Walmart introduces new gun restrictions but will they help?
Walmart has won praise from gun control advocates for its decision to discontinue sales of certain gun ammunition and request that customers no longer openly carry firearms in its stores. But whether the moves will translate into fewer guns on the street remains an open question. The announcement Tuesday follows similar steps by other retailers responding to public pressure to restrict gun and ammunition sales. In March, Dick’s Sporting Goods said it would stop selling firearms and ammunition at 125 of its 700-plus locations. Meanwhile, Starbucks, Target, Wendy’s and most recently Kroger have also asked customers not to openly carry guns when visiting their stores. Supporters of stricter gun laws say that as the nation’s largest retailer, Walmart will have outsized influence on the gun debate, sending a strong message to Congress as well as other corporations to also take action. “Walmart deserves enormous credit for joining the strong and growing majority of Americans who know that we have too many guns in our country and they are too easy to get,” said Igor Volsky, executive director and founder of Guns Down America, in a statement. “That work doesn’t end with Walmart’s decision today. As Congress comes back to consider gun violence, Walmart should make it clear that it stands with Americans who are demanding real change.” Still, most firearms sales come from thousands of unaffiliated gun shops or gun shows, not big retail chains, so it’s not clear how much difference Walmart’s moves will make. About half of its more than 4,750 U.S. stores sell firearms, or only around 2 percent of all U.S. firearms. The Bentonville, Arkansas-based discounter said Tuesday it will stop selling handgun ammunition as well as short-barrel rifle ammunition, such as the .223 caliber and 5.56 caliber used in military style weapons, after it runs out of its current inventory. That in turn will reduce Walmart’s market share of ammunition from around 20 percent to a range of about 6 percent to 9 percent, according to a memo by the company CEO Doug McMillon. Walmart will also discontinue handgun sales in Alaska. Walmart stopped selling handguns in the mid-1990s in every state but Alaska. The latest move marks its complete exit from that business and allows it to focus on hunting rifles and related ammunition only. The retailer is further requesting that customers refrain from openly carrying firearms at its Walmart and Sam’s Club stores unless they are law enforcement officers. However, it said that it won’t be changing its policy for customers who have permits for concealed carry. Walmart says it will be adding signage in stores to inform customers of those changes.Walmart’s announcement comes just days after a mass shooting claimed seven lives in Odessa, Texas and follows two other back-to-back shootings last month, one of them at a Walmart store. Last month, a gunman entered a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, and killed 22 people with an AK-style firearm that the retailer already bans the sale of, marking the deadliest shooting in Walmart’s history. A second unrelated shooting that same day in Dayton, Ohio killed nine people . A few days before that, two Walmart workers were killed by another worker at a store in Southaven, Mississippi. “In a complex situation lacking a simple solution, we are trying to take constructive steps to reduce the risk that events like these will happen again,” according to McMillon’s memo. “The status quo is unacceptable.” The National Rifle Association posted a tweet attacking Walmart’s announcement Tuesday. “It is shameful to see Walmart succumb to the pressure of the anti-gun elites. Lines at Walmart will soon be replaced by lines at other retailers who are more supportive of America’s fundamental freedoms,” it said. Walmart took an initial step of ordering workers in stores nationwide to remove video game signs and displays that depict violence as a way to be more sensitive to customers in the aftermath of the El Paso shooting. Still, that fell well short of demands for the retailer to stop selling firearms entirely. Critics have also wanted Walmart to stop supporting politicians backed by the NRA. The retailer has long found itself in an awkward spot with its customers and gun enthusiasts. Many of its stores are located in rural areas where hunters depend on Walmart to get their equipment. Walmart is trying to walk a fine line by trying to embrace its hunting heritage while being a more responsible retailer. With its new policy on “open carry,” McMillon noted in his memo that individuals have tried to make a statement by carrying weapons into its stores just to frighten workers and customers. But there are well-intentioned customers acting lawfully who have also inadvertently caused a store to be evacuated and local law enforcement to be called to respond. Like other companies, Walmart is not enforcing an outright ban because they don’t want to put their employees in confrontational situations. Walmart says it hopes to help other retailers by sharing its best practices in background checks. And the company, which in 2015 stopped selling assault rifles like the AR-rifles used in several mass shootings, urged more debate on the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban while also calling for the government to strengthen background checks. Walmart sent letters Tuesday to the White House and the Congressional leadership seeking action on these “common sense” measures. Over the last 15 years, Walmart had expanded beyond its hunting and fishing roots, carrying items like assault rifles in response to increasing demand. But particularly since 2015, often coinciding with major public mass shootings, the company has made moves to curb the sale of ammunition and guns. Walmart announced in February 2018 that it would no longer sell firearms and ammunition to people younger than 21 and also removed items resembling assault-style rifles from its website. Those moves were prompted by the mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 people. In 2015, Walmart stopped selling semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 style rifle,
High-capacity magazines get new scrutiny as congress returns
Lawmakers around the country are making a renewed push to ban high-capacity magazines that gunmen have used in many recent massacres, allowing them to inflict mass casualties at a startling rate before police can stop the carnage. Nine states have passed laws restricting magazine capacity to 10 to 15 bullets, and the Democratic-led U.S. House plans to consider a similar ban at the federal level in the coming weeks. In arguing for the bans, politicians, experts and gun-control advocates point out that in the time it takes for a driver to wait through a stop light, a shooter with a 100-round magazine can kill and injure dozens of people. The man who opened fire in Dayton, Ohio, last month killed nine people and injured 27 others in only 30 seconds, in part because of the 100-bullet drum attached to his rifle. It only took 85 seconds for a gunman to empty several 30-round magazines at an IHOP in Carson City, Nevada, killing four people and injuring 14 in 2011. Authorities have not released any information on the accessories the gunman in Odessa, Texas, used over the weekend when he opened fire on police and bystanders with an AR-style weapon. The deadliest example occurred in Las Vegas two years ago when a gunman possessed a dozen 100-round magazines that helped him squeeze off 10 rounds per second onto a crowd of concert-goers from his hotel room, killing 58 people. Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock had an arsenal of high-powered rifles along with his large-capacity magazines and bump stocks — now-banned devices that attach to a gun to make it fire bullets more rapidly. The Trump administration banned bump stocks after that massacre, but the high-capacity magazines that smoothly fed hundreds of bullets into Paddock’s rifles remain legal. “We know from video evidence that he was firing about 10 rounds per second,” said Louis Klarevas, a research professor at Teachers College, Columbia University. “The reason he was able to do that was he had a combination of assault rifles with bump stocks and large-capacity magazines. Imagine if he only had 10-round magazines. He would only have shot 10 rounds at a time.” The Keep Americans Safe Act will soon be debated in the House Judiciary Committee. It would prohibit the transfer, importation or possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The bill is co-sponsored by three Democratic members of Congress whose states suffered mass shooting involving these magazines: Ted Deutch of Florida, Diana DeGette of Colorado and Dina Titus of Nevada. “There is only one purpose for a high-capacity magazine: to maximize human casualties and allow gunmen to fire more rounds of ammunition at a time without reloading,” Deutch said in a statement. “But those precious seconds it takes to reload can mean saving countless lives.” Firearm magazines are not regulated by federal law, but some states have set limits on their sizes. They include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Vermont and Washington D.C. More Republicans are warming up to the idea as well. Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio called for legislation after the Dayton killings that would put a limit on magazine sizes, as well as a ban on the sale of military-style weapons. But federal legislation is expected to face deep resistance in the Republican-led Senate and from the National Rifle Association. Critics point out that there are millions of high-capacity magazines in circulation, limiting the effectiveness of a ban. Alan Gottlieb, with the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation, said large-capacity magazines are important for self-defense and can help when there are multiple attackers in a home. “Plus, it only takes one second to switch out one magazine for another,” he said. “There are lots of videos on how easy it is to do that.” The advocacy group Everytown For Gun Safety’s study of mass shootings between 2009 and 2017 found that 58 percent involved firearms with high-capacity magazines. The study looked at shootings where the magazine capacity was known and where at least four people were killed, not including the shooter. The cases included the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater killings in which the gunman used a 100-round magazine drum, killing 12 and injuring 70. The gunman who killed 77 people at a youth camp and in Oslo, Norway, in 2011 purchased his 30-round magazines from the U.S., according to his manifesto. The 19-year-old man who killed 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School last year also carried high-capacity magazines, according to the official Public Safety Commission report released in January that said police recovered eight 30- and 40-round magazines from the scene. The advocacy group Sandy Hook Promise has been running a promotion on Twitter asking people to sign a petition in support of the passage of the Keep Americans Safe Act, the measure being debated Wednesday. The tweets say the man who killed dozens at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 used a 30-round magazine and 11 children were able to escape when he stopped to reload. The military-style firearms used in many mass shootings in the U.S. can be fired rapidly, but “the limitation to the carnage is the capacity of the magazine,” said David Chipman, a former agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who works as a policy adviser at Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence. Others have argued that if the shooter only has smaller-sized magazines, they’ll just carry more guns or extra magazines. Dr. Michael Siegel, a researcher at Boston University, conducted a study on high-capacity magazines in 2017 that found that states that limit magazine size have fewer mass shootings. “The only thing that limits the number of causalities is the number of rounds that are in the gun, because the only thing that stops the shooter is having to reload,” Siegel said. “Even though it might only take a few seconds to reload, it provides a few moments for people to flee or for an
Gun-control backers concerned about changing federal courts
California has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, including a ban on the type of high-capacity ammunition magazines used in some of the nation’s deadliest mass shootings. How long those types of laws will stand is a growing concern among gun control advocates in California and elsewhere. A federal judiciary that is becoming increasingly conservative under President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate has gun control advocates on edge. They worry that federal courts, especially if Trump wins a second term next year and Republicans hold the Senate, will take such an expansive view of Second Amendment rights that they might overturn strict gun control laws enacted in Democratic-leaning states. The U.S. Supreme Court so far has left plenty of room for states to enact their own gun legislation, said Adam Winkler, a gun policy expert at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. But he said the success of the Trump administration in appointing federal judges, including to the high court, could alter that. “Those judges are likely to be hostile to gun-control measures,” Winkler said. “So I think the courts overall have made a shift to the right on guns. We’ll just have to see how that plays out.” The legal tug-of-war already is playing out in California. The state banned the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines nearly two decades ago as one of its numerous responses to deadly mass shootings; a voter initiative passed three years ago expanded on that, banning all ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds even among gun owners who already possessed them. Earlier this year, a Republican-appointed federal judge overturned the ban, triggering a weeklong bullet buying spree among California gun owners before he put his decision on hold pending appeal. The same judge is overseeing another lawsuit brought by gun-rights groups that seeks to repeal a state law requiring background checks for ammunition buyers. Legal experts, lawmakers and advocates on both sides said the decision in the case over ammunition limits foreshadows more conflicts between Democratic-leaning states seeking to impose tighter gun laws and an increasingly conservative federal judiciary. “What you’re looking at in the Southern District of California is happening all over the country,” said Frank Zimring, a University of California, Berkeley law professor who is an expert on gun laws. Trump has the opportunity to fill a higher percentage of federal court vacancies than any president at this point in his first term since George H.W. Bush nearly three decades ago.To date, he has nominated 194 candidates for federal judgeships and has had 146 confirmed, out of 860 total federal district court judicial seats, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation. Of 179 seats on the federal appellate courts, Trump has nominated 46 judges and had 43 confirmed. He is poised to fill 105 vacancies in the district courts and four in the appeals courts, according to the Heritage Foundation. The changes to the federal judiciary could mean that even gun restrictions that were previously upheld by appointees of former Republican presidents may now be in jeopardy, said Hannah Shearer, litigation director at the San Francisco-based Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “I think the judiciary is headed into a more extreme place on gun control issues because of President Trump’s appointees,” she said. Even when gun and ammunition limits are upheld, those cases eventually could make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Trump may already have tipped the balance. The court is currently poised to take up its first Second Amendment case in about a decade. It’s a challenge to a law New York City passed that prohibited people who have home handgun licenses from taking their guns outside the city for target practice or to a second home. The city has told the court the case should be dropped, however, because it has relaxed its law. Among other cases working their way through the courts are challenges to a California ban on certain handguns, other states’ longstanding restrictions on carrying concealed weapons and limitations on interstate handgun sales. Yet forecasting how the Supreme Court might act, or even whether it will take certain cases, is fraught with uncertainty. The court has steered clear of gun-rights cases since establishing an individual right to possess guns in 2008 2010, and has let stand a number of state gun restrictions. Still, gun-rights supporters are excited by the changes brought by Trump and the Republican-controlled Senate. The upcoming Supreme Court session “could be a real game-changer” with Trump’s appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, said Chuck Michel, an attorney who represents both the National Rifle Association and the affiliated California Rifle & Pistol Association. “To the extent that the composition of the court has changed and that it will give the Second Amendment back its teeth, it’s very important,” Michel said. “It looks like there’s enough votes on the court right now to reset the standard.” His clients are challenging California’s ammunition background check and extended magazine ban before U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, an appointee of former President George W. Bush. Other states that limit ammunition magazines in some way, typically between 10 and 20 rounds, are Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont, according to the Giffords Law Center. Democrats said the prospect of four more years of Trump judicial appointments is helping energize their opposition to his re-election. “This would be one of the lasting legacies of Donald Trump,” said former California state Senate leader Kevin de Leon, a Democrat from Los Angeles who carried or supported many of the state’s firearms restrictions, including limits on military-style assault weapons. “When Trump is gone, they will be there for lifetime appointments.” Democratic lawmakers said they will continue pushing more firearms restrictions even as some fear they could be thwarted in the federal courts. State Sen. Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from Southern California, acknowledges the potential for state gun restrictions to be overturned by federal
Court rules gun maker can be sued over Newtown shooting
Gun-maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday. Gun control advocates touted the ruling as providing a possible roadmap for victims of other mass shootings to circumvent a long-criticized federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes. Gun rights supporters bashed the decision as judicial activism and overreach. In a 4-3 decision, justices reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against Remington and overturned the ruling of a lower court judge, who said the entire lawsuit was prohibited by the 2005 federal law. The majority said that while most of the lawsuit’s claims were barred by the federal law, Remington could still be sued for alleged wrongful marketing under Connecticut law. “The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers,” Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority, adding he didn’t believe Congress envisioned complete immunity for gun-makers. Several lawsuits over mass shootings in other states have been rejected because of the federal law. The plaintiffs in Connecticut include a survivor and relatives of nine people killed in the massacre. They argue the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle used by Newtown shooter Adam Lanza is too dangerous for the public and Remington glorified the weapon in marketing it to young people, including those with mental illness. Remington, based in Madison, North Carolina, has denied wrongdoing and previously insisted it can’t be sued because of the 2005 law, called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. A Remington spokesman said Thursday the company had no comment on the court ruling. “We have no timeline for any comments to be made on the subject,” spokesman Eric Suarez wrote in an email to The Associated Press. James Vogts, a lawyer for Remington, has cited the 2005 federal law and previously said the Bushmaster rifle is a legal firearm used by millions of people for hunting, self-defense and target shooting. Lanza, 20, shot his way into the locked school in Newtown on Dec. 14, 2012, and killed 20 first-graders and six educators with a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, similar to an AR-15. He shot his mother to death in their Newtown home beforehand, and killed himself as police arrived at the school. Connecticut’s child advocate said Lanza’s severe and deteriorating mental health problems, his preoccupation with violence and access to his mother’s legal weapons “proved a recipe for mass murder.” Nicole Hockley, whose 6-year-old son Dylan died in the shooting, said Thursday that a main goal of the lawsuit is to stop Remington and other gun makers from gearing their advertising toward troubled young men. “We have always said our case is about reckless sales and marketing to disturbed youth,” Hockley said. “We wanted our day in court. This is a step forward to ensure that manufacturers like Remington are not allowed to keep targeting people who are at risk.” A gun industry group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which happens to be based in Newtown, said the state Supreme Court ruling was an “overly broad interpretation” of an exception to the 2005 federal law. “The majority’s decision today is at odds with all other state and federal appellate courts that have interpreted the scope of the exception,” the group said in a statement, adding it “respectfully disagrees with and is disappointed by the court’s majority decision.” Connecticut Chief Justice Richard Robinson focused much of the dissenting opinion on the intent of Congress to limit gun-makers’ liability. “Because the distastefulness of a federal law does not diminish its preemptive effect, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court striking the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety,” Robinson wrote. U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, called the ruling a victory for gun violence victims that gives moment to an effort by him and other federal legislators to repeal the 2005 law. “It’s a wow moment in American legal history,” he said. “It will change the legal landscape for this industry, potentially all across the country.” Blumenthal said the ruling reminded him of early court victories against tobacco companies that led them to disclose damaging internal documents and later agree to billions of dollars in legal settlements over sickened smokers. Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, has said the Bushmaster rifle and other AR-15-style rifles were designed as military killing machines and should never have been sold to the public. He accuses Remington of targeting younger, at-risk males through “militaristic marketing and astute product placement in violent first-person shooter games.” “The families’ goal has always been to shed light on Remington’s calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans’ safety,” Koskoff said Thursday. “Today’s decision is a critical step toward achieving that goal.” The lawsuit seeks undisclosed damages. Military-style rifles have been used in many other mass shootings, including in Las Vegas in October 2017 when 58 people were killed and hundreds more injured. The case was watched by gun rights supporters and gun control advocates across the country as one that could affect other cases accusing gun-makers of being responsible for mass shootings. Several groups, ranging from the NRA to emergency room doctors, submitted briefs to the court. The 2005 federal law has been cited by other courts that rejected lawsuits against gun makers and dealers in other high-profile shooting attacks, including the 2012 Colorado movie theater shooting and the Washington, D.C., sniper shootings in 2002. Robert J. Spitzer, chairman of political science at the State University of New York at Cortland and an expert on guns and the Second Amendment, said the Connecticut ruling runs counter to the 2005 federal law. Even though the court allowed the case to proceed, he said, there still be a very high bar for successfully suing Remington. “The likelihood
Bradley Byrne: Defending the Second Amendment
This past week, Democrats in Congress again launched an attack on our Constitution and the rights we cherish as Americans. This time, they came after the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms. H.R. 8, the latest Democrat-led gun control bill does absolutely nothing to prevent criminals or violent persons from getting their hands on firearms. What H.R. 8 does do is violate the Constitutional rights of millions of Americans, ignores the mental health crisis behind actions of mass violence, and limits the Constitutional rights of millions of responsible gun owners. I’m a gun owner and hunter myself. I’ve talked to lots of folks from all around Alabama who proudly own guns for sport, work, and protection. Congress should not and cannot limit the rights of the American people in the name of politics. Under the Democrat bill, almost every time a lawful gun owner wants to transfer or sell a gun, he or she will have to go through a government-sanctioned middle-man. Under this bill, no longer could I sell my gun to my cousin or my neighbor in a private transaction. If this bill were to become law, millions of law-abiding gun owners could suddenly be subject to federal prosecution. Of course, we all know that criminals are going to do what they already do: make illegal transfers of firearms. So, this won’t make any difference in cutting down on crime. I have a long track record of supporting commonsense bills to provide Alabamians a way to protect themselves while offering smart background check programs and mental health services to those in need. My grandfather was shot and killed by someone suffering from mental illness. I know the importance of providing important resources for those in need without infringing on the rights guaranteed by our Founding Fathers. The so-called solutions in the Democrat gun control bill do nothing to prevent mass violence. We should not punish law-abiding citizens, instead we should listen to responsible gun owners and work on solutions that protect our Second Amendment rights. I have news for the out-of-touch Democrats: Gun owners of America are watching this debate. They know what H.R. 8 is all about, and they know that this bill is just a sham to chip away at the Second Amendment and our Constitution. Instead of trying to attack the Second Amendment, we should be trying to protect it. During the debate last week, Speaker Pelosi blocked my amendment to strip out this anti-gun legislation and replace it with nationwide concealed carry reciprocity. Instead of trampling on our Constitution, Democrats could have accepted my amendment and allowed a vote on a bill that would have actually made our country safer. Our Founding Fathers enshrined the right to keep and bear arms in our nation’s Constitution. Throughout our history, we have seen the importance of the Second Amendment for people to make a living, to provide for their families, and to protect their life and liberty. It is clear that this bill was nothing more than yet another sham show vote from the Democratic leadership. The gun control bill promises much but delivers very little. I opposed this bill, and I will oppose any bill that goes against the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. It is my duty as a citizen of the United States and representative of the people of Alabama to defend our Constitution against any effort to roll back the important protections enshrined within it. One thing is for sure: I will always stand up for our Constitution, the Second Amendment, and the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Alabama and around the United States. Bradley Byrne is a member of U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.
2018 statewide election ad roundup: August 10 edition
The November 6 general election is less than 100 days away and Alabama’s candidates have taken to the internet and the airwaves with campaign ads in hopes of swaying Yellowhammer State voters to their side. This week, only Democratic gubernatorial candidate Walt Maddox released a new ad. Maddox has called Governor Kay Ivey to debate him several times, and each time she’s dismissed his proposals saying; “When he finishes debating himself he can talk.” In the ad, an announcer addresses an empty debate podium labelled “Kay Ivey,” asking wether or not she stands by her position of Maddox being inconsistent and non-committal on several issues including abortion, gun control, and confirming Brett Kavanaugh as a new Supreme Court Justice. The empty podium never answers; leaving the announcer to ask “Governor Ivey? Governor?” Maddox then responds to the question himself, securing his positions on all issues. “I am a pro-life democrat,” Maddox says. “Being pro-life means that we must also invest in our healthcare and education systems.” “I believe in the second amendment, and like most Alabamians I believe in universal background checks,” Maddox continues. “And when it comes to Judge Kavanaugh, lets let the United States Senate do their job. Lets trust in Doug Jones and Richard Shelby to make the decision they were sworn to do.” Gubernatorial ads Democrat Walt Maddox: Title: Debate Topic #1: Abortion, Gun Control, and U.S. Supreme Court Published: August 9, 2018 Tone: Assertive
For new Supreme Court justice, a host of big issues awaits
Justice Anthony Kennedy‘s successor will have a chance over a likely decades-long career to tackle a host of big issues in the law and have a role in shaping the answers to them. Most court-watchers and interest groups are focused on abortion and whether a more conservative justice may mean more restrictions on abortions get upheld or even whether the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision affirming a woman’s right to abortion might someday be overturned. But Kennedy’s replacement will quickly confront a host of issues, some prominent and others not. Whomever President Donald Trump chooses, the person is expected to move the court to the right. Conservative groups, seeing a court friendlier to their views, might look at the new court and think it’s time to bring challenges to liberal laws currently on the books. And conservative state lawmakers may also attempt to pass legislation testing boundaries they wouldn’t have while Kennedy was on the court. A look at a few issues that a new justice could confront in short order: PARTISAN REDISTRICTING The Supreme Court in the term that ended Wednesday had two cases before it dealing with whether electoral maps can give an unfair advantage to a political party. The justices ducked that question, sending cases from Wisconsin and Maryland back to lower courts for further review. Kennedy had been the justice who left the door open to court challenges to extreme partisan redistricting, but he never found a way to measure it that satisfied him. A case involving North Carolina’s heavily Republican congressional districting map now in a lower court could provide an opportunity for the justices to revisit the issue as soon as next term. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY Another unresolved issue recently before the court is whether a business can cite religious objections in order to refuse service to gay and lesbian people. The court could have tackled that issue in a case argued this term about a Colorado baker who wouldn’t make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Instead, the justices found that a member of the Colorado commission that looked at the case displayed an anti-religious bias against the baker but left for another day the broader question. The justices could have added another case on the issue to the list of cases they’ll begin hearing arguments in this fall, a case that involved a flower shop owner who cited her religious beliefs in declining to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. For now they’ve sent that case back to a lower court. That same case or another one like it could quickly be in front of the court again. GUN RIGHTS The court has been reluctant to take gun rights cases in recent years, repeatedly turning away challenges to gun restrictions. In 2008 and 2010 the court voted 5-4, with Kennedy in the majority both times, in saying people have a right to have guns in their own homes, striking down handgun ownership bans in the District of Columbia and Chicago. But the court left open how broadly the Second Amendment may protect gun rights in other settings. The court hasn’t taken a major gun rights case since 2010, even though Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch have all signaled interest. DEATH PENALTY A regular but sometimes forgotten part of the Supreme Court’s work involves ruling on last-minute petitions from death row inmates. About two dozen executions were carried out in the United States last year, and they tend to generate a flurry of legal activity. It takes five votes to grant a stay of execution and the court’s conservatives are typically more reluctant to do so than its liberals. Since the court has four reliably conservative votes, if Kennedy’s replacement is more conservative, it may be that much harder for a death row inmate to get a reprieve. Two cases involving death row inmates are on the court’s calendar for the fall. DEFERENCE TO AGENCIES The Supreme Court’s conservatives over the last few years have increasingly questioned older decisions that tell judges they should defer in certain circumstances to the wisdom of government agencies. The basic premise is that Congress writes laws that often aren’t perfectly clear and leaves working out the details to agencies. The Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling in a case often called just “Chevron” says that in those situations, courts should rely on the experts at federal agencies to fill in the gaps. That particular case dealt with the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations. Kennedy himself raised concerns about that decision in an opinion a week ago, and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch have also done so. A new, conservative justice might quickly be asked to weigh in. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Alabama’s Congressional Democrats ready for gun control action, Republicans mum
Americans across the country are once again calling on Congress to take action on gun control following last week’s massacre in Parkland, Fla. that left 17 people dead at a high school. While Congress has yet to take action, President Donald Trump helped move the conversation forward on Monday when he offered support for a limited strengthening of federal background checks on gun purchases. “While discussions are ongoing and revisions are being considered, the president is supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system,” confirmed White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Trump’s is referring to the Fix NICS Act. Introduced last year by Texas-Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, the bill is aimed to “fix” the way in which existing background checks can prevent firearm purchases by those who present possible red flags to state and local authorities. The legislation would ensure that federal and state authorities comply with existing law and accurately report relevant criminal history records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill also penalizes federal agencies that fail to properly report relevant records and incentivizes states to improve their overall reporting and directs more federal funding to the accurate reporting of domestic violence records. Within the Alabama delegation, Democrats U.S. Sen. Doug Jones and 7th District U.S. Rep. Terri A. Sewell are glad to see Trump’s support for policy change and are ready to see Congress take action. “I absolutely support strengthening our background check system, and I’m glad the President agrees,” said Jones. “We need better data reported to the database, we need to close the gun show loophole, and we need to look at ways we can improve school safety. These won’t fix the problem overnight, but they are common sense first steps that we can take immediately.” Sewell agrees the Fix NICS Act is a step in the right direction. “I strongly agree that the Congress must take bipartisan action to strengthen background checks and address the epidemic of gun violence that has claimed so many lives,” remarked Sewell. “The Fix NICS Act is a step in the right direction, but alone, it is not enough to address the tragic reality of gun violence in America that has struck communities from Parkland to Las Vegas to Newtown.” But Sewell doesn’t believe the bill, which is backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, goes far enough on its own. “This bill does not close the gun show loophole or prevent the reckless sale of bump stocks, both of which deserve legislative solutions,” Sewell added. “I believe the President’s support for Sen. Cornyn’s bill is proof of the growing public demand for action among both Republicans and Democrats. I have always been a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, but Congress can no longer settle for symbolic gestures when gun violence kills more Americans every day.” Meanwhile Republicans have remained mostly mum offering only their thoughts and prayers to the victims’ families. 1st District U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne being the only exception. When Alabama Today asked all members of the Alabama delegation whether or not they supported improving the federal background check system, Byrne’s was the only Republican office to respond. “Congressman Byrne is open to evaluating any proposal from the Trump Administration regarding potential changes to the background check system. He will wait to review the proposals before weighing in,” said Byrne spokesperson Seth Morrow.
A divided Senate answers Orlando with gridlock on gun curbs
A divided Senate blocked rival election-year plans to curb guns on Monday, eight days after the horror of Orlando’s mass shooting intensified pressure on lawmakers to act but knotted them in gridlock anyway — even over restricting firearms for terrorists. In largely party-line votes, rejected were one proposal from each side to keep extremists from acquiring guns and another shoring up the government’s existing system of required background checks for many firearms purchases. With the chamber’s visitors’ galleries unusually crowded for a Monday evening — including people wearing orange T-shirts saying #ENOUGH gun violence — each measure fell short of the 60 votes needed to progress. Democrats called the GOP proposals unacceptably weak while Republicans said the Democratic plans were overly restrictive. The stalemate underscored the pressure on each party to give little ground on the emotional gun issue going into November’s presidential and congressional elections. It also highlighted the potency of the National Rifle Association, which urged its huge and fiercely loyal membership to lobby senators to oppose the Democratic bills. “Republicans say, ‘Hey look, we tried,’” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada. “And all the time, their cheerleaders, the bosses at the NRA, are cheering them.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the Orlando shootings — in which the FBI says the American-born gunman swore allegiance to a leader of the Islamic State group — show the best way to prevent attacks by extremists is to defeat such groups overseas. “Look, no one wants terrorists to be able to buy guns or explosives,” McConnell said. He suggested that Democrats were using the day’s votes “as an opportunity to push a partisan agenda or craft the next 30-second campaign ad,” while Republicans wanted “real solutions.” That Monday’s four roll-call votes occurred at all was testament to the political currents buffeting lawmakers after gunman Omar Mateen‘s June 12 attack on a gay nightclub. The 49 victims who died made it the largest mass shooting in recent U.S. history, topping the string of such incidents that have punctuated recent years. The FBI said Mateen — a focus of two terror investigations that were dropped — described himself as an Islamic soldier in a 911 call during the shootings. That let gun control advocates add national security and the specter of terrorism to their arguments for firearms curbs, while relatives of victims of past mass shootings and others visiting lawmakers and watching the debate from the visitors’ galleries. GOP senators facing re-election this fall from swing states were under extraordinary pressure. One, Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, voted Monday for the Democratic measure to block gun sales to terrorists, a switch from when she joined most Republicans in killing a similar plan last December. She said that vote — plus her support for a rival GOP measure — would help move lawmakers toward approving a narrower bipartisan plan, like one being crafted by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. Monday’s votes came after Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., led a near 15-hour filibuster last week demanding a Senate response to the Orlando killings. Murphy entered the Senate shortly after the December 2012 massacre of 20 first-graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, but that slaughter and others have failed to spur Congress to tighten gun curbs. The last were enacted in 2007, when the background check system was strengthened after that year’s mass shooting at Virginia Tech. With Mateen’s self-professed loyalty to extremist groups and his 10-month inclusion on a federal terrorism watch list, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., proposed letting the government block many gun sales to known or suspected terrorists. People buying firearms from federally licensed gun dealers can currently be denied for several reasons, chiefly for serious crimes or mental problems, but there is no specific prohibition for those on the terrorist watch list. That list currently contains around 1 million people — including fewer than 5,000 Americans or legal permanent residents, according to the latest government figures. No background checks are required for anyone buying guns privately online or at gun shows. The GOP response to Feinstein was an NRA-backed plan by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. It would let the government deny a sale to a known or suspected terrorist — but only if prosecutors could convince a judge within three days that the would-be buyer was involved in terrorism. The Feinstein and Cornyn amendments would require notification of law enforcement officials if people, like Mateen, who’d been under a terrorism investigation within the past five years were seeking to buy firearms. Republicans said Feinstein’s proposal gave the government too much unfettered power to deny people’s constitutional right to own a gun. They also noted that the terrorist watch list has historically mistakenly included people. Democrats said the three-day window that Cornyn’s measure gave prosecutors to prove their case made his plan ineffective. The Senate rejected similar plans Feinstein and Cornyn proposed last December, a day after an attack in San Bernardino, California, killed 14 people. Murphy’s rejected proposal would widely expand the requirement for background checks, even to many private gun transactions, leaving few loopholes. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa, defeated plan increased money for the background check system. Like Murphy’s measure, it prodded states to send more records to the FBI, which operates the background check system, of felons and others barred from buying guns. Grassley’s proposal also revamped language prohibiting some people with mental health issues from buying a gun. Democrats claimed that language would roll back current protections. Monday’s votes were 53-47 for Grassley’s plan, 44-56 for Murphy’s, 53-47 for Cornyn’s and 47-53 for Feinstein’s — all short of the 60 needed. Separately, Collins was laboring to fashion a bipartisan bill that would prevent people on the no-fly list — with just 81,000 names— from getting guns. There were no signs Monday that it was getting wide support or would receive a vote. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump adjust politicking following Florida shooting
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton adjusted their presidential politicking Sunday, first offering prayers and support to the victims of the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. But they both infused their sympathy with statements that favor their presidential aspirations, and the presidential race rolled on. The presumptive candidates made statements hours after a gunman wielding an assault-type rifle and a handgun opened fire inside a crowded gay nightclub early Sunday, killing at least 50 people before dying in a gunfight with SWAT officers, police said. Another 53 were hospitalized, most in critical condition. Officials identified the shooter as Omar Mateen of Port St. Lucie, Florida, a U.S. citizen born in New York. Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, pushed for gun control and reached out to a key constituency — gays and lesbians. “The gunman attacked an LGBT nightclub during Pride Month. To the LGBT community: please know that you have millions of allies across our country. I am one of them,” she said in a statement, adding a call to keep assault weapons out of the hands of “terrorists or other violent criminals.” Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, also offered words of support. But then spent the day congratulating himself apparently for predicting more attacks inside the U.S. On Twitter, he renewed talk of his plan to ban Muslims from the U.S. for an indeterminate time. And he went after President Barack Obama. As Obama stepped to the podium in Washington to address the nation early Sunday afternoon, Trump tweeted: “Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn’t he should immediately resign in disgrace!” In his address Obama called the tragedy an act of terror and hate. He didn’t talk about religious extremists, nor did others, reluctant to inflame a stunned nation already on edge about attacks inspired by the Islamic State group. Obama said the FBI would investigate the shootings in the gay nightclub as terrorism but that the alleged shooter’s motivations were unclear. He said the U.S. “must spare no effort” to determine whether Mateen had any ties to extremist groups. Hours later, a law enforcement official confirmed to The Associated Press that Mateen had made a 911 call from the club, professing allegiance to the leader of Islamic State group, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The official was familiar with the investigation but not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. The shootings inspired the candidates to shift their schedules and focus. Clinton’s presidential campaign announced it was postponing its first joint event with Obama on Wednesday in Green Bay, Wisconsin, because of the Orlando shooting. Trump said he was changing the focus of his speech Monday at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire from his case against Clinton to “this terrorist attack, immigration and national security.” He also noted that he “said this was going to happen” and repeated his call for Obama to resign for refusing to use the words “radical Islam.” Clinton, Trump added, should drop out of the presidential race for the same reason. Trump has proposed temporarily barring all foreign Muslims from entering the country and has advocated using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods. Trump’s first tweet of the day was factual: “Really bad shooting in Orlando. Police investigating possible terrorism. Many people dead and wounded.” Tweeted Clinton: “Woke up to hear the devastating news from FL. As we wait for more information, my thoughts are with those affected by this horrific act.” And then they resumed their plans Sunday. On schedule, Clinton’s campaign unveiled its first general election ad Sunday morning. It will run in battleground states beginning Thursday. And Sen. Bernie Sanders, still in the contest for the Democratic nomination despite Clinton’s claim on it, went on with a round of appearances on the Sunday talk shows. He acknowledged the tragedy — then said he would not drop out of the race and endorse Clinton until he’s convinced she’s committed to fighting wealth disparity. He later issued a statement of sympathy to the Florida victims, with no political overtones. Two hours later, Trump responded to the Clinton ad. “Clinton made a false ad about me where I was imitating a reporter GROVELING after he changed his story. I would NEVER mock disabled. Shame!” The Clinton ad uses footage of Trump onstage, flailing his arms in an apparent attempt to mimic New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, who suffers from a congenital condition that restricts joint movement. At the time, Trump was taking issue with a story Kovaleski had written for The Washington Post. Roughly two hours after that tweet, Trump returned to the shootings. “Horrific incident in FL. Praying for all the victims & their families. When will this stop? When will we get tough, smart & vigilant?” he tweeted. An hour later, he followed up with some self-praise: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
As Michael Bloomberg weighs White House run, Iowa voters ask, ‘Who?’
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg‘s latest flirtation with a White House run set the political world aflutter Saturday. But in Iowa, some people wondered, who? “I don’t know anything about him,” said Leslie McCreery, a 70-year-old Hillary Clinton supporter. Asked whether she was familiar with the three-term New York mayor, Clinton supporter Beverly Williams, 55, said, “No, I’m not.” Bloomberg’s standing with politically savvy Iowans, who are used to getting attention from presidential candidates during both the primaries and general election — underscore one of his biggest challenges if he were to make a late entrance into the race. While the prospect of Bloomberg launching a third-party presidential campaign has been speculated about for years, he’s largely unknown to many Americans and would be entering the race well after his rivals started introducing themselves to voters. “Eighty percent of us in Iowa have probably made up our minds,” said Angela Lambertz, a 42-year-old from Iowa City, who attended an event Saturday for Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate. Bloomberg, a longtime Democrat who became a Republican, then switched to independent, is said to be strongly considering a bid if the general election becomes a contest between Sanders and Donald Trump. Among Iowa voters attending campaign events Saturday, there were few Bloomberg fans. “The communist? The anti-2nd Amendment mayor?” asked Claudia Springer, 63, of Bloomfield, Iowa, who was attending a rally for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a leading candidate in the Republican race. Among those who identify with the Democratic race, Jeff Mussman, 59, of Camanche, Iowa, said he was aware of Bloomberg’s post-mayoral efforts to promote tighter gun control laws, an effort he opposes. “You can live in a big city and yeah, you might have to have gun control, but we’re living here in the country,” said Mussman, who plans to vote either for Clinton or Sanders (despite their support for stricter gun laws). Bloomberg took hits from small-government conservatives when he tried to ban sales of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin mocked him at a conservative forum in 2013, taking the stage with a “Big Gulp” soda. “He’s the Big Gulp guy,” said Garren Bugh, 42, of Ankeny, Iowa, who also attended the Cruz event. “He’s all about, ‘I know better than you do.’ It’s the antithesis of America when we get down to micromanaging what people are drinking.” Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Mike Rogers: Fighting for our rights in East Alabama
The Second Amendment is one of our most deeply held rights as Americans especially here in East Alabama. President Obama is infringing upon our cherished right by recently announcing executive action to tighten gun control laws. In response to his unlawful action, I joined my colleagues on a bill of disapproval. During his time in office, the president has shown blatant disregard for the Constitutional rights of Americans and has continuously overstepped his power by circumventing Congress and our lawmaking process to do whatever he wants. As a gun owner myself, I am strongly opposed to any action that places any type of restrictions on our right to bear arms. Just last week, I signed onto H.R. 4321, the Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation would make any executive action that infringes on the power of Congress or on the Second Amendment be null and void while prohibiting funds for it. I am one of the most ardent defenders of our Second Amendment rights in the House. This Congress I have cosponsored five bills that help protect our gun rights. One of them that has gained much attention is H.R. 3126. This legislation would prohibit the Commissioner of Social Security from furnishing the name of any individual in a report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System unless a Federal court has determined the individual to be mentally defective. This administrative action is another attempt by the anti-gun left to chip away at our rights. Remember their strategy, just like with President Obama’s executive orders, is to whittle away at our rights until the government gets in control of everything in our lives. That’s why we must stay vigilant and fight. I will continue to stand up for the United States Constitution and fight for our Second Amendment rights. Mike Rogers represents Alabama’s 3rd Congressional District. He is in his third term.
