Category: reason

Massachusetts mom of six Anna Hershberger has had the police called on her three times this past year. What has this recidivist been up to?

Last week, a cop came knocking after someone reported two of Hershberger’s children, ages five and almost seven, walking a few blocks from her home in Reading—a Boston suburb—and picking up litter.

A few minutes earlier, Hershberger said in a phone call with Reason, a garbage truck had gone by, inspiring the kids. “They said, ‘Can we have a trashabag?'” says Hershberger. “So that’s what they were doing: walking on the sidewalk with a black trash bag, picking things up.”

Because the kids are homeschooled, this was during school hours, possibly explaining why a call was made.

The kids came in saying: “Mom, there’s police behind us!” A cruiser had followed them home.

“They were kind of enthusiastic,” says Hershberger, “until the policeman got out.”

The cop was not happy.

“He said ‘Somebody could be texting and not paying attention, and there are also creeps out,'” Hershberger says. She didn’t make a scene, but she was thinking that if a texting driver careened onto the sidewalk and she was with her kids, they would simply all be plowed down. As for creeps, “There are no known stories of any abductions here,” she says.

Besides, she pointed out—to Reason, not the cop—”I know what’s dangerous. I grew up in Russia.”

This brush with the law might have been less disturbing for the economist-turned-stay-at-home-mom, were it not for two other recent encounters.

Over the summer, Hershberger had taken her kids to a playground in a nearby suburb. There were only a few other families there, but someone called to report that Hershberger’s seven-seater van had a booster seat in the passenger seat, indicating a young-ish child might sometimes sit there.

A cop was dispatched. Hershberger explained to him that she has six kids and the family is on the waiting list for a 12-passenger van. In the meantime, her oldest—age eight— sometimes had to sit up front.

The cop thought the whole thing “was beyond ridiculous,” says Hershberger, and bid her good day.

And the third police encounter? Well, Hershberger had parked in front of her town’s Bagel World to pick up a coffee. She could see her kids through the store’s window, but a nearby businessman saw them too. You’ll never guess who he called.

“When I got home, a young policeman showed up,” says Hershberger. “I wouldn’t say he was apologetic, but he clearly thought he shouldn’t be there. He said, ‘Somebody called to say that you had left the kids alone in the parking lot of the Bagel World.’ And I said, yes I did—I was getting coffee.”

She had even looked up the Massachusetts’ neglect laws on Let Grow’s website (we have a map of all 50 states’ laws), and saw that this short wait was not illegal. She offered to let the cop come into her home and observe for himself how the kids were being raised.

He declined and said he thought everything seemed fine, says Hershberger.

Like so many parents across America, Hershberger is sick of having to second-guess her parenting decisions if some random passerby summons the authorities.

Hershberger says her next step is to request a meeting with the police. She hopes to discuss her wish to give the kids some independence when she and her husband believe they’re ready for it. She doesn’t mind strangers calling the cops, so long as there are no legal consequences.

In the meantime, she has been heartened by Let Grow’s advocacy efforts to get more states to narrow their neglect laws. So far Utah, Oklahoma, and Texas have passed “Reasonable Childhood Independence” laws that say neglect only occurs when a parent puts their child in likely and serious danger, not just any time the kids are unsupervised. Similar laws are currently under consideration in Illinois, Nebraska, and South Carolina. And the law just passed both houses in Colorado on Tuesday, with bipartisan sponsors and support. Now it just awaits the governor’s signature.

Back in Reading, Hershberger’s kids love to explore the neighborhood. But now they’re focusing on something new: How they will elude the police in future adventures.

The post Police Repeatedly Question Mom of 6 Who Let Kids Pick Up Litter Outside appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/epNtDGA
via IFTTT

This week, Ohio became the latest state to allow the concealed carry of firearms without a license.

Ohio law currently requires applicants to demonstrate “competency” by completing a gun safety course before they can qualify for a license to carry a concealed weapon. Additionally, if a licensed carrier is stopped by law enforcement, they are required to “promptly inform” the officer that they are carrying a concealed weapon—failure to do so qualifies as a first-degree misdemeanor and can result in losing their license for up to a year.

Soon, those regulatory hurdles will no longer exist. This week, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed a bill to simplify the concealed carry process. S.B. 215 will go into effect in June, and it says that any “qualifying adult shall not be required to obtain a concealed handgun license in order to carry in this state.” Licenses will still be available, though, for any Ohioans who may wish to carry in states that honor Ohio licenses. And although carriers no longer have to volunteer to police officers that they are carrying, they do have to disclose if the officer asks.

While gun rights groups are pleased with its passage, many Democrats and law enforcement groups have denounced the legislation. “You will still be required to get a license if you want to drive a car, go fishing, or cut someone’s hair,” wrote Craig Calcaterra for Columbus Alive. “But you will not need one in order to put a semiautomatic pistol in your coat pocket when walking the dog, doing the grocery shopping or attending a football game.”

Putting aside whether it is good policy to require licenses for doing hair, the bill is not quite as extreme as its opponents claim.

It only applies to adults aged 21 or older, who own their firearms legally; it does not restrict the state’s ability to determine who may not own a weapon, based on factors like the person’s criminal history or the type of weapon. Ohio law would still require a background check for purchasing a gun from a licensed dealer (though not for a private party transfer, like giving or selling it to a friend).

And while it may seem like a minor difference to change whether one has to disclose to an officer that they are carrying, or simply wait until the officer asks, remember the case of Philando Castile. Castile was killed in 2016 when a police officer responded to his calm disclosure that he was carrying a weapon, by opening fire. In that context, statutes that require citizens to disclose seem much more dicey, especially given that police often aren’t trained in how to specifically interact with someone who is carrying.

Ultimately, the Ohio bill is a win for gun rights. Despite its opponents’ characterizations, the clearest beneficiaries would be lawful gun-owners who are priced out of the current options. Training courses can run over $100 for the eight hours of classes currently required. But more importantly, the competency requirement is an unnecessary obstacle. Lawful gun owners should not be forced to jump through hoops just to exercise basic constitutional rights.

The post Ohio Will No Longer Require Licenses To Carry Concealed Weapons appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/kjmY4Sp
via IFTTT

From In the Matter of … Andriy Yaremiy, decided yesterday by Judges Richard Hoffman, Mary Gibbons Whipple, and Richard Geiger:

Appellant applied for a FPIC and Handgun Purchase Permit. The application was denied by the Chief of the Borough of Wood-Ridge Police Department. In his letter to appellant notifying him of the denial, the Chief stated that investigation revealed appellant had been arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) in 2015…. [At a later court hearing, t]he Chief testified that in 2015, appellant was arrested in New York on a “2C violation,” and in 2008, appellant received a summons … for consumption of alcohol by a passenger while the vehicle is being operated, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-51a(a). Appellant was fined $256 and costs for that violation; his license was not suspended, and he was not sentenced to jail time.

On the 2015 offense, defendant pled guilty to a reduced charge of driving while ability impaired (DWAI), in violation of New York Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) § 1192.1, and was sentenced to a one-year conditional discharge, no jail time, a ninety-day suspension of driving privileges, and a $500 fine.

The Chief testified that he denied the application because of appellant’s history of alcohol, “falsification on the application,” and “it not being in the best interest” of the public safety, health, and welfare of our citizens. The Chief related that he had never granted a firearm purchase application to someone with a DWI conviction.

Detective David Marchitelli testified that he believed appellant’s prior involvement with alcohol and motor vehicles showed a lack of judgment and disregard for the law. Marchitelli was also concerned that appellant was not truthful when questioned about the 2015 DWI arrest. [The court later concluded that Marchitelli was in error about this, and the appellant’s statements were accurate. -EV] He concluded the application should be denied based on a risk to public health, safety, and welfare.

The State presented no evidence that appellant was a habitual drunkard, suffered from mental health conditions, had been confined for a mental disorder to a hospital or psychiatric treatment facility, or had any history of committing domestic violence. The Chief confirmed that no domestic violence complaints or drunk and disorderly complaints had ever been filed against appellant. He also acknowledged that other than the DWI arrest, he did not know appellant to be a habitual drunkard and was not aware if appellant had any psychological problems….

Regarding the 2008 consuming an alcoholic beverage in a vehicle charge, appellant testified he pled guilty without the advice of counsel. He claimed he was a passenger in a van driven by a friend and was unaware there was an open container in the vehicle….

The [trial] court found the State met its burden of showing “[b]y a preponderance of the evidence, [that] the issuance of [a] FPIC or Handgun Purchase Permit to appellant would pose a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.” The court concluded appellant “lacks insight into the gravity of his past involvement with alcohol within motor vehicles” and “appeared to have not gained any benefit from the program he was required to attend after his conviction.” While recognizing that “the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the [United States] Constitution,” the court found good cause to deny appellant’s application….

Balancing … competing interests—the right to bear arms and reasonable limitations on gun ownership to protect the public—N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c) provides:

No person of good character and good repute in the community in which he lives, and who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in this section or other sections of this chapter, shall be denied a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, except as hereinafter set forth.

The statute was enacted to prevent “statutorily ‘unfit’ persons from possessing firearms.” Relevant to this case, the disabilities preventing firearm ownership include “any person who has been convicted of any crime or a disorderly persons offense involving an act of domestic violence[,]” N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(1); “any drug-dependent person” and “any person who is confined for a mental disorder to a hospital [or] mental institution” or “any person who is presently an habitual drunkard[,]” N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(2); “any person who knowingly falsifies any information on an application form for a handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser identification card[,]” N.J.S.A. 2C:58(c)(3); and “any person where the issuance [of the permit] would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare[,]” N.J.S.A. 2C:58(c)(5). Any one of these disabilities is legally sufficient to deny the issuance of a permit to own or possess a firearm….

In State v. Freysinger (N.J. Super. 1998), a defendant had to forfeit his firearms and was found to be a “habitual drunkard” because he had two DWI convictions, two convictions for refusing to submit to chemical tests, and admitted that he hit a pedestrian (whom he claimed did not know was his girlfriend) with his car but did not stop and drove straight home and went to bed. In contrast, appellant had one DWI conviction in 2015, and a consumption of alcohol in a motor vehicle conviction in 2008, twelve years before he applied for the FPIC and handgun purchase permit….

The State was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that granting a FPIC or handgun purchase permit to appellant “would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare[.]”  Our careful review of the record convinces us that the State did not satisfy that burden.

The consumption of alcohol in a motor vehicle incident as a passenger occurred twelve years before the application was filed. Alcohol consumption by a passenger does not pose a risk to public health, safety, or welfare. The DWI occurred five years before the application. There have been no repeat offenses. Neither conviction was related to weapons or domestic violence. Both were motor vehicle offenses. Appellant is thirty-eight years old. He has never been convicted of a crime or disorderly persons offense, let alone one related to domestic violence. Nor is there any evidence that defendant currently abuses alcohol….

Reversed and remanded for the Law Division to enter an order granting a FPIC and handgun purchase permit to appellant….

The post N.J. Appellate Court Overturns Denial of Handgun Purchase Permit appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/K8ZvFcl
via IFTTT

On March 14, President Vladimir Putin banned Instagram from being accessed within the country, cracking down on the dissemination of information to the app’s 80 million users about the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Later that same day, Marina Ovsyannikova, an editor and producer at the Russian state television’s flagship Channel One decided enough was enough. 

With parents of both Ukrainian and Russian descent, Ovsyannikova said she was fed up with working for “Kremlin propaganda.” So, during the live evening news program, she ran onto the set with a poster that read, “Don’t believe the propaganda. They’re lying to you here.” The bottom of her poster read in English: “Russians against the war.” While yelling those same sentiments, the camera darted away and the news anchor attempted to shout over Ovsyannikova, hoping to drown her out. Ovsyannikova was detained by Moscow police soon after. 

In early March, Putin enacted a law that punishes the “intentional spread of fake news” about the Russian military with 15 years in prison, thus prohibiting Russians from using the words invasion or assault to describe the conflict in Ukraine. Ovsyannikova’s courage prevailed even when she knew she’d likely be imprisoned for speaking out so publicly against the Kremlin. 

Ovsyannikova pre-recorded a video (timed for release after her on-air protest) expressing shame for working at Channel One and for allowing “the zombification of the Russian people.”

“We are just silently watching this anti-human regime,” she said. “And now the whole world has turned away from us and the next 10 generations won’t be able to clean themselves from the shame of this fratricidal war.” At the end of her video she pleaded with Russians to join her and participate in anti-war protests. On Tuesday, she was found guilty of organizing an illegal protest and fined 30,000 rubles ($280) for circulating the video. After pleading not guilty to the charge, Ovsyannikova said she was interrogated for more than 14 hours and denied access to legal counsel.

It’s still unclear what additional charges Ovsyannikova will face for her on-air protest since a representative for the Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov, deemed her actions as “hooliganism.” Ravina Shamdasani, a spokesperson for the United Nations human rights office, told reporters in Geneva, Switzerland, that Russian authorities should make sure that Ovsyannikova “does not face any reprisals for exercising her right to freedom of expression.” French President Emmanuel Macron has offered her “protection at the embassy or through asylum.” The British government expressed concern for her safety and some members of Parliament have even called for Ovsyannikova to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. 

Ovysannikova isn’t the first Russian to protest Putin’s war. Thousands of people have taken to the streets in recent weeks to denounce the Kremlin and their president’s aggression. More than 4,300 people have been arrested during these demonstrations.

These courageous acts of defiance haven’t gone unnoticed—Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy thanked Ovysannikova, and other Russians who “do not cease trying to get the truth out, who fight against disinformation and tell the truth, tell real facts to their friends, relatives.”

The post Marina Ovsyannikova's Russian TV Poster Protest Was Not 'Hooliganism,' but Bravery appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/XObq8u4
via IFTTT

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced today that Afghans in the United States are now eligible for temporary protected status (TPS), an immigration protection that shields people from deportation and allows them to work in the U.S. legally for the next 18 months.

“This TPS designation will help to protect Afghan nationals who have already been living in the United States from returning to unsafe conditions,” said Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. “Under this designation, TPS will also provide additional protections and assurances to trusted partners and vulnerable Afghans who supported the U.S. military, diplomatic, and humanitarian missions in Afghanistan over the last 20 years.”

The designation pertains most directly to the 76,000 Afghans who were resettled in the U.S. after the American military withdrawal from Afghanistan last year. They entered the country under parole, a temporary classification that does not involve a pathway to citizenship or permanent residency. Though TPS is also a temporary designation, it prevents deportation in the event that an asylum claim is rejected.

The DHS may designate a country for TPS if it is facing conditions “that temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately.” Grounds for a TPS designation may involve “ongoing armed conflict,” “an environmental disaster,” or “other extraordinary and temporary conditions.” TPS is limited to Afghans who were already in the U.S. as of March 15, and those convicted of certain crimes are ineligible.

The situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated drastically since the country fell to the Taliban in August 2021. Women are barred from pursuing higher education and careers, food insecurity and malnutrition threaten millions, and the country is on the brink of economic collapse. Afghans who assisted U.S. troops as interpreters, engineers, and in other key roles have always been at unique risk of Taliban persecution—something Mayorkas rightly stressed in the TPS announcement.

It’s great news that the Biden administration is taking steps to protect Afghans from deportation to their ailing country, but it’s unclear why it took until now for officials to offer the TPS designation. Immigration advocates have been pressuring the administration to do so since the country fell to the Taliban. The Hill reported last month that Biden was weighing the designation for Afghans, along with several other countries. And earlier this month, Mayorkas added Ukraine to the list of TPS-eligible countries.

Many politicians and immigration advocacy groups will now set their sights on securing a pathway to lawful permanent residence and citizenship for resettled Afghans. Roughly half of all evacuees do not have a clear legal pathway to permanent residency, leaving their future in the U.S. ambiguous unless Congress acts or they receive asylum. While the TPS designation is an important recognition that Afghans could face harm if forced to return home, more must be done to protect their ability to live in the U.S.

The post Biden Administration To Protect Afghans in the U.S. From Deportation appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/eWi2xUE
via IFTTT