The Connecticut judge found that Hunter Biden violated several ethical rules for lawyers, including engaging in conduct “involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” In a court document, Hunter Biden admitted to some but not all of the misconduct allegations. The judge also cited the Washington disbarment.

    Paul Dorsey, one of the two people who filed the complaints about the former president’s son, told the judge during Monday’s hearing that he objected to the agreement because Hunter Biden did not admit to committing crimes. But Leanne Larson, an attorney with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, cited the pardon.

    Hunter Biden was admitted to the Connecticut bar in 1997, a year after graduating from Yale Law School.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal judge asked to strike down firearm age restrictions

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A coalition of gun rights groups are asking a federal judge to strike down Massachusetts’ ban on the sale of handguns to anyone age 18 to 20 in response to a federal appeals court ruling that overturned a federal ban.

    In a filing in U.S. District Court, the Las Vegas-based Firearms Policy Coalition and other groups ask the judge to grant an injunction blocking the state’s age-based prohibitions from being enforced. The groups argue that the 18 to 20 age group is protected by the Second Amendment and that there is “historical tradition” supporting the states restrictions.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“x? DF>[ `gE@a_J62C@=5D 2C6 A2CE @7 ‘E96 A6@A=6’ H:E9 $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E C:89ED[ 2?5 E96C6 😀 ?@ H6==6DE23=:D965 2?5 C6AC6D6?E2E:G6 7@F?5:?86C2 9:DE@C:42= EC25:E:@? E92E E96 DE2E6 4@F=5 A@DD:3=J A@:?E E@ E92E H@F=5 ;FDE:7J AC@9:3:E:?8 E96> A@DD6DD:?8 2?5 42CCJ:?8 7:C62C>D @? 2? 6BF2= 7@@E:?8 H:E9 @E96C 25F=E 4:E:K6?D[” =2HJ6CD 7@C E96 A=2:?E:77D HC@E6 😕 E96 acA286 4@FCE 7:=:?8]k^Am

    kAm%96 8C@FA’D >@E:@? 7@C 2 DF>>2CJ ;F58>6?E 😀 E96 =2E6DE =682= G@==6J 😕 2 =2HDF:E 7:=65 😕 u63CF2CJ @? 3692=7 @7 2? `gJ62C@=5 qC6HDE6C >2? H9@ 92D 2 DE2E6 7:C62C> :56?E:7:42E:@? 42C5] qFE 3642FD6 @7 9:D 286[ 96 42??@E 3FJ 2?5 42CCJ 2 92?58F? 7@C A6CD@?2= 5676?D6[ @C 2 D6>:2FE@>2E:4 C:7=6 7@C 9F?E:?8 2?5 E2C86E D9@@E:?8]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED AC@9:3:ED 2?J@?6 `g @C J@F?86C 7C@> AFC492D:?8 2 7:C62C> @C 2>>F?:E:@? H9:=6 C6D:56?ED F?56C a` 42??@E 3FJ 2 92?58F?[ D6>:2FE@>2E:4 C:7=6 @C D9@E8F?[ @C =2C8642A24:EJ H62A@?]k^Am

    kAm|:?@CD 286D `d E@ `f 42? 86E 2 =:>:E65 7:C62C> xs 7@C C:7=6D 2?5 D9@E8F?D 7@C 9F?E:?8 2?5 E2C86E D9@@E:?8 H:E9 E96 A6C>:DD:@? @7 2 A2C6?E @C 8F2C5:2?]k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6 C6DEC:4E:@?D 92G6 =@?8 366? E2C86E65 3J 8F? C:89ED 8C@FAD H9@ 2C8F6 E92E :7 `gJ62C@=5D 42? 6?=:DE 😕 E96 >:=:E2CJ 2?5 36 D6?E @77 E@ 7:89E[ E96J D9@F=5 36 23=6 E@ 6I6C4:D6 E96:C $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E C:89ED 2D 4:G:=:2?D]k^Am

    kAmx? y2?F2CJ[ E96 u:7E9 r:C4F:E &]$] r@FCE @7 pAA62=D DECF4< 5@H? 2 =@?8DE2?5:?8 7656C2= 32? E92E AC6G6?E65 E96 D2=6 @7 92?58F?D E@ p>6C:42?D 36EH66? E96 286D @7 `g 2?5 a_[ CF=:?8 E92E E96 7656C2= =2H 32??:?8 92?58F? D2=6D E@ E66?D 😀 :?4@?D:DE6?E H:E9 E96 ?2E:@?’D 9:DE@C:42= EC25:E:@? 2?5 G:@=2E6D E96 $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E]k^Am

    kAm%96 ;F586D 2=D@ 4:E65 E96 &]$] $FAC6>6 r@FCE’D =2?5>2C< a_aa CF=:?8 😕 }6H *@C< $E2E6 #:7=6 2?5 !:DE@= pDD@4:2E:@? G] qCF6?[ H9:49 96=5 E96C6 😀 2 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89E E@ 42CCJ 2 92?58F? @FED:56 E96 9@>6 7@C D6=75676?D6]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 42D6 😀 23@FE 6?5:?8 |2DD249FD6EED’ 2FE9@C:E2C:2?[ 28632D65 2EE24< @? A624623=6 25F=ED[” qC2?5@? r@>3D[ E96 8C@FA’D AC6D:56?E[ D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “%96 DE2E6’D 32? :D?’E ;FDE F?4@?DE:EFE:@?2= – :E’D 2? :?DF=E E@ E96 G6CJ AC:?4:A=6D E9:D ?2E:@? H2D 3F:=E @?]”k^Am

    kAm~? q624@? w:==[ #6AF3=:42? =2H>2<6CD 92G6 7:=65 =68:D=2E:@? E92E H@F=5 C6A62= E96 DE2E6’D `g E@ a_J62C@=5 C6DEC:4E:@?D] qFE E96 AC@A@D2= 7246D =@?8 @55D 😕 E96 s6>@4C2E:44@?EC@==65 DE2E6 {68:D=2EFC6[ H96C6 =2H>2<6CD 92G6 D@F89E E@ E:89E6? 8F? =2HD 😕 C646?E J62CD]k^Am

    kAmvF? 4@?EC@= 25G@42E6D 92G6 =@?8 2C8F65 E92E 6IA2?5:?8 2446DD E@ 7:C62C>D 7@C J@F?8 25F=ED H@F=5 @?=J :?4C62D6 8F? G:@=6?46[ ?@E:?8 E92E 92?58F?D 2C6 E96 >@DE 4@>>@?=J FD65 H62A@?D 😕 >FC56CD 2?5 >2DD D9@@E:?8D]k^Am

    kAm%96J 2=D@ ?@E6 E92E E96 >2;@C:EJ @7 >2DD D9@@E:?8D 2C6 42CC:65 @FE 3J J@F?8 25F=ED 2?5 4:E6 D4:6?E:7:4 C6D62C49 D9@H:?8 E92E 3C2:? 56G6=@A>6?E 😀 ?@E 7F==J 4@>A=6E6 2E `g J62CD @=5 E@ 2C8F6 E96J 42??@E 36 ECFDE65 E@ FD6 8F?D D276=J]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Judges rule some Florida gun laws are unconstitutional. Here’s what to know

    [ad_1]

    TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A pair of court rulings declaring some of Florida’s gun restrictions unconstitutional are creating some confusion in the notoriously firearm-friendly state — and fueling activists’ calls for Republican legislators to take action to update state statutes so they abide by the new legal landscape.

    Despite Florida’s history of being a gun-supporting climate, Florida’s GOP-dominated state Legislature took steps to restrict gun laws in the wake of the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Since the day the measure was signed into law, gun rights advocates have been pushing to unravel it.

    Now, activists say recent court rulings are fueling their push to expand gun rights in the state, emboldened by U.S. Supreme Court’s updated standards for evaluating gun laws based on the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

    “Leaving unconstitutional laws on the books creates nothing but confusion,” said Sean Caranna, executive director of the advocacy group Florida Carry.

    Here’s what to know.

    A ruling by a circuit court judge in Broward County, home to Fort Lauderdale, found that Florida’s prohibition against people under the age of 21 from carrying a concealed firearm is unconstitutional, at least as it relates to the case in question.

    Last week, Judge Frank Ledee tossed out the conviction of 19-year-old Joel Walkes, who was charged with a third-degree felony for carrying a concealed handgun. Florida statutes currently allow people between the age of 18 and 20 to possess a firearm, if they legally receive it as a gift or an inheritance, but they are barred from purchasing guns or carrying them concealed.

    Ledee found the state’s prohibition is incompatible with the Supreme Court’s historical test, and inconsistent with a recent appeals court ruling that found a state law banning the open carrying of firearms is unconstitutional. In his decision, the judge pointed to the Legislature’s role in codifying and clarifying the changes.

    “Distilling these inconsistencies into a framework of firearm regulations compatible with the guarantee to bear arms pursuant to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is best left to the wisdom of legislative debate,” Ledee wrote.

    Florida’s First District Court of Appeal issued its ruling last month in a case stemming from the July 4, 2022, arrest of a man who stood at a major intersection in downtown Pensacola carrying a visible, holstered pistol and a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

    The decision legalizes open carry, though there are preexisting limitations against carrying in a threatening manner or in certain restricted spaces like government meetings, schools and bars. The ruling has prompted some Florida sheriffs to urge caution among gun owners and seek clarity from lawmakers.

    Legalizing open carry has long been a major focus of gun rights activists in the state, who oppose the slate of restrictions that Florida’ lawmakers implemented in the wake of the Parkland school shooting, which killed 17 people and injured 17 others. Among the law’s provisions was raising the legal gun-buying age to 21.

    Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University, said the recent court decisions put more onus on lawmakers to enact state statutes that line up with recent judicial rulings.

    “I would not be surprised if in the next session the Florida Legislature doesn’t just take care of this by amending the statute to say, ‘clean it up.’ And then that’ll end all these lawsuits and possible lawsuits,” Jarvis said of the age-related prohibition. “And that’s really now what should happen.”

    In the years since the 2018 Parkland shooting, lawmakers’ efforts to lower the gun-buying age to 18 have advanced in the Florida House but ultimately failed in the state Senate.

    Now some advocates say the recent court rulings should force the hand of legislators who have opposed expanding gun rights in the past.

    “We’ve been telling the Legislature since 2010 that this was going to be a problem for them if they didn’t act. And they chose not to act,” Caranna said.

    “I hope that given some of the recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court and the Florida courts, that they will finally see that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” he added.

    Representatives for Florida’s House speaker and Senate president did not immediately respond to inquiries Wednesday.

    ___

    Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court to consider whether people who regularly smoke pot can legally own guns

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said on Monday that it will consider whether people who regularly smoke marijuana can legally own guns, the latest firearm case to come before the court since its 2022 decision expanding gun rights.

    President Donald Trump’s administration asked the justices to revive a case against a Texas man charged with a felony because he allegedly had a gun in his home and acknowledged being a regular pot user. The Justice Department appealed after a lower court largely struck down a law that bars people who use any illegal drugs from having guns.

    Arguments probably will take place early in 2026, with a decision likely by early summer.

    The Republican administration favors Second Amendment rights, but government attorneys argued that this ban is a justifiable restriction.

    They asked the court to reinstate a case against Ali Danial Hemani. His lawyers got the felony charge tossed out after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the blanket ban is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s expanded view of gun rights. The appellate judges found it could still be used against people accused of being high and armed at the same time, though.

    Hemani’s attorneys argue the broadly written law puts millions of people at risk of technical violations since at least 20% of Americans have tried pot, according to government health data. About half of states legalized recreational marijuana, but it’s still illegal under federal law.

    The Justice Department argues the law is valid when used against regular drug users because they pose a serious public safety risk. The government said the FBI found Hemani’s gun and cocaine in a search of his home as they probed travel and communications allegedly linked to Iran. The gun charge was the only one filed, however, and his lawyers said the other allegations were irrelevant and were mentioned only to make him seem more dangerous.

    The case marks another flashpoint in the application of the Supreme Court’s new test for firearm restrictions. The conservative majority found in 2022 that the Second Amendment generally gives people the right to carry guns in public for self-defense and any firearm restrictions must have a strong grounding in the nation’s history.

    The landmark 2022 ruling led to a cascade of challenges to firearm laws around the country, though the justices have since upheld a different federal law intended to protect victims of domestic violence by barring guns from people under restraining orders.

    ___

    Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court to consider overturning Hawaii law regulating where guns can be carried

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it will consider overturning a Hawaii law that imposes strict regulations on where people can carry guns.

    The Trump administration had urged the justices to take the case, arguing the law violates the court’s 2022 ruling that found people have a right to carry firearms in public under the Second Amendment.

    The Hawaii law bans guns on private property unless the owner has specifically allowed them. It also prohibits firearms in places like beaches, parks, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

    State attorneys argue that they’ve already loosened its concealed-carry permit regulations to align with the high court’s 2022 ruling. They say its new restrictions strike a reasonable balance between gun rights and public safety.

    A judge blocked the Hawaii law after it was challenged in court by a gun rights group and three people from Maui. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely reversed that decision and allowed Hawaii to enforce the law.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DOJ sues LA sheriff for not giving out concealed carry licenses quickly enough

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — The U.S. Department of Justice sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department on Tuesday, alleging it violated the Constitution by moving too slowly to process gun licenses for people who want to carry concealed weapons.

    The sheriff’s department’s “unreasonable delays” in granting licenses violates California residents’ Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division said in a complaint filed in Los Angeles federal court.

    “The Second Amendment protects the fundamental constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “Los Angeles County may not like that right, but the Constitution does not allow them to infringe upon it.”

    Messages were sent to the sheriff’s department seeking comment.

    The lawsuit comes after the DOJ began analyzing concealed-carry permit applications in the county starting last March.

    “Almost two months after receiving notice of the Division’s investigation, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department provided data and documents that revealed only two approvals from over 8,000 applications, and that the Sheriff’s Department set out interviews to approve licenses as far as two years after receiving the completed application,” the DOJ statement said.

    The sheriff’s department waits an average 281 days to start processing applications, violating a California law requiring initial reviews within 90 days, according to the complaint.

    The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction requiring the sheriff’s department to issue concealed carry licenses in a timely fashion under the law.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom has positioned himself as a leader on gun control and said he will push for stricter regulations.

    In January, a federal appeals court prevented a state law from taking effect that banned people from carrying firearms in most public places. That decision, which the state is appealing, kept in place a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney blocking the law. Carney said it violates the Second Amendment and that gun rights groups would likely prevail in proving it unconstitutional.

    The law would prohibit people from carrying concealed guns in 26 types of places, including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal judge rejects challenge to handgun restrictions

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A federal judge has upheld the state’s ban on the sale of certain types of handguns following a legal challenge by gun rights groups that vow to repeal the ruling.

    In a decision issued Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper rejected claims in a lawsuit filed by the owners of Gunrunners LLC and the Delaware-based Firearms Policy Coalition alleging that the restrictions violate the Second Amendment and are “inconsistent” with the nation’s history of firearm regulation.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm{2HJ6CD 7@C E96 A=2:?E:77D E@@< 2:> 2E E96 DE2E6’D 32? @? 46CE2:? EJA6D @7 92?58F?D[ 2C8F:?8 :E 😀 F?4@?DE:EFE:@?2= 32D65 @? E96 &]$] $FAC6>6 r@FCE’D =2?5>2C< a_aa CF=:?8 😕 }6H *@C< $E2E6 #:7=6 2?5 !:DE@= pDD@4:2E:@? G] qCF6?[ H9:49 96=5 E96C6 😀 2 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89E E@ 42CCJ 2 92?58F? @FED:56 E96 9@>6 7@C D6=75676?D6]k^Am

    kAm“x? 5:C64E 567:2?46 @7 E9:D AC64656?E[ |2DD249FD6EED 92D 4=@D65 :ED 3@C56CD E@ =2C86 A@CE:@?D @7 E96 >@56C? 92?58F? >2C<6E[ 32??:?8 2D “F?D276” >2?J @7 E96 7:C62C>D E92E 2C6 >@DE ECFDE65 3J E96 p>6C:42? A6@A=6 24C@DD E96 4@F?ECJ[ DF3DE:EFE:?8 :ED ;F58>6?E 7@C E96:CD[” E96 A=2:?E:77D HC@E6 😕 4@FCE 7:=:?8D]k^Am

    kAmqFE r2DA6C C6;64E65 E9@D6 2C8F>6?ED[ 2C8F:?8 E92E E96 DE2E6’D C68F=2E:@?D C6BF:C6 92?58F?D D@=5 3J C6E2:=6CD E@ 92G6 2 “>6492?:D> H9:49 67764E:G6=J AC64=F56D 2? 2G6C286 7:G6 J62C @=5 49:=5 7C@> @A6C2E:?8 E96 92?58F? H96? :E 😀 C625J E@ 7:C6]”k^Am

    kAm“%96 AFCA@D6 7@C E96 C68F=2E:@?D 😀 “C6=2E:G6=J D:>:=2C” E@ E92E @7 E96 9:DE@C:42= 6G:56?46[ H9:49 H2D E@ AC6G6?E 49:=5C6? 7C@> 244:56?E2==J 5:D492C8:?8 2 7:C62C> 8:G6? E96:C 23:=:EJ E@ 92?5=6 2?5 @A6C2E6 E96 7:C62C>[” r2DA6C HC@E6]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED 92D D@>6 @7 E96 E@F896DE 7:C62C> C68F=2E:@?D 😕 E96 ?2E:@? 2?5 AC@9:3:ED 2?J@?6 `g J62CD @=5 @C J@F?86C 7C@> AFC492D:?8 2 7:C62C> @C 2>>F?:E:@?[ H9:=6 C6D:56?ED F?56C a` 42??@E 3FJ 2 92?58F?[ D6>:2FE@>2E:4 C:7=6 @C D9@E8F?[ @C =2C8642A24:EJ H62A@?]k^Am

    kAm&?56C DE2E6 C68F=2E:@?D[ 92?58F?D D@=5 3J 562=6CD >FDE A2DD 2 >2<6 2?5 >@56= A6C7@C>2?46 E6DE AC@G:?8 E96J 2C6 ?@E AC@?6 E@ C6A62E65 7:C:?8 7C@> 2 D:?8=6 EC:886C AF==[ 6IA=@D:@? FA@? 7:C:?8 H:E9 DE2?52C5 2>>F?:E:@?[ @C 244:56?E2= 5:D492C86] %96 DE2E6 92D 2 C@DE6C @7 92?58F?D 2AAC@G65 7@C D2=6]k^Am

    kAmvF? 4@?EC@= 25G@42E6D 2C8F6 E96 DE2E6’D DEC:4E C6BF:C6>6?ED – :?4=F5:?8 C62=E:>6 =:46?D6 4964D]k^Am

    kAmqFE $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E 8C@FAD 92G6 =@?8 2C8F65 E92E E96 E@F896C 8F? 4@?EC@= =2HD 2C6 F??646DD2CJ 2?5 AF?:D9 =2H23:5:?8 8F? @H?6CD H9:=6 D:56DE6AA:?8 E96 :DDF6 @7 :==682= 7:C62C>D] %96 DE2E6’D 7:C62C> =:46?D:?8 AC@46DD 92D =@?8 366? 2 E2C86E 7@C 8F? C:89ED 8C@FAD]k^Am

    kAmpEE@C?6J v6?6C2= p?5C62 r2>A36==[ H9@ H2D ?2>65 2D 2 5676?52?E 😕 E96 =2HDF:E[ D2:5 E96 CF=:?8 4@?7:C>D E92E “|2DD249FD6EED 92D E96 DEC@?86DE 8F? D276EJ =2HD 😕 E96 4@F?ECJ E92E 2C6 6?7@C465 4@?D:DE6?E H:E9 AF3=:4 D276EJ 2?5 E96 $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E]”k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 564:D:@? E@ FA9@=5 |2DD249FD6EED 92?58F? D276EJ C68F=2E:@?D 😀 2 D:8?:7:42?E H:? E92E H:== AC@E64E E96 AF3=:4 2?5 4@?E:?F6 |2DD249FD6EED’ =6256CD9:A @? 8F? G:@=6?46 AC6G6?E:@?[” E96 s6>@4C2E D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am

    kAmqFE qC2?5@? r@>3D[ u!r’D AC6D:56?E[ 4C:E:4:K65 r2DA6C’D CF=:?8 2D “3:K2CC6 2?5 566A=J 7=2H65” 2?5 D2:5 E96 A=2:?E:77D H:== 2AA62= E96 564:D:@?]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 564:D:@? 😀 23DFC5[ =2H=6DD[ 2?5 :>A@DD:3=6 E@ C64@?4:=6 H:E9 3:?5:?8 $FAC6>6 r@FCE AC64656?E @C E96 E6IE 2?5 9:DE@CJ @7 E96 r@?DE:EFE:@?[” 96 D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “|2<6 ?@ >:DE2<6i u!r H:== 2AA62= E9:D :?D2?6 CF=:?8 2?5 H6 H:== 7:89E F?E:= E9:D F?4@?DE:EFE:@?2= 32? 😀 DECF4< 5@H? – H92E6G6C :E E2<6D[ 7@C 2D =@?8 2D :E E2<6D]”k^Am

    kAmk6>mr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^6>mk^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Panel urges state to offer tax breaks for ‘personalized’ firearms

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A state panel is recommending that lawmakers carve out a sales tax break for “personalized” firearms as part of broader efforts to reduce gun deaths.

    In a report, the Special Legislative Commission on Emerging Firearm Technology calls for passage of legislation that would authorize a sales tax break for purchases of firearms equipped with the new technology and set penalties for firearms sellers and gun owners who violate the proposed regulations.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“%96 4@>>:DD:@? 7:?5D E92E A6CD@?2=:K65 7:C62C>D @776C 2 D:8?:7:42?E A@DD:3:=:EJ @7 C65F4:?8 7:C62C> 244:56?ED 2?5 562E9D[” E96 C6A@CE’D 2FE9@CD HC@E6] “v:G6? E96 9:896C AC:46 @7 E96D6 7:C62C>D[ E96 4@>>:DD:@? C64@>>6?5D E92E E96 |2DD249FD6EED v6?6C2= r@FCE AFCDF6 D2=6D E2I 6I6>AE:@?D E@ 6?4@FC286 E96:C AFC492D6]”k^Am

    kAm%96 4@>>:DD:@?[ H9:49 :?4=F565 DE2E6 =2H>2<6CD[ =2H 6?7@C46>6?E @77:4:2=D 2?5 w62=6J 25>:?:DEC2E:@? @77:4:2=D[ C64@>>6?565 E92E E96 {68:D=2EFC6 A2DD 2 =2H 5:C64E:?8 E96 DE2E6 tI64FE:G6 ~77:46 @7 !F3=:4 $276EJ 2?5 $64FC:EJ E@ “56E6C>:?6 E96 762D:3:=:EJ 2?5 G:23:=:EJ” @7 >:4C@DE2>A:?8 E649?@=@8J 2?5 DEF5J :ED 67764E:G6?6DD 😕 7@C6?D:4 :?G6DE:82E:@?D]k^Am

    kAm~E96C C64@>>6?52E:@?D :?4=F565 C6BF:C:?8 2== D6>:2FE@>2E:4 92?58F?D ?6H=J C68:DE6C65 😕 E96 DE2E6 36 6BF:AA65 H:E9 >:4C@DE2>A:?8 E649?@=@8J 2?5 D6E A6?2=E:6D 7@C 92?58F? >2?F724EFC6CD[ 5:DEC:3FE@CD 2?5 >6C492?ED H9@ 5@ ?@E 4@>A=J]k^Am

    kAm%96 D2=6D E2I 3C62< AC@A@D2= H@? E96 DFAA@CE @7 E96 8F? :?5FDECJ C6AC6D6?E2E:G6 @? E96 4@>>:DD:@? – y2<6 |4vF:82? @7 E96 }2E:@?2= $9@@E:?8 $A@CED u@F?52E:@? x?4][ H9@ G@E65 E@ DFAA@CE E96 E2I 3C62<]k^Am

    kAm%96 A2?6=[ 9@H6G6C[ H2D =2C86=J 5:G:565 @G6C 2 AC@A@D2= E@ 4C62E6 2 D2=6D E2I 6I6>AE:@? 7@C E96 AFC492D6 @7 2 A6CD@?2=:K65 7:C62C> H:E9 E96 “EC256:?” @7 2 ?@?A6CD@?2=:K65 7:C62C>] |4vF:82? 2?5 E96 EH@ #6AF3=:42?D @? E96 4@>>:DD:@? – $6?] !6E6C sFC2?E 2?5 #6A] s@?2=5 q6CE9:2F>6[ yC] – G@E65 282:?DE E92E @AE:@?[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 4@>>:DD:@?’D C6A@CE]k^Am

    kAmp >:4C@DE2>A:?86?23=65 7:C62C> 92D 2 F?:BF6 4@56 :>AC:?E65 @? :ED 7:C:?8 A:?[ DE2>A65 @?E@ 3F==6E 42CEC:586 42D:?8D 6249 E:>6 :E 😀 5:D492C865]k^Am

    kAm%9@D6 F?:BF6 :>AC:?ED :56?E:7J E96 7:C62C>’D >2<6[ >@56= 2?5 D6C:2= ?F>36C[ 2==@H:?8 =2H 6?7@C46>6?E E@ >2E49 DA6?E 42CEC:586 42D:?8D 7@F?5 2E 2 4C:>6 D46?6 E@ E96 DA64:7:4 7:C62C>D]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D :56?E:7:42E:@? >6E9@5 >2J D6CG6 2D 2?@E96C E@@= 2?5 @AA@CEF?:EJ 7@C =2H 6?7@C46>6?E E@ :?G6DE:82E6[ D@=G6[ 2?5 AC@D64FE6 8F? 4C:>6D[” E96 C6A@CE’D 2FE9@CD HC@E6] “(:E9 2 A@D:E:G6 :56?E:7:42E:@? @7 2? xu| 4@56[ :?G6DE:82E:@?D >2J =625 5:C64E=J E@ E96 7:C62C> :?G@=G65 😕 2 4C:>6 2?5 7FCE96C 6>A@H6C =2H 6?7@C46>6?E E@ =:?< D6A2C2E6 4C:>6D]”k^Am

    kAmqFE E96 E649?@=@8J 😀 ?6H=J 6>6C8:?8[ 2?5 D@ 72C @?=J EH@ &]$] >2?F724EFC6CD 2C6 😕 E96 AC@46DD @7 >2<:?8 A6CD@?2=:K65 H62A@?D[ @?=J @?6 @7 H9:49 92D 366? 2AAC@G65 7@C E96 >2C<6E[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 4@>>:DD:@?’D 7:?5:?8D] %96 A6CD@?2=:K65 H62A@?D 2=D@ 4@DE >F49 >@C6 E92? EC25:E:@?2= 7:C62C>D[ E96 C6A@CE’D 2FE9@CD ?@E65]k^Am

    kAm%@ 52E6[ @?=J 2 92?57F= @7 DE2E6D – :?4=F5:?8 }6H y6CD6J[ }6H *@C< 2?5 r2=:7@C?:2 – 92G6 2AAC@G65 =2HD >2?52E:?8 E92E 8F? C6E2:=6CD D6== 7:C62C>D H:E9 >:4C@DE2>A:?8 E649?@=@8J]k^Am

    kAm%96 }2E:@?2= #:7=6 pDD@4:2E:@? D2JD >:4C@DE2>A:?8 😀 2? “:?4@?D:DE6?E E649?@=@8J” E92E E6DED 92G6 D9@H? “42? 36 56762E65 H:E9 4@>>@? 92?5 E@@=D 😕 F?56C 2 >:?FE6]”k^Am

    kAm“$:?46 >:4C@DE2>A:?8 E649?@=@8J 42? 36 56762E65 😕 F?56C 2 >:?FE6 2?5 4C:>:?2=D 24BF:C6 8F?D 😕 2 >2??6C :?4@?D:DE6?E H:E9 E96 E96@CJ 369:?5 E96 E649?@=@8J[ E9:D 8F? 4@?EC@= >62DFC6 @?=J D6CG6D E@ 3FC56? =2H23:5:?8 8F? @H?6CD[” E96 8C@FA D2:5 😕 2 C646?E A@DE]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Musk offers voters $1M to sign PAC petition backing the Constitution

    Musk offers voters $1M to sign PAC petition backing the Constitution

    [ad_1]

    Elon Musk, the billionaire founder of Tesla and Space X and owner of X who’s gone all-in on Republican Donald Trump’s candidacy for the White House, has already committed at least $70 million to help the former president. Now he’s pledging to give away $1 million a day to voters for signing his political action committee’s petition backing the Constitution.

    The giveaway is raising questions and alarms among some election experts who say it is a violation of the law to link a cash handout to signing a petition that also requires a person to be registered to vote.

    Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, the state’s former attorney general, expressed concern about the plan on Sunday.

    “I think there are real questions with how he is spending money in this race, how the dark money is flowing, not just into Pennsylvania, but apparently now into the pockets of Pennsylvanians. That is deeply concerning,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    A closer look at what’s going on:

    Musk promised on Saturday that he would give away $1 million a day, until the Nov. 5 election, for people signing his PAC’s petition supporting the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, and the Second Amendment, with its right “to keep and bear arms.” He awarded a check during an event Saturday in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to a man identified as John Dreher. A message left with a number listed for Dreher was not returned Sunday. Musk gave out another check Sunday.

    Musk’s America PAC has launched a tour of Pennsylvania, a critical election battleground. He’s aiming to register voters in support of Trump, whom Musk has endorsed. The PAC is also pushing to persuade voters in other key states. It’s not the first offer of cash the organization has made. Musk has posted on X, the platform he purchased as Twitter before renaming it, that he would offer people $47 — and then $100 — for referring others to register and signing the petition.

    Trump, who was campaigning Sunday in Pennsylvania, was asked about Musk’s giveaway, and said, “I haven’t followed that.” Trump said he “speaks to Elon a lot. He’s a friend of mine” and called him great for the country.

    Some election law experts are raising red flags about the giveaway. Brendan Fischer, a campaign finance lawyer, said the latest iteration of Musk’s giveaway approaches a legal boundary. That’s because the PAC is requiring registration as a prerequisite to become eligible for the $1 million check. “There would be few doubts about the legality if every Pennsylvania-based petition signer were eligible, but conditioning the payments on registration arguably violates the law,” Fischer said in an email.

    Rick Hasen, a UCLA Law School political science professor, went further. He pointed to a law that prohibits paying people for registering to vote or for voting. “If all he was doing was paying people to sign the petition, that might be a waste of money. But there’s nothing illegal about it,” Hasen said in a telephone interview. “The problem is that the only people eligible to participate in this giveaway are the people who are registered to vote. And that makes it illegal.”

    Michael Kang, an election law professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, said the context of the giveaway so close to Election Day makes it harder to make the case that the effort is anything but a incentivizing people to register to vote.

    “It’s not quite the same as paying someone to vote, but you’re getting close enough that we worry about its legality,” Kang said.

    A message seeking comment was left with the PAC on Sunday, as was a request for comment from the Justice Department.

    Typically coordination between campaigns and so-called super PACs had been forbidden. But a recent opinion by the Federal Election Commissioner, which regulates federal campaigns, permitted candidates and these groups to work together in certain cases, including getting out the vote efforts.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New Mexico governor rescinds emergency health order that suspended gun rights in playgrounds

    New Mexico governor rescinds emergency health order that suspended gun rights in playgrounds

    [ad_1]

    SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced Wednesday that she has ended an emergency public health order that suspended the right to carry guns at public parks and playgrounds in New Mexico’s largest metro area.

    The original public health order in September 2023 ignited a furor of public protests, prompted Republican calls for the governor’s impeachment and widened divisions among top Democratic officials. It also sought to strengthen oversight of firearms sales and monitor illicit drug use at public schools through the testing of wastewater — before expiring on Saturday without renewal.

    “I have decided to allow the public health order to expire, but our fight to protect New Mexico communities from the dangers posed by guns and illegal drugs will continue,” Lujan Grisham said.

    She described strides toward reducing gun violence through gun buy-back programs, increased arrests, the distribution of free gun-storage locks and a larger inmate population at a county detention facility in Albuquerque.

    The governor’s initial order would have suspended gun-carry rights in most public places in the Albuquerque area, but was scaled back to public parks and playgrounds with an exception to ensure access to a municipal shooting range park. Lujan Grisham said she was responding to a series of shootings around the state that left children dead.

    Gun rights advocates filed an array of lawsuits and court motions aimed at blocking gun restrictions that they say would deprive Albuquerque-area residents of 2nd Amendment rights to carry in public for self-defense. The implications for pending lawsuits in federal court were unclear.

    The standoff was one of many in the wake of a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision expanding gun rights, as leaders in politically liberal-leaning states explore new avenues for restrictions.

    The gun restrictions were tied to a statistical threshold for violent crime that applied only to Albuquerque and the surrounding area.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Healey moves to implement gun control law

    Healey moves to implement gun control law

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Gov. Maura Healey is moving to implement a tough new gun control law in response to a lawsuit challenging its provisions and a effort to repeal the restrictions.

    On Wednesday, Healey signed an executive order attaching an emergency preamble to the bill she signed in July that expanded the state’s bans on “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines, outlawed so-called “ghost” guns and set new restrictions on open carry of firearms, among other provisions.

    Gun control groups praised the rare maneuver, which they said is aimed at blocking an effort by critics of the new law to block its implementation as they gather signatures to put the issue before voters in two years.

    “After years of advocating for these gun safety measures to become law, we weren’t going to stand by and let the gun lobby get in the way of our progress,” Anne Thalheimer, a survivor fellow with the Everytown Survivor Network, said in a statement. “We’re grateful to Governor Healey for standing with us and taking decisive action to ensure that this lifesaving law is implemented.”

    But the Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, which has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the law’s training and licensing requirements, said Healey’s “radical move” signing the executive order makes hundreds of thousands of lawful gun owners across the state into “felons in waiting.”

    He accused the governor and Democratic lawmakers of waging a “consistent effort to silence our voices and mislead the general public.”

    “Ever since this tantrum against the Supreme Court decision Bruen started last year, the so-called ‘process’ has become even more putrid,” said Jim Wallace, GOAL’s executive director, in a statement. “At every turn, the Legislature and now the governor, have avoided honest public input, especially from the 2A [Second Amendment] community.”

    Wallace said despite the order the group is still urging the federal judge to issue a temporary injunction to block the law from going into effect as the ballot initiative and legal challenge plays out in court.

    Besides the legal fight, critics of the new law or gathering signatures to put the question before voters in the 2026 election. They argue that the restrictions will hurt businesses, cost jobs and deprive legal gun owners of their constitutional rights.

    The new law, which passed despite objections from the Legislature’s Republican minority, added dozens of long rifles to a list of prohibited guns under the state’s assault weapons ban, and outlawed the open carry of firearms in government buildings, polling places and schools, with exemptions for law enforcement officials.

    It also set strict penalties for possession of modification devices such as so-called “Glock switches” that convert semiautomatic firearms into fully automatic, military-style weapons. The state’s red flag law, which allows a judge to suspend the gun license of someone deemed at risk to themselves or others, was also expanded under the legislation.

    Massachusetts already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, including real-time license checks for private gun sales and stiff penalties for gun-based crimes.

    Gun control advocates argue the strict requirements have given the largely urban state one of the lowest gun-death rates in the nation, while not infringing on the right to bear arms.

    Despite those trends, Democrats who pushed the gun control bill through the Legislature argued that gun violence is still impacting communities across the state whether by suicide, domestic violence or drive-by shootings.

    Second Amendment groups have long argued that the tougher gun control laws are unnecessary, and punish law-abiding gun owners while sidestepping the issue of illegal firearms.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Gun control foes push to repeal restrictions

    Gun control foes push to repeal restrictions

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Opponents of Massachusetts’ new gun control law are gearing up to repeal the tough restrictions, which they say will hurt businesses, cost jobs and deprive people of their constitutional rights.

    A law signed by Democratic Gov. Maura Healey in July expanded the state’s bans on “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines, outlawed so-called “ghost” guns and set new restrictions on the open carry of firearms, among other provisions.

    The move was in response to concerns about mass shootings and gun violence.

    But critics of the new restrictions say they are unconstitutional and argue the changes will do little to reduce gun violence. They’ve started gathering signatures on petitions to put a repeal of the law before voters in the 2026 elections.

    The chief organizer of the repeal effort, Cape Cod Gun Works owner Toby Leary, said on Thursday that the petition-gathering effort is well underway and he is seeing strong support for putting the question on the ballot.

    “A lot of businesses and jobs are at stake,” Leary said during a livestreamed briefing sponsored by the state’s Republican Party. “The effects of this law on businesses will be catastrophic. Jobs will be lost. Businesses and livelihoods will be lost.”

    Leary said among the many concerns gun shop owners have about the new restrictions is that the expansion of banned firearms will reduce the kinds of rifles and other weapons that can be sold in the state, which will hurt bottom lines. He estimates about 50% of his business will be “put on hold” if the law isn’t repealed.

    “But this is also about freedom,” Leary said. “This law is so unconstitutional on every level. A lot of ordinary people are going to run afoul of this law.”

    Massachusetts already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, including real-time license checks for private gun sales and stiff penalties for gun-based crimes.

    Gun control advocates argue the strict requirements have given the largely urban state one of the lowest gun-death rates in the nation, while not infringing on the right to bear arms.

    Despite those trends, Democrats who pushed the gun control bill thorough the Legislature argued that gun violence is still impacting communities across the state whether by suicide, domestic violence or drive-by shootings.

    Second Amendment groups have long argued that the tougher gun control laws are unnecessary, and punish law-abiding gun owners while sidestepping the issue of illegal firearms.

    The new law, which passed despite objections from the Legislature’s Republican minority, added dozens of long rifles to a list of prohibited guns under the assault weapons ban, and outlawed the open carry of firearms in government buildings, polling places and schools, with exemptions for law enforcement officials.

    It sets strict penalties for possession of modification devices such as Glock switches that convert semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic, military-style weapons. The state’s red flag law, which allows a judge to suspend the gun license of someone deemed at risk to themselves or others, was also expanded under the law.

    The repeal effort is one of several seeking to block the law. The Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, which is affiliated with the National Rifle Association, plans to file a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the new law’s training and licensing requirements. Other legal challenges are expected.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Hawaii can ban guns on beaches, an appeals court says

    Hawaii can ban guns on beaches, an appeals court says

    [ad_1]

    HONOLULU (AP) — Hawaii can enforce a law banning firearms on its world-famous beaches, a U.S. appeals court panel ruled Friday.

    Three Maui residents sued to block a 2023 state law prohibiting carrying a firearm on the sand and in other places deemed sensitive, including banks, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. They argued that Hawaii went too far with its wide-ranging ban.

    A U.S. district court judge in Honolulu granted a preliminary injunction against the rule last year and Hawaii appealed. On Friday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals published an opinion reversing the lower court ruling on beaches, parks, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. The panel affirmed the ruling for banks and certain parking lots.

    “The record supports the conclusion that modern-day beaches in Hawaii, particularly in urban or resort areas, often resemble modern-day parks,” more so than beaches at the founding of the nation, the unanimous ruling said.

    Hawaii, which has long had some of the nation’s toughest firearm restrictions and lowest rates of gun violence, has been wrestling with how to square its gun laws with a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding the right to bear arms. The high court found that people have a constitutional right to carry weapons in public and that measures to restrict that right must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

    “I’m disappointed that the 9th Circuit did not look at our … challenge to rural parks and beaches,” which can be dangerous and require people to protect themselves, said Alan Beck, an attorney representing the Maui residents and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition. He plans to ask for a review by a fuller panel of judges, he said.

    The Hawaii attorney general’s office issued a statement noting that the 9th Circuit also upheld a rule prohibiting the carrying of firearms on private property owned by another without their consent.

    “This is a significant decision recognizing that the state’s public safety measures are consistent with our nation’s historical tradition,” Hawaii Solicitor General Kalikoʻonālani Fernandes said in the statement.

    The ruling also applies to a similar challenge to a California ban on carrying guns in certain public places, upholding an injunction on enforcing restrictions on firearms at hospitals, similar medical facilities, public transit, gatherings that require a permit, places of worship, financial institutions, parking areas and similar areas connected to those places.

    As in Hawaii, the ruling allows California to enforce bans in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and in parks. It also allows California bans for other places including casinos, stadiums and amusement parks.

    The California attorney general’s office said it was reviewing the decision.

    Residents carrying guns in public is still fairly new to Hawaii. Before the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision expanded gun rights nationwide, Hawaii’s county police chiefs made it virtually impossible to carry a gun by rarely issuing permits to do so — either for open carry or concealed carry. Gun owners were only allowed to keep firearms in their homes or to bring them — unloaded and locked up — to shooting ranges, hunting areas and places such as repair shops.

    That ruling prompted the state to retool its gun laws, with Democratic Gov. Josh Green signing legislation to allow more people to carry concealed firearms.

    It also prompted Hawaii and California to pass laws restricting guns in places that are deemed sensitive.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gun control initiatives to be left off Memphis ballot after GOP threat to withhold funds

    Gun control initiatives to be left off Memphis ballot after GOP threat to withhold funds

    [ad_1]

    MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) — Election officials in Memphis decided Tuesday to leave three gun control questions off the November ballot after top Republican state leaders threatened to withhold tens of millions of dollars in state funding.

    On Monday, Tennessee’s election coordinator, Mark Goins, sent a letter to the Shelby County Election Commission warning that the gun control measures violated several of Tennessee’s laws, making them void and ineligible to be placed on the ballot. The letter was sent hours after House Speaker Cameron Sexton and Senate Speaker Randy McNally issued their state funding ultimatum.

    Goins added that “unequivocable declarations by the General Assembly” left “no authority” for Memphis officials to propose such amendments to the city’s charter. Goins also raised concerns that the city had not properly followed the public notice procedures required to put a referendum on the Nov. 5 ballot.

    In a statement, the Shelby County Administrator of Elections Linda Phillips said the state elections coordinator guides the commission in running elections, “and we will follow his direction.”

    “If the City of Memphis decides to challenge this interpretation, we will respect the final decision made by the courts,” Phillips said.

    Earlier this year, the Memphis City Council approved a proposal to ask voters if they wanted to tweak the city charter to require permits to carry a handgun, ban the possession of AR-15 style rifles and implement a so-called red flag ordinance, which allows law enforcement officials to remove firearms from those found to be an imminent danger to themselves or others.

    The council had acknowledged at times that they were potentially risking the ire of the Republican-dominant Legislature since the measures likely conflict with Tennessee’s lax gun laws.

    Regardless, council members representing the large Black-majority, left-leaning city said they were willing to take the risk.

    “If the General Assembly wants to punish us and punish our citizens for asking for their help, we will deal with that accordingly, but that would be absolutely heartbreaking,” Councilman Chase Carlisle said during a council meeting in 2023.

    In 2021, Republican lawmakers and GOP Gov. Bill Lee signed off on permitless carry for handguns. In May of this year, they banned local cities and counties from implementing their own red flag laws. Meanwhile, many inside that same Republican supermajority have rebuffed calls to place limits on firearms, an effort that has only increased after a gunman shot and killed three adults and three 9-year-olds in a Nashville private school last year.

    The continued push to put the gun control questions before Memphis voters prompted not only the state’s top Republican lawmakers to threaten to withhold funding, but also led Secretary of State Tre Hargett to warn that his office would not approve Memphis’ ballot if it included the gun initiatives.

    Last year, Memphis received nearly $78 million from the state’s sales tax revenue. The city currently operates an $858 million budget.

    “Guns pose a different risk for residents of Memphis than they do for some other municipalities, but we understand that we need to work with our state to determine a set of tools to restore peace in our community,” said Mayor Paul Young in a statement responding to the Legislature’s ultimatum. “What happens next is up to the voters and the legislative branches.”

    What to know about the 2024 Election

    McNally praised the election commission’s decision, saying that he appreciated the panel “recognizing the county cannot make state law.”

    Members inside Tennessee’s white-majority Legislature have long criticized Memphis leaders, especially for how they have managed the city’s crime rates, and expressed doubt over how Black leaders were handling the issue. In 2023, the city saw a record-breaking 398 homicides, while burglaries jumped to more than 14,000.

    The rate of reported crime in Memphis for the first half of 2024 remained below the first half of 2023 in almost all major categories, however, including the violent crimes of murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, according to preliminary figures from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

    Trust only further broke down this year when Republican lawmakers and the governor signed off on legislation designed to undo police traffic stop reforms set in place after officers fatally beat Tyre Nichols last year.

    State Rep. Justin J. Pearson, who represents a Memphis district and was one of two Black Democratic state lawmakers who were briefly expelled from the Legislature for protesting the lack of action after the Nashville school shootings, said the election commission’s decision was “dangerous for democracy” and he hoped the city council would take legal action.

    “I am furious and disappointed that the Shelby County Election Commission felt that it needed to yield to the tyrannical and authoritarian actions of the Republican leadership of this state,” Pearson said. “They are abusing their positions and authority to intentionally circumvent the will of the people in our city.”

    ——-

    Kruesi reported from Nashville, Tennessee.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gun rights group chips in $100K for court challenge

    Gun rights group chips in $100K for court challenge

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A national gun rights group pledges to help fund a legal challenge to overturn the state’s tough new gun control law that critics say will do little to prevent gun violence while depriving people of their constitutional rights.

    The Firearm Industry Trade Association said it has donated $100,000 to the Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League to support the group’s legal challenge against new restrictions on firearms licensing signed into law by Gov. Maura Healey.

    “Massachusetts is known as a birthplace of the American Revolution, but these lawmakers have turned their backs to rights that belong to the people and instead are instituting an Orwellian state over the citizens of the Commonwealth,” Lawrence G. Keane, the association’s senior vice president and general counsel, said in a statement.

    “The fight to protect liberty and individual rights begins anew and we are confident that when federal courts apply scrutiny to this law, it will be relegated to the trash bin where it belongs,” Keane said.

    The new law, signed by Healey last month, adds dozens of long rifles to a list prohibited under the state’s “assault” weapons ban and outlaws the open carry of firearms in government buildings, polling places and schools, with exemptions for law enforcement officials.

    It sets strict penalties for possession of modification devices such as Glock switches that convert semiautomatic firearms into fully automatic, military-style weapons. The measure also expands the state’s red flag law, which allows a judge to suspend the gun license of someone deemed at risk to themselves or others.

    Massachusetts already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, including real-time license checks for private gun sales and stiff penalties for gun-based crimes.

    But Second Amendment groups argue tougher gun control laws are unnecessary and punish law-abiding gun owners while sidestepping the issue of illegal firearms.

    GOAL, which is affiliated with the National Rifle Association, has dubbed the restrictions the “The Devil’s Snare” and say it represents the greatest attack on civil rights in modern U.S. history. The group has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the new law’s training and licensing requirements. Other legal challenges are expected.

    Members of the group have also filed a petition with the Secretary of State’s Office to begin gathering signatures on a petition to put a repeal of the law before voters next year. The group wants to suspend the law ahead of a 2026 statewide referendum.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • New Jersey’s ban on AR-15 rifles is unconstitutional, federal judge says

    New Jersey’s ban on AR-15 rifles is unconstitutional, federal judge says

    [ad_1]

    TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey’s ban on the AR-15 rifle is unconstitutional, but the state’s cap on magazines over 10 rounds passes constitutional muster, a federal judge said Tuesday.

    U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan’s 69-page opinion says he was compelled to rule as he did because of the Supreme Court’s rulings in firearms cases, particularly the 2022 Bruen decision that expanded gun rights.

    Sheridan’s ruling left both 2nd Amendment advocates and the state attorney general planning appeals. The judge temporarily delayed the order for 30 days.

    Pointing to the high court’s precedents, Sheridan suggested Congress and the president could do more to curb gun-related violence nationwide.

    “It is hard to accept the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that certain firearms policy choices are ‘off the table’ when frequently, radical individuals possess and use these same firearms for evil purposes,” he wrote.

    Sheridan added: “Where the Supreme Court has set for the law of our Nation, as a lower court, I am bound to follow it. … This principle — combined with the reckless inaction of our governmental leaders to address the mass shooting tragedy afflicting our Nation — necessitates the Court’s decision.”

    Nine other states and the District of Columbia have laws similar to New Jersey’s, covering New York, Los Angeles and other major cities as well as the sites of massacres such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were killed by a shooter armed with an AR-15, one of the firearms commonly referred to as an assault weapon.

    “Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are immoral and unconstitutional. FPC will continue to fight forward until all of these bans are eliminated throughout the United States,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Police Coalition, one of the plaintiffs.

    New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said in a statement the ruling undermines public safety.

    “The AR-15 is an instrument designed for warfare that inflicts catastrophic mass injuries, and is the weapon of choice for the epidemic of mass shootings that have ravaged so many communities across this nation,” he said.

    He added: “We look forward to pressing our arguments on appeal.”

    Several challenges to state assault weapons bans have cited the Bruen decision.

    New Jersey has among the strictest gun laws in the country, particularly under Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, who has signed a number of measures into law, including the 2018 large capacity magazine ban at the center of this week’s ruling. More measures Murphy signed in 2022 include allowing the attorney general to use the state’s public nuisance law to go after gun makers in court. A message seeking comment Wednesday was left with a spokesperson for the governor.

    The state’s assault weapons ban dates to 1990 and includes various other weapons, but Sheridan focused on the AR-15, citing the plaintiffs’ concentration on that weapon in their court filings. The large capacity magazine bill signed by Murphy lowered the limit from 15 rounds to 10 against the protest of 2nd Amendment advocates. The bill’s sponsors said the goal was to reduce the potential for mass casualties in shootings.

    —-

    Associated Press reporter Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How to keep guns off Bourbon Street? Designate a police station as a school

    How to keep guns off Bourbon Street? Designate a police station as a school

    [ad_1]

    NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A police station in New Orleans’ French Quarter will be designated a vocational technical school in a move that will instantly outlaw gun possession in the surrounding area — including a stretch of bar-lined Bourbon Street — as a new Louisiana law eliminating the need for concealed carry firearm permits takes effect.

    Police Superintendent Anne Kirkpatrick announced the measure at a Monday news conference at the 8th District police station on the Quarter’s Royal Street. However, the move may face legal challenges. The state attorney general raised doubts about the plan.

    State law forbids carrying concealed weapons within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of such a facility, Kirkpatrick said. That radius from the station will cover a large section of the Quarter, including several blocks of Bourbon Street.

    Kirkpatrick said the station includes a classroom and is used for training. She described the station as a “satellite” of the city’s police academy.

    “I wouldn’t call it a work-around,” District Attorney Jason Williams told reporters gathered in the lobby of the two-story, 19th century building. “It’s using laws that have always been on the books to deal with a real and current threat to public safety.”

    Designating the 8th District station a school is just one way of giving police officers more leeway to stop and search people suspected of illegally carrying a weapon in the Quarter, Kirkpatrick said.

    She also listed other facets of state law that could allow the arrest of someone carrying a weapon in the tourist district. They include bans on carrying a gun in a bar or by anyone with a blood alcohol level of .05%. That’s less than the .08% considered proof of intoxication in drunk-driving cases.

    State lawmakers earlier this year passed legislation to make Louisiana one of the latest states to do away with a permit requirement for carrying a concealed handgun. Past efforts to do so were vetoed by former Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards. But the new Republican governor, Jeff Landry, supported and signed the new law.

    Twenty-eight other states have similar laws, according to the National Council of State Legislatures.

    Lawmakers rejected repeated pleas from police and city officials to exempt New Orleans entirely or to carve out the French Quarter and other areas well-known for alcohol-fueled revelry. Their refusal set city officials to work finding ways to deal with a possible proliferation of guns in high-traffic areas, said City Council President Helena Moreno.

    “Ultimately what we realized was, ‘You know what? What we need is a school,’” Moreno said.

    Late Monday, Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill issued an emailed statement critical of the plan.

    “I’m working hard to help keep New Orleans safe, but the City cannot avoid state law by unilaterally designating police stations ‘vo-tech locations’ — that’s just not how our community college and vocational-technical system is set up,” Murrill said.

    Murrill also criticized city officials’ announcement that the law, which takes effect Thursday, won’t be enforced in New Orleans until Aug. 1, when an existing city firearms ordinance expires. “As to the delay, state law preempts municipal ordinances which conflict so the ordinance yields to state law,” Murrill said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Should gun store sales get special credit card tracking? States split on mandating or prohibiting it

    Should gun store sales get special credit card tracking? States split on mandating or prohibiting it

    [ad_1]

    Beginning Monday, a California law will require credit card networks like Visa and Mastercard to provide banks with special retail codes that can be assigned to gun stores in order to track their sales.

    But new laws will do the exact opposite in Georgia, Iowa, Tennessee and Wyoming by banning the use of specific gun shop codes.

    The conflicting laws highlight what has quietly emerged as one of the nation’s newest gun policy debates, dividing state capitols along familiar partisan lines.

    Some Democratic lawmakers and gun-control activists hope the new retail tracking code will help financial institutions flag suspicious gun-related purchases for law enforcement agencies, potentially averting mass shootings and other crimes. Lawmakers in Colorado and New York have followed California’s lead.

    “The merchant category code is the first step in the banking system saying, `Enough! We’re putting our foot down,’” said Hudson Munoz, executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Guns Down America. “`You cannot use our system to facilitate gun crimes.’”

    But many Republican lawmakers and gun-rights advocates fear the retail code could lead to unwarranted suspicion of gun buyers who have done nothing wrong. Over the past 16 months, 17 states with GOP-led legislatures have passed measures prohibiting a firearms store code or limiting its use.

    “We view this as a first step by gun-control supporters to restrict the lawful commerce in firearms,” said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry group that backs laws blocking use of the tracking code.

    The new laws add to the wide national divide on gun policy. This past week, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy declared gun violence a public health crisis, citing a rising number of firearm-related deaths, including more than 48,000 in 2022. The move was quickly criticized by the National Rifle Association.

    States have dug opposing trench lines on other gun policies. On July 4, for example, Republican-led Louisiana will become the 29th state to allow residents to carry concealed guns without a permit.

    By contrast, Democratic-led New Mexico this year tightened laws for people who don’t have concealed-carry permits, requiring a seven-day waiting period for gun purchases, which is more than double the three-day period for a federal background check.

    States also have responded differently to recent mass shootings. In Maine, where an Army reservist killed 18 people and wounded 13 others, the Democratic-led Legislature passed a variety of new gun restrictions. Following school shootings in Iowa and Tennessee, the Republican-led legislatures there took steps that could allow more trained teachers to bring guns into classrooms.

    The surge of legislation targeting firearm store category codes addresses a behind-the-scenes aspect of electronic financial transactions. The International Organization for Standardization, based in Geneva, sets thousands of voluntary standards for various fields, including category codes for all kinds of businesses, from bakeries to boat dealers to bookstores.

    Those category lists are distributed by credit card networks to banks, which assign particular codes to businesses whose accounts they handle. Some credit card issuers use the category codes for customer reward points.

    The codes can be used by financial institutions to help identify fraud, money laundering or unusual purchasing patterns that are reported as suspicious activities to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

    Banks and other depository institutions filed more than 1.8 million confidential reports in 2022 flagging more than 5.1 million suspicious activities. About 4% of annual reports lead to follow-up by law enforcement and an even smaller percentage to prosecution, according to the Bank Policy Institute, a trade group representing large banks.

    Stores that sell guns have previously been grouped with other retailers in merchant category codes. Some have been classified as sporting goods stores, others as miscellaneous and specialty retail shops.

    At the urging of New York-based Amalgamated Bank, which worked with gun-control groups, the International Organization for Standardization adopted a new four-digit category code for gun and ammunition shops in 2022. Major credit card networks initially said they would implement it but backed off under pressure from conservative politicians and the gun industry.

    Munoz, who helped lead the effort to establish the firearms store code, noted credit cards were used to buy weapons and ammunition for some of the nation’s deadliest mass shootings.

    The intent of a gun merchant code is to spot suspicious patterns, like a person with little history of gun purchases who suddenly spends large amounts at multiple gun stores in a short period. Once alerted by banks, authorities could investigate, potentially thwarting a mass shooting, Munoz said.

    California’s new law requires credit card networks to make the firearms code available to banks and other financial institutions by Monday. Those entities then have several months to determine which of their business clients should be categorized as gun stores and assign them new codes by May 1.

    Visa, the nation’s largest payment network, recently updated its merchant data manual to add the firearms code to comply with California’s law.

    Democratic-led legislatures in Colorado and New York this year also passed firearms code mandates aligned to kick in with California’s next May.

    “If there was someone suspiciously purchasing a large number of firearms, right now it would be very difficult to tell,” said California state Assemblymember Phil Ting, a Democrat who sponsored the new law. “You couldn’t tell if they were soccer balls or golf balls or basketballs.”

    Even with a firearms store code, it won’t be possible to know whether a particular sale is for a rifle, storage safe or some other product such as hunting apparel.

    The state laws prohibiting gun store codes have varying effective dates but typically allow state attorneys general to seek court injunctions against financial institutions using the codes, with potential fines reaching thousands of dollars.

    The merchant code could lead more people to buy guns with cash instead of credit in order to protect their privacy, said Dan Eldridge, owner of Maxon Shooter’s Supplies in suburban Chicago. Though his business has yet to be recategorized, Eldridge said he already has placed an ATM in his store.

    “Viewed most benignly, this code is an effort to stigmatize gun owners,” Eldridge said. “But a more worrisome concern is that this is another private sector end run around the prohibition against the federal government creating a gun registry.”

    Iowa state Sen. Jason Schultz, a Republican sponsor of legislation banning the firearms code, said he feared federal agents could gain access to data about gun store purchases from financial institutions, then use that as justification to raid gun owners’ homes and infringe on their Second Amendment rights.

    “States are going to have to make a choice,” he said, “whether they want to follow California or whether they’d like to support the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link