Categories
Category: A Victory!
Categories
Some Good News
Categories
How the Worst Group was Destroyed
FILE PHOTO: Handguns are displayed in an exhibition booth during the annual National Rifle Association (NRA) meeting in Dallas, Texas, U.S., May 17, 2024. REUTERS/Shelby Tauber/File Photo© Thomson Reuters
By Nate Raymond
(Reuters) – A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled a Minnesota law requiring a person to be at least 21 years old before obtaining a permit to carry a handgun in public for self-defense is unconstitutional.
The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with gun rights groups in finding the state’s ban violated the rights of 18- to 20-year-olds under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.
U.S. Circuit Judge Duane Benton, writing for a panel of three judges all appointed by Republican presidents, held that under recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have expanded gun rights, the state’s 2003 law could not be deemed valid.
“Importantly, the Second Amendment’s plain text does not have an age limit,” he wrote.
The panel upheld a lower-court judge’s ruling last year in favor of the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, gun rights groups which had sued alongside some of their members.
Gun rights groups have filed similar lawsuits challenging age-based restrictions on carrying firearms in other states, including in Georgia, Illinois and Pennsylvania.
Benton cited a landmark 2022 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that changed the landscape of firearms regulation.
That ruling established a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
In June, the Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision in United States v. Rahimi clarified that standard when it upheld a federal ban on people under domestic violence restraining orders from having guns, saying a modern firearms restriction did not need a “historical twin” law.
Citing that decision, Benton said a regulation disarming people who pose a credible threat to others’ physical safety could be upheld, but Minnesota had not established why 18- to 20-year-olds posed particular risks that justified its law.
A spokesperson for Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, a Democrat whose office defended the law, did not respond to a request for comment.
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Richard Chang)
Alix Schoelcher Idrache is a Haiti-born United States Army helicopter pilot.
Idrache’s father Dieujuste dropped out of school at 14 years old to find work in Port-au-Prince.[1] Alix Schoelcher Idrache was born in Haiti,[2] devoted himself to schoolwork at his father’s encouragement, and also saw the United States Armed Forces engaging in humanitarian missions there. After Dieujuste emigrated to the United States, he was able to bring his son in 2009,[1] who later became a naturalized citizen. In May 2016, the US Army listed New Carrollton, Maryland as Idrache’s hometown.[3]
After he graduated from the United States Military Academy (USMA) in 2016, an Army photo of a tearful Idrache went viral, and made the freshly-minted officer the target of hateful comments related to his immigrant and naturalized status.[4]
US Military
Idrache joined the Maryland Army National Guard in 2010[3]—later joking that they convinced him “because of a free t-shirt!” After completing Basic and Advanced Individual Training, Idrache successfully applied to the USMA with the assistance of his platoon leader and “the unit’s full-time office administrator”. Arriving in 2012,[1] Idrache graduated from the West Point, New York school (the Maryland Guard’s first, at the top his class in physics)[2] on 21 May 2016. Second Lieutenant Idrache was scheduled to be assigned to the Army Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker in July 2016.[1]
.jpg)
By June 2019, Idrache’s uniform bore the insignia of a first lieutenant and the Army’s 1st Infantry Division. That month he was stationed in Carentan and liaising with French media on the occasion of the Normandy landings‘ 75th anniversary.[5]
A captain assigned to the 228th Aviation Regiment by September 2021, Idrache joined Joint Task Force Haiti‘s response to the 2021 Haiti earthquake; the UH-60 Black Hawk pilot supported evacuation efforts as well as translating both French and Haitian Creole.[6]
What the hell happened – and how was it possible? These questions will be at the heart of the FBI investigation into probable multiple failures by the Secret Service and others in the lead-up to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
The shooter, who appears to have used a high-powered semi-automatic rifle – possibly an AR-15 – was able to set up his position on the roof of a building in full view of some of the crowd on the ‘bleachers’, or tiered seating.
Individuals in that crowd tried for several minutes, by at least one estimate, to draw the attention of security officials to this man with a rifle but police appear to have not responded quickly enough.
What we don’t yet know is whose job it was to ensure this roof, only 150 yards from the stage, was secure.
During 25 years with the FBI, I have seen how countless similar rallies were organised and I consider it highly likely that the Secret Service was responsible for security within an enclosed perimeter, while the local police took charge of the wider zone outside.
Donald Trump defiantly punched the air after being shot at the campaign rally
Frank Figliuzzi, an FBI agent for 25 years, believes failures of communication between the Secret Service and local law enforcers may be to blame for the failure to prevent the shooting
Responsibility for every post, every zone, every rooftop needs to be clearly assigned and this division of roles should have been clear to everyone.
This is standard practice for the Secret Service. It’s carried out at hundreds of events during the run-up to an election but it’s also potentially new territory for each local police department.
It might have been years since they last saw a political rally in their town. It’s even possible that they’ve never witnessed one there before.
News cameras also showed soldiers in camouflage present, probably members of the National Guard. Their role, and whether their presence hindered security in any way, will have to be probed too.
We know that a Secret Service sniper must have had a clear view of the rooftop because the gunman Thomas Matthew Crooks was shot dead within a few seconds of opening fire on Trump.
But why did that sniper ignore Crooks till then? One plausible explanation is that the Secret Service (which is entirely separate from the FBI) assumed the assassin was a police sniper, part of their security team.
Immediately after the shots were fired, former president Trump was bundled to the ground behind reinforced barriers by U.S. Secret Service agents
Snipers stand on the roof of a building behind the podium at Saturday’s campaign rally
They should also have double-checked at every stage throughout the rally, ensuring they knew who everybody was and what they were doing. That’s just basic.
In the coming days and weeks, the agency will reconstruct every detail of the event in Butler, Pennsylvania, using witness statements, CCTV and media video, as well as amateur footage shot on phones by members of the public.
They will also review audio recordings, including the radio communications between the various arms of law enforcement. These should be released to the FBI immediately and I would expect them to be made public in due course.
Then we’ll have a clearer idea of how Crooks was able to access the roof, why his presence appeared not to alarm the security staff and why the concerns of people in the crowd were not met with an effective response.
The inquiry must also focus on the aftermath of the shooting. Former president Trump was bundled to the ground, behind reinforced barriers – those hoardings, painted with slogans, are made of galvanised steel.
As his Secret Service team began to lead him away to his vehicle, they shielded him with their bodies. But it appears from news video that the message ‘shooter is down’ was sent and at that point Trump was able to turn to the crowd, punch the air and shout his defiance.
It’s completely natural that Trump wanted to show his supporters he was bloodied but alive but this doesn’t mean it was safe for him to do so.
In that moment, the Secret Service had no way of knowing if the gunman was acting alone. Other shooters might have been present.
Audio also appears to catch Trump asking for his shoes as he is being bundled towards his car – and his bodyguards complying with this request.
That’s against all protocol. The protection squad has one job: to protect their man. They are his human shield. If necessary, they can hog-tie him and carry him but they should never risk his life by looking for his shoes.
The Republican national convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, tomorrow will see unprecedented security levels. But until we understand what went wrong at Butler, it will be impossible to say with certainty that we won’t see another act of deadly violence before the election is over.
Frank Figliuzzi is a former assistant director for counter-intelligenc
A U.S. House of Representatives hearing on Wednesday focused on the “Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act,” which would reverse the policy for reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) when a veteran has appointed a financial fiduciary to handle his or her monetary affairs. The VA deems a veteran appointing a fiduciary to be mentally incompetent, barring them from purchasing a firearm as a result.
Veteran supporters and pro-gun advocates believe the VA reporting such an occurrence to NICS makes veterans in need of help less likely to ask for fear they’ll be denied their Second Amendment rights.
VA officials, however, vehemently disagree. And at the hearing, one said that if Congress should pass such a law, the VA would not comply with it.
According to a report at freebasenews.com, VA Deputy Undersecretary Glenn Powers testified that his department opposes the act. Additionally, he said the VA already provides a sufficient method for beneficiaries who have been reported to NICS to “petition for relief.”
“VA did not err in reporting, and if passed into law VA could not comply,” Powers said.
Of course, “petitioning for relief” after one has lost their gun rights isn’t what the Second Amendment is all about. “Shall not be infringed,” doesn’t mean “Infringe and then see if you can get your rights back.” It’s akin to unconstitutional “red-flag” laws that allow the government to confiscate weapons because of possibly baseless accusations, then make the gun owner go to court and prove they deserve to have their firearms returned.
Speaking of such laws, Powers also said the VA would oppose a forthcoming bill that would bar the VA from joining in support of “red-flag” laws, also called extreme risk protective orders (ERPOs). Powers said that legislation “places the security and safety of veterans their families and communities at risk and ultimately prevents VA from providing appropriate care for some of our most vulnerable veterans.”
Of course, the VA undersecretary’s declaration that the agency would not follow a law if legally passed by Congress didn’t set well with supporters in the House, including Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Montana.
“Well, I’m glad everybody hears that on the record—that the VA is going to refuse to comply regardless of what we actually pass here,” Rep. Rosendale said.