ReportWire

Tag: right to bear arms

  • Illinois Supreme Court upholds state’s assault-style weapons ban | CNN Politics

    Illinois Supreme Court upholds state’s assault-style weapons ban | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Illinois Supreme Court on Friday upheld the state’s assault-style weapons ban in a 4-3 ruling after months of legal challenges sought to dismantle the law.

    State lawmakers in January passed, and Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law, a measure to ban assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines. Those who already own such rifles face limitations on their sale and transfer and must register them with the Illinois State Police by 2024.

    That law – which came about six months after the July 2022 Highland Park, Illinois, shooting – faced immediate lawsuits in state and federal court that argued it violated the Illinois and US constitutions.

    A Macon County Circuit Court judge found earlier this year that exemptions to the law, including for law enforcement officers and armed guards at federally supervised nuclear sites, violated the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution.

    The Illinois Supreme Court agreed to fast-track the state’s appeal, and in a 20-page opinion, reversed the circuit court’s judgment. The majority’s opinion claimed to focus on two core issues brought by the plaintiffs: Whether the law violated the plaintiffs’ right to equal protection and if it constituted special legislation that created laws for some firearms owners and not others. The majority opinion notably did not decide if the ban violated the Second Amendment, asserting that the plaintiffs had waived this issue.

    “We express no opinion on the potential viability of plaintiffs’ waived claim concerning the Second Amendment,” they wrote.

    However, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Jerry Stocks, told CNN the majority justices misrepresented their arguments. Stocks said the Second Amendment is a fundamental right inextricably linked to their arguments and thus should have weighed heavily on scrutiny of the ban. Ignoring the issue altogether was improper, he said.

    “We have a circus in Illinois and the clowns are in charge right now,” Stocks said.

    Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said the new law is a “critical part” of the state’s efforts to combat gun violence, and Pritzker’s office hailed the decision to uphold “a commonsense gun reform law to keep mass-killing machines off of our streets and out of our schools, malls, parks, and places of worship.”

    Nancy Rotering, the Democratic mayor of Highland Park, called on Congress to act on tougher federal restrictions and said Friday’s decision “sends a message to residents that saving lives takes precedence over thoughts and prayers and acknowledges the importance of sensible gun control measures.”

    Illinois has struggled to restrict the flow of illegal guns, particularly in Chicago, while officials in the state have faced legal hurdles to implementing new gun restrictions.

    Despite gun rights advocates challenging the assault-style weapons ban and asking the US Supreme Court to block the ban – along with a city ordinance passed last year by Naperville, Illinois, that bans the sale of assault rifles – the US Supreme Court in May refused to intervene.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gun rights organizations sue New Mexico governor over gun violence order | CNN Politics

    Gun rights organizations sue New Mexico governor over gun violence order | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The National Association for Gun Rights filed a lawsuit against New Mexico’s Democratic governor and health secretary Saturday over orders declaring gun violence a public health emergency and suspending open and concealed carry laws in cities and counties based on crime statistics.

    Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham issued the emergency order after the shooting deaths of three children from July through September, as well as a pair of mass shootings in the state.

    The lawsuit, filed in the US district court for New Mexico on Saturday, lists Lujan Grisham and New Mexico Department of Health Secretary Patrick Allen as defendants.

    The National Association for Gun Rights argues in the lawsuit that the orders violate the Second Amendment.

    “The State must justify the Carry Prohibition by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. But it is impossible for the State to meet this burden, because there is no such historical tradition of firearms regulation in this Nation,” the lawsuit reads.

    Throughout the suit, the plaintiffs cite a 2022 Supreme Court decision that struck down a New York gun law that restricted the right to concealed carry outside the home.

    The lawsuit also lists Albuquerque resident Foster Allen Haines as a plaintiff. Haines intended to partake in the state’s open carry law, according to the complaint.

    “Haines is precluded from doing so by the Carry Prohibition, which deprives him of his fundamental right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment,” the lawsuit reads.

    The plaintiffs ask the court to grant an injunction prohibiting the emergency order from being enforced, the lawsuit states.

    A second lawsuit was also filed Saturday against Lujan Grisham; Allen; Department of Public Safety Secretary Jason Bowie; and State Police Chief W. Troy Weisler by Bernalillo County resident Randy Donk and the Gun Owners of America. The suit likens the executive order and public health emergency declaration to “martial law” and argues that it is a suspension of constitutional rights.

    This lawsuit also asks the court for an immediate temporary restraining order and later a preliminary and permanent injunction to be granted.

    Caroline Sweeney, a spokesperson for Lujan Grisham, said in a statement Sunday that the governor “is prepared to fight challenges to her decision.”

    “Gun violence is a public health emergency in the state and extraordinary measures are required to prevent more innocent New Mexicans from being killed by guns,” the statement said.

    CNN has reached out to the Department of Health for comment on the lawsuits.

    Lujan Grisham last week also issued a statewide enforcement plan that includes a 30-day suspension of open and concealed carry laws in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County, CNN previously reported.

    The order, which went into immediate effect, temporarily bans the carrying of guns on public property in those counties with certain exceptions, according to the governor’s office. Citizens with carry permits will still be allowed to possess their weapons on private property such as gun ranges and gun stores if the firearm is transported in a locked box, or if a trigger lock or other mechanism is used to render the gun incapable of being fired.

    The order also prohibits firearms on state property, including state buildings and schools, as well as at parks and other places where children gather. Under the order, licensed firearm dealers will be inspected monthly by New Mexico’s Regulation and Licensing Division to ensure compliance with sales and storage laws.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Major Supreme Court cases to watch in the new term | CNN Politics

    Major Supreme Court cases to watch in the new term | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Looking at an upcoming Supreme Court term from the vantage point of the first Monday in October rarely tells the full story of what lies ahead, but the docket already includes major cases concerning the intersection between the First Amendment and social media, gun rights, racial gerrymandering and the power of the executive branch when it comes to regulation.

    The court will still determine if it will hear oral arguments on issues such as medication abortion and transgender rights, not to mention the possibility of a flurry of emergency requests related to the 2024 election.

    Here are some of the key cases on which the court will hear oral arguments this term:

    After the Supreme Court issued a major decision last year expanding gun rights nationwide, lower courts began reconsidering hundreds of firearms regulations across the country under the new standard crafted by Justice Clarence Thomas that a gun law passes legal muster only if it is rooted in history and tradition.

    On the heels of that decision, a federal appeals court invalidated a federal law that bars an individual who is subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm. That law, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “is an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.”

    The Biden administration has appealed, saying the ruling “threatens grave harms for victims of domestic violence.”

    In 2019, nearly two-thirds of domestic homicides in the United States were committed with a gun, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.

    Lawyers for Zackey Rahimi, a man who was prosecuted under the law in 2020 after a violent altercation with his girlfriend, have urged the justices to let the lower court opinion stand, arguing in part that there is no law from the founding era comparable to the statute at hand.

    Racial gerrymandering: South Carolina congressional maps

    Justices will consider a congressional redistricting plan drawn by South Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature in the wake of the 2020 census. Critics say it was designed with discriminatory purpose and amounts to an illegal racial gerrymander.

    The case focuses the court’s attention once again on the issue of race and map drawing and comes after the court ordered Alabama to redraw the state’s congressional map last term to account for the fact that the state is 27% black. The decision, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, surprised liberals who feared the court was going to make it harder for minorities to challenge maps under Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act.

    In the latest case, the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a Black voter named Taiwan Scott, are challenging the state’s congressional District 1 that is located along the southeastern coast and is anchored in Charleston County. Although the district consistently elected Republicans from 1980 to 2016, in 2018 a Democrat was elected in a political upset, though a Republican recaptured the seat in 2020.

    The person who devised the map has testified that he was instructed to make the district “more Republican leaning,” but that he did not consider race. He did, however, acknowledge that he examined racial data after drafting each version and that the Black voting age population of the district was likely viewed during the drafting process.

    A three-judge district court panel struck down the plan in January, saying that race had been the predominant motivating factor. “To achieve a target of 17% African American population,” the court said, “Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district.”

    Expert explains why Justice Thomas’ gifts from wealthy friends are problematic

    In the latest attack against the so-called administrative state, the justices are considering whether to overturn decades old precedent to scale back the power of federal agencies, impacting how the government tackles issues such as climate change, immigration, labor conditions and public health.

    At issue is an appeal from herring fishermen in the Atlantic who say the National Marine Fisheries Service does not have the authority to require them to pay the salaries of government monitors who ride aboard the fishing vessels.

    In agreeing to hear the case, the justices signaled they will reconsider a 1984 decision – Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – that sets forward factors to determine when courts should defer to a government agency’s interpretation of the law. First, they examine a statute to see if Congress’ intent is clear. It if is – then the matter is settled. But if there is ambiguity – the court defers to the agency’s expertise.

    Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices that the agency was acting within the scope of its authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and said the fishermen are not responsible for all the costs. The regulation was put in place to combat overfishing of the fisheries off the coasts of the US.

    Representing the fishermen, former Solicitor General Paul Clement argues that the government exceeded its authority and needs direct and clear congressional authorization to make such a demand. “The ‘net effect’ of Chevron,” Clement said, is that it “incentives a dynamic where Congress does far less than the Framers anticipated, and the executive branch is left to do far more by deciding controversial issues via regulatory fiat”

    For the second time in recent years, the court is taking aim at a watchdog agency created to combat unfair and deceptive practices against consumers, in a case that could deal a fatal blow to the future of the agency and send reverberations throughout the financial services industry.

    At the center of the case at hand is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – an independent agency set up in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown that works to monitor the practices of lenders, debt collectors and credit rating agencies.

    Congress chose to fund the CFPB from outside the annual appropriations process to ensure its independence. As such, the agency receives its funding each year from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System. But the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals held last year that the funding scheme violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, that, the court said “ensures Congress’ “exclusive power over the federal purse.”

    According to the CFPB, the agency has obtained more than $18.9 billion in ordered relief, including restitution and canceled debts, for more than 195 million consumers, and more than $4.1 billion in penalties, in actions brought by the agency against financial institutions and individuals that have broken federal consumer financial protection laws.

    A handful of other agencies have similar funding schemes including the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

    Three years ago, the Supreme Court limited the independence of the CFPB by invalidating its leadership structure. A 5-4 court held that the structure violated the separation of powers because the president was restricted from removing the director, even if they had policy disagreements.

    Agency regulatory authority: Securities and Exchange Commission

    The justices are looking at the in-house enforcement proceedings of the US Securities and Exchange Commission in another case that invites the conservative majority to pare back the regulatory authority of federal agencies.

    The court’s decision could impact whether the SEC and other agencies can conduct enforcement proceedings in-house, using administrative courts staffed with agency employees, or whether such actions must be brought in federal court.

    On one side are critics of such agency courts who argue that they allow federal employees to serve as prosecutors, judges and jury, issuing rulings that could particularly hurt small businesses. On the other side are those who point out that several agencies, including the Social Security Administration, have such internal proceedings because the topics are often complex and the agency has more expertise than a federal judge.

    The case arose in 2013 after the SEC brought an enforcement action against George Jarkesy, who had established two hedge funds with his advisory firm, Patriot28, for securities fraud.

    The 5th Circuit ruled that the SEC’s proceedings deprive individuals of their Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury. In addition, the court said that Congress had improperly delegated legislative power to the SEC, which gave the agency unconstrained authority at times to choose the in-house administrative proceeding rather than filing suit in district court.

    In December, the court will examine the historic multibillion-dollar Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement with several states that would ultimately offer the Sackler family broad protection from OxyContin-related civil claims.

    Until recently, Purdue was controlled by the Sackler family, who withdrew billions of dollars from the company before it filed for bankruptcy. The family has now agreed to contribute up to $6 billion to Purdue’s reorganization fund on the condition that the Sacklers receive a release from civil liability.

    The Biden administration, representing the US Trustee, the executive branch agency that monitors the administration of bankruptcy cases, has called the plan “exceptional and unprecedented” in court papers, noting that lower courts have divided on when parties can be released from liability for actions that caused societal harm.

    “The plan’s release ‘absolutely, unconditionally, irrevocably, fully, finally, forever and permanently releases’ the Sacklers from every conceivable type of opioid-related civil claim – even claims based on fraud and other forms of willful misconduct that could not be discharged if the Sacklers filed for bankruptcy in their individual capacities,” Prelogar argued in court papers.

    For the second year running, the justices will leap into the online moderation debate and decide whether states can essentially control how social media companies operate.

    If upheld, laws from Florida and Texas could open the door to more state legislation requiring platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok to treat content in specific ways within certain jurisdictions – and potentially expose the companies to more content moderation lawsuits.

    It could also make it harder for platforms to remove what they determine is misinformation, hate speech or other offensive material.

    “These cases could completely reshape the digital public sphere. The question of what limits the First Amendment imposes on legislatures’ ability to regulate social media is immensely important – for speech, and for democracy as well,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, in a statement.

    “It’s difficult to think of any other recent First Amendment cases in which the stakes were so high,” Jaffer added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal judge rules Oregon gun law doesn’t violate Second Amendment | CNN Politics

    Federal judge rules Oregon gun law doesn’t violate Second Amendment | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge in Oregon ruled on Friday that a new state gun law does not violate the US Constitution, keeping one of the toughest gun laws in the country in place.

    US District Court Judge Karin Immergut ruled that Ballot Measure 114’s restrictions on large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are constitutional because these magazines are “not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.”

    “Even if LCMs are protected by the Second Amendment, BM 114’s restrictions are consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety,” the ruling said.

    The law strengthens background checks and prohibits the sale and transfer of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. It also closes the “Charleston Loophole,” which allows gun purchases to move forward by default after three days even if a background check has not been completed. The law also requires state police to complete background checks on individuals before a gun sale or transfer is made.

    Since passing in November, the measure has faced a number of legal challenges, with the NRA’s legislative action arm lamenting it as “the nation’s most extreme gun control Initiative.”

    But Immergut’s ruling maintains that while the Second Amendment does protect against “bearable arms” as listed in the US Constitution, large-capacity magazines are a “subset of magazines” – and therefore, not considered a bearable arm.

    “Magazines are an accessory to firearms, rather than a specific type of firearm,” Immergut said. “At the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification through to the late nineteenth century, firearm accessories like cartridge boxes – which held ammunition but, unlike modern magazines, did not feed the ammunition into firearms – were not considered ‘arms’ but instead were considered ‘accouterments,’” the ruling said.

    The measure is one of several gun control laws that passed in 2022, the second-highest year for mass shootings in the United States on record.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DOJ seeks fast-track Supreme Court review of ruling against gun ban for people under domestic violence restraining orders | CNN Politics

    DOJ seeks fast-track Supreme Court review of ruling against gun ban for people under domestic violence restraining orders | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Justice Department on Friday asked the Supreme Court to fast-track its consideration of a recent appeals court ruling that deemed unconstitutional a federal law barring gun possession by those under domestic violence restraining orders.

    “The presence of a gun in a house with a domestic abuser increases the risk of homicide sixfold,” US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in her petition Friday, urging the high court to decide before its summer recess whether to take up the case.

    The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said in February that the 1996 law was unconstitutional, and while the ruling applies only to Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, advocates worry it will have wide implications, including that it will discourage victims from coming forward.

    The circuit court cited the major Second Amendment ruling handed down by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority last year that laid out a new test for lower courts to use to analyze a gun regulation’s constitutionality.

    Prelogar told the Supreme Court on Friday that the 5th Circuit’s reasoning was wrong and the high court should take up the case so “that it can correct the Fifth Circuit’s misinterpretation of Bruen,” referring to last summer’s Supreme Court opinion.

    The high court’s majority opinion in June said that part of the test was whether a gun restriction had a parallel to the regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing.

    The 5th Circuit said, with its opinion regarding the domestic violence gun restriction earlier this year, that the prohibition on alleged abusers lacked that kind of historical parallel and therefore was unconstitutional.

    If the 5th Circuit’s “approach were applied across the board,” Prelogar wrote, “few modern statutes would survive judicial review; most modern gun regulations, after all, differ from their historical forbears in at least some ways.”

    At the time of the circuit court ruling, Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that Congress had determined the gun ban statute “nearly 30 years ago” and signaled the department’s plan to appeal the ruling.

    “Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute is constitutional. Accordingly, the Department will seek further review of the Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision,” he said.

    Guns are used to commit nearly two-thirds of intimate partner homicides, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said. A 2021 study found that the majority of mass shootings are also linked to domestic violence.

    Though some of the states covered by the appeals court have similar state law restrictions, the new ruling undermines a crucial tool that survivors have to protect themselves from their abusers. If the 5th Circuit’s logic were adopted nationwide by the US Supreme Court, the consequences would be devastating, advocates say.

    “People are going to know that their abuser still has their gun. They’re going to continue to live in absolute, abject fear,” said Heather Bellino, the CEO of the Texas Advocacy Project, which works with victims of domestic violence. “They are going to be afraid to get a protective order, because now that gun’s not going away.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Law barring people with domestic violence restraining orders from having guns is unconstitutional, court rules | CNN Politics

    Law barring people with domestic violence restraining orders from having guns is unconstitutional, court rules | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a conservative-leaning appeals court ruled Thursday.

    The ruling is the latest significant decision dismantling a gun restriction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s expansion of Second Amendment rights last year in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen decision.

    The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the federal law targeting those believed to pose a domestic violence threat could not stand under the Bruen test, which requires that gun laws have a historical analogy to the firearm regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing.

    “Through that lens, we conclude that (the law’s) ban on possession of firearms is an ‘outlier’ that our ancestors would never have accepted,” the 5th Circuit said.

    The Justice Department signaled Thursday night that it plans to appeal the ruling. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that Congress had determined the statute “nearly 30 years ago.”

    “Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute is constitutional. Accordingly, the Department will seek further review of the Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision,” he said.

    The Justice Department did not specify its next step in seeking review of the ruling, which could include asking the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals for an en banc rehearing by all the judges on the court, or asking the US Supreme Court to take up an appeal.

    The court’s opinion was written by Judge Cory Todd Wilson, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. He was joined by Reagan-appointee Judge Edith Jones and Judge James Ho, another Trump appointee who also wrote a concurrence.

    The 5th Circuit panel was not persuaded by the historical parallels put forward by the US Justice Department, which was defending the conviction of a person who possessed a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order that had been imposed after he was accused of assaulting his ex-girlfriend. The Justice Department argued that the domestic violence law was analogous to 17th-and 18th century regulations that disarmed “dangerous” persons.

    “The purpose of these ‘dangerousness’ laws was the preservation of political and social order, not the protection of an identified person from the specific threat posed by another,” the 5th Circuit opinion read. “Therefore, laws disarming ‘dangerous’ classes of people are not ‘relevantly similar’” to “serve as historical analogues.”

    A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a CNN inquiry. If the 5th Circuit’s ruling is appealed, it could set up another showdown over gun rights at the Supreme Court.

    Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said clarity from the court is necessary.

    “One of two things is true: Either this kind of blind, rigid, context-free, and common-sense-defying assessment of history is exactly what the Supreme Court intended in its landmark ruling last June in Bruen, or it isn’t,” Vladeck said.

    “Either way, it’s incumbent upon the justices in the Bruen majority to clarify which one they meant – and to either endorse or reject the rather terrifying idea that individuals under an active domestic violence-related restraining order are nevertheless constitutionally entitled to possess firearms,” he added.

    The defendant challenging his conviction, Zackey Rahimi, had lost in an earlier round before the 5th Circuit, before the Supreme Court issued its Bruen ruling last year. The previous 5th Circuit opinion was withdrawn after the Bruen decision was handed down, and the appeals court did another round of briefing directed at the new test.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court asked to step in on New York concealed carry firearm law | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court asked to step in on New York concealed carry firearm law | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    New York Attorney General Letitia James asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to allow a new state law that places restrictions on carrying a concealed firearm to stay in effect while legal challenges play out.

    The dispute is the first time the court has been asked on an emergency basis to consider a significant Second Amendment case since last summer’s ruling that expanded gun rights nationwide.

    In that case, New York State Rifle v. Bruen, the court struck down New York’s prior concealed carry gun law. A 6-3 majority said the law prevented law-abiding citizens with “ordinary self-defense needs” from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

    Just days after the opinion, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, convened a special legislative session to pass a new law called the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” on July 1. But the new law came under immediate attack as gun owners said that it was in direct “defiance” of the Supreme Court decision and continued to make it too difficult for ordinary citizens to obtain concealed carry permits.

    Last fall, a district court blocked key provisions of the new law, related to requirements that an applicant demonstrate “good moral character,” provide a list of all former and current social media accounts from the past three years and “sensitive place” restrictions that include health care settings, churches and parks.

    In December, however, a federal appeals court put that decision on hold and ordered expedited consideration of the matter with opening briefs due on January 9. Now, gun owners want the Supreme Court to step in.

    In an emergency application filed on December 21, a lawyer for the gun owners asked the justices to step in and he defended the district court opinion. He said it was “carefully designed to limit New York’s enforcement of a sweeping gun control statute, enacted in retaliation against New York gun owners” for having prevailed in the Bruen case.

    The lawyer, Stephen D. Stamboulieh, said that the 184 page opinion was “meticulously tailored” to “uphold the right of New Yorkers to keep and bear arms.”

    The justices are not considering the merits of the case, only whether to lift the appeal court order pending appeal.

    “Although it comes in an emergency -application posture, the request represents the first chance for the justices to weigh in on how lower courts are applying the Bruen decision and its new doctrinal framework for Second Amendment cases,” said Andrew Willinger of the Duke University School of Law.

    In Tuesday’s filing, James said the district court’s opinion was “riddled with errors” and urged the justices to stay out of the dispute and let the appeals court ruling stand. She stressed that the appeals court had expedited consideration of the new law and that “further percolation of the relevant issues in the lower court is needed to inform” the Supreme Court’s review.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prior 2021 arrest of Colorado Springs gunman puts spotlight on the politics of red flag laws | CNN

    Prior 2021 arrest of Colorado Springs gunman puts spotlight on the politics of red flag laws | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The prior arrest of the 22-year-old suspected gunman who allegedly opened fire in a Colorado Springs LGBTQ nightclub last weekend has put the spotlight on a state law which can be utilized to temporarily remove gun access from those deemed a danger to themselves or others.

    Colorado’s controversial red flag law, also known as an extreme risk protection order, allows law enforcement, family members or a roommate to petition a judge to temporarily seize a person’s firearms if they are deemed a risk. But one caveat is they must start the process.

    If the public is uninformed of the potential risk, or rejects gun control measures, or law enforcement refuses to enforce the law, it could be rendered useless, some observers said.

    The year before Anderson Lee Aldrich, whose attorneys say uses they/them pronouns, allegedly entered Club Q with an AR-style weapon and a handgun, killing five people and injuring at least 19 others, they were arrested in June 2021 on two counts of felony menacing and three counts of first-degree kidnapping, according to a news release from the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office at the time.

    Aldrich allegedly threatened to harm their mother with a homemade bomb and other weapons. But no charges were filed, and the case has since been sealed. It is unclear why the records were sealed.

    When asked last week why the red flag law was not used in Aldrich’s case, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said it was “too early” to say.

    “I don’t have enough information to know exactly what the officers knew,” Weiser said.

    The sheriff’s office did not respond to requests for comment, but it does not appear that anyone, including law enforcement, triggered the process to obtain an extreme risk protection order after Aldrich allegedly made the threat.

    Law enforcement sources told CNN the suspect purchased the two weapons brought to Club Q, however, police have not provided details about when the transaction took place. Aldrich’s arrest in connection to the bomb threat would not have shown up in background checks, according to the law enforcement sources. 

    It is unclear whether the state’s red flag law could have been used in Aldrich’s case, or if, ultimately, it would have prevented the mass shooting last weekend.

    Following the 2021 arrest, there was an indication Aldrich was someone who posed a risk of harm, Jeffrey Swanson, a professor at Duke University School of Medicine Duke University School of Medicine who led the research group that published the first evaluations of red flag laws, told CNN.

    “The law could have been used. It’s a great sort of parable of how you can pass a law and if it’s not implemented or used, it’s not going to do any good,” he continued.

    Red flag laws can be useful in cases where an individual shows an inclination to harm themselves or others or have had encounters with police, but charges were never pursued, according to Swanson. 

    “It’s designed for cases where there’s a clear indication of someone who poses an imminent risk to others or themselves, but otherwise would be qualified to buy a gun,” he said.

    The law allows for a type of restraining order, which does not have any criminal penalties associated with it, unless a person violates the order, according to Allison Anderman, senior counsel and director of local policy at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

    Under the law, a court can issue an order valid for up to a year, restraining a person from accessing guns if the petitioner has met the “standard of proof” to demonstrate a credible and substantial risk, said Anderman, who worked with Colorado lawmakers as they were drafting the bill.

    “It’s minimally invasive, yet it restrains a person from obtaining lethal weapons if they’re in a period of crisis,” Anderman told CNN. “And when the laws are used, they work.”

    Extreme risk laws have been shown to reduce firearm suicide rates in Connecticut by 14% and Indiana by 7.5%, according to the Giffords Law Center, data up to 2015.

    After the 2021 arrest, Aldrich was booked into the El Paso County Jail, the same facility where they were transferred on Tuesday after the Club Q shooting. El Paso County, home to Colorado Springs, has openly rejected the state’s red flag law.

    During the debate in 2019 over the Colorado bill, opponents argued the law would allow vindictive people to take guns away from others for no good reason, CNN previously reported.

    The formal legal process to temporarily remove a person’s firearms if they are deemed a risk to themselves or others under the state’s law, which went into effect in 2020, has never been initiated by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, according to reporting by The Colorado Sun.

    Sgt. Jason Garrett, a spokesman for the sheriff’s office, told the Sun Wednesday the office has never requested an extreme risk protection order but did not respond to a question asking why it has not been used, according to the Sun.

    El Paso County Sheriff Bill Elder, who declined an interview request from The Sun, publicly denounced the law in 2019, telling CNN affiliate KOAA that it violates citizens’ constitutional rights. 

    “We’re going to be taking personal property away from people without having due process,” Elder told KOAA. 

    “We’re not going to pursue these on our own, meaning the sheriff’s office isn’t going to run over and try to get a court order,” Elder told KOAA in 2019. However, Elder said if a judge issues an order, “then it is up to law enforcement to execute that order.”

    CNN has reached out to the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office for comment but did not receive a response.

    In 2019, a year before the law came into effect, the Board of El Paso County Commissioners approved a resolution to designate the county a so-called Second Amendment Sanctuary. The county was among dozens in the state to make the declaration, pledging to “actively resist” the bill, arguing it violates Second Amendment rights.

    “It’s a highly suspect action from beginning to end,” said Robert Spitzer, a professor in the political science department at SUNY Cortland, referring to the county’s decision to declare itself a Second Amendment Sanctuary. “But it raises the question of whether the police, if they had information, would be willing to take action on their own.”

    Spitzer said the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, prompted by the enactment of the red flag law in Colorado, “really has nothing to do with actual law and a lot more to do with a statement of political defiance.”

    There is a “very big question mark” on whether the sanctuary declaration had a tangible effect on law enforcement in the county or not, Spitzer said. “But the implication certainly suggests that it could have,” he added.

    One of the major reasons red flag laws are not enforced is because people are not aware of them or do not know what steps to take when someone shows signs of dangerous behavior.

    “It’s incumbent on the stakeholders, officials in a state when a law is passed, to have careful thought and some investment and thinking about how to implement this,” said Swanson. “It involves educating the right people about it and law enforcement are key.”

    In his response to a question about red flag laws last week, after the Club Q shooting, Colorado Attorney General Weiser said state officials are “working hard to educate and to bring more awareness about the Red Flag Law.” 

    “We’ve got to do better and we’re going to work on educating law enforcement to make sure that again, for everyone who is [a] responsible gun owner, this red flag law is not about you. This is about people who are dangerous, who we know should not have firearms,” Weiser added.

    Another barrier to the law can be police discretion, according to Spritzer. The nature of policing relies on a “great deal of discretion,” which allows officers to decide whether to give a speeding ticket, for example, or not to use an existing law because they don’t support it.

    “It opens the door to perhaps not enforcing laws that could have a profound effect on people’s lives and safety,” Spritzer said.

    People who have an involuntary commitment history from years ago are banned from buying or possessing firearms, even if they aren’t dangerous. But those who are alienated, display anger, impulsivity or an inclination to harm others might not have a record that disqualifies them from buying a gun, Swanson said.

    “What do we know about people who have impulsive anger and possess a gun? If you could think about that compared to the tiny group of people who are getting these risk protection orders, there’s a long way to go,” Swanson said.

    “It’s just too small a pebble to make much of a ripple in such a big pond,” he added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Another mass shooting highlights America’s stubborn gun control divide | CNN Politics

    Another mass shooting highlights America’s stubborn gun control divide | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    America’s shameful tradition of gun violence reared its ugly ahead again Tuesday evening at a Walmart in Chesapeake, Virginia.

    At least six people were killed in the store, according to local officials, with four more victims in area hospitals.

    This follows a shooting at the University of Virginia that left three dead less than two weeks ago, and, even more recently, a shooting at a Colorado Springs LGBTQ nightclub that left five dead.

    It’s hard not to view each incident as yet another result of America’s polarized gun debate.

    Many Americans hold their right to bear arms, enshrined in the US Constitution, as sacrosanct. But others say that right threatens another: the right to life.

    Each shooting seems to entrench everyone’s respective convictions.

    In an all too familiar cycle, a shooting will prompt some to push for more gun control and others to lobby for less firearm regulation. A tense debate plays out before the issue fades from the national conversation.

    Then another shooting occurs – and we start the cycle over again.

    President Joe Biden on Wednesday again called for congressional action, but the reality of a divided Congress come January makes this unlikely.

    “This year, I signed the most significant gun reform in a generation, but that is not nearly enough. We must take greater action,” the president said in a statement.

    The more interesting political response to watch is Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who has been touted by some as future power player in Republican politics.

    “Our hearts break with the community of Chesapeake this morning. I remain in contact with law enforcement officials throughout this morning and have made available any resources as this investigation moves forward. Heinous acts of violence have no place in our communities,” Youngkin tweeted Wednesday morning.

    His message closely echoes his response to the University of Virginia shooting. “I know that there’s nothing that can be said, there’s nothing that can be done in order to bring them any kind of comfort today. And so, I think this is a moment for us to come together to support them, pray for them, recognize that as a community this is a chance to come together and grieve and support them. It’s just horrific, there’s no other way to describe it,” Youngkin said at a makeshift memorial at the school.

    On Thanksgiving, Youngkin also asked his state in a tweet to “lift up in prayer” the families of those killed in the mass shootings.

    Missing from his responses – heartfelt as they may be – is any mention of guns.

    If Youngkin is indeed the Republican Party’s future “unifier,” it doesn’t appear that will extend into gun control.

    There is a direct correlation in states with weaker gun laws and higher rates of gun deaths, including homicides, suicides and accidental killings, according to a January study published by Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit focused on gun violence prevention.

    Yet the political debate on gun control in America often becomes untethered from the data.

    Consider this: There have been at least 607 mass shootings through November 22 this year, defined as one in which at least four people are shot. That’s just short of the 638 mass shootings in the country at this point last year – the worst year on record since the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive began tracking them in 2014. There were a total of 690 mass shootings in 2021.

    The United States is likely to soon surpass the total of 610 mass shootings in 2020, with more than a month left of 2022 to go.

    What’s worse is the direction the data is trending. Per the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the firearm homicide rate was 8.3% higher in 2021 than it was in 2020. Firearm suicide rates among people 10 years old and older also increased by 8.3% from 2020 to 2021. And the percentage of homicides attributed to firearm injuries rose from 79% in 2020 to 81% in 2021, the highest percentage in more than 50 years.

    It certainly doesn’t have to be this way. Countries that have introduced laws to reduce gun-related deaths have achieved significant changes, a previous, in-depth CNN analysis found:

    Australia. Less than two weeks after Australia’s worst mass shooting, the federal government implemented a new program, banning rapid-fire rifles and shotguns, and unifying gun owner licensing and registrations across the country. In the next 10 years gun deaths in Australia fell by more than 50%. A 2010 study found the government’s 1997 buyback program – part of the overall reform – led to an average drop in firearm suicide rates of 74% in the five years that followed.

    South Africa. Gun-related deaths almost halved over a 10-year-period after new gun legislation, the Firearms Control Act of 2000, went into force in July 2004. The new laws made it much more difficult to obtain a firearm.

    New Zealand. Gun laws were swiftly amended after the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings. Just 24 hours after the attack, in which 51 people were killed, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced that the law would change. New Zealand’s parliament voted almost unanimously to change the country’s gun laws less than a month later, banning all military-style semi-automatic weapons.

    Britain. (The country) tightened its gun laws and banned most private handgun ownership after a mass shooting in 1996, a move that saw gun deaths drop by almost a quarter over a decade.

    But America’s relationship to guns is unique, and our gun culture is a global outlier. For now, the deadly cycle of violence seems destined to continue.

    As a reminder, Biden signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in June after the House and the Senate approved the measure. The package represents the most significant federal legislation to address gun violence since the expired 10-year assault weapons ban of 1994.

    “God willing, it’s going to save a lot of lives,” Biden said at the White House as he signed the bill.

    The package includes $750 million to help states implement and run crisis intervention programs, which can be used to manage red flag programs, as well as for other crisis intervention programs such as mental health, drug courts and veteran courts.

    Red flag laws, approved by the federal measure, are also known as Extreme Risk Protection Order laws. They allow courts to temporarily seize firearms from anyone believed to be a danger to themselves or others.

    The legislation encourages states to include juvenile records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which would provide a more comprehensive background check for people between 18 and 21 who want to buy guns.

    It also requires more individuals who sell guns as primary sources of income to register as Federally Licensed Firearm Dealers, which are required to administer background checks before they sell a gun to someone.

    The law bars guns from anyone convicted of a domestic violence crime who has a “continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.” The law, however, allows those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes to restore their gun rights after five years if they haven’t committed other crimes.

    On Thursday, Biden told reporters that he would work with Congress “to try to get rid of assault weapons.”

    Pressed on whether he would try to do so during the lame duck session, he said, “I’m going to do it whenever – I’ve got to make that assessment as soon as I get in and start counting the votes.”

    Congress returns next week with a jam-packed to-do list in the lame duck session, focused primarily on the must-pass government funding bill, as well as other priorities. But any action on gun legislation – particularly the assault weapons ban Biden has repeatedly called for – does not have the votes to pass. And the reality of a divided Congress in next year’s session makes it highly unlikely that anything will pass over the next two years.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Biden makes 5 false claims about guns, plus some about other subjects | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Biden makes 5 false claims about guns, plus some about other subjects | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden made false claims about a variety of topics, notably including gun policy, during a series of official speeches and campaign remarks over the last two weeks.

    He made at least five false claims related to guns, a subject on which he has repeatedly been inaccurate during his presidency. He also made a false claim about the extent of his support from environmental groups. And he used incorrect figures about the population of Africa, his own travel history and how much renewable energy Texas uses.

    Here is a fact check of these claims, plus a fact check on a Biden exaggeration about guns. The White House declined to comment on Tuesday.

    Beau Biden and red flag laws

    In a Friday speech at the National Safer Communities Summit in Connecticut, Biden spoke of how a gun control law he signed in 2022 has provided federal funding for states to expand the use of gun control tools like “red flag” laws, which allow the courts to temporarily seize the guns of people who are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. After mentioning red flag laws, Biden invoked his late son Beau Biden, who served as attorney general of Delaware, and said: “As my son was the first to enforce when he was attorney general.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim is false. Delaware did not have a red flag law when Beau Biden was state attorney general from 2007 to 2015. The legislation that created Delaware’s red flag program was named the Beau Biden Gun Violence Prevention Act, but it was passed in 2018, three years after Beau Biden died of brain cancer. (In 2013, Beau Biden had pushed for a similar bill, but it was rejected by the state Senate.) The president has previously said, correctly, that a Delaware red flag law was named after his son.

    Delaware was far from the first state to enact a red flag law. Connecticut passed the first such state law in the country in 1999.

    Stabilizing braces

    In the same speech, the president spoke confusingly of his administration’s effort to make it more difficult for Americans to purchase stabilizing braces, devices that are attached to the rear of pistols, most commonly AR-15-style pistols, and make it easier to fire them one-handed.

    “Put a pistol on a brace, and it…turns into a gun,” Biden said. “Makes them where you can have a higher-caliber weapon – a higher-caliber bullet – coming out of that gun. It’s essentially turning it into a short-barreled rifle, which has been a weapon of choice by a number of mass shooters.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claims that a stabilizing brace turns a pistol into a gun and increases the caliber of a gun or bullet are false. A pistol is, obviously, already a gun, and “a pistol brace does not have any effect on the caliber of ammunition that a gun fires or anything about the basic functioning of the gun itself,” said Stephen Gutowski, a CNN contributor who is the founder of the gun policy and politics website The Reload.

    Biden’s assertion that the addition of a stabilizing brace can “essentially” turn a pistol into a short-barreled rifle is subjective; it’s the same argument his administration’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has made in support of its attempt to subject the braces to new controls. The administration’s regulatory effort is being challenged in the courts by gun rights advocates.

    Gun manufacturers and lawsuits

    Repeating a claim he made in his 2022 State of the Union address and on other occasions, Biden said at a campaign fundraiser in California on Monday: “The only industry in America you can’t sue is the – is the gun manufacturers.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim is false, as CNN and other fact-checkers have previously noted. Gun manufacturers are not entirely exempt from being sued, nor are they the only industry with some liability protections. Notably, there are significant liability protections for vaccine manufacturers and, at present, for people and entities involved in making, distributing or administering Covid-19 countermeasures such as vaccines, tests and treatments.

    Under the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, gun manufacturers cannot be held liable for the use of their products in crimes. However, gun manufacturers can still be held liable for (and thus sued for) a range of things, including negligence, breach of contract regarding the purchase of a gun or certain damages from defects in the design of a gun.

    In 2019, the Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit against gun manufacturer Remington Arms Co. to continue. The plaintiffs, a survivor and the families of nine other victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, wanted to hold the company – which manufactured the semi-automatic rifle that was used in the 2012 killing – partly responsible by targeting the company’s marketing practices, another area where gun manufacturers can be held liable. In 2022, those families reached a $73 million settlement with the company and its four insurers.

    There are also more recent lawsuits against gun manufacturers. For example, the parents of some of the victims and survivors of the 2022 massacre at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, have sued over the marketing practices of the company that made the gun used by the killer. Another suit, filed by the government of Buffalo, New York, in December over gun violence in the city, alleges that the actions of several gun manufacturers and distributors have endangered public health and safety. It is unclear how those lawsuits will fare in the courts.

    – Holmes Lybrand contributed to this item.

    The NRA and lawsuits

    At a campaign fundraiser in California on Tuesday, Biden said the National Rifle Association, the prominent gun rights advocacy organization, itself cannot be sued.

    “And the fact that the NRA has such overwhelming power – you know, the NRA is the only outfit in the nation that we cannot sue as an institution,” Biden said. “They got – they – before this – I became president, they passed legislation saying you can’t sue them. Imagine had that been the case with tobacco companies.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim is false. While gun manufacturers have liability protections, no law was ever passed to forbid lawsuits against the NRA. The NRA has faced a variety of lawsuits in recent years.

    Machine guns

    At the same Tuesday fundraiser in California, Biden said that he taught the Second Amendment in law school, “And guess what? It doesn’t say that you can own any weapon you want. It says there are certain weapons that you just can’t own.” One example Biden cited was this: “You can’t own a machine gun.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim is false. The Second Amendment does not explicitly say people cannot own certain weapons – and the courts have not interpreted it to forbid machine guns. In fact, with some exceptions, people in more than two-thirds of states are allowed to own and buy fully automatic machine guns as long as those guns were legally registered and possessed prior to May 19, 1986, the day President Ronald Reagan signed a major gun law. There were more than 700,000 legally registered machine guns in the US as of May 2021, according to official federal data.

    Federal law imposes significant national restrictions on machine gun purchases, and the fact that there is a limited pool of pre-May 19, 1986 machine guns means that buying these guns tends to be expensive – regularly into the tens of thousands of dollars. But for Americans in most of the country, Biden’s claim that you simply “can’t” own a machine gun, period, is not true.

    “It’s not easy to obtain a fully automatic machine gun today, I don’t want to give that impression – but it is certainly legal. And it’s always been legal,” Gutowski said in March, when Biden previously made this claim about machine guns.

    California, where Biden made this remark on Tuesday, has strict laws restricting machine guns, but there is a legal process even there to apply for a state permit to possess one.

    The ‘boyfriend loophole’

    In the Friday speech to the National Safer Communities Summit, Biden said “we fought like hell to close the so-called boyfriend loophole” that had allowed people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to buy and possess guns if the victim was not someone they were married to, living with or had a child with. Biden then said that now “we finally can say that those convicted of domestic violence abuse against their girlfriend or boyfriend cannot buy a firearm, period.”

    Facts First: Biden’s categorical claim that such offenders now “cannot buy a firearm, period” is an exaggeration, though Biden did sign a law in 2022 that made significant progress in closing the “boyfriend loophole.” That 2022 law added “dating” partners to the list of misdemeanor domestic violence offenders who are generally prohibited from gun purchases – but in a concession demanded by Republicans, the law says these offenders can buy a gun five years after their first conviction or completion of their sentence, whichever comes later, if they do not reoffend in the interim.

    It’s also worth noting that the law’s new restriction on dating partners applies only to people who committed the domestic violence against a someone with whom they were in or “recently” had been in a “continuing” and “serious” romantic or intimate relationship. In other words, it omits people whose offense was against partners from their past or someone they dated casually.

    Marium Durrani, vice president of policy at the National Domestic Violence Hotline, said there are “definitely some gaps” in the law, “so it’s not a blanket end-all be-all,” but she said it is “really a step in the right direction.”

    Biden said at a campaign rally in Philadelphia on Saturday: “Let me just say one thing very seriously. You know, I think this is the first time – and I’ve been around, as I said, a while – in history where, last week, every single environmental organization endorsed me.”

    Facts First: It’s not true that every single environmental organization had endorsed Biden. Four major environmental organizations did endorse him the week prior, the first time they had issued a joint endorsement, but other well-known environmental organizations have not yet endorsed in the presidential election.

    The four groups that endorsed Biden together in mid-June were the Sierra Club, NextGen PAC, and the campaign arms of the League of Conservation Voters and the Natural Resources Defense Council. That is not a complete list of every single environmental group in the country. For example, Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, the National Audubon Society, Earthjustice and Greenpeace, in addition to some lesser-known groups, have not issued presidential endorsements to date.

    Biden’s claim of an endorsement from every environmental group comes amid frustration from some activists over his recent approvals of fossil fuel projects.

    In official speeches last Tuesday and last Wednesday and at a press conference the week prior, Biden claimed that Africa’s population would soon reach 1 billion. “You know, soon – soon, Africa will have 1 billion people,” he said last Wednesday.

    Facts First: This is false. Africa’s population exceeded 1 billion in 2009, according to United Nations figures; it is now more than 1.4 billion. Sub-Saharan Africa alone has a population of more than 1.1 billion.

    At a campaign fundraiser in Connecticut on Friday, Biden spoke about reading recent news articles about the use of renewable energy sources in Texas. He said, “I think it’s 70% of all their energy produced by solar and wind because it is significantly cheaper. Cheaper. Cheaper.”

    Facts First: Biden’s “70%” figure is not close to correct. The federal Energy Information Administration projected late last year that Texas would meet 37% of its electricity demand in 2023 with wind and solar power, up from 30% in 2022.

    Texas has indeed been a leader in renewable energy, particularly wind power, but the state is far from getting more than two-thirds of its energy from wind and solar alone. The organization that provides electricity to 90% of the state has a web page where you can see its current energy mix in real time; when we looked on Wednesday afternoon, during a heat wave, the mix included 15.8% solar, 10.2% wind and 6.6% nuclear, while 67.1% was natural gas or coal and lignite.

    In his Friday speech at the National Safer Communities Summit, Biden made a muddled claim about his past visits to Afghanistan and Iraq – saying that “you know, I spent a lot of time as president, and I spent 30-some times – visits – many more days in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim that he has visited Afghanistan and Iraq “30-some times” is false – the latest in a long-running series of exaggerations about his visits to the two countries. His presidential campaign said in 2019 that he made 21 visits to these countries, but he has since continued to put the figure in the 30s. And he has not visited either country “as president.”

    At another campaign fundraiser in California on Monday, Biden reprised a familiar claim about his travels with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who is, like him, a former vice president.

    “It wasn’t appropriate for Barack to be able to spend a lot of time getting to know him, so it was an assignment I was given. And I traveled 17,000 miles with him, usually one on one,” Biden said.

    Facts First: Biden’s “17,000 miles” claim remains false. Biden has not traveled anywhere close to 17,000 miles with Xi, though they have indeed spent lots of time together. This is one of Biden’s most common false claims as president, a figure he has repeated over and over in speeches despite numerous fact checks.

    Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler noted in 2021 that Biden and Xi often did not even travel parallel routes to their gatherings, let alone physically travel together. The only apparent way to get Biden’s mileage past 17,000, Kessler found, is to add the length of Biden’s flight journeys between Washington and Beijing, during which Xi was not with him.

    A White House official told CNN in early 2021 that Biden was adding up his “total travel back and forth” for meetings with Xi. But that is very different than traveling “with him” as Biden keeps saying, especially in the context of his boasts about how well he knows Xi. Biden has had more than enough time to make his language more precise.

    [ad_2]

    Source link