The Brazilian Report’s Post

Excerpt: The government of Mexico is suing U.S. gun-makers for their role in facilitating cross-border gun trafficking that has supercharged violent crime in Mexico. The lawsuit seeks US$10 billion in damages and a court order to force the companies named in the lawsuit – including Smith & Wesson, Colt, Glock, Beretta and Ruger – to change the way they do business. In January, a federal appeals court in Boston decided that the industry’s immunity shield, which so far has protected gun-makers from civil liability, does not apply to Mexico’s lawsuit. As a legal scholar who has analyzed lawsuits against the gun industry for more than 25 years, I believe this decision to allow Mexico’s lawsuit to proceed could be a game changer. To understand why, let’s begin with some background about the federal law that protects the gun industry from civil lawsuits.

Excerpt: The government of Mexico is suing U.S. gun-makers for their role in facilitating cross-border gun trafficking that has supercharged violent crime in Mexico. The lawsuit seeks US$10 billion in damages and a court order to force the companies named in the lawsuit – including Smith & Wesson, Colt, Glock, Beretta and Ruger – to change the way they do business. In January, a federal appeals court in Boston decided that the industry’s immunity shield, which so far has protected gun-makers from civil liability, does not apply to Mexico’s lawsuit. As a legal scholar who has analyzed lawsuits against the gun industry for more than 25 years, I believe this decision to allow Mexico’s lawsuit to proceed could be a game changer. To understand why, let’s begin with some background about the federal law that protects the gun industry from civil lawsuits.

On Friday, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon signed a bill into law that bars state and local officials from enforcing federal “extreme risk” protective orders – sometimes referred to as red flag laws. Titled “Prohibit Red Flag Gun Seizure Act,” the new law prohibits any state or local agency “from implementing or enforcing any federal statute, rule, executive order, judicial order or judicial findings or any state statute, rule, executive order, judicial order or judicial findings that would enforce a red flag gun seizure order against or upon a resident of Wyoming” who is legally allowed to possess a firearm under state law. It also prohibits the state and its political subdivisions from using personnel or funds for enforcement of the same. No governmental entities in the state are allowed to accept federal grant funding to implement any federal red flag law. Anyone found in violation of the law by a court will now be subject to a civil penalty of up to $50,000 fifty per violation, and the court “may order any injunctive or other equitable relief as permitted by law.” On March 6, the House passed SF109 by a 54-8 vote with some technical amendments. The following day, the Senate concurred with the House amendments by a 30-0 vote. With Gov. Gordon’s signature, the law went into immediate effect. https://lnkd.in/gXATxexv

On Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States, by an 8-1 vote, rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the federal law banning persons subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms. In its amicus brief in U.S. v. Rahimi, GAGV was the only major gun violence prevention group to argue that the Supreme Court should reverse its decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen, both of which overturned 200 years of precedent recognizing the Second Amendment’s intended meaning to protect state militias. The Court did not take up GAGV’s call to reverse Heller and Bruen. GAGV President Jonathan Lowy stated: “It is obviously good news that the Supreme Court rejected the notion that domestic abusers have a Constitutional right to firearms. But the fact that such an obvious question was up for debate shows how far the current interpretation of the Second Amendment has strayed from what James Madison intended.   “The Court’s incorrect view that 21st-century gun laws must have some historical precedent makes no sense, especially for a nation that suffers from gun massacres and gun death rates unlike any other comparable country and that exports its gun violence epidemic to countries throughout the region. As Justice Jackson rightly points out, lower courts are concluding that ‘…there is little method to Bruen’s madness.’   “The Second Amendment madness must end. The Court should return the Second Amendment to the meaning that was understood for 200 years and that was intended by the Framers. Returning to the Second Amendment jurisprudence that governed until 2008 would allow the government to carry out its core public safety function and enact common-sense laws that protect all Americans.” 

Will Rahimi Save The Unworkable Bruen? https://lnkd.in/gWQamPrA <a href=""> - Whereas the holding match properly right into a sentence, the Supreme Court’s Bruen resolution wreaked havoc on decrease courts struggling to determine how that sentence was utilized. [T]he court articulated a “textual content, historical past and custom” check for evaluating gun restrictions in future federal circumstances. Beneath this check, gun management measures had been constitutional provided that the federal government might display these restrictions had been “in keeping with the nation’s historic custom of firearm regulation.” That was essentially the most vital aspect of the Bruen case. Granted, there was little readability below Heller and McDonald, Justice Scalia having tossed within the errant paragraph that undermined any coherent studying of the remainder of the opinion. However the “historic custom” check of Bruen took issues from dangerous to worse. Neither the federal government nor judges had been colonial period historians. Simply because there was no legislation enacted limiting firearms again then doesn’t imply there wouldn’t have been had there been an issue in want of decision. And the legal guidelines that did exist had been directed at circumstances, and weapons, then in existence. Issues change. David French, who strongly supported Heller, noticed the issue considerably in a different way. Not solely was the historical past messy, however judicial reliance on founding-era laws suffers from a further conceptual flaw: State legislatures are hardly filled with constitutional students. Then and now, our state legislatures are liable to enact wildly unconstitutional laws. The belief in Bruen is that the identical of us who ratified the Second Modification knew what it meant, and so any legal guidelines they handed had been, by definition, in keeping with the Second Modification’s that means. David isn’t shopping for. Our courts exist partially to examine legislatures after they go astray. The courts don’t depend on legislatures to determine constitutional doctrine. In our divided system of presidency, legislators usually are not tasked with decoding constitutional legislation. Sure, they need to take the Structure under consideration after they draft legal guidelines, however the legal guidelines they draft aren’t precedent. They don’t and mustn’t bind the courts. This can be a “which is to be grasp” drawback, whether or not the legal guidelines again then dictate the parameters of the correct to maintain and bear arms or had been legislatures simply as inclined to check, and exceed, the boundaries of the Structure again then as they’re now? Whereas Justice Thomas, creator of Bruen and lone dissenter in Rahimi, persevered in his slavish reliance on the legal guidelines on the time of ratification as controlling, David characterizes the break of the remainder of the Court ...

RHODES CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT LIST OF THE DAY - Compromising civil liberties and property rights to prevent acts of violence that have yet to occur are policies more suited for dystopian thrillers⁠—and police states⁠—than a free society. Red Flag laws are in the news again. These laws, also called “extreme risk protection orders,” allow courts to issue orders allowing law enforcement to seize firearms from people who’ve committed no crime but are believed to be a danger to themselves or others. Here are seven reasons red flag laws should be opposed, particularly at the federal level. 1. There’s No Evidence Red Flag Laws Reduce Gun Violence 2. Congress Lacks the Authority 3. We Have Federalism 4. Red Flag Laws Violate Due Process 5. Red Flag Laws Could Lead to More Violence 6. It’s Not Just the “Mentally Ill” and Grave Threats Who Are Flagged 7. They’re Basically Pre-Crime Passionate About US Politics? Follow Me Lee Newton Rhodes Interested In Your Thoughts.

Time to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court! Firearms Policy Coalition and FPC Action Foundation have filed a response to the government's petition asking the Supreme Court hear our challenge to ATF's "Frame or Receiver" Rule. The kicker? We agree that the Supreme Court should take the case! But that is where the agreement ends... Now is the time for the Court to step in and affirm our victories at both the District Court and the Fifth Circuit. ATF's Rule is nothing more than an unconstitutional and unlawful attempt to rewrite federal law through agency rulemaking. But Congress is charged with making federal law, not executive branch agencies such as ATF. The Supreme Court should put this Rule exactly where it belongs--in the dustbin of history. https://lnkd.in/eVjHiQbE

𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝗶𝗿𝗺: 𝗛𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗺𝘀' 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗔𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗦𝗲𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝟱𝟰𝟰𝟰 I'm here to discuss a matter close to our hearts at Huligan Arms, following the introduction of Senate Bill 5444 in Washington State. This legislation, which curtails the open carry of firearms in certain public spaces, stands in stark contrast to the values we uphold at our core. Through our website, www.huliganarms.com, we've championed the constitutional right for individuals to protect themselves and others. Today, I want to share why we oppose this bill and our enduring commitment to the 2nd Amendment. 𝗢𝘂𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗢𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 At Huligan Arms, Senate Bill 5444 strikes a nerve. It challenges the constitutional fabric of our nation, infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights that we, and many like us, hold sacred. Our stance, detailed through our advocacy on www.huliganarms.com, is not just about opposition to a bill but a defense of the freedoms that define us. This legislation unfairly targets responsible gun owners, undermining their ability to protect themselves and their loved ones. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝟮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗢𝘂𝗿 𝗚𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿 The 2nd Amendment remains our guiding principle at Huligan Arms. It symbolizes the right of individuals to defend themselves, a right as relevant today as at the inception of our country. The recent legislative actions, encapsulated in Senate Bill 5444, pose a threat to this right, imposing restrictions that we believe are unwarranted and unconstitutional. Our mission, as articulated on our website, is to uphold these essential freedoms, advocating for the rights of individuals to responsibly bear arms. 𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗹𝗮𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗼 𝗣𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗦𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆 The premise of Senate Bill 5444, while aimed at enhancing public safety, fails to acknowledge the efficacy of responsible gun ownership in safeguarding communities. At Huligan Arms, we argue that the solution to violence is not found in restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens. Instead, we advocate for a holistic approach that addresses the underlying causes of crime, championing education, training, and community initiatives as more effective measures. 𝗢𝘂𝗿 𝗣𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗔𝗱𝘃𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗚𝘂𝗻 𝗢𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 In response to the challenges posed by Senate Bill 5444, Huligan Arms reiterates our dedication to the rights of gun owners and the promotion of safe firearm practices. We are committed to fostering a culture of responsibility and respect for the 2nd Amendment, ensuring that the principles of freedom and safety are maintained.

Georgia State University College of Law Professor Timothy Lytton, an expert on the role of litigation, talks to The Latin American Advisor about Mexico's case against the US gun industry: "The most enduring implications of Mexico’s lawsuits—win or lose—may be the litigation process itself. Mexico’s complaint has shined a spotlight on the role that U.S. gun makers and sellers play in facilitating violent crime in Mexico, and the discovery process offers Mexico an opportunity to force U.S. companies to disclose closely held policy-relevant information that may shed new light on the supply chain logistics of illegal gun trafficking." https://lnkd.in/dvknaydh.

Gun Bans in Public Housing - New York is the Latest Loser. “Public Housing’s Predicament, 2A Rights Do Not Stop at Front Door The defeat of a public housing gun ban in Cortland, N.Y.—as reported earlier by Ammoland News—was not the proverbial “first rodeo” for the Second Amendment Foundation on this subject, and the group’s track record by now should have been a warning flare to every such facility in the country they cannot stop the Bill of Rights at the front door. Such battles have been erupting since at least 1995, when the National Rifle Association successfully challenged a public housing gun ban in Portland, Maine. ...The Maine Supreme Judicial Court “instead ruled 6-0 that the Portland Housing Authority has no authority under state law to regulate possession of guns.” East St. Louis, Illinois—In 2019, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against the East St. Louis Housing Authority’s (ESLHA) ban on firearms possession by residents of government subsidized public housing in a case brought by SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association in 2018. Warren County, Illinois—Back in 2012, SAF filed suit against the Warren County Housing Authority with Ronald G. Winbigler, a resident of Costello Terrace in Monmouth. In that case, SAF won a permanent injunction against the housing authority. This was seven years prior to the East St. Louis challenge, so perhaps it was a case of short memory span. Columbia, Tennessee—In 2022, SAF supported a case involving a man named Kinsley Braden. ...Tennessee Court of Appeals Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr. wrote, “(I)n light of the Supreme Court’s most recent decision in Bruen and keeping in mind the presumptively unconstitutional status of Columbia Housing’s policy based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, we conclude that a total ban on the ability of law-abiding residents—like Mr. Braden—to possess a handgun within their public housing unit for the purpose of self-defense is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.” Gun prohibitions in public housing should be considered a matter of settled law. Perhaps the mystifying element in all of these cases is how such gun bans keep showing up. As SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut observed in the latest victory over the Cortland Housing Authority, “At some point, it should become abundantly clear to various public housing authorities that gun bans are not allowed. Residents do not leave their constitutional rights at the entrance, as each of our victories over the years have affirmed.” As the cases mentioned here clarify, low income public housing residents have constitutional rights just like everyone else.” Story HERE: https://lnkd.in/eZrfa4EX