#ban large capacity magazines

[garthnadermemestash]

Sign that bill Biden and nobody under 30 gonna vote!

[batboyblog]

Things Biden and the Democrats did, this week #24

June 21-28 2024

The US Surgeon General declared for the first time ever, firearm violence a public health crisis. The nation's top doctor recommended the banning of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, the introduce universal background checks for purchasing guns, regulate the industry, pass laws that would restrict their use in public spaces and penalize people who fail to safely store their weapons. President Trump dismissed Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy in 2017 in part for his criticism of guns before his time in government, he was renominated for his post by President Biden in 2021. While the Surgeon General's reconstructions aren't binding a similar report on the risks of smoking in 1964 was the start of a national shift toward regulation of tobacco.

Vice-President Harris announced the first grants to be awarded through a ground breaking program to remove barriers to building more housing. Under President Biden more housing units are under construction than at any time in the last 50 years. Vice President Harris was announcing 85 million dollars in grants giving to communities in 21 states through the  Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing (PRO) program. The administration plans another 100 million in PRO grants at the end of the summer and has requested 100 million more for next year. The Treasury also announced it'll moved 100 million of left over Covid funds toward housing. All of this is part of plans to build 2 million affordable housing units and invest $258 billion in housing overall.

President Biden pardoned all former US service members convicted under the US Military's ban on gay sex. The pardon is believed to cover 2,000 veterans convicted of "consensual sodomy". Consensual sodomy was banned and a felony offense under the Uniform Code of Justice from 1951 till 2013. The Pardon will wipe clean those felony records and allow veterans to apply to change their discharge status.

The Department of Transportation announced $1.8 Billion in new infrastructure building across all 50 states, 4 territories and Washington DC. The program focuses on smaller, often community-oriented projects that span jurisdictions. This award saw a number of projects focused on climate and energy, like $25 million to help repair damage caused by permafrost melting amid higher temperatures in Alaska, or $23 million to help electrify the Downeast bus fleet in Maine.

The Department of Energy announced $2.7 billion to support domestic sources of nuclear fuel. The Biden administration hopes to build up America's domestic nuclear fuel to allow for greater stability and lower costs. Currently Russia is the world's top exporter of enriched uranium, supplying 24% of US nuclear fuel.

The Department of Interior awarded $127 million to 6 states to help clean up legacy pollution from orphaned oil and gas wells. The funding will help cap 600 wells in Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, New York and Ohio. So far thanks to administration efforts over 7,000 orphaned wells across the country have been capped, reduced approximately 11,530 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions

HUD announced $469 million to help remove dangerous lead from older homes. This program will focus on helping homeowners particularly low income ones remove lead paint and replace lead pipes in homes built before 1978. This represents one of the largest investments by the federal government to help private homeowners deal with a health and safety hazard.

Bonus: President Biden's efforts to forgive more student debt through his administration's SAVE plan hit a snag this week when federal courts in Kansas and Missouri blocked elements the Administration also suffered a set back at the Supreme Court as its efforts to regular smog causing pollution was rejected by the conservative majority in a 5-4 ruling that saw Amy Coney Barrett join the 3 liberals against the conservatives. This week's legal setbacks underline the importance of courts and the ability to nominate judges and Justices over the next 4 years.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jay Kuo at The Status Kuo:

During his interview with Time Magazine, which once again named him “Person of the Year,” Donald Trump unsurprisingly said many startling things between his usual ramblings. Today I want to focus on one of them in particular: vaccines. Trump declared he is “going to do what’s good for the country.” When asked whether that includes getting rid of some vaccinations, Trump responded, “It could if I think it’s dangerous, if I think they are not beneficial,” but then added, “I don’t think it’s going to be very controversial in the end.” This is a stark departure from earlier assurances by anti-vax nut job RFK, Jr., who promised earlier that he would not take vaccines away from anyone who wants them. Now it seems the team he hopes to gather at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will propose a review of vaccine safety and, depending on the results, could possibly pull some critical ones from the market.

But could and would they really do something so crazy as ban life-saving shots like the Hepatitis B, measles mumps and rubella, and polio vaccines? Trump’s interview set off alarms among health experts, especially epidemiologists. And it raises many questions, not the least of which is exactly how vaccines might be reviewed by the government to confirm if they are “dangerous” or “not beneficial,” if and when RFK, Jr. is confirmed as head of HHS. Adding fuel to this dumpster fire is a report out this morning by the New York Times that RFK, Jr.’s lawyer, Aaron Siri, is an anti-vax crusader who has previously petitioned the FDA to revoke approval for polio and other vaccines. Trump’s statements imply that he really meant what he said on the campaign trail about letting RFK, Jr. go “wild on health.” And with zealots like Siri helping to shape national health policy, we are dangerously close to returning to an era where childhood diseases, once considered largely eradicated, could make a deadly comeback.

[...]

Anyone familiar with the way anti-vax groups regularly challenge FDA approvals, Covid mandates, scientists and drug manufacturers likely feels a rock in their gut reading this. First, it appears that Trump has taken up a dangerous and false claim that purports to link childhood vaccinations to autism. That theory has been widely debunked, but it has managed to produce mass hysteria for two decades. And now it has the bully pulpit of the Oval Office behind it. The fact that the president-elect agrees with this discredited theory, and is appointing someone to head HHS who actively pushes it, is troubling in the extreme.

[...]

An anti-vax zealot gets his shot

Aaron Siri probably can’t believe his good fortune. He has made his legal career out of representing anti-vax clients, including a group called the Informed Consent Action Network, an organization whose founder is also a close Kennedy ally. In that capacity, as the Times reports, as recently as 2022 Siri petitioned the FDA to revoke approval of the polio vaccine. That’s right, he wants to see the polio vaccine withdrawn, even though it has saved countless children from death or lifetime disability. Siri has gone after 13 other vaccines, too, including the Hepatitis B vaccine, and has crusaded around the country to lift Covid mandates. His tactic is to impugn the integrity of the scientists responsible for developing the vaccines and poke as many holes as he can into their product development, safety studies and approvals. He does this by playing on the preconceptions and fears of the conspiracy-minded, making otherwise harmless errors or oversights appear as massive and even intentional frauds upon the public. One critic of Siri’s crusades is Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the inventor of the vaccine that eliminated rubella in the 1960s. Before the vaccine, it was a disease that killed thousands of newborns. Siri deposed Plotkin in a lawsuit Siri had brought. After spending nine hours being grilled by Siri, Dr. Plotkin believes that putting Siri in any position of influence “would be a disaster.” Dr. Plotkin added, “I find him laughable in many ways — except, of course, that he’s a danger to public health.”

Siri still managed to put a target on Dr. Plotkin, however, by publishing snippets of that deposition online, along with those of one Dr. Kathryn Edwards, another noted inventor of vaccines. Siri had the help of an anti-vax documentary maker and podcaster, Del Bigtree—who is also RFK, Jr.’s former campaign communications director and founder of the Informed Consent Action Network. As a result, Drs. Plotkin and Edwards have been vilified by anti-vaxxers instead of celebrated for their stunning accomplishments.

“You’re taking the leaders in vaccinology,” Dr. Edwards told the Times, “the people that have spent their whole lives studying these vaccines and seeing their impact, you’re marginalizing and making them look like they are prostitutes of pharma.” Of great concern is how Siri is now working with RFK, Jr. to actively vet candidates for top positions at HHS. According to the Times, Siri has asked candidates about their view on vaccines, potentially setting up HHS to have a uniformly anti-vax agenda. RFK, Jr. and his advisors, like Siri and Bigtree, could succeed in having vaccines actually pulled from the market based on the “studies” they are demanding, the conclusions of which we can assume are pre-ordained. But even short of actually yanking important vaccines, the platforming of anti-vax conspiracies and disinformation will create widespread vaccine hesitancy, which could result in serious and deadly outbreaks.

History could repeat on a huge scale

We need only look at what RFK, Jr. did in Samoa to understand the extent of the damage and even death his views can cause. In 2019, the small island nation experienced a deadly outbreak of measles, with 5,700 infections out of a population of 200,000. Hospitals were full, and the country was in a state of emergency. In the end, 83 people died, most of them young children. But what had caused this outbreak? Childhood measles vaccinations rates plummeted from 90 percent in 2013 to just a third of all infants by 2019 due to a health scandal where nurses had improperly mixed the measles vaccine with the wrong liquid, resulting in two deaths. That incident opened the floodgates for vaccine misinformation driven by RFK, Jr. and his anti-vaccine non-profit, the Children’s Health Defense. At one point RFK, Jr. even sent the Samoan prime minister a letter suggesting the measles vaccine itself may have caused the outbreak. He falsely asserted that it had “failed to produce antibodies” in mothers sufficient to provide infants with immunity, that it perhaps provoked “the evolution of more virulent measles strains” and even that children who received the vaccine may have inadvertently spread the virus to other children.

[...]

There is still an opportunity to stop RFK’s confirmation, if the GOP-controlled Senate finds enough backbone and common sense. But time is running out to change minds and stand up to Trump. Meanwhile, RFK Jr.’s allies in the anti-vax movement, like Siri and Bigtree, are gearing up to unleash a true nightmare upon our health system.

This is very disturbing: the anti-vaxxer extremist movement is on the prowl, as both Donald Trump and RFK Jr. are making moves to potentially yank some vaccines off the market-- including the polio-- and champion the debunked lie that vaccines “cause” autism.

See Also:

Daily Kos: We got rid of polio with vaccines. RFK's lawyer wants to bring it back

[freetheshit-outofyou]

little nuggets from the Duncan v. Bonta, No. 19-55376 (9th Cir. 2021) ruling. California's magazine ban. Judge Roger T. Benitez (St. Benitez) is dropping truth bombs all over Rob Bonta, Attorney General of the State of California.

“Rather than re-tell the long history of large-capacity magazines in this country, we offer some highlights:

 • The first known firearm capable of firing more than ten rounds without reloading was a 16-shooter invented in 1580.

• The earliest record of a repeating firearm in America noted that it fired more than ten rounds: In 1722, Samuel Niles wrote of Indians being entertained by a firearm that “though loaded but once, . . . was discharged eleven times following, with bullets, in the space of two minutes.” Harold L. Peterson, Arms and Armor in Colonial America 1526–1783, 215 (2000). DUNCAN V. BONTA 133 • At the Founding, the state-of the-art firearm was the Girandoni air rifle with a 22-shot magazine capacity. • In 1777, Joseph Belton demonstrated a 16-shot repeating rifle before the Continental Congress, seeking approval for its manufacture. Robert Held, The Belton Systems, 1758 & 1784–86: America’s First Repeating Firearms 37 (1986).

• By the 1830s, “Pepperbox” pistols had been introduced to the American public and became commercially successful. Depending on the model, the Pepperbox could fire 5, 6, 12, 18, or 24 rounds without reloading. • It took several years for Samuel Colt’s revolvers (also invented in the 1830s) to surpass the Pepperbox pistol in the marketplace.

• From the 1830s to the 1850s, several more rifles were invented with large ammunition capacities, ranging from 12- to 38- shot magazines.

• By 1855, Daniel Wesson (of Smith and Wesson fame) and Oliver Winchester collaborated to introduce the lever action rifle, which contained a 30-round magazine that could be emptied in less than one minute. A later iteration of this rifle, the 16-round Henry lever action rifle, became commercially successful, selling about 14,000 from 1860 to 1866.

• By 1866, the first Winchester rifle, the Model 1866, could hold 17 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber, all of which could be fired in nine seconds. All told, Winchester made over 170,000 copies of the from 1866 to 1898. See Norm Flayderman, Flayderman’s 134 DUNCAN V. BONTA Guide to Antique Firearms and Their Values 268 (6th ed. 1994).

• A few years later, Winchester produced the M1873, capable of holding 10 to 11 rounds, of which over 720,000 copies were made from 1873 to 1919.

From this history, the clear picture emerges that firearms with large-capacity capabilities were widely possessed by law-abiding citizens by the time of the Second Amendment’s incorporation. In that way, today’s large-capacity magazines are “modern-day equivalents” of these historical arms, and are entitled to the Second Amendment’s protection.” Pages 132-134 “Characterizing my car ban analogies as “inapt,” the majority says that California’s magazine ban is more akin to “speed limits.” But in attempting to trade my analogies for a more favorable one, the majority misses the obvious point: that in every context except our distorted Second Amendment jurisprudence, everyone agrees that when you evaluate whether a response to avoid some harm is “rational”—much less a “reasonable fit”—you takes into account both the gravity of the possible harm and the risk of it occurring. The majority here completely ignores the latter. Perhaps if I use the majority’s own analogy it might click: If California chose to impose a state-wide 10 mph speed limit to prevent the very real harm of over 3,700 motor-vehicle deaths each year experienced from driving over 10 mph, no one would think such a response is rational—precisely because, even though the many deaths from such crashes are terrible, they are a comparatively rare occurrence (although much more common than deaths caused by mass shootings).” Page 152 “The majority also relies on the argument that limiting magazine capacity provides “precious down-time” during reloading, giving “victims and law enforcement officers” time to “fight back.” But here again, that same “down-time” applies equally to a mother seeking to protect herself and her children from a gang of criminals breaking into her home, or a law-abiding citizen caught alone by one of the lawless criminal mobs that recently have been terrorizing cities in our circuit. The majority focuses only on ways higher capacity magazines might cause more harm in the very rare mass shooting, while dismissing the life-threatening impact of being forced to reload in a self-defense situation as a mere “inconvenience,” and characterizing as mere “speculat[ion] . . . situations in which a person might want to use a largecapacity magazine for self-defense.”

Ultimately, it is not altogether surprising that federal judges, who have armed security protecting their workplace, home security systems supplied at taxpayer expense, and the ability to call an armed marshal to their upper-middleclass home whenever they feel the whiff of a threat, would have trouble relating to why the average person might want a magazine with over ten rounds to defend herself. But this simply reinforces why those same judges shouldn’t be expected to fairly balance any Second Amendment test asking whether ordinary law-abiding citizens really need some firearm product or usage.” Pages 164 and 165

[sirfrogsworth]

We might not know enough about guns to regulate them properly.

Some folks on the Left probably need to learn more about guns.

I've seen so many people pronounce loudly that banning the AR-15 is the single greatest thing we could do to stop mass shootings.

But I'm afraid it is much more complicated than that.

During the first assault weapons ban in the 90s, legislators had trouble defining the weapons they wanted to ban so they included details like no bayonet lugs or foldable stocks or pistol grips. I guess they were trying to find aspects that a lot of these weapons had in common in order to identify which guns to ban. But soon after, gun manufacturers just left these elements out of their designs and made essentially the same guns.

Despite some dubious statistics I've seen on Twitter about this 90s ban being amazingly effective, most experts found that the ban had little to no effect on firearm deaths or the lethality of gun crimes. People just used different guns that weren't banned.

Beyond that, the AR-15 is one model of gun from one manufacturer. There are tons of copycat designs from other brands. There are kits you can build yourself. You can even 3D print all of the non-metallic parts. Not to mention there are plenty of assault weapons that have similar characteristics. The AK-47 uses even more powerful ammunition.

And then there is this "ranch rifle."

It doesn't look like a scary Rambo gun, but it shoots the same bullets as the AR-15 and has large capacity magazines. It is functionally the same.

Would this be included in the ban? Or would our legislators think it is just a harmless varmint rifle used for shooting pests on the farm as the marketing suggests?

There is also the fact that most shootings take place at short distances where even small caliber handguns would be plenty lethal and effective for a mass shooting. Bigger rifles send the rounds out quicker and can penetrate better at longer distances, so the casualty count might be a little higher versus a handgun. But at the most common distances, I don't know if it would be a huge difference. Las Vegas might have been less deadly due to the shooter firing from a longer distance, but he could have also used much higher caliber hunting rifles, though with a slower rate of fire. If 20 people die instead of 60, that is certainly an improvement, but probably not the result people are hoping for with these bans.

I guess what I'm trying to say is there are so many options when it comes to firearms that I just don't know if gun bans are going to be the solution to this issue. I think focusing resources on identifying dangerous people and preventing them from getting weapons in the first place might be a better place to start. Mandatory training, gun licenses, liability insurance, and expensive background checks could all be used as barriers for a dangerous person to acquire a gun. We could also flag large ammo purchases.

Getting rid of one style of gun when there are hundreds of other flavors of gun that can do a similar amount of damage doesn't seem like it will do much in the grand scheme. Creating hoops for bad people to jump through so that hopefully they get snagged in one of them might work better.

If we were to do gun bans, I think it should be more like... every household is allowed one revolver for self defense and all other firearms must be secured at a gun club or shooting range.

But that feels like a pipe dream in this country.

The sad truth is the toothpaste may be out of the tube. We literally have more guns than people right now. How would we logistically confiscate millions of guns? Especially from people who might use those guns to try and prevent said confiscation.

Honestly, I'm not sure we can actually solve this problem. At best maybe we can make it slightly less bad.

[personal-blog243]

Yes I am very aware that “assault weapon” is not the technically correct term but I’m not interested in semantics right now 🤷🏼‍♀️

[beardedmrbean]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Andrew Doyle

Published: Nov 7, 2023

Away from the horror unfolding in Israel, the past month has provided one long acid test for the West’s commitment to liberal values. What are we to make of middle-class bien pensants asserting that mass murder requires “context”, of the overt antisemitism, and of a police force that makes excuses for theocrats calling for “jihad” on the streets of London? For some, this is proof of the failure of multiculturalism. For others, it is the final straw that broke the back of liberalism. Hate speech laws must now be strengthened, certain protests ought to be banned, and we must no longer tolerate the intolerant.

Republican senator Tom Cotton has called for those who express support for Hamas to be deported, and Donald Trump has promised to do so if re-elected. In France, Emmanuel Macron has outlawed pro-Palestine rallies on the grounds of maintaining public order, although his decree has been largely ignored. Closer to home, a pro-Palestinian protest has been scheduled in London for Armistice Day, a tactic surely intended to generate as much outrage and attention as possible.

In that respect, it has already succeeded. Rishi Sunak has stopped short of a ban, but has called on the Met Police to make “robust use” of its powers to prevent the Remembrance events being disrupted. In this, he is out of kilter with the majority of the country: only 18% believe it “should be allowed to go ahead”.

Liberalism has always been a tricky prospect, cherishing personal autonomy and freedom of speech up to the point where our behaviour encroaches on the rights of others. To ideologues, it is a poison, because it rejects their insistence that we ought to follow a preordained set of rules. Some even claim that liberalism is itself an ideology, though I see it as the precise opposite: it is the repudiation of ideological thinking — because it refuses to accept oversimplified interpretations of reality, or to outsource our decision-making capacities to an already established creed. This is why there are liberals on the Left, the Right, and everywhere in between.

Yet it has been dispiriting to see our commitment to Enlightenment values being assaulted on multiple fronts. There are theocratic extremists who oppose free speech and would happily see blasphemers and apostates executed. There are Western activists intoxicated by the moonshine of intersectional identity politics calling for censorship and other restrictions. And now, we have those who once considered themselves to be “liberal” pronouncing that there should be limitations to freedom of speech and assembly.

Even those who have previously decried “cancel culture” appear to be relishing its impact on their opponents. A lecture at Liverpool Hope University by Professor Avi Shlaim, a critic of Israel, was cancelled out of concern for the “safety and wellbeing” of students; Michael Eisen, a geneticist at UC Berkeley, was fired as editor-in-chief of eLife magazine for sharing a satirical article from The Onion which took a pro-Palestine stance. Eisen, some have pointed out, had previously questioned whether cancellation really exists. But while a degree of schadenfreude is understandable, it is hardly helpful.

That there are no rulebooks to consult is liberalism’s major appeal to those of a free-thinking disposition, but it is also the source of its instability. The authoritarian has no need to engage with his detractors; he can simply have them eliminated. By contrast, the liberal must find a way to coexist with those who yearn to see his freedoms quashed, to somehow reconcile himself to the multiplicity of human outlooks and their inherent incommensurability. But how can you run a marketplace of ideas while there are hooligans trying to overturn the tables?

This essential vulnerability is always tested in moments of crisis. Governments enact “emergency powers” when at war because short-term authoritarianism seems preferable to the alternative. So when protesters at pro-Palestine marches in London are holding signs that openly celebrate the slaughter, rape and kidnapping of civilians, and an official advisor to the Met police is filmed leading a chant of “from the river to the sea”, there will always be pressure from a justifiably incensed public to resort to authoritarian remedies.

Even in peacetime, liberalism is susceptible to changing trends within the nation state. What happens, for instance, when the majority of any given population rejects the liberal values upon which their society is based? What if a government has implemented reckless migration policies that grant citizenship to those who do not recognise the value of individual freedoms? In such circumstances, the principle of democracy could be its own undoing.

Sweden is often considered to be a case in point. According to its national police chief, the rapid surge in migration over the past decade has led to an “unprecedented” rise in gang warfare between those who do not respect the rule of law. On a recent trip to Stockholm, I found myself discussing the implications with a group of residents. One woman expressed the view that Swedish people tended to take liberalism for granted, and that they had assumed newcomers would be eager to adopt the values of the nation that had welcomed them. Now many fear that this was warm-hearted naivety, and that the government had not done enough to ensure widespread integration.

Liberal countries acknowledge their moral responsibility to offer asylum for those in need, and typically take a compassionate view towards foreigners seeking a more prosperous life. At the same time, there must be a degree of societal consensus for the ethos of these nations to survive at all. For where such a consensus is jeopardised, either through mass immigration or radical domestic political movements, the temptation to dispense with liberal values is inevitable. But to call for the deportation of citizens who actively seek the demolition of our culture is to surrender our principles to the very people who oppose them. It is to resign oneself to authoritarianism in a perverse effort to defeat it.

Inevitably, one thinks of Karl Popper’s famous paradox that “in the name of tolerance” we should claim “the right not to tolerate the intolerant”. This is often invoked by activists to defend censorship of their opponents, typically in the form of a well-known cartoon meme that decontextualises and misreads Popper’s formulation:

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

Popper’s next sentence is often omitted, in which he emphasises that so long as public opinion and rational argument can “keep them in check”, suppression of intolerant views would be “most unwise”. Protesters who take to the streets to celebrate murder fall into this category because they are self-discrediting. They are impervious to reason, but their sentiments are so essentially rebarbative that there is no risk of public opinion shifting in their favour.

But, some might respond, if liberalism is so delicate and continually under threat, why bother with it at all? In short: because it works. For all the claims by identitarian activists that the Western world is a racist hellhole, few living in the era of Jim Crow could have conceived of the advances we have made since then. The triumph of social liberalism is evident in multiple studies that show how Western societies are the most tolerant and diverse to have ever existed. It is no coincidence that all of the major civil rights movements — for black emancipation, feminism and gay rights — have traditionally been underpinned by a commitment to free speech and liberal ideals.

Of course, it is only natural that our patience is wearing thin. Having already witnessed pro-Palestine protesters in London throwing fireworks at police, and chanting in support of “Intifada” on the Tube, there can be no guarantees that such behaviour won’t be repeated on Saturday. The timing seems not only calculated to maximise publicity, but also as a declaration of contempt for British values and history.

But even if unruly and disrespectful, it would be self-defeating to ban the protest, or to insist on deportations for the worst offenders. Taking action against direct incitement to violence is one thing, but compromising on our key values is another. If we renege on our principles at the very moment when they are most imperilled, we risk undermining the very foundations upon which our civilisation is built. The authoritarian instinct may be a human constant but, with vigilance, it can be forestalled.

==

Liberalism is to ideology as atheism is to religion.

[dertaglichedan]

President Joe Biden released a statement calling for an “assault weapons” ban following Wednesday’s University of Nevada, Las Vegas, handgun attack.

Breitbart News reported that UNLV attacker killed three people and left a fourth critically wounded. And CNN reported the gunman was a “67-year-old career college professor.” It was later learned that the 67-year-old had applied to be a professor at UNLV “but was not hired,” according to ABC News.

When Biden released his statement, facts about the UNLV attack, including the description of the shooter–a professor–and the type of gun used–a handgun–were not known. Yet Biden pushed for a ban on “assault weapons” anyway.

Biden’s statement said, in part:

For all the action we have taken since I’ve been President, the epidemic of gun violence we face demands that we do even more. But we cannot do more without Congress. Republican lawmakers must join with Democrats in Congress to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, pass a national red flag law, enact universal background checks, require the safe storage of guns, and advance other commonsense measures that will help stem the tide of gun violence.

He ended the statement by referencing the UNLV shooting and also the killing spree that Shane James allegedly carried out in San Antonio and Austin, Texas,

The New York Post noted that Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar indicated James allegedly used “a large caliber handgun,” another fact that was not known when Biden stepped forward to call for an “assault weapons” ban

[kalashni-cola]

Corrupt judges in Oregon strike again.

[vickie526a]

U.S. Supreme Court leaves in place Illinois assault weapons ban | Reuters

Apparently, they already forgot their other rulings

Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.

Bruen that expanded the right of Americans to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. More accurately, the Court significantly curtailed a state's ability to restrict citizens' right to carry firearms publicly for their self-defense

[newstfionline]

Tuesday, January 31, 2023

California Has More Than 100 Gun Laws. Why Don’t They Stop More Mass Shootings? (NYT) California bans guns for domestic violence offenders. It bans them for people deemed a danger to others or themselves. There is a ban on large-capacity magazines, and a ban on noise-muffling silencers. Semiautomatic guns of the sort colloquially known as “assault weapons” are, famously, banned. More than 100 gun laws—the most of any state—are on the books in California. They have saved lives, policymakers say: Californians have among the lowest rates of gun death in the United States. Yet this month, those laws failed to stop the massacres of at least 19 people in back-to-back mass shootings. The tragedies in Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay have confounded Americans who regard California as a best-case bastion of gun safety in a nation awash with firearms. Inside the state, gun rights proponents say the shootings show that California’s strategy is a failure. Gun safety groups, meanwhile, have already begun mobilizing for more laws and better enforcement.

Peru’s protest ‘deactivators’ run toward tear gas to stop it (AP) When police fire tear gas at protesters demanding the resignation of Peruvian President Dina Boluarte, most run away. A few, though, run toward the gas canisters as quickly as possible—to neutralize them. These are the “deactivators.” Donning gas masks, safety goggles and thick gloves, these volunteers grab the hot canisters and toss them inside large plastic bottles filled with a mixture of water, baking soda and vinegar. The deactivators made their debut in Peru street protests in 2020, inspired by protesters in Hong Kong who in 2019 unveiled new strategies to counteract the eye-stinging, breath-stealing effects of tear gas. With protesters in Lima facing a nearly daily fusillade of tear gas, more people have joined the ranks of deactivators trying to shield them and keep the demonstrations going.

France braces for major transport woes from pension strikes (AP) France’s national rail operator is recommending that passengers stay home Tuesday to avoid strikes over pensions that are expected to cause major transport woes but largely spare high-speed links to Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands. Labor unions that mobilized massive street protests in an initial salvo of nationwide strikes earlier this month are hoping for similar success Tuesday to maintain pressure on government plans to raise France’s retirement age. Positions are hardening on both sides as lawmakers begin debating the planned change. France’s prime minister, Elisabeth Borne, insisted this weekend that her government’s intention to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 is “no longer negotiable.” Opponents in parliament and labor leaders are determined to prove her wrong.

Russia’s Convict Fighters Are Heading Home (NYT) He was released from a Russian prison and thrown into battle in Ukraine with a promise of freedom, redemption and money. Now, Andrei Yastrebov, who was among tens of thousands of convict soldiers, is part of a return from the battlefield with potentially serious implications for Russian society. Mr. Yastrebov, 22, who had been serving time for theft, returned home a changed man. “We all feel like he is in some sort of hypnosis, like he is a different person,” said a relative of his, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals. “He is without any emotions.” President Vladimir V. Putin’s decision to allow a mercenary group to recruit Russian convicts in support of his flagging war effort marks a watershed in his 23-year rule, say human rights activists and legal experts. The policy circumvents Russian legal precedent and, by returning some brutalized criminals to their homes with pardons, risks triggering greater violence throughout society. Since July, around 40,000 inmates have joined the Russian forces, according to Western intelligence agencies, the Ukrainian government and a prisoners’ rights association, Russia Behind Bars, which combines reports from informers across Russian jails. Ukraine claims that nearly 30,000 have deserted or been killed or wounded, although that number could not be independently verified.

Biden says no F-16s for Ukraine as Russia claims gains (Reuters) The United States will not provide the F-16 fighter jets that Ukraine has sought in its fight against Russia, President Joe Biden said on Monday, as Russian forces claimed a series of incremental gains in the country's east. Ukraine planned to push for Western fourth-generation fighter jets such as the F-16 after securing supplies of main battle tanks last week, an adviser to Ukraine's defence minister said on Friday. Asked if the United States would provide the jets, Biden told reporters at the White House, "No." The hundreds of modern tanks and armoured vehicles pledged to Ukraine by Western countries in recent weeks for a counteroffensive to recapture territory are months away from delivery. This leaves Kyiv to fight through the winter in what both sides have described as a meat grinder of relentless attritional warfare.

Winter has come for Afghanistan (Washington Post) For much of the past year, the West’s policymakers and analysts were possessed by one haunting question: How bad will Europe’s winter be? The prospect of a deep cold spell as European governments rationed gas supplies conjured images of a bleak winter from Lviv to London, with industry going dark and pensioners scavenging for firewood. The worst did not come to pass. But consider another part of the world that has receded from the West’s attention over the course of the Ukraine conflict. Afghanistan is currently in the grips of its worst winter in more than a decade. Temperatures recently plunged to below minus-34 degrees Celsius (minus-29.2 degrees Fahrenheit). Officials in the local Taliban government said the cold has been lethal, leading to more than 160 deaths over the span of about two weeks, and killing more than 70,000 livestock. The dismal conditions have struck a society ill-equipped to cope.

Suicide bomber kills 88, wounds over 150 at mosque in NW Pakistan (AP) A suicide bomber struck Monday inside a mosque in the northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar, killing at least 88 people and wounding more than 150 worshippers, officials said. Most of the casualties were policemen and police officers as the targeted mosque is located within a sprawling compound, which also serves as the city’s police headquarters. No one immediately claimed responsibility for the bombing, said Saddique Khan, a senior police official in Peshawar, but the Pakistani Taliban have been blamed in similar suicide attacks in the past.

Iran says drone strike targeted military complex amid ongoing shadow war (Washington Post) Iran said a drone strike lightly damaged a defense ministry complex in the central city of Isfahan on Saturday, an attack that reverberated across capitals as tensions with the West and Israel mount over Tehran’s advancing nuclear program, arms supply for Russia’s war in Ukraine and lethal crackdown on months-long anti-government protests. Iran’s Ministry of Defense said that three drones struck around 11:30 p.m. local time Saturday, according to a statement carried by the IRNA state news agency, in an attack that caused “minor damage to the roof of a workshop.” There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the Saturday strike. But Israel has a history of conducting attacks on Iranian nuclear program facilities as part of an ongoing shadow war between the two regional rivals, a campaign that appears to have escalated following the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, three years into the landmark agreement. One U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity said the strike appeared to be the work of the Israeli military.

Russian embassy says North Korea lifted lockdown in capital (AP) Russia’s embassy in North Korea says the country has eased stringent epidemic controls in capital Pyongyang that were placed during the past five days to slow the spread of respiratory illnesses. North Korea has not officially acknowledged a lockdown in Pyongyang or a re-emergence of COVID-19 after leader Kim Jong Un declared a widely disputed victory over the coronavirus in August, but the Russian embassy’s Facebook posts have provided rare glimpses into the secretive country’s infectious disease controls. Last week, the embassy said that North Korean health authorities required diplomatic missions to keep their employees indoors and also measure their temperatures four times a day and report the results to a hospital in Pyongyang. It said the North Korean measures were in response to an increase in “flu and other respiratory diseases,” but it didn’t mention the spread of COVID-19 or restrictions imposed on regular citizens.

Radioactive needle in a haystack: Tiny capsule lost in rural Australia (Washington Post) Emergency officials in Western Australia warned that a tiny radioactive capsule was on the loose, with a harried hunt underway along a lengthy stretch of highway for what was essentially a toxic needle in a haystack. The Department of Fire and Emergency Services in Western Australia, a largely rural state that makes up the western third of the country, issued a hazardous materials warning Saturday evening, cautioning that the radioactive capsule had been lost while it was being transported from a mine near the town of Newman to a suburb near Perth, the state’s most populous city. The capsule—which is less than a third of an inch long—went missing somewhere along the more than 800-mile stretch of road between Newman and Perth, the department said. It contains cesium-137, a radioactive material used in gauges for mining, one of the main industries in resource-rich Western Australia. Despite its size, the capsule is dangerous, the department warned. “Exposure to this substance could cause radiation burns or radiation sickness,” it said, cautioning people not to touch it or move it if they come across it. Anyone who sees the capsule should stay at least five meters (16 feet) away from it and report it, the department said.

Palestinian Man Fatally Shot as Violence Continues in Israel (NYT) A Palestinian man was fatally shot outside an Israeli settlement in the West Bank and Israeli settlers carried out nearly 150 attacks against Palestinians and their properties across the region, according to reports on Sunday by Palestinian state media and the Israeli Army. Sunday’s violence was the latest to grip the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Jerusalem since Thursday, in a series of raids and attacks that have left more than 20 people dead. Palestinian officials said that across the West Bank on Saturday night and into early Sunday, Israeli settlers had carried out 144 attacks against Palestinian civilians or their properties. One official, Ghassan Daghlas, told Wafa that settlers had hurled stones at more than 100 motorists and vehicles and had set fire to six vehicles in a wave of violence. At least 22 Palestinian-owned shops were attacked and at least one Palestinian home near the city of Ramallah was set on fire by settlers, Palestinian media reported.

[jbfly46]

How do judges keep their positions while blatantly violating federal law and the constitution, along with Supreme Court precedent? Why does the Supreme Court exist then? They uphold the laws they like and not the ones they don’t like. This judge hasn’t even been in the U.S. that long. Was appointed by Trump.

[scientificinquirer-blog]

Firearm laws restricting large-capacity magazines effective in reducing child deaths in mass shootings

The only firearm restrictions found to be effective in reducing mass shootings involving children were laws banning the sale of firearms equipped with a large-capacity magazines, according to a new analysis presented during the American Academy of Pediatrics 2024 National Conference and Exhibition. Researchers will present, “Do State Gun Laws Affect Pediatric Mass Shootings? A 2009 – 2020 Year…

[murder-and-maryjane]

Did You Know🤔

On November 7, 2018, a mass shooting occurred in Thousand Oaks, California, United States, at the Borderline Bar and Grill, a country-western bar frequented by college students. Thirteen people were killed, including the perpetrator, who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and a police officer who was shot multiple times, with the fatal round accidentally being fired by another officer. One other person sustained a gunshot wound, while fifteen others were injured by incidental causes. Police identified the killer as 28-year-old Ian David Long, a United States Marine Corps veteran.

At 11:18 p.m., a gunman, later identified as Ian David Long, entered the Borderline Bar and Grill and opened fire on the approximately 260 patrons and employees inside. At the time, the bar was hosting a regularly scheduled College Country Night event, and it was popular among students in the area, especially those from Pepperdine University, California Lutheran University, California State University Channel Islands, and Moorpark College. Long was armed with a legally purchased .45-caliber Glock 21 semi-automatic pistol with a Viridian X5L tactical weapon light and laser sight and seven banned high-capacity magazines, carrying a total of 190 rounds, along with a folding knife, ten smoke bombs, and two fireworks. Upon entering through the bar's front door, long first killed the cashier nearby, then started shooting at the patrons. He fired a total of 61 rounds and threw smoke bombs. Many of the victims died in the first few minutes of the shooting while they were lying on the floor or trying to charge at Long. Witnesses described the gunman as a heavily tattooed white male dressed entirely in black. Some people shattered the bar's windows, allowing many to flee, while some others hid in an employee bathroom or the attic. During the shooting, Long answered a phone call made by the mother of a patron who escaped, and he also made several posts on Instagram expressing his thoughts. At 11:19 p.m., two California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers on a traffic stop nearby were alerted to the shooting by people who had managed to escape. They arrived at the bar's parking lot a minute later and were joined by Ventura County Sheriff's Sgt. Ron Helus four minutes after that. The three officers ventured towards the building, with Helus and one of the CHP officers entering at 11:25 p.m. A minute later, they came under fire from Long, who had been monitoring their movements through the nine security cameras visible on a monitor in the front office where he had been taking shelter. In the ensuing gunfight, Helus was shot five times by Long, who used a flashlight with a laser sight on his pistol in the large, darkened, smoke-filled room. Positioned between Long and the CHP officer, Helus was also accidentally struck by a bullet from the officer's rifle that went through his heart and fatally wounded him. Initially there was confusion and miscommunication as to whether there was an officer down. Responding Ventura County Sheriff's deputies, who were securing the perimeter, located and evacuated Helus outside the building 20 minutes after he had been shot. A SWAT team and other police officers arrived on the scene shortly afterwards. Long stopped his attack following the exchange of gunfire with police. At 11:37 p.m., he lit a firework and threw it out of the bar's front office. Forty seconds later, he threw another firework out of the office. At 11:38 p.m., he committed suicide by shooting himself under the chin. Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Department of Homeland Security were deployed to further investigate the scene along with EMTs and paramedics from the Ventura County Fire Department and AMR to assist victims. Nineteen survivors were rescued from inside the bar in total.

[beardedmrbean]

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A voter-approved Oregon gun control law violates the state constitution, a judge ruled Tuesday, continuing to block it from taking effect and casting fresh doubt over the future of the embattled measure.

The law, one of the toughest in the nation, was among the first gun restrictions to be passed after a major U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year changed the guidance judges are expected to follow when considering Second Amendment cases.

The decision was handed down by Circuit Court Judge Robert S. Raschio, the presiding judge in Harney County in rural southeast Oregon.

The law requires people to undergo a criminal background check and complete a gun safety training course in order to obtain a permit to buy a firearm. It also bans high-capacity magazines.

Measure 114 has been tied up in state and federal court since it was narrowly approved by voters last November.

The state trial stemmed from a lawsuit filed by gunowners claiming the law violated the right to bear arms under the Oregon Constitution.

The defendants include such Oregon officials as Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and State Police Superintendent Casey Codding. They can appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals and the case could ultimately go to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Rosenblum plans to appeal the ruling, her office said in an emailed statement.

“The Harney County judge’s ruling is wrong,” the statement said. “Worse, it needlessly puts Oregonians’ lives at risk. The state will file an appeal and we believe we will prevail.”

One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Tyler Smith, welcomed the ruling.

“We hope the Attorney General’s office will realize that the ill-conceived and unconstitutional ballot measure should not be defended,” he said in an email.

The decision is likely “the first opening salvo of multiple rounds of litigation,” said Norman Williams, constitutional law professor at Willamette University.

During an appeals process, it’s likely that the injunction freezing the law would remain in place. Raschio was the judge who initially blocked it from taking effect in December.

The different lawsuits over the measure have sparked confusion over whether it can be implemented.

In a separate federal case over the Oregon measure, a judge in July ruled it was lawful under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But because Raschio found it to be invalid under the Oregon Constitution during the state trial, the law remains on hold. This is because state courts can strike down a state law that violates the state constitution, even if it’s permissible under the federal constitution.

“The U.S. Constitution sets a floor, not a ceiling, for rights, so state constitutions can be more rights-protective than the federal constitution,” Williams said.

Because of this, Oregon officials would have to win in both state and federal court for the law to take effect, he said.

During the state trial, the plaintiffs and the defense clashed over whether the permit-to-purchase provision would hamper people from exercising their right to bear arms. They also sparred over whether large-capacity magazines are used for self-defense and whether they’re protected under the Oregon Constitution.

The plaintiffs argued that firearms capable of firing multiple rounds were present in Oregon in the 1850s and known to those who ratified the state constitution, which took effect in 1859. The defense, meanwhile, said modern semiautomatic firearms were “technologically distinct from the revolvers and multi-barrel pistols that were available in the 1850s.”

In his opinion, Raschio disputed the defense’s claim that banning large-capacity magazines would help make mass shootings less deadly. He recognized that mass shootings “have a significant impact on the psyche of America when they happen,” but said they “rank very low in frequency.”

“The court finds that 10-round magazine bans are no panacea to prevent a mass shooter,” he wrote.

“People tend to believe these events are prolific and happening all the time with massive levels of death and injury,” he added. “The court finds this belief, though sensationalized by the media, is not validated by the evidence.”

The Oregon measure was passed after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June 2022 created new standards for judges weighing gun laws. That decision fueled a national upheaval in the legal landscape for U.S. firearm law.

The ruling tossed aside a balancing test that judges had long used to decide whether to uphold gun laws. It directed them to only consider whether a law is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation,” rather than take into account public interests such as promoting public safety.

Since then, there has been confusion about which laws can survive. Courts have overturned laws designed to keep weapons away from domestic abusers and felony defendants. The Supreme Court heard a case on one such law this month and is expected to issue a ruling by early summer.

In her separate federal ruling over the Oregon law, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut appeared to take into account the Supreme Court’s new directive to consider the history of gun regulations.

She found large-capacity magazines “are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.” Even if they were protected, she wrote, the law’s restrictions are consistent with the country’s “history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety.”

She also found the permit-to-purchase provision to be constitutional, noting the Second Amendment “allows governments to ensure that only law-abiding, responsible citizens keep and bear arms.”

The plaintiffs in the federal case, which include the Oregon Firearms Federation, have appealed the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case could potentially go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nine other states have permit-to-purchase laws similar to the Oregon measure, including New York, Hawaii, Maryland and Massachusetts, according to data compiled by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Apart from Oregon, 11 states including California, along with Washington, D.C., limit large-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds, according to the Giffords Center. California’s ban on higher-capacity magazines remains in effect while the state fights a lower court’s ruling from September that the law is unconstitutional.