Latest news with #Amendment
RTÉ News
40 minutes ago
- Business
- RTÉ News
Extensions for older relatives could be exempt from planning
Attic conversions and extensions for the purpose of housing elderly relatives could be exempt from planning before the end of the year, Minister for Housing James Browne will tell Cabinet later. Habitable modular cabins in homeowners' gardens, along with the subdivision of dwellings, could also be permitted without planning permission under proposals that are currently being considered. Work on the planning exemptions is now well advanced after 11 Government departments, local authorities and planning bodies have given their views on the initiative. Before the regulations are finalised, there will be a public consultation this month. Mr Browne will inform the Government that adapting dwellings to meet people's needs is a key priority. The changes could also see some design restrictions for home extensions abolished, such as the requirement for a pitched roof. Storage structures at the front of homes for bikes and bins could also be allowed. The proposals have been described by Minister for State John Cummins as a practical measure that will provide housing options for people. The changes will be contained in the Planning and Development Act, which is set to be implemented in full before the end of the year. If this does not happen, it is possible the planning exemptions will be progressed separately. Defective Concrete Blocks Bill Minister for Housing James Browne will also seek Cabinet approval today to draft the Remediation of Dwellings Damaged by the Use of Defective Concrete Blocks (Amendment) Bill. The Bill will include technical amendments to make the scheme fairer. The increased scheme cap and rates will now apply to all applicants who incurred costs since 29 March 2024. The construction of a new dwelling adjacent to a defective home will be permitted in very limited circumstances for vulnerable families. The period allowed to complete the remediation works will increase from 65 weeks to 130 weeks. Cabinet to hear plans to increase prison spaces Separately, Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan will update Cabinet on plans to accelerate the construction of 960 prison spaces by the end of the decade. He will inform the Government that the prison system is currently operating at 115% over capacity with a new record high of 5,394 individuals detained in mid-April. This is an 11% rise in 12 months and over 1,100 more people are in prison compared to January 2023. Mr O'Callaghan intends to introduce an electronic tagging pilot programme in the coming months. Meanwhile, Minister for Enterprise Peter Burke is setting up a new group aiming to reduce the cost of running a business. The Cost of Business Advisory Forum will hold its first meeting on 11 June. The forum will meet at least six times and deliver its recommendations to the Government in early 2026.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Second Amendment groups file for summary judgment in bid to overturn Florida's open carry ban
Gun-rights groups are pursuing several strategies to win the right to openly carry firearms in Florida. (Photo by Matt Rourke/The Associated Press) A Palm Beach gun owner and two Second Amendment groups have filed a motion for summary judgement in their federal court challenge to Florida's law banning individuals from openly carrying firearms, claiming the law is unconstitutional. Gun Owners of America, the Gun Owners Foundation, and gun owner Richard Hughes originally filed their lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida last August, alleging that the law banning open carry violates the Second and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution and places them, their members, and their supporters at risk of being arrested and prosecuted should they openly carry firearms in public. St. Lucie County Sheriff Richard Del Toro is the lone defendant in the case. In their lawsuit, Hughes and the two gun rights organizations list him because the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office warned the public after the state legalized what is known as 'permitless carry' in 2023 that '[t]he law is not open carry; open carry is still illegal under most circumstances.' In 2017, the Florida Supreme Court upheld state restrictions on openly carrying a firearm, ruling in Norman v. State that the law did not violate citizens' Second Amendment rights in a case brought by Dale Lee Norman, a St. Lucie County resident who faced a second-degree misdemeanor charge after he walked down a road with handgun holstered to his hip, according to the Courthouse News Service. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The federal lawsuit says that state Supreme Court ruling failed on a couple of fronts: for 'not once consulting contemporaneous authorities to discern the meaning of the Second Amendment's text' and for failure to conduct an historical analysis of the 'nation's early tradition as to open carry — or any tradition, for that matter.' 'This case is personal for me and millions of gun owners across the state,' said Luis Valdes, Florida state director for Gun Owners of America. 'Florida likes to brand itself as pro-Second Amendment, but this ban proves otherwise. We are fighting to restore a right that never should've been taken away — and we won't stop until every Floridian can carry openly, freely, and constitutionally.' 'Florida's open carry ban is an outdated and unconstitutional relic,' Sam Parades said in a statement on behalf of the board of directors for Gun Owners Foundation. 'The right to bear arms means exactly that — to carry arms, not just to keep them locked away.' Florida remains one of only five states in the nation that bans the open carrying of a firearm, the others being Illinois, Connecticut, New York, and California — a list of blue states that Florida does not usually share an alliance with. Gov. Ron DeSantis has said on several occasions that he supports open carry, and First Lady Casey DeSantis weighed in as well earlier this year, writing on X that, 'It's time for the Free State of Florida to join other states in enacting open carry! Sounds like a great priority for our GOP supermajority. This is the year.' But it wasn't the year for open carry in Florida's GOP-dominated state Legislature. Senate President Ben Albritton stated his opposition to overturning the ban in his first day as leader while meeting with reporters last November. A trial date has been set for November 3, 2025. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
The Sun
14 hours ago
- Business
- The Sun
KPDN minister's full statement regarding OPS GASAK
KUALA LUMPUR: The following is the full statement by the Minister of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living (KPDN) Datuk Armizan Mohd Ali regarding the Cooking Gas Operations (OPS GASAK) which is ongoing from May 1 to October 31, 2025. The main focus is to combat illegal decanting activities, smuggling, and usage by large and medium-scale industries. The legal authority for OPS GASAK is the Supply Control Act 1961, the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act 2011, and the Supply Control Regulations (Amendment) 2021, namely PPKB (Amendment) 2021. Through this operation, there are no new policies and regulations, let alone cuts and abolishment of LPG subsidies as claimed by certain parties. There are arising issues concerning the implementation and enforcement of PPKB (Amendment) 2021 related to specific business sectors, particularly food and beverage sales. For this reason, during OPS GASAK operations, inspections at food and beverage premises are at the advocacy and review stage. No legal action has been taken against food and beverage businesses. Once the period ends, the OPS GASAK report will be among the considerations for reviewing the suitability of the Control of Supplies Regulations (Amendment) 2021 related to Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). A technical committee was established to look into this matter when OPS GASAK began on May 1, 2025, chaired by the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living (KPDN). Besides the OPS GASAK report, recommendations and views from various parties will be taken into account before the considerations are brought to the Cabinet. Previously, under the previous government's administration in 2021, amendments were made to the Control of Supplies Regulations. Among the amended provisions was the setting of restriction limits on commercial or business use. Specifically concerning LPG, the Control of Supplies Regulations (Amendment) 2021 PPKB (Pindaan) 2021) stipulates that using more than 42 kilograms (kg) at any one time requires an application for a Scheduled Controlled Goods Permit. This means that any party using more than 42 kg (exceeding 3 cylinders of 14 kg size) must apply for a permit and cannot use subsidized LPG cylinders. The PPKB (Pindaan) 2021 has been in force since October 15, 2021. There's a view that the 2021 Regulation impacts the business costs of food and beverage vendors, which, it's argued, will ultimately affect their selling prices if they are not allowed to use subsidised cylinders. The basis for LPG subsidies is as a household kitchen subsidy for the people. It is a consumption subsidy, not a trade or commercial subsidy. However, existing provisions allow any party to use a maximum of 42 kg at any one time without requiring a permit. --MORE ARMIZAN-OPS GASAK 4 KUALA LUMPUR The demand from the food and beverage vendor group is for them to be able to use more than three subsidized LPG cylinders at any one time. If their needs are to be considered, an amendment would need to be made to the 2021 Regulation that sets the 42 kg limit at any one time. Consideration must also take into account various factors, including: the limit of subsidised cylinders for each business, and the type and scale of business (micro, small, medium, large) and similarly, if food prices and the cost of living are cited as reasons, the prices of food and beverages sold by these businesses should be scrutinised. For example, some vendors sell chicken rice for RM8 per plate, while others sell it for over RM20 per plate. The prices vary greatly, even though they all benefit from the same public subsidy. Another crucial aspect to consider is the financial implications required from the Government's allocation, which constitutes public funds and the people's money. For instance, a rough calculation of the total LPG subsidy given to a business using five LPG cooking gas cylinders a day for a month is RM6,510, which means RM43.40 in subsidy per cylinder. Meanwhile, the total subsidy for a business using 10 LPG cylinders a day is RM13,020 a month, for a total of 300 cylinders per month. At the same time, the element of control in terms of monitoring mechanisms, including the requirement for a scheduled controlled goods permit, is also very important to consider because, based on KPDN's enforcement, there's a risk of illegal decanting activities using supply sources from sales to business premises when there are no record elements or sales limits as a basis for review. Decanting is the illegal activity of transferring LPG from subsidised cylinders to unsubsidised cylinders for commercial sale below market price, including for smuggling across borders. All these considerations, along with recommendations and views from various parties, will be taken into account in determining the need for an amendment to the currently enforced PPKB (Pindaan) 2021. If an amendment is the answer, the parameters of that amendment need to be determined. Therefore, the OPS GASAK report is crucial as a basis for guiding improvements to the PPKB (Pindaan) 2021.
Yahoo
a day ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines to hear challenge against Maryland gun law
June 2 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court announced Monday that it won't hear a Second Amendment challenge to a Maryland law that bans semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15. Despite approvals to hear the case from Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued the statement that the Court has denied the petition for review. However, despite his refusal to hear the challenge, Kavanaugh's response seemed to indicate his opinion would stand against the law in question. "Americans today possess an estimated 20 to 30 million AR-15s," he wrote. "And AR-15s are legal in 41 of the 50 States, meaning that the states such as Maryland that prohibit AR-15s are something of an outlier." "Given that millions of Americans own AR-15s and that a significant majority of the states allow possession of those rifles, petitioners have a strong argument that AR-15s are in 'common use' by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment," he continued. Kavanaugh further explained that although the Court denied the challenge Monday, it doesn't mean he feels it isn't "worthy of review," and that in his opinion, "this Court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two." Justice Thomas, in his dissent of the refusal to hear the dispute, wrote that he feels that "It is difficult to see how Maryland's categorical prohibition on AR-15s passes muster" under the framework of the Second Amendment. Thomas declared the Amendment protects all things considered "arms," and that it falls on Maryland to show that a ban on AR-15s is "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." It was the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's decision in August of 2024 to uphold the Maryland law because "assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense." The decision further stated that Maryland's law "fits comfortably within our nation's tradition of firearms regulation." Thomas called out the Fourth Circuit's decision in his dissent several times, and among the mistakes he purports it made are that "AR-15s fall within the historic exception for dangerous and unusual weapons," as "Weapons in common use today for self-defense are fully protected." "Our Constitution allows the American people, not the government, to decide which weapons are useful for self-defense," Thomas added, and concluded with "Until we resolve whether the Second Amendment forecloses that possibility, law-abiding AR-15 owners must rely on the goodwill of a federal agency to retain their means of self-defense. That is no constitutional guarantee at all." Justices Alito and Gorsuch did not note why they would have heard the challenge.
UPI
a day ago
- Politics
- UPI
Supreme Court declines to hear challenge against Maryland gun law
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected to hear challenges to a Maryland law banning semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI. | License Photo June 2 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court announced Monday that it won't hear a Second Amendment challenge to a Maryland law that bans semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15. Despite approvals to hear the case from Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued the statement that the Court has denied the petition for review. However, despite his refusal to hear the challenge, Kavanaugh's response seemed to indicate his opinion would stand against the law in question. "Americans today possess an estimated 20 to 30 million AR-15s," he wrote. "And AR-15s are legal in 41 of the 50 States, meaning that the states such as Maryland that prohibit AR-15s are something of an outlier." "Given that millions of Americans own AR-15s and that a significant majority of the states allow possession of those rifles, petitioners have a strong argument that AR-15s are in 'common use' by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment," he continued. Kavanaugh further explained that although the Court denied the challenge Monday, it doesn't mean he feels it isn't "worthy of review," and that in his opinion, "this Court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two." Justice Thomas, in his dissent of the refusal to hear the dispute, wrote that he feels that "It is difficult to see how Maryland's categorical prohibition on AR-15s passes muster" under the framework of the Second Amendment. Thomas declared the Amendment protects all things considered "arms," and that it falls on Maryland to show that a ban on AR-15s is "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." It was the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's decision in August of 2024 to uphold the Maryland law because "assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense." The decision further stated that Maryland's law "fits comfortably within our nation's tradition of firearms regulation." Thomas called out the Fourth Circuit's decision in his dissent several times, and among the mistakes he purports it made are that "AR-15s fall within the historic exception for dangerous and unusual weapons," as "Weapons in common use today for self-defense are fully protected." "Our Constitution allows the American people, not the government, to decide which weapons are useful for self-defense," Thomas added, and concluded with "Until we resolve whether the Second Amendment forecloses that possibility, law-abiding AR-15 owners must rely on the goodwill of a federal agency to retain their means of self-defense. That is no constitutional guarantee at all." Justices Alito and Gorsuch did not note why they would have heard the challenge.
