Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence’s Post

President Biden Praises Domestic Violence Firearms Ban On June 21, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law preventing individuals subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. This decision marks the FIRST major Second Amendment ruling since the Court's landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), which expanded gun rights. The law was among many imperiled by the Bruen decision requiring historical precedent for gun restrictions. U.S. President Joe Biden, a staunch advocate against domestic violence and author of the Violence Against Women Act during his tenure as Senator, welcomed the Court's decision. Stressing its significance, Biden remarked, "No one who has been abused should have to worry about their abuser getting a gun." He further emphasized the impact, stating, "As a result of today's ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades." Biden reaffirmed his commitment to ending violence against women and combating gun violence, urging the U.S. Congress to strengthen protections further and to "take action to stop the epidemic of gun violence tearing our communities apart." In an 8-to-1 ruling in United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. stated that "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 that order is in effect." Roberts clarified that "some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber." While the justices broadly supported restrictions on firearms for domestic abusers, five wrote separately from Chief Justice Roberts, indicating varied perspectives on how lower courts should evaluate and consider historical practices when reviewing Second Amendment challenges. Justice Clarence Thomas, who authored the Bruen decision, was the lone dissenter in Rahimi, asserting that "not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue." #DomesticViolence #Firearms #IntimatePartnerViolence

Fortunately, for Americans who remain concerned about crime and their constitutional rights to purchase and possess firearms for lawful purpose there was a fairly robust discussion on those topics during the vice presidential debate this week. Larry Keane has analyzed the debate discussions around firearms, Second Amendment rights and crime to give you a summary. Read more through the link below.👇 Since the last presidential election in 2020, there are now more than 22.3 million new first-time gun owners—i.e., individuals who were driven by factors around them to go to the gun retail counter and lawfully purchase a firearm for the first time. In the key swing states that will determine by just a few thousand votes either way who wins the White House election there still remain millions of hunters and pro-Second Amendment Americans who aren’t registered to vote and could remain at home. Larry Keane is NSSF’s Senior Vice President of Government Relations and General Counsel. https://lnkd.in/gs3fVz2p #GovTimWalz #gunvote #SenJDVance #vicepresidentialdebate

Fortunately, for Americans who remain concerned about crime and their constitutional rights to purchase and possess firearms for lawful purpose there was a fairly robust discussion on those topics during the vice presidential debate this week. Larry Keane has analyzed the debate discussions around firearms, Second Amendment rights and crime to give you a summary. Read more through the link below.👇 Since the last presidential election in 2020, there are now more than 22.3 million new first-time gun owners—i.e., individuals who were driven by factors around them to go to the gun retail counter and lawfully purchase a firearm for the first time. In the key swing states that will determine by just a few thousand votes either way who wins the White House election there still remain millions of hunters and pro-Second Amendment Americans who aren’t registered to vote and could remain at home. Larry Keane is NSSF’s Senior Vice President of Government Relations and General Counsel. https://lnkd.in/gs3fVz2p #GovTimWalz #gunvote #SenJDVance #vicepresidentialdebate

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.” 

"Today is not the day for politics or policy." That was a statement from Georgia Governor Brian Kemp yesterday evening regarding the mass shooting at Apalachee High School in Barrow County, GA. This comes from the Governor of a state that has the 46th weakest gun laws in the country. In 2022, Kemp signed a bill into law that expanded gun rights, allowing Georgians to carry handguns in public without a license or background check. Georgia lacks the following common-sense gun laws: ❌ background checks or purchase permits for handguns ❌ permit for concealed carry ❌ red flag laws ❌ secure storage or child access prevention ❌ assault weapon bans ❌ high-capacity magazine bans That's just the beginning. According to the georgia.gov website, "the Governor shall take care that laws are faithfully executed and shall be the conservator of the peace." Maybe someone should define the word "peace" for the Governor. So I ask you this, Governor Kemp: if today is not the day for politics or policy—when is it? Tomorrow? Next week, maybe? Never? If Governor Kemp cared more about protecting the citizens of his state rather than protecting his power, he would have immediately committed to doing EVERYTHING in his power to ensure another tragedy like this NEVER happened again in Georgia. But he doesn't care. He doesn't want to talk politics or policy. Not today. Not ever. He wants this to blow over so he can continue receiving campaign contributions and his A-rating from the NRA. So he can continue "praying for the safety of those in our classrooms" instead of doing something about it. We could pray. Or we could pass common sense gun legislation that is proven to work. Our children deserve better. Our teachers deserve better. Georgia deserves better. #votethemout #commonsensegunlaws #georgia

The Second Amendment grants 'the people' the right to bear arms. But who exactly are 'the people'? That's what we're diving into today, especially in light of recent Supreme Court cases like Bruen, Rahimi, and Garland v. Range. The Bruen case has turned the gun rights world upside down by requiring any restrictions on the Second Amendment to be evaluated based on historical tradition. This has significant implications for individuals like Brian Range, who was convicted of nonviolent food stamp fraud back in 1995 and received a lifetime ban on firearm possession for that felony conviction. The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor, stating that there's no historical basis to strip nonviolent felons of their gun rights. However, the story doesn't end there. The government appealed, and the Supreme Court remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Rahimi decision. Unlike Range, Rahimi wasn't a convicted felon but was under a domestic violence injunction—a civil matter, not criminal. The Supreme Court upheld his firearm ban, citing historical precedent for restricting gun rights of individuals with violent tendencies. So, where does that leave us? The legal landscape regarding the Second Amendment is rapidly evolving, especially regarding who can and cannot own firearms. Stay tuned, and I'll keep you posted as things develop. My web optimizer people would not let me end this description without mentioning that if you're facing criminal accusations in Central Florida, please give our office a call for a free consultation. We can help you, as we've helped thousands of clients since 1993. The Law Office of John Guidry, P.A. (407) 423-1117 320 N Magnolia Ave. Ste B1 Orlando, Florida, 32801 #SecondAmendment #GunRights #criminaldefense #criminaldefenseattorney #GarlandvRange #BruenCase #RahimiCase #FirearmLaws #FelonGunRights #SupremeCourt #johnguidry #ConstitutionalLaw #LegalUpdate #floridalawyer

I welcome all supporters of the 2nd Amendment. This group is called the Liberal Gun Owners (LGO). They aren’t a huge group but it serves to overcome the divisive talking points from the left that guns are a right wing issue! Their policy positions are interesting and not very liberal! They are against: - universal background checks - an "assault" weapons ban (Miyan says studies show the Clinton-era "assault" weapons ban didn't work) - magazine capacity restrictions - feature bans - red flag laws - complex licensing systems They are for: - NICS background checks - conceal carry licensure - the TSA's current requirements for gun storage when flying - the idea of punishment for gun storage negligence I think that this just points out that once you get past the low information, emotional voters, there is room for discussion and both sides to have some common beliefs. This also reinforces the idea to vote policies, not party ... or hate, or division, or conspiracy theories – especially when your party is not aligned with your policy preferences! Go vote and vote early!

Everyone needs to vote because beyond the Presidential election, state and local elections decide the gun policies that increase or decease risk in a community. Ep. 19: Brian H. Williams, MD, FACS on preventing gun violence in homes, schools, and communities During this episode we discussed: 1. Preventing gun violence at every level (home, community, local government, state government, and federal policy). 2. Progress already made to reduce gun injuries and deaths including targeted violence, indiscriminate shootings, domestic violence, suicides, and accidents. 3. What Dr. Williams would do if/when he is appointed Surgeon General of the United States. 4. Importance of voting in state and local elections because laws requiring safe storage of firearms, gun permits and safety training, background checks, waiting periods, and allowing/prohibiting people from carrying guns in public places or having loaded guns inside vehicles have profound impacts on the rate of gun violence in a community. 5. A true American patriot who wants to protect their family and community should be storing every gun they own inside a locked safe at all times.

👏👏👏 As a former domestic violence attorney who practiced in a part of a state where it wasn’t uncommon for there to be a negative reaction to the no-gun provision after a protective order was issued, this is excellent news. “. . . [Chief Justice] Roberts explained, courts should look at whether the modern regulation being challenged is ‘relevantly similar’ to historical regulations. And in doing so, he stressed, courts should focus on the purpose of the regulation and the burden that it places on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. ‘For example,’ he wrote, ‘if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations.’ When that principle is applied to the federal law here, Roberts said, the law passes constitutional muster. Surveying early English and American gun laws, he concluded that since the founding of the United States, ‘firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.’ In particular, he pointed to two different kinds of laws in early English and U.S. history – laws that gave courts the power to require individuals who were believed to be a threat to post a bond, and laws that provided for the punishment of individuals who had threatened others with guns. When those two sets of laws are viewed together, Roberts wrote, they ‘confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed.’ Even if the federal ban on the possession of guns by individuals subject to domestic-violence restraining orders is not identical to these two kinds of laws, Roberts continued, it is, for purposes of this test, sufficiently similar. Among other things, Roberts noted, the ban – like the other laws – was intended to reduce ‘demonstrated threats of physical violence,’ and it only applies after a court has concluded that the individual ‘represents a credible threat to” someone else’s physical safety.’”

Summary: President Joe Biden has made significant investments in gun violence prevention, creating the first national Office of Gun Violence Prevention and securing over $438 million in funding. The future of gun violence prevention policy will be shaped by the winner of the 2024 election, with implications for federal action and legislation. Takeaway: The issue of gun violence prevention is at the forefront of national attention, with President Biden's administration taking substantial steps to address the problem. The outcome of the 2024 election will play a crucial role in determining the trajectory of future policies and initiatives in this area. Hashtags: #GunViolencePrevention #BidenAdministration #2024Election #FederalAction #Legislation #PublicSafety