Latest news with #SecondAmendment
Yahoo
a day ago
- General
- Yahoo
Trump DHS lists Democratic strongholds, and deep red Shawano County, as defying immigration law
Shawano County was included on a Department of Homeland Security list of jurisdictions "defying federal immigration law" The U.S. Department of Homeland Security listed Shawano County along with Dane County, Madison and Milwaukee as Wisconsin jurisdictions 'defying immigration law' on Thursday. The department released the list as part of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump requiring that sanctuary jurisdictions across the country be listed. 'Sanctuary jurisdictions including cities, counties, and states that are deliberately and shamefully obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws endangering American communities,' the DHS announcement states. 'Sanctuary cities protect dangerous criminal aliens from facing consequences and put law enforcement in peril.' Dane County, Madison and Milwaukee have enacted policies that limit local law enforcement agencies' collaboration with federal immigration authorities. Earlier this year, Dane County Sheriff Kalvin Barrett announced that the county would no longer participate in a program that provides funding in exchange for telling federal agencies when an immigrant without legal status is in custody in the local jail. Milwaukee also refuses to share such information. 'DHS demands that these jurisdictions immediately review and revise their policies to align with Federal immigration laws and renew their obligation to protect American citizens, not dangerous illegal aliens,' DHS stated. But Shawano County, which Trump won with 67% of its vote last year, is a Republican Party stronghold that appears out of place on the list. The DHS announcement states that 'no one should act on this information without conducting their own evaluation of the information.' In 2021, the Shawano County board voted to declare the county a 'Second Amendment sanctuary county,' which declared the county sheriff would not enforce any laws which 'unconstitutionally impedes our fundamental Second Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms.' The Shawano County administrator and sheriff did not respond to requests for comment. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Nine provisions lurking in Trump's tax bill you should know about
The bill is likely to be one of the most important pieces of legislation passed during Trump's second term. The immense pressure from the White House to pass the bill makes it a convenient vehicle for lawmakers to add in their preferred policies and increase their chances of making it into law. Still, the bill is not set in stone: The Senate will start considering the bill next week, and the measure may undergo considerable changes. Here are nine parts of the bill you might not yet know about: Making it easier to ignore court rulings Republicans included a provision in the bill that would restrict judges' ability to hold people accountable for violating court orders. It comes as some judges consider contempt rulings against the Trump administration for bypassing court orders restricting their actions. More: How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war' The legislation would bar judges from enforcing contempt rulings if they didn't first order a bond, which is commonly set at zero or not ordered in cases when people are claiming the government did something unconstitutional. Democrats have argued it's a clear attempt to bypass the courts, while Republicans say it's an incentive to stop frivolous lawsuits by requiring plaintiffs to pay in. A ban on regulating AI The bill would allocate $500 million to help modernize government with the help of artificial intelligence - and would prevent states from creating new regulations to shape how AI is used or developed. It also would block dozens of states from enforcing AI regulations and oversight structures they've already implemented. There is now no federal AI regulation to take the place of state policies. More: Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' could ban states from regulating AI for a decade Tech industry leaders support the approach, warning that regulation can get in the way of innovation in a new industry. Some Republicans in the Senate, however, have raised concerns that the ban is not a good idea without a federal structure to take its place. Cheaper gun silencers Republicans added a provision to the bill that would get rid of a $200 registration fee for gun silencers that has existed for more than 90 years and removed a requirement for gun owners to register their silencers. More: Trump admin allows devices that let some weapons shoot as fast as machine guns "Who asked for this - was it the assassin lobby?" said Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nevada, at a hearing on the legislation earlier in May. But Republicans argued that eliminating the fee aligns with the Second Amendment, which protects a right to bear arms, and protects gun users' hearing. Tax-free gym memberships The bill would qualify sports and fitness expenses as qualified medical care, which would allow people to pay for them tax-free through a Health Savings Account. People could spend up to $500 a year on gym memberships through their HSAs, or $1,000 for a married couple. More: Robert F. Kennedy now heads Trump's MAHA commission: What to know The benefit could not be used at "a private club" owned by members, or a facility that offers golf, hunting, sailing or riding facilities. The health and fitness part of the business also couldn't be "incidental to its overall function and purpose." Purple Heart benefits Some people who earned a Purple Heart in the military - the decoration for service members who were wounded or killed in action - would qualify for a new income tax credit under the legislation. Purple Heart recipients who lost a portion of their Social Security disability benefits because they got a job could get a higher Earned Income Tax Credit to make up those lost Social Security benefits. 'Trump accounts' for kids The bill would create new savings accounts dubbed "Trump accounts" in which babies who are born between January 2025 and January 2029 can benefit from a one-time $1,000 payment from the federal government placed in the account. Parents would then be able to contribute up to $5,000 a year. The savings would be invested in a stock fund that would grow with the U.S. stock market. More: After 100 days, one thing is clear: The stock market is leery of Trump's tariffs The child could be able to access a portion of the money when they reach age 18 for things like education, training or buying their first house. They can use the full balance at age 30. Pell grant and student loan changes The bill includes a change to the Pell Grant program, which provides federal aid to low-income students to attend colleges and universities. Right now, students are considered full time and qualify for the maximum amount of aid if they take 12 credits a semester. The bill would change that to 15 credits a semester, which the National College Attainment Network estimated would result in a nearly $1,500 cut in benefits for students who can't increase their course load because of work or caretaking. More: Trump orders shift on student loan management to Small Business Administration It would also end multiple existing programs for people to pay back their student loans, including a Biden-era program that tailored payment requirements to the person's income. It would be replaced with a new fixed-rate program. Charging foreign workers Migrants often move to other countries in part to send money home to their family or community abroad. The United States is the world's largest source of these transfers, known as remittances. The Republican bill would implement a 3.5% tax on those transfers, which must be paid by the person sending the money. It would include an exemption for U.S. citizens and nationals sending money abroad. New immigration fees The GOP proposal would charge new fees for people seeking to immigrate to the United States. Among the proposed fees: $1,000 to request asylum, $550 payments every six months for work authorization, $500 to apply for temporary protected status, $1,000 for undocumented immigrants paroled into the country, and $3,500 to sponsor unaccompanied child migrants.
2 days ago
- Politics
Georgia Supreme Court upholds ban on those under 21 from carrying handguns in public
ATLANTA -- 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. ___
Yahoo
2 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
2 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.
