Second Amendment (US Constitution)

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares169 Views

    Supreme Court Upholds Law Prohibiting Domestic Abusers From Owning Guns

    by

    The justices rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a federal law that makes it a crime for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess a gun.The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the government may disarm a Texas man subject to a domestic violence order, limiting the sweep of its earlier blockbuster decision that vastly expanded gun rights.That decision, issued in 2022, struck down a New York law that put strict limits on carrying guns outside the home. It also established a new legal standard for assessing laws limiting the possession of firearms, one whose reliance on historical practices has sown confusion as courts have struggled to apply it, with some judges sweeping aside gun control laws that have been on the books for decades.The new case, United States v. Rahimi, explored the scope of that new test. Only Justice Clarence Thomas, the author of the majority opinion in the 2022 decision, dissented.Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that Second Amendment rights had limits.“When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may — consistent with the Second Amendment — be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect,” he wrote. “Since the founding, our nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.”The case started in 2019 when Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer in Texas, assaulted his girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone, leading her to obtain a restraining order. The order suspended Mr. Rahimi’s handgun license and prohibited him from possessing firearms.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Major Supreme Court Cases of 2024

      by

      No Supreme Court term in recent memory has featured so many cases with the potential to transform American society. The consequential cases, with decisions arriving by late June or early July, include three affecting former President Donald J. Trump, two on abortion, two on guns, three on the First Amendment rights of social media companies […] More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Lawsuit Against NRA Goes to Jury After Final Arguments

      by

      The case, brought by the New York attorney general, Letitia James, accused leaders of the National Rifle Association of corruption and misspending.Lawyers for New York State concluded their case against the National Rifle Association on Thursday, bringing an end to a closely watched civil showdown that accused leaders of the nation’s most prominent gun rights group of financial misconduct and corruption.Over the last six weeks, lawyers for New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, have outlined a case that paints the N.R.A. as a mismanaged organization with little fealty to its mission of defending the Second Amendment or to the gun owners who prize that right. Monica Connell, representing the attorney general’s office, began her closing arguments on Thursday by comparing the defendants to children who grabbed cookies from a jar and were “caught with crumbs on their face and on their shirt.”Central to the case has been the state’s depiction of the group’s former longtime leader, Wayne LaPierre, as a lavish spender who used N.R.A. funds to pay for private jets, luxury vacations, and the occasional spin on a superyacht. “This case is about corruption: Misuse of funds spent on jets, black cars, five-star hotels, hundreds of thousands of dollars of suits, million-dollar deals to insiders, payments to loyal board members and pervasive violations of internal controls,” Ms. Connell said to the nearly full courtroom in Manhattan.The jury is expected to begin deliberations on Friday.Mr. LaPierre, 74, stepped down just before the New York trial commenced, ending more than three decades as the head of the organization. He had nonetheless testified in the case, conceding to pricey trips and other perks. He also spent many days in the front row the courtroom, as government lawyers — and even his own — described his sometimes troubled leadership of the group.Along with Mr. LaPierre, the defendants included John Frazer, the N.R.A.’s general counsel; Woody Phillips, a former finance chief; and the N.R.A. itself.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Our Little Town’: A Fourth of July Parade Turned Deadly

      by

      More from our inbox:Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Tough TaskElection Workers’ DignityA section of downtown Highland Park, Ill., where six people were killed and dozens injured at a parade remained sealed off as a crime scene on Tuesday. Mary Mathis for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Gunfire Tears Into a Parade Near Chicago” (front page, July 5):Well, America, it has happened in our little town. You know our town, right? It’s the one people are sending thoughts and prayers to. It’s the town where people say, “We never thought this could happen here.” It’s the safe town with wonderful cops and a sense of community.It’s the suburban town where everyone takes their kids in red wagons or on tricycles with streamers to watch the Fourth of July parade. It’s the town where people are shot randomly by someone with a rifle.We are now in mourning. It’s now the town where pundits, who have never been here, will rattle swords and shriek to score points using dead people as chits. My town? It’s your town. It will happen again. Does this sound like freedom to you?Kevin TibblesHighland Park, Ill.The writer is a former NBC newsman.To the Editor:This Independence Day we hung at half-staff two of the six American flags that normally line our driveway every year. We did this to honor those six lives sacrificed in Highland Park.Their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was usurped by the intentional misrepresentation of the Second Amendment by a minority of Americans. May all those who profess to be pro-life search their souls to examine their stance on gun legislation and what being pro-life actually means.Marcella WoodworthVenice, Fla.To the Editor:As Profs. Joseph Blocher and Darrell A.H. Miller point out in “Is a Musket Similar to an AR-15?” (Opinion guest essay, July 2), the Supreme Court’s recent politicized ruling only creates confusion.Good.Civilized states that protect their citizens with strong anti-gun regulations should simply ignore the court and reinforce those regulations. This will cause court case after court case, which could go on for years, maybe decades. For all that time their citizens will be protected from the gun crazies. And with luck by then there will be a more sensible Supreme Court.Let’s not overlook the fact that the current interpretation of the Second Amendment is a willful misreading. The amendment has two parts. The first talks about the need for strong state militias — a concern at the time of the amendment’s adoption — and the second part, which depends on the first, talks about the right of individuals to own and bear arms. If the founders had not meant the second part to depend on the first, they would not have needed to include the first at all.Michael SpielmanWellfleet, Mass.To the Editor:Must each of us lose a loved one before the gun lobby is stopped?Robert DavidsonNew YorkTo the Editor:Re “I’m a New York City Liberal, and I Want a Gun,” by Laura E. Adkins (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, June 30):Ms. Adkins makes the case that she needs a handgun to protect herself from a former partner who has been harassing her. However, there are less lethal options for protecting oneself, such as stun guns, home security systems or taking self-defense classes.Ms. Adkins states, “And as soon as I am able to legally buy and carry it without too much hassle, I look forward to sleeping soundly.” I hope she never has to shoot and kill someone. If she does, she may never sleep soundly again.Paul R. BrownSilver Spring, Md.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Tough TaskJustice Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in on Thursday.U.S. Supreme Court Via ReutersTo the Editor:Re “Jackson Takes Oath, Becoming First Black Woman on Supreme Court” (news article, July 1):How sad that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is taking her place on the Supreme Court just as it has reached such a low point. She certainly deserves much better.It will no doubt be very difficult for her to serve on a court with the majority quite willing to undo, with such problematic reasoning, so much that she has spent her life supporting.Not only do they not seem to care about precedents, rights and the pain and even deaths their rulings will cause, but they also seem unconcerned about consistency in their justifications and about the embarrassment of citing as an expert on rights, in the Dobbs decision, someone who believed in witches and maintained that they should be tried and executed.Perhaps they have power and simply don’t worry about what people, nationally and internationally, think of them. But I do, and I find their actions shameful and disgusting.Linda BellDecatur, Ga.The writer is emerita professor of philosophy and director of the Women’s Studies Institute, Georgia State University.Election Workers’ DignityColorado’s secretary of state, Jena Griswold, speaking before the 2020 election about the state’s efforts to protect the voting process.David Zalubowski/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Violent Threats Continue Against Election Workers Despite Federal Efforts” (news article, June 30):Election workers are a backbone of our democracy. From county to county, they are our neighbors, ensuring that the voices of this country are heard. But as detailed in your article, local and state election officials increasingly work under threats of violence and endure harassment and abuse. The apparent goal, even well before the fall midterms, is to get them to throw in the towel on their jobs or bow to pressure in other ways.None of this is good for our democracy. It’s also harmful to the dignity of these workers, who provide a civic function for little or no compensation. These are now unsafe jobs.Task forces, like the federal Election Threats Task Force, are salutary, but their work needs to be highly visible and transparent to ensure that reporting mechanisms are known, deterrence is advanced and consequences are demonstrated.State and local governments need to work in tandem with such efforts and better support these civic-minded champions more broadly. Local media need to prioritize reporting these stories. And neighbors need to treat neighbors in ways that honor the dignity — the inherent value and worth — of each other.Jeffrey SiminoffSan FranciscoThe writer is senior vice president, workplace dignity, at Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      There Has to Be a Tipping Point on Guns, Right?

      by

      Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. I know we’ll talk about Joe Biden’s gun-control proposals, but I wanted to ask how Dan is feeling — about Covid and the Celtics.Gail Collins: Thanks for asking, Bret. I can now march around with a little badge saying “My husband’s testing negative!” He didn’t have a major Covid case, but it was a reminder of how any illness can really lay a family low. And what a disaster it must be for, say, single mothers or poor seniors. And how important it is to have good social services for those folks and …Bret: And a timely prescription of Paxlovid, I presume. Glad he’s better.Gail: OK, not gonna try to lure you into an activist-government argument today. Will move on instead to the championship-contender Boston Celtics and my theory that professional sports, while cheesy in many ways, are an extremely useful part of the culture, not only providing diversion but also uniting folks who would otherwise have absolutely nothing in common.Anybody you’re rooting for?Bret: The Celtics, of course. What’s your over-under on the series, now that it’s tied? Or your bet on Biden getting anything passed on gun legislation?Gail: Sports-wise, I don’t like the idea of betting on whether some team will score over X points or under. Just tell me who you think is going to win.Bret: The Men in Green. Not only does God root for them, he also used to play for them.Gail: However, when it comes to betting on the Senate, God help us, I guess you need to look for ways to celebrate minimal achievement. I can imagine them passing a bill to raise the age for buying an assault rifle to 21, but don’t expect me to throw a party.Bret: I’m hardly the first person to suggest that no one should be able to legally buy a gun in the United States who can’t legally buy a beer in the United States. I’d also argue that every would-be gun buyer should be required to purchase a gun safe while also passing a criminal-background check, a psychiatric evaluation, a three-day waiting period and an extensive gun-safety course. Perhaps a few of the conservatives who argue that school shootings are part of a mental-health crisis might be persuaded to sign on.Gail: Can I also say how it drives me crazy when lawmakers respond to these gun crises by ranting about police efficiency or school construction?Bret: Well, the performance of the police in Uvalde was shameful and I hope the episode lives on as an example to cops everywhere of how not to act when the lives of children and teachers are at risk.Gail: Of course you want well-trained security officers, but that’s not going to stop all these horrors. And kinda amazed by the idea of eliminating entrances to reduce the chance of a murderer sneaking into a school. Could pose a problem if you’re down to one door and the building catches fire.Bret: Which sort of brings us to the nub of the problem: Conservatives want policies that don’t work in practice and liberals want policies that don’t work in politics.Our news-side colleague Nate Cohn had an eye-opening analysis last week on the wide disparity between the way gun-control measures poll and how people actually vote on them. Turns out, gun control just isn’t as popular at the ballot box as many liberals contend. And every time there’s a gun massacre, gun sales go up, not down. Liberals need to reconsider the way they make their case. Your thoughts?Gail: Well, my first idea would be to … ask an extremely talented communicator with ties to the right. Take it, Bret!Bret: Hmmm. Can I start with what doesn’t work?When Beto O’Rourke says, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15s,” it just encourages people to buy them. When Jimmy Kimmel makes a moving plea for gun control, he is preaching to the converted, but he isn’t moving the needle. When hyper-progressives say “abolish the police,” they are tacitly encouraging people — especially in low-income communities — to purchase weapons as a logical means of self-defense. When coastal elites denigrate gun culture, they foster precisely the kinds of cultural resentments that lead people to “cling to guns,” to use Barack Obama’s famous phrase. When Biden pleads “do something,” he merely invites the question: do what, exactly?Gail: As someone who is in favor of getting rid of every assault weapon in the world, I have to protest. Let’s open a conversation about what kind of guns are good for hunting and target shooting and separate them from the ones that are ideal for mowing down students or shoppers or whoever turn out to be the next heartbreaking mass murder victims.The major barrier is the profit-making gun manufacturers and the culture they subsidize. But I understand I’m not exactly moving many AR-15 owners. Give me a better strategy.Bret: Imagine a TV ad from a moderate Democrat like Ohio’s Tim Ryan or Virginia’s Abigail Spanberger that goes something like this:“I believe in the Second Amendment. But not for this guy,” followed by a picture of the Tucson, Ariz., mass murderer Jared Lee Loughner, “or this guy” — a picture of Aurora, Colo., mass murderer James Holmes, “or this guy” — a picture of Newtown, Conn., mass murderer Adam Lanza.It would continue: “I also believe in the right to own firearms responsibly for hunting and self-defense. But not for this” — a picture of the scene outside the Uvalde school, “or this” — a picture of the scene from the Buffalo grocery store, “or this” — scenes from the Parkland massacre.And it could conclude: “Justice Robert Jackson once told us that the Bill of Rights cannot become a suicide pact. That includes the Second Amendment. We can protect your guns while keeping them out of the hands of crazy and dangerous people by using common-sense background checks, 21-years-of-age purchasing requirements, three-day waiting periods and mental-health exams. It’s not about denying your constitutional rights. It’s so your children come home from school alive.”What do you think?Gail: I’m sold. And I have a feeling we’ll be talking about this much, much more as this election year goes on.Bret: Let’s hope it’s not after the next school shooting. Though, considering what we saw over the weekend in Philadelphia or Chattanooga, it may not be long.Gail: Let’s take a rest and talk about politics in the old, non-profound sense. I was fascinated when Mike Pence made a very public endorsement of Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp in the primary. Kemp was perhaps Donald Trump’s top target — he hates him for allowing the state’s presidential vote to go, accurately, to Joe Biden.Bret: At least Pence has better political acumen than Trump. Kemp won his primary over David Perdue by more than 50 points, which was a very satisfying humiliation of one of Trump’s favorite bootlickers.Gail: And our colleague Maggie Haberman recently posted a story from her upcoming book, about the vice president’s security being warned that Trump was going to turn on Pence before Pence went on to accurately record the results of the presidential election.Are we looking at Pence as a hero in a possible primary with his old boss in 2024?Bret: I don’t see how a man whose political theme song might as well have been the Meat Loaf classic, “I Would Do Anything for Love (But I Won’t Do That)” can sell himself as any kind of hero, much less as a plausible Republican nominee. He’s too close to Trump not to be tainted by his presidency and too alienated from Trump not to be diminished by his wrath.Frankly, Trump’s only serious opponent for the nomination at this point is Ron DeSantis, who seems to be beating the former president in the straw polls, at least in some states. Between those two, who would you prefer as the G.O.P. candidate?Gail: Well DeSantis made a trademark move last week when he canceled funding for a Tampa Bay Rays training facility because the team issued an anti-mass-shooting tweet. (They dared to say: “This cannot be normal.”) He’s horrible, and his advantage is that he’s smarter than Trump. But he doesn’t have nearly as much of that raise-the-rafters-split-the-country creepy charisma.Bret: You have to admire the ideological flexibility of self-described conservatives who are for free speech, until they aren’t, and who think corporations have speech rights, until they don’t. Still, DeSantis is very effective.Sorry, go on.Gail: Not quite sure who scares me more. Especially in an era when people are being encouraged to doubt the whole electoral system. Did you see the story in Politico about Republican poll workers being prepared to contest the Election Day process rather than making it work properly?Bret: This is the mental infection Trump has unleashed on the republic. The notion that elections are a case of “heads I win, tails you lose.”Gail: Just looking forward, I’m imagining an election this fall where either the Republicans win everything or the whole process gets blocked from even taking place. Or both.OK, I’m being way too negative. Be a pal and cheer me up.Bret: Here’s what my crystal ball tells me: ​​Democrats get hammered in the midterms. Biden realizes he has to announce he isn’t running in 2024 so that a savior can appear. Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, beats Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Gov. Roy Cooper of North Carolina for the Democratic nomination, and then chooses the widely respected retired Adm. Jim Stavridis as her running mate.Meanwhile, Republicans split acrimoniously between DeSantis and Trump. A brokered convention produces a compromise ticket headed by Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia with Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina as his veep choice. On Election Day, Americans breathe a little easier knowing that none of the candidates is out to destroy the Constitution, and we’re back to politics as it was before Trump.Reality check: Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More