Tag: posts

In 2008, Kamala Harris signed on to a District Attorneys’ friend-of-the-court brief in D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court’s leading Second Amendment case. Of course, she may have changed her views on the Second Amendment since then (perhaps in light of precedents such as Heller); and she may have different personal views than the ones she expressed as a D.A. (though note that she signed on to the brief as a signatory, and not just as a lawyer for the signatories). But this brief likely tells us something about her views on the Second Amendment.

[1.] To begin with, the brief urged the Court to reverse the decision below, and thus to reinstate D.C.’s handgun ban. Thus, Harris’s view in that case was that the Second Amendment doesn’t preclude total bans on handgun possession.

[2.] The brief also came at a time when the great majority of federal courts (including the Ninth Circuit, which covered Harris’s jurisdiction, San Francisco) viewed the Second Amendment as not securing any meaningful individual right of members of the public to personally keep and bear arms. Rather, those courts viewed the Second Amendment as endorsing (to quote the then-existing Ninth Circuit precedent, which the brief itself later cited),

the “collective rights” model, [which] asserts that the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons.

Under this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as due process, equal protection, and the like.

And the brief supported that majority view among federal courts: Affirming the D.C. Circuit decision, which rejected the collective rights model and recognized an individual right to own guns,

could inadvertently call into question the well settled Second Amendment principles under which countless state and local criminal firearms laws have been upheld by courts nationwide.

Thus, Harris’s view in that case was thus that the “collective rights” view of the Second Amendment was correct, since that was the “settled Second Amendment principle[]” in lower federal courts at the time.

[3.] Now the brief also said that “The District Attorneys do not focus on the reasons for the reversal [that it was urging], however, leaving these arguments to Petitioners and other amici.” Nonetheless, it argued that,

For nearly seventy years, courts have consistently sustained criminal firearms laws against Second Amendment challenges by holding that, [among other things], (i) the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms, (ii) the Second Amendment does not apply to legislation passed by state or local governments, and (iii) the restrictions bear a reasonable relationship to protecting public safety and thus do not violate a personal constitutional right. The lower court’s decision, however, creates a broad private right to possess any firearm that is a “lineal descendant” of a founding era weapon and that is in “common use” with a “military application” today….

The federal and state courts have upheld state and local firearms laws, as well as criminal convictions thereunder, against Second Amendment challenges on three primary grounds. In holding the D.C. laws at issue to be unconstitutional, the decision below undermines each of these grounds, which also could be cast into doubt by an affirmance in this case.

First, courts nationwide have upheld criminal gun laws on the basis that the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms. See, e.g., Scott v. Goethals, No. 3-04-CV-0855, 2004 WL 1857156, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2004) (affirming conviction under Texas Penal Code § 46.02 for unlawfully carrying a handgun because Second Amendment does not provide a private right to keep and bear arms); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052,1087 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that California residents challenging constitutionality of California’s Assault Weapons Control Act lacked standing because Second Amendment provides militia-related right to keep and bear arms); State v. Brecunier, 564 N.W.2d 365, 370 (Iowa 1997) (upholding firearm sentence enhancement because defendant “had no constitutional right to be armed while interfering with lawful police activity”)….

The lower court’s sweeping reasoning undermines each of the principal reasons invoked by those courts that have upheld criminal firearms laws under the Second Amendment time and again. First, under the lower court’s analysis, the Constitution protects a broad “individual” constitutional right, one that is not militia-related, to possess firearms….

This certainly seems to me like approval of the principle listed as (i) in the brief, which is the view that “the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms.”

Now perhaps this passage could be read as simply describing what courts were doing, or as suggesting that the Supreme Court could either adopt principle (i) or perhaps some of the other principles instead. But it certainly sounds to me like an endorsement of the “only a militia-related right to bear arms” view, especially since that’s the lower federal courts’ “well settled Second Amendment principle[]” to which the brief had earlier alluded (see item 2 above).

Plus principle (ii) is an endorsement of the view (rejected by the Court two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago) that states and localities can institute whatever gun bans they want (even total gun bans) without violating the Second Amendment. And even if we focus on principle (iii), under which gun laws are constitutional if they “bear a reasonable relationship to protecting public safety,” the brief was supporting a total handgun ban—if that is permissible on the theory that it “bear[s] a reasonable relationship to protecting public safety,” then I would think a total ban on all guns would be, too.

The brief closed with a suggestion that “the Court exercise judicial restraint and explicitly limit its decision to the three discrete provisions of the D.C. Code on which it granted certiorari” (the handgun ban, a licensing requirement, and the requirement that guns be stored disassembled or bound with a trigger lock), because “This would avoid needless confusion and uncertainty about the continued viability and stare decisis effect of this Court’s—and other courts’—prior Second Amendment jurisprudence.”

This passage doesn’t expressly urge the Court to adopt a particular line of reasoning. But, again, the first principle that the brief mentioned, and the one most clearly consistent with lower federal courts’ “prior Second Amendment jurisprudence,” was that the Second Amendment didn’t secure an individual right that ordinary citizens could exercise in their daily lives. It sounds like that is at least one approach that the brief is endorsing.

So, to summarize:

1. Kamala Harris, as D.A., definitely endorsed the view that a total handgun ban didn’t violate the Second Amendment.
2. She also seemed to endorse the view that the Second Amendment secures only a “collective” or “militia-related” right, and not the individual right that the Court ultimately recognized in D.C. v. Heller.

An article by Cam Edwards (Bearing Arms) on Aug. 11 made a similar argument in concluding that”Kamala Harris Doesn’t Think You Have the Right To Own a Gun” (to quote its original title), but an Agence-France Press “Fact Check” on Aug. 18 labeled that claim “false.” I find the “Fact Check” quite unpersuasive, at least as to the specific question of Harris’s views on the right to own a gun.

AFP writes, “Rather than outright opposition to gun ownership, Harris has supported legislation aimed at increasing safety.” It may well be that Harris wouldn’t promote a statute banning guns outright. But her brief states that she thinks governments have the constitutional power to ban at least all handguns, and likely guns more generally.

AFP writes, “Nor has she called for the destruction of the Second Amendment, which says: ‘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.'” But she has endorsed, as I read it, the view that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect a normal individual right to own guns, rather protecting only a “collective right” under which states can limit gun ownership to members of a state-designated “militia.”

AFP goes on to say, “Legal scholars, however, say that although Harris supported the amicus brief, it is false to conclude from it that she believes—as the article claims—’you don’t have the right to own a gun'”:

“The brief in question is not about whether there is an individual right under the Second Amendment. It is about the crime-related consequences of invalidating the DC handgun law at issue in Heller,” Aziz Huq, of the University of Chicago Law School, told AFP by email. Huq studies how constitutional design interacts with individual rights and liberties.

Adam Winkler, a specialist in gun policy at the UCLA School of Law, made a similar argument.

“This statement is false,” he said of the article’s claim.

“The brief she supported argued that DC’s gun laws should be upheld but not because there was no right to own a gun,” Winkler said in an email to AFP.

“Rather, the brief argued that the laws should be upheld because there is a tradition of gun restrictions, and DC’s were reasonable regulations,” said Winkler, the author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.”

Again, for the reasons I gave above, I think Profs. Huq and Winkler are mistaken. The brief does seem to endorse the collective rights view of the Second Amendment, under which there really is no right to own a gun. And, again, at the very least the brief endorses the view that all handguns could be banned, consistently with the Second Amendment.

Finally, the brief turns to another scholar:

The amicus brief which Harris joined argued “that at least as far as the Second Amendment is concerned, it doesn’t relate to private rights,” said [Jake] Charles, of the Duke Center for Firearms Law.

But he added: “I’m not sure it’s fair to claim that as her current position given that the Supreme Court decided in Heller that people do have that right, and I haven’t seen her questioning the Heller decision.”

Here, I agree that (1) the amicus brief does take that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect any “private rights,” and (2) we can’t be certain that this remains her view today. But it is at least plausible that her views about the subject haven’t changed, and that if she could participate in reshaping the Supreme Court, she would reshape it in favor of reversing the Heller decision, and moving the law back to a view under which “the Second Amendment … doesn’t relate to private rights.”

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2FSrCpm
via IFTTT

8/26/1964: Lyndon B. Johnson nominated as Democratic candidate for president. He would make two appointments to the Supreme Court: Justices Abe Fortas and Thurgood Marshall.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gyC1mK
via IFTTT

The Chicago Police Department has banned protests, even peaceful ones, on the block where Mayor Lori Lightfoot lives. Residents of the area have complained about the efforts cops are taking to keep protesters out, which include barricades in the street and checking people’s IDs before letting them enter the neighborhood. Cops say city and state laws ban protests in residential neighborhoods, but when a local newspaper asked them to list other instances in which they have blocked such protests police did not provide any examples.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2EAk7D2
via IFTTT

Last week, I tallied Joe Biden’s spending plans. This week, President Trump’s.

Which presidential candidate will bankrupt America first?

When Donald Trump ran for president, he promised “big league” spending cuts. Once in office, he again said he’d cut the budget, adding, “There’s a lot of fat in there.”

There sure is.

Since I was born, spending has grown faster than inflation most every year.

Then, President Obama, as Trump liked to out, “put more debt on than all other presidents of the United States combined!”

It’s true. But then Trump increased the debt just as much. Now even more, with the COVID-19 spending.

One of his first biggest increases was the $738 billion defense spending bill. Trump bragged that it was “an all-time record!” He said Democrats had “depleted” our fighting ability, so he “had” to “fix our military.”

“The ‘fix’ looks a whole lot like bloated defense spending,” says Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union. “It’s more than our rivals around the world could even hope to spend.”

Sepp’s organization has fought government spending for decades. Sadly, they’ve had little success.

Now federal spending will grow even faster because:

1. The COVID-19 “stimulus” will grow.
2. Both political parties love spending your money.
3. Old people like me keep living longer.

Sorry about that last one. But I, rudely, decline to die.

Soon, my generation’s Medicare and Social Security checks will crowd out everything else in the budget. (No, fellow geezers, we don’t just “get back what we put in.” We’ll get, on average, almost triple our FICA deductions.)

Sadly, no presidential candidate expresses much interest in addressing that: Trump promises to “protect” Social Security. Biden says he’ll increase it!

Trump was also eager to spend on special interests. He gave $16 billion to farmers and ranchers, $1.6 billion more to NASA and, despite government’s horrible track record at “picking winners,” he tried loaning $765 million to Kodak Pharmaceuticals.

After the pandemic hit, Trump joined Democrats in authorizing $6.2 trillion in new spending.

Signing that, Trump joked: “I’ve never signed anything with a “T” on it. I don’t know if I can handle this one!” The politicians standing behind him laughed.

But it’s not funny.

Now Democrats want to add even more spending.

Trump at least made some cuts, prepandemic. Sepp acknowledges that he made “important progress in reducing overhead (and) personnel costs.”

He also cut the budget of his own office, plus the Departments of Labor, Education and State. Good! The State Department is bloated with 60 subdepartments, and its spending had increased at triple the rate inflation.

Still, media pundits whined about every cut. On CNN, one “expert” called the cuts to the State Department “insanity.”

When Trump proposed other cuts, or just slowing the growth of government, Congress wouldn’t let him. Trump’s 2021 budget would still have increased spending by $39 billion. Rep. Chuck Schumer rejected that, calling it “a blueprint for destroying America!”

To sum up: What’s Trump’s total budget impact been?

Spending is up by more than $1 trillion a year. The national debt is over $26 trillion.

“Deficits and debt destroy economic growth,” says Sepp.

“Nobody’s talking about this stuff. You must be frustrated,” I say.

“Very,” he responds. “After 51 years as an organization, to see this kind of attitude and carelessness…”

When it comes to increasing spending, who is worse, Trump or Biden?

“Biden,” replies Sepp, because he promises $1.2 trillion a year in new spending. “We’re already trillions in the hole. He’s spending money out of an empty pocket!”

And Biden is favored to win.

Of course, some argue that when it comes to Republicats and Democans spending your and your grandkids’ money, it doesn’t matter who wins.

“Washington just seems to grow at the expense of everyone else, no matter who is in power,” concludes Sepp.

So, next week, I’ll report on an alternative to Biden and Trump.

COPYRIGHT 2020 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gtDDhC
via IFTTT

If Donald Trump’s sister is right that he “has no principles,” he does at least have a few enduring instincts. Perhaps the most persistent is the president’s conviction that American greatness is threatened by voluntary economic exchange, the most powerful engine of peace and prosperity in human history.

Each of us has a fundamental right to the fruits of our labor, which includes the right to exchange the money we earn for products and services. When governments respect that right, mutually beneficial transactions replace zero-sum interactions that forcibly transfer resources from losers to winners. The value of those voluntary transactions does not depend on where buyers and sellers happen to be located.

Trump’s rejection of those principles pervades the second-term agenda he unveiled this week. He promises not only to “create 10 million new jobs in 10 months”—which itself betrays a basic misunderstanding of the president’s powers and the way a market economy works—but also to “keep jobs in America” through “Made in America” tax credits and “fair trade deals that protect American jobs.”

Even keeping jobs in America is not enough to satisfy Trump, who also wants to dictate who can fill those jobs. He would use immigration law to “prohibit American companies from replacing United States citizens with lower-cost foreign workers.”

Notwithstanding his vociferous rejection of the “socialism” he ascribes to the Democrats, Trump believes the government must manipulate the economy, which means overriding the choices Americans otherwise would make, to ensure his preferred outcomes, down to details as mundane as the location of air conditioner and washing machine factories. In his mind, trade is not a right to be respected but a process to be managed by politicians.

Ignoring the principle of comparative advantage as well as the self-evident benefits of transactions that both parties freely choose, Trump believes Americans should not be using oil, pharmaceuticals, or medical supplies produced in other countries. To “end our reliance on China” and “bring back 1 million manufacturing jobs,” he would provide tax benefits to companies that “bring back jobs from China” and deny federal contracts to businesses that “outsource to China.”

Trump’s obsession with stopping Americans from buying Chinese goods is at odds not only with his party’s former support of free trade but also with its avowed resistance to tax increases. Taking into account retaliatory tariffs as well as the taxes Trump imposed directly, his trade war with China is costing American consumers an estimated $57 billion a year, on top of the costs borne by U.S. farmers and manufacturers caught in the crossfire.

In contrast with his positions on, say, abortion or gun rights, Trump’s beef against free trade is longstanding and seemingly sincere. No matter what pointy-headed economists say, he knows in his gut that money spent on foreign goods is wasted, that immiserating autarky is the key to American greatness, and that something nefarious is going on whenever imports from a particular country happen to exceed exports.

“You only have to look at our trade deficit to see that we are being taken to the cleaners by our trading partners,” Trump wrote two decades ago in a book that likened peaceful economic exchange to warfare. “If we didn’t trade,” he averred two years ago, “we’d save a hell of a lot of money.”

When Trump ran for president in 2016, the Republican platform likewise bemoaned “massive trade deficits,” even while paying lip service to “open markets.” This year the party decided to forgo a platform, saying it stands for whatever Trump has in mind.

Whatever that is, we can be pretty sure it will ignore a wise warning from the 2016 GOP platform. “We are the party of a growing economy that gives everyone a chance in life, an opportunity to learn, work, and realize the prosperity freedom makes possible,” the Republicans said then. “Government cannot create prosperity, though government can limit or destroy it.”

© Copyright 2020 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3je6ckX
via IFTTT