Latest news with #ReportforAmerica
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Georgia Supreme Court upholds ban on those under 21 from carrying handguns in public
ATLANTA (AP) — The Georgia Supreme Court upheld a state law Wednesday that bans most people under 21 from carrying a handgun in public. Under Georgia law, anyone ages 18 to 20 years old can possess handguns on their own property, in their car, at their business or for hunting, fishing and sport shooting. Those in the age group who have been trained by the military are exempt. Thomas Stephens, a 20-year-old man from Lumpkin County, sued Georgia after a probate court denied him a weapons carry license in 2023, when he was 18. Stephens asked the state to stop enforcing that law, which he said violated his constitutional rights. A trial court granted the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The Georgia Supreme Court denied his appeal, noting Georgia's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms but lets the General Assembly regulate how they are carried. Georgia has some of the loosest gun laws in the country. The decision comes in the aftermath of heated debates about gun control in the state after a mass shooting at Apalachee High School, northeast of Atlanta, where a 14-year-old boy stands accused of killing two teachers and two students and wounding several others last Sept. 4. Stephens asked the state Supreme Court to pick one of two federal legal tests used for Second Amendment challenges, 'strict scrutiny" or 'history and tradition,' to evaluate whether Georgia's law is constitutional. The decision, written by Justice Andrew Pinson, says those standards are 'not viable substitutes' for determining what the text of the state Constitution originally meant. Unlike Georgia, the U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly let legislatures regulate how people carry guns. Pinson wrote in the decision that construing the meaning of a constitutional provision 'requires careful attention to not only the language of the clause in question, but also its broader legal and historical context.' Stephens' attorney John Monroe argued the law infringed on his client's rights. He also called it an arbitrary law because military training focuses on weapons other than handguns. But he knew unraveling the law would be an uphill battle. 'It's not unexpected because there's over a century of precedent that was against us,' Monroe said of Wednesday's decision. He said they are 'disappointed with the decision' but 'it is what it is.' Stephens' lawsuit came less than a year after Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a bill in 2022 allowing Georgians to carry a handgun without a permit from the state. A bill that would let people sue local governments for enacting gun safety measures died on the final day of Georgia's legislative session in April, and several gun safety proposals did not make it out of committee. ___ Kramon is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Kramon on X: @charlottekramon.
Toronto Star
3 days ago
- Politics
- Toronto Star
Georgia Supreme Court upholds ban on those under 21 from carrying handguns in public
ATLANTA (AP) — The Georgia Supreme Court upheld a state law Wednesday that bans most people under 21 from carrying a handgun in public. Under Georgia law, anyone ages 18 to 20 years old can possess handguns on their own property, in their car, at their business or for hunting, fishing and sport shooting. Those in the age group who have been trained by the military are exempt. Thomas Stephens, a 20-year-old man from Lumpkin County, sued Georgia after a probate court denied him a weapons carry license in 2023, when he was 18. Stephens asked the state to stop enforcing that law, which he said violated his constitutional rights. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW A trial court granted the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The Georgia Supreme Court denied his appeal, noting Georgia's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms but lets the General Assembly regulate how they are carried. Georgia has some of the loosest gun laws in the country. The decision comes in the aftermath of heated debates about gun control in the state after a mass shooting at Apalachee High School, northeast of Atlanta, where a 14-year-old boy stands accused of killing two teachers and two students and wounding several others last Sept. 4. Stephens asked the state Supreme Court to pick one of two federal legal tests used for Second Amendment challenges, 'strict scrutiny' or 'history and tradition,' to evaluate whether Georgia's law is constitutional. The decision, written by Justice Andrew Pinson, says those standards are 'not viable substitutes' for determining what the text of the state Constitution originally meant. Unlike Georgia, the U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly let legislatures regulate how people carry guns. Pinson wrote in the decision that construing the meaning of a constitutional provision 'requires careful attention to not only the language of the clause in question, but also its broader legal and historical context.' Stephens' attorney John Monroe argued the law infringed on his client's rights. He also called it an arbitrary law because military training focuses on weapons other than handguns. But he knew unraveling the law would be an uphill battle. 'It's not unexpected because there's over a century of precedent that was against us,' Monroe said of Wednesday's decision. He said they are 'disappointed with the decision' but 'it is what it is.' ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Stephens' lawsuit came less than a year after Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a bill in 2022 allowing Georgians to carry a handgun without a permit from the state. A bill that would let people sue local governments for enacting gun safety measures died on the final day of Georgia's legislative session in April, and several gun safety proposals did not make it out of committee. ___ Kramon is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Kramon on X: @charlottekramon.
Winnipeg Free Press
3 days ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Georgia Supreme Court upholds ban on those under 21 from carrying handguns in public
ATLANTA (AP) — The Georgia Supreme Court upheld a state law Wednesday that bans most people under 21 from carrying a handgun in public. Under Georgia law, anyone ages 18 to 20 years old can possess handguns on their own property, in their car, at their business or for hunting, fishing and sport shooting. Those in the age group who have been trained by the military are exempt. Thomas Stephens, a 20-year-old man from Lumpkin County, sued Georgia after a probate court denied him a weapons carry license in 2023, when he was 18. Stephens asked the state to stop enforcing that law, which he said violated his constitutional rights. A trial court granted the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The Georgia Supreme Court denied his appeal, noting Georgia's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms but lets the General Assembly regulate how they are carried. Georgia has some of the loosest gun laws in the country. The decision comes in the aftermath of heated debates about gun control in the state after a mass shooting at Apalachee High School, northeast of Atlanta, where a 14-year-old boy stands accused of killing two teachers and two students and wounding several others last Sept. 4. Stephens asked the state Supreme Court to pick one of two federal legal tests used for Second Amendment challenges, 'strict scrutiny' or 'history and tradition,' to evaluate whether Georgia's law is constitutional. The decision, written by Justice Andrew Pinson, says those standards are 'not viable substitutes' for determining what the text of the state Constitution originally meant. Unlike Georgia, the U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly let legislatures regulate how people carry guns. Pinson wrote in the decision that construing the meaning of a constitutional provision 'requires careful attention to not only the language of the clause in question, but also its broader legal and historical context.' Stephens' attorney John Monroe argued the law infringed on his client's rights. He also called it an arbitrary law because military training focuses on weapons other than handguns. But he knew unraveling the law would be an uphill battle. 'It's not unexpected because there's over a century of precedent that was against us,' Monroe said of Wednesday's decision. He said they are 'disappointed with the decision' but 'it is what it is.' Stephens' lawsuit came less than a year after Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a bill in 2022 allowing Georgians to carry a handgun without a permit from the state. A bill that would let people sue local governments for enacting gun safety measures died on the final day of Georgia's legislative session in April, and several gun safety proposals did not make it out of committee. ___ Kramon is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Kramon on X: @charlottekramon.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Colorado couple found guilty over cross burning meant to draw sympathy for Black candidate
DENVER (AP) — A Colorado couple who burned a cross in front of a Black mayoral candidate's campaign sign to generate voter sympathy was convicted Friday of conveying false information about a threat. Prosecutors argued that although Ashley Blackcloud, who is indigenous and Black, and Derrick Bernard, who is Black, orchestrated and broadcast the hoax to aid the candidate, their actions still amounted to a criminal threat. The cross burning happened in 2023 during the run-up to the mayoral election in Colorado Springs, the state's second-largest city. Images and video of the episode were emailed to local news outlets to boost the campaign of Yemi Mobolade, now the city's first Black mayor. Blackcloud's attorney did not deny in the trial this week that she participated in setting up the cross burning and defacing the sign. Bernard denied participating but acknowledged during testimony that he disseminated the images even though he knew it was a hoax. Because cross burning is protected by the First Amendment, the case came down to whether the act was a threat. Prosecutors argued that even though Blackcloud's and Bernard's intention was to help Mobolade, he perceived the actions as a threat, with his family buying fire ladders and a medical trauma kit for their house. 'What was Yemi and his family supposed to see through the flames? A joke? Theater?' said Assistant U.S. Attorneys Bryan Fields. The defendants, he said, 'needed the public to believe this was a real threat in order for it to have the effect that they wanted of influencing an election.' Fields likened it to a student who calls in a fake bomb threat at a school in order to avoid taking a test, forcing the school to evacuate and causing other students anxiety. Blackcloud's defense attorney, Britt Cobb, said the cross burning was merely 'meant to be a political stunt, political theater' to show that racism was still present in Colorado Springs. Blackcloud 'did not mean this as a real threat of violence,' Cobb said. Cobb further argued that Mobolade knew it was a hoax early on, because his campaign staff said in text messages that they were confident it was staged and because Mobolade didn't immediately call the police. 'If he knows it's a hoax, there's no way its a threat,' she said. Mobolade has strongly denied any involvement, but Cobb suggested the politician knew something of the plans, citing communications between Bernard and Mobolade before and after the cross burning. The FBI's investigation did not determine that Mobolade had a role in the cross burning. 'You cannot maliciously convey a threat,' added Bernard's attorney, Tyrone Glover, 'when you're trying in your own way to help somebody.' ___ Bedayn is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Winnipeg Free Press
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Colorado couple found guilty over cross burning meant to draw sympathy for Black candidate
DENVER (AP) — A jury in Colorado found a couple guilty on Friday of conveying false information about a threat against a Black mayoral candidate when they burned a cross in front of his campaign sign, even though the couple was trying help the candidate by generating sympathy among voters. Prosecutors argued that Ashley Blackcloud, who is indigenous and Black, and Derrick Bernard, who is Black, orchestrated and then broadcast the hoax to aid the candidate. However their actions still amounted to a criminal threat, prosecutors said. The cross burning happened in 2023 during the run-up to the mayoral election in Colorado Springs, the state's second-largest city. Images and video of the episode were emailed to local news outlets to boost the campaign of Yemi Mobolade, who is now the city's first Black mayor. Blackcloud's attorney did not deny in the trial this week that she participated in setting up the cross burning and defacing the sign. Bernard denied participating but acknowledged during testimony that he disseminated the images even though he knew it was a hoax. Because cross burning is protected by the First Amendment, the case came down to whether the act was a threat. Prosecutors argued that even though Blackcloud's and Bernard's intention was to help Mobolade, he perceived the actions as a threat, with his family buying fire ladders and a medical trauma kit for their house. 'What was Yemi and his family supposed to see through the flames? A joke? Theater?' said Assistant U.S. Attorneys Bryan Fields. The defendants, he said, 'needed the public to believe this was a real threat in order for it to have the effect that they wanted of influencing an election.' Fields likened it to a student who calls in a fake bomb threat at a school in order to avoid taking a test, forcing the school to evacuate and causing other students anxiety. Blackcloud's defense attorney, Britt Cobb, said the cross burning was merely 'meant to be a political stunt, political theater' to show that racism was still present in Colorado Springs. Blackcloud 'did not mean this as a real threat of violence,' Cobb said. Cobb further argued that Mobolade knew it was a hoax early on, because his campaign staff said in text messages that they were confident it was staged and because Mobolade didn't immediately call the police. 'If he knows it's a hoax, there's no way its a threat,' she said. Mobolade has strongly denied any involvement, but Cobb suggested the politician knew something of the plans, citing communications between Bernard and Mobolade before and after the cross burning. The FBI's investigation did not determine that Mobolade had a role in the cross burning. 'You cannot maliciously convey a threat,' added Bernard's attorney, Tyrone Glover, 'when you're trying in your own way to help somebody.' ___ Bedayn is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
