Latest news with #NationalRifleAssociation
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maine Republicans, gun rights groups try to force hearing on 'red flag' proposal
Jun. 5—AUGUSTA — Republicans and gun rights groups are ramping up pressure on Democrats to hold a public hearing on a so-called red flag proposal that's headed for a statewide vote in November. Republican lawmakers are accusing the majority of violating state law by refusing to hold the hearing because it will undermine their campaign to pass the law. If approved by voters, the citizens initiative would make it easier for family members to have firearms temporarily taken away from people who are in crisis and may pose a danger to themselves or others. Sen. Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, said at a press conference Thursday that if Democrats don't reverse course and hold a hearing, Republicans will try to force the issue through a series of floor votes. And the National Rifle Association said Thursday that it will join a planned lawsuit over legislative Democrats' refusal to hold a public hearing. Stewart said Senate Republicans plan to offer a flurry of proposals to put Democrats on the record as opposing a chance for the public to weigh in. "It doesn't matter how you break this one down," Stewart said. "There needs to be a hearing. It's abundantly clear they're in violation of Maine law. Once again, (we're) giving them an opportunity to do the right things here. But if by today that is not the case (and) that has not yet happened, you're going to see a flurry of orders put forward by Republicans in the Senate." Democrats, who control both chambers and control committees that conduct public hearings, say they don't need to hold a hearing because the question will be decided by voters. Gun safety groups collected signatures to force a fall referendum on the red flag law, which would allow family members to directly petition a court to temporarily confiscate firearms. Maine currently has what is known as a yellow flag law, which was negotiated by Gov. Janet Mills, gun rights groups and gun safety groups. It can only be initiated by police and requires a mental health evaluation before a court petition can be filed to confiscate a person's firearms. A state law requires that a public hearing be held on statewide referendum questions, unless that hearing is waived by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. And hearings have been routinely held for other referendum questions, including a recent hearing on a referendum to enact a voter ID requirement and additional restrictions on absentee voting. Lawmakers have three options when receiving a qualified citizens initiative: Enact it without changes, send it to voters, or send it to voters with a competing measure. Democrats have made clear this initiative will be sent to voters without an effort to pass it in the Legislature. Sen. Anne Carney, D-Cape Elizabeth, who co-chairs the Judiciary Committee, said she believes a state law requiring a hearing conflicts with the state Constitution, which doesn't mention the need for a public hearing. And since lawmakers have signaled they don't plan to enact the proposal, a hearing isn't necessary. Carney also noted last week that a hearing on a similar red flag proposal was held last session. But opponents of the referendum are clamoring for a hearing. The Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine issued an action alert this week, arguing that Democrats don't want to hold a hearing because it will highlight opposition, including from Gov. Janet Mills and other Democratic lawmakers. Mills came out against a red flag bill proposed last session, but the bill was never brought forward for a floor vote after an hours-long public hearing that drew a divided crowd. "Under Maine law, all ballot initiatives MUST receive a public hearing before going to the Maine voters," SAM's alert states. "But Judiciary Chairs and Maine Gun Safety Coalition allies are blocking that hearing. Why? "Because Michael Bloomberg and the progressive gun-control lobby know it could END their campaign. This is because a massive bipartisan coalition of Mainers, including Governor Janet Mills, law enforcement, and lawmakers, will discuss the dangerous and potentially deadly realities of this extreme law." Aids more Mills did not respond to a question about whether Mills would personally testify before the committee, which would be a rare and dramatic moment, or if her administration would testify on her behalf, which usually occurs. This story will be updated. Copy the Story Link
Straits Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
US Supreme Court won't review assault weapon, high-capacity magazine bans
FILE PHOTO: A man looks at an AR-15 rife at an exhibition booth during the National Rifle Association (NRA) annual convention in Dallas, Texas, U.S., May 18, 2024. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge to the legality of state restrictions on assault-style rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, passing up for now cases that offered the justices a chance to further expand gun rights. The justices turned away two appeals after lower courts upheld a ban in Maryland on powerful semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15s and one in Rhode Island restricting the possession of ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds. The lower courts rejected arguments that the measures violate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the court's decision not to hear the cases. A fourth, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a statement accompanying the Maryland case expressed sympathy for the argument made by the challengers that semiautomatic AR-15s are in common use by "law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment." Kavanaugh said the issue will return to the Supreme Court, which "presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon." In a nation bitterly divided over how to address firearms violence including numerous mass shootings, the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, often has taken an expansive view of the Second Amendment. The court broadened gun rights in landmark rulings in 2008, 2010 and in a 2022 case that made it harder to defend gun restrictions under the Second Amendment, requiring them to be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The challengers in the two cases turned away on Monday by the Supreme Court contended that states and courts are flouting precedents that make clear that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are in "common use." Maryland in 2013 enacted its ban on military-style "assault weapons" such as the AR-15 and AK-47 after a shooter used such a firearm in the 2012 mass killing of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The law carries a penalty of up to three years in prison. A Maryland resident who is seeking to purchase one of the banned guns, as well as three gun rights organizations including the Firearms Policy Coalition, sued in 2020, claiming the ban violates the Second Amendment. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 rejected the challenge because it said assault weapons "are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense." As such, the "excessively dangerous" firearms are not protected by the Second Amendment, the 4th Circuit decided. The 4th Circuit said it refused "to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes." The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that the term "assault weapon" is a political term that is designed to exploit public confusion over machine guns and semi-automatic firearms. The banned weapons, they said, are "identical to any other semiautomatic firearm - arms that are exceedingly common and fully protected by the Second Amendment." Rhode Island's law, passed in 2022 as a response to mass shootings, bars most "large-capacity feeding" devices such as a magazine or drum that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The state calls it a "mild restriction on a particularly dangerous weapons accessory" and that in mass shooting situations, "any pause in fire, such as the pause to switch magazines, allows for precious seconds in which to escape or take defensive action." The law applied retroactively, meaning residents had to surrender or alter any banned magazine that they owned, and carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. Four gun owners and a registered firearms dealer sued, claiming the ban violated their Second Amendment rights, and that having to forfeit the magazines they owned violated the Constitution's prohibition on the government taking property without compensation. In 2024 the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claims and refused to block the law. The Rhode Island plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that instead of abiding by the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, the state's law "can only be understood as protest legislation imposing more restrictive bans on long-common arms." The Supreme Court has been buffeted in recent years by challenges to gun restrictions. On March 26, the court upheld a regulation targeting largely untraceable "ghost guns" imposed by Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration. The court last year struck down a federal ban on "bump stock" devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Gun violence prevention group vehemently disputes Marion Hammer's assertion of a payoff
Marion Hammer, lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. (Photo via the Trace by Phil Coale) Marion Hammer, the National Rifle Association's first woman president and a longtime Second Amendment lobbyist in Tallahassee, is suing the organization for alleged breach of contract. Among the allegations in her federal lawsuit is that in 2018 she was offered $5 million by Brady: United Against Gun Violence, the gun violence prevention organization that has history of clashing with the NRA, if she would 'retire and cease advancing the interests of the NRA and defeating the Second Amendment.' The suit says Hammer relayed the Brady offer to then-NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, who developed a proposal with other NRA staffers to offer her a new contract proposal. 'Although the new proposal would pay less half the offer from the Brady group, the proposal would allow Plaintiff [to] continue working with the NRA for years to come,' the suit claims. Hammer goes on to claim that ultimately the NRA ceased to pay her as agreed, and now she is suing them in the Northern District Court of Florida. But what about the sensational claim that Brady offered her $5 million to retire? Late last week, the gun-safety group issued a blistering statement denying the charges. 'Brady has no interest in being involved in Marion Hammer's dispute with the National Rifle Association (NRA), two parties that have spent decades pursuing policies and breaking politicians that prioritize guns over American lives,' Brady said. 'The disputes over Marion Hammer's agreements with the NRA and related entities is a matter for the courts. But let us be clear: Brady did NOT make any such offer, nor would it ever consider offering any proffer, to Marion Hammer, a woman whose legacy will be thousands and thousands of grieving families who lost their loved ones to gun violence propagated by the reckless policies Marion championed throughout her career.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Yahoo
Pinellas judge denies stand your ground defense in Howard Frankland stabbing
A Pinellas judge has rejected a stand your ground claim from a former federal prosecutor who says he acted in self-defense when he stabbed another driver after a traffic crash on the Howard Frankland Bridge. Patrick Scruggs smashed the man's window and stabbed him about seven times in the arm because he feared for his safety, he testified during a two-day hearing earlier this month. After hearing from Scruggs, the victim and several witnesses, Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Keith Meyer handed down his ruling Friday and set a trial for Sept. 9. Their testimony showed Scruggs was 'acting out of anger and frustration, not in fear,' Meyer wrote in a court order. 'The balance of the evidence demonstrated that the defendant was not acting reasonably,' he wrote. Scruggs' lawyers had sought to dismiss the case under Florida's controversial stand your ground law. 'In all of this, Mr. Scruggs was attempting to prevent what appeared to be a very obviously impaired driver from harming himself with the vehicle,' Lee Pearlman, Scruggs' attorney, said during the hearing's opening statements. 'But also to prevent that man from trashing his own vehicle and continuing to flee down the bridge during rush-hour traffic.' On the books since 2005, the stand your ground law extended self-defense in Florida by removing what's known as the 'duty to retreat' when a person is faced with the threat of a violent confrontation. It permits the use of deadly force in situations where a person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. If a judge determines a case meets the criteria of the law, the defendant will be declared immune from prosecution. The law received strong support from the National Rifle Association when it passed. Prosecutors argued Scruggs did not act as a 'prudent person' would have in the face of an 'imminent threat.' Meyer agreed. 'A reasonable and prudent person, even under the circumstances ... would not believe that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm or the imminent commission of a forcible felony,' he wrote. The incident occurred on Sept. 26, 2023, when Blake Sharp stopped his Lexus in traffic and slumped over into the passenger seat. Another driver, Ahmed Gahaf, saw him and pulled over to try to help, Gahaf testified. Sharp suddenly sped forward, crashing into the back of Gahaf's car, before he backed up and veered into a left lane, where he collided with Scruggs' Honda Civic. Scruggs got out of his car, clutching a small pocketknife that he used to break Sharp's car window, he testified. When he reached inside to turn the car off, a struggle between Scruggs and Sharp began. Gahaf said he approached the car, but ran away after Scruggs turned and lunged at him with the knife. After Sharp accelerated again, Scruggs began to stab him, the former prosecutor said. Sharp testified he'd had a 'medical episode' that caused him to pass out at the wheel. He woke up to Scruggs raining down blows, he said. To Scruggs and Gahaf, Sharp appeared impaired. Sharp denied he had consumed drugs or alcohol that morning. Defense attorneys filed a motion to include in the case evidence from Sharp's prior DUI conviction. At the time of the crash, Sharp was on probation after he was found intoxicated and passed out in his car near Tropicana Field. Sharp has since been sentenced to prison for a probation violation in a Hernando County case. Witnesses who recorded the bridge stabbing said they feared retribution from the man wielding the knife. They also said it appeared Scruggs returned to stab Sharp a second time. From the stand, Scruggs denied a second stabbing. When St. Petersburg police arrived, Scruggs cooperated. He appeared calm and collected, one officer testified. Scruggs was arrested and booked on aggravated battery and other charges. Scruggs said Sharp escalated the situation by grabbing his arms and trying to pull him into the car. Meyer wrote Friday he saw no evidence of Scruggs' claim in recordings shown in court.
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Rep. Robin Kelly running for Durbin Senate seat
Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) announced Tuesday that she's running for retiring Sen. Dick Durbin's (D-Ill.) seat, becoming the latest prominent Illinois Democrat to make a bid. 'I'm Robin Kelly. You could say I've been an underdog my whole life,' the House Democrat said in a video posted on the social platform X launching her Senate bid. Kelly painted herself as a politician who has consistently defied the odds, including by ousting a 10-year incumbent state House member in 2002 and winning a crowded 2013 Democratic primary for Illinois's 2nd Congressional District over former Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.), who previously received an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association. Kelly also used her video to tout her record, particularly her work on a sit-in in Congress over gun control legislation and her efforts toward extending Medicaid for new mothers. 'But our situation now? This is a whole different moment. That's why I'm running for the United States Senate,' Kelly said in the video. 'To fight for health care that doesn't bankrupt families. For wages that lift people up. For housing that's affordable. For neighborhoods safe from gun violence.' Kelly has spent a dozen years representing Illinois's 2nd District, which is a unique mix of urban, suburban and rural. She's the latest major Democrat to announce a bid for the Durbin's seat. Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton (D) has also announced a bid for the seat, and she's received the backing of both Gov. JB Pritzker (D) and Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) Other House Democrats that could very likely join the primary include Illinois Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi and Lauren Underwood. Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.) could make a bid on the GOP side. Given the political leanings of the state, whoever wins the Democratic primary for Durbin's seat is seen as the heavy favorite to win in the general election. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
