Carlos Camargo, Ph.D.’s Post

In his new article for the Annual Review of American Federalism, Jonathan Obert examines the fragmented and varied regulatory, cultural, and electoral responses to guns and gun rights in the contemporary United States. He argues that these responses a result of two long-standing features of American political life: a tradition of armed federalism and a unique, domestically oriented market for small firearms. As a result of the intersection of these two phenomena, the past 150 years have seen the growth of a fragmentary regulatory response to firearms on the part of local, state, and federal jurisdictions; the emergence of an organized national gun-rights movement; and, most significantly, the ascendance of a legal strategy by supporters of gun-rights constitutionalism. Only by examining the historical contingencies of American political institutions and markets does the contested transformation of a “right to bear arms” into gun rights make sense. Read the full article, available ahead of print in Publius: The Journal of Federalism, here: https://lnkd.in/g-zZvaJ6

https://lnkd.in/gH3pZ357 Here is the Sunday recap of news people are most interested in: 1. Gun Rights. Of all the topics and gun rights options, the most relevant to people was news content exploring if government should regulate guns like cars. So, that’s the priority for this week’s news. News article coming soon. 2. Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. This topic received the most overall interest with divergent views. People indicted the most interest in the U.S. continuing to provide Israel support while advocating for civilian protection, release of hostages, and peaceful resolution. There was also concentrated interest in learning more about what would happen if the U.S. supported Palestinians instead of Israelis, and if the U.S. and all other nations stayed out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leaving the two groups to fight it out or work it out. We’ll work on this very important topic as Capy’s resources allow. 3. Next topics in the news cycle based on your relevance inputs: U.S. Election Integrity, Transgender Athletes, and Immigration Policy. 4. New topics suggested include the value of services received from paying taxes, which Capy will include in the “Government Proficiency” series. Another new topic input was “Food Transparency” which Capy will broaden the Healthcare related topic to include a focus on information, education, and prevention. Each Sunday, look for the Capy Recap, and please subscribe and support if you like this news model. We’re in beta, so please be patient as we establish a news paradigm to help to stabilize society and prevent civil war.

What would it look like if the Supreme Court interpreted the 13th Amendment banning slavery in the same way that the 2nd Amendment has been turned into a shill for gun rights? Let's take a look. Here's the actual 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Here's what the conservative Supreme Court version of the 13th Amendment would look like if the same legal tactics removed language inconvenient to its ideological motives: "Slavery or involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." The Supreme Court arrived at the idea that unmitigated gun rights should exist in America by ignoring and/or removing language interfering with the claim that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Discarding the phrase "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." is wrong because the concept of a "militia" still applies when a citizenry heavily armed with weapons capable of military aims resides in the country. That means the nation can only achieve the 'security of a free state' if people owning guns aren't allowed to wield them openly in public because that poses a direct threat to all others in society. The role of a "militia" applies during a "call to arms" in the event of a foreign invasion. The notion that the citizenry requires arms to guard against governmental tyranny is popular among conservatives, but the J6, 2020 insurrection reversed that proposition and exposed that lie and the tyrannical Big Lie of a stolen election driving it. People should be able to keep and bear arms in their homes for self-defense. But carrying guns around in public is a breach of constitutional rights for those who choose not to arm themselves in public. This is consistent with other Bill of Rights governance, such as freedom of religion. People are free to worship as they please, but American citizens also have the right not to engage in religion. The Separation Clause clearly states there shall be no state religion. Neither should there be a 'state' gun requirement to experience the full benefits of freedom. A "well-regulated militia" should imitate a military base where weapons are never carried around when not on duty. That brings us to the 13th Amendment and a form of involuntary servitude implemented through Jim Crow laws. Much of American society implemented a state of virtual servitude by using codes, laws, and violence to suppress Black Americans' rights. Whenever the rights of one populace are emphasized to the detriment of another, the goals of the Founding authors are corrupted and perverted. The result is inequality and the destruction of democratic governance.

I've always been one of those people who tried to understand the importance of the Second Amendment. So I've never been one of those people who wanted to get rid of it - until now. I'm sick and tired of watching innocent people - especially children - get killed. Enough is enough. Now let's break down the Second Amendment, shall we? It states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What it means in terms that a 10-year-old can understand: People have the right to own and use weapons (like guns) to protect themselves and their country. Back when this was written, the United States didn’t have a strong army, so ordinary people sometimes needed to form groups called militias to keep their communities safe. The idea is that being able to defend yourself is important for staying free and secure, and the government shouldn't take away that right. NOTE: None of these mass shooters are protecting themselves or their country. Period. As a transgender man in America, it is extremely frustrating and infuriating to see the imbalance in priorities in this country. I see my rights being chipped away daily—rights that allow me to live as my authentic self, to access healthcare, to be safe and respected. Trans people aren’t hurting anyone. We’re not a threat. And yet, so much effort is spent attacking us, regulating our bodies, and restricting our rights. Meanwhile, guns—actual tools of violence—are being used to kill innocent children and adults in schools, grocery stores, churches, and beyond. The harm is clear. The deaths are undeniable. And yet, instead of taking meaningful action to create better, safer gun laws, many politicians and their supporters look the other way or double down on their defense of “Second Amendment rights,” ignoring the cost: lives. How does it make sense to restrict my rights as a trans person—rights that hurt no one—but do nothing about easy access to weapons that are killing people every day? Why is my existence more threatening to some people than mass shootings? If we aren’t going to create better, safer gun laws—laws that prioritize the lives of children, families, and communities—then what are we even saying as a country? It feels like the message is loud and clear: some rights matter more than others, and some lives matter more than others. Enough is enough! No more lives lost in mass shootings! It's heartbreaking and just plain wrong! And it’s something that should make all of us stop and think about what kind of world we’re building and who we’re really protecting.

THE DEAD HAND OF A SILENT PAST: BRUEN, GUN RIGHTS, AND THE SHACKLES OF HISTORY - PDF: https://lnkd.in/g-X7297X In June 2022, the Supreme Court struck down New York’s concealed carry licensing law on Second Amendment grounds. In that decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court declared that future Second Amendment challenges should be evaluated solely with reference to text, history, and tradition. By requiring historical precedent for any modern regulation, that test is essentially sui generis in the Court’s individual-rights jurisprudence. Yet it represents both an extension of an increasingly historically focused Supreme Court case law and a harbinger of potential doctrinal transformations in other domains. This Article critically assesses Bruen’s test and, in the process, raises concerns about other areas of rights jurisprudence trending in ever more historically inflected directions. In critiquing Bruen’s method, the Article foregrounds the unsatisfying justifications for the novel test and several unworkable features. Centrally, it underscores how Bruen’s emphasis on historical silence imbues an absent past with more explanatory power than it can bear—or than the Court attempts to justify. The Article then synthesizes and analyzes the results from more than three hundred lower federal court decisions applying Bruen, which collectively reveal the test’s fundamental unworkability. On top of that descriptive and critical work, the Article makes several prescriptive arguments about possible judicial and legislative responses to the decision. For judges, the Article endorses and amplifies arguments about the use of neutral historical experts appointed by courts, identifies ways that lower courts can usefully underline Bruen’s gaps and mitigate its open texture, and suggests that courts are justified in reading Bruen narrowly. For lawmakers, it argues that when legislatures pass new gun laws, they ought to be explicit about four types of evidence for the law’s constitutionality that track Bruen’s new demands: the purpose for the law, the expected burden on armed selfdefense, the precise nature of the problem to which the law is directed, and the historical tradition from which the law springs. #AmericanStudies #AmericanGoverment #governance #USHouse #USSenate #USConstitution #USConstitution #USCongress #USHistory #Democracy #democraticErosion #USSupremeCourt #LawandOrder

Securing white democracy: Guns and the politics of whiteness - PDF: https://lnkd.in/gtjwtPG8 What does the open-carried gun tell us about the contemporary political structure of whiteness, and how do such objects operate to reinforce this structure? To work through these questions, this article brings together political theories of racialized democracy and political theoretical analyses of gun-rights debates with insights from interdisciplinary scholarship on guns to generate a political theoretical account of the relationship between guns and white democracy. To do so, we analyze two open-carry spectacles: recurring Second Amendment protests featuring the prominent display of open-carried weapons, and open-carrying protestors in Michigan demonstrating against stay-at-home orders in response to COVID-19 in 2020. Our analysis of these two cases illuminates our central arguments about guns and white democracy. We argue that guns operate to politically align white bodies amid the ongoing constitution of political whiteness: open-carried firearms work to reinforce and reproduce white democracy. We further claim that the force of open-carried guns in sustaining white democracy works through two linked dynamics: first, guns extend, generate, and secure the wages of whiteness; second, they protect and assert white dominion. Taken together, these dynamics explain how guns uphold white democracy, but also illuminate, we argue, the contingency of that political power. It is that contingency which suggests that the open carried firearm might also help contest it in turn, a point illustrated by turning to scholarship on the relation of firearms to the civil rights movement. Contemporary Political Theory (2024) 23, 22–42. https://lnkd.in/gTp_-4fU; advance online publication 13 May 2023

In June 2022, the Supreme Court expanded gun rights in a landmark decision called New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen. Since then, federal courts have ruled on more than 1,600 Bruen-based challenges to gun laws and regulations, according to a Trace review. The Bruen decision upended Second Amendment law, leading to a wave of lawsuits challenging gun restrictions across the country. The number of rulings increased dramatically, straining the court system and raising public safety concerns. Challenges range from gun bans on suspected domestic abusers and people with felonies to age restrictions and ghost guns. The Trace has been tracking these federal cases and their outcomes. Explore the data:

22 Years After “Bowling for Columbine:” Kaitlin Bennett and the Gun Control Debate, with 81days left until the 2024 Presidential Election Available NOW on our #substack #blog - CLICK the link below to read the #essay & #subscribe to support our #work #gunviolence #guncontrol #guns #socialorder #homicide #secondamendment #billofrights #usconstitution #constitution #law #laws #constitutionallaw #gunlaws #weapons #weaponsofwar #murder #crime

Securing white democracy: Guns and the politics of whiteness - PDF: https://lnkd.in/gPWYPeNx What does the open-carried gun tell us about the contemporary political structure of whiteness, and how do such objects operate to reinforce this structure? To work through these questions, this article brings together political theories of racialized democracy and political theoretical analyses of gun-rights debates with insights from interdisciplinary scholarship on guns to generate a political theoretical account of the relationship between guns and white democracy. To do so, we analyze two open-carry spectacles: recurring Second Amendment protests featuring the prominent display of open-carried weapons, and open-carrying protestors in Michigan demonstrating against stay-at-home orders in response to COVID-19 in 2020. Our analysis of these two cases illuminates our central arguments about guns and white democracy. We argue that guns operate to politically align white bodies amid the ongoing constitution of political whiteness: open-carried firearms work to reinforce and reproduce white democracy. We further claim that the force of open-carried guns in sustaining white democracy works through two linked dynamics: first, guns extend, generate, and secure the wages of whiteness; second, they protect and assert white dominion. Taken together, these dynamics explain how guns uphold white democracy, but also illuminate, we argue, the contingency of that political power. It is that contingency which suggests that the open carried firearm might also help contest it in turn, a point illustrated by turning to scholarship on the relation of firearms to the civil rights movement. #Guns; #Whiteness; #Democracy; #Race; #SecondAmendment; #COVID19

Merle Rutledge Jr.'s platform for Governor of Virginia focuses on several key areas. *Gun Rights*: Rutledge supports expanding gun rights through the Castle Doctrine, Fixed Stand Your Ground Law, State Recognized Gun, Administrative restoration of gun rights, and a Constitutional Carry State.¹ *Criminal Justice Reform*: He advocates for mandating open-file discovery and elections instead of appointments of judges. *Economic Growth*: Rutledge promotes pro-business policies, tax breaks for first responders and military personnel, and fiscal responsibility with a balanced budget. *Social Issues*: He supports the death penalty for pedophiles, ending credit checks for employment, and marijuana legalization with expungement of all records. Rutledge also emphasizes his commitment to protecting First Amendment rights, religious freedoms, and Second Amendment rights. He positions himself as a patriot who will stand up for America's freedoms and rights.