USA News and Discussions

[weatheriscool]

Senators strike bipartisan gun deal, heralding potential breakthrough
Source: Washington Post

A bipartisan group of Senate negotiators is set to announce Sunday that it reached a tentative agreement on legislation that would pair modest new gun restrictions with significant new mental health and school security investments — a deal that could put Congress on a path to enacting the most significant national response in decades to acts of mass gun violence.

The framework deal was confirmed Sunday by three people involved in the negotiations who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss their status ahead of a formal announcement, which is expected midday Sunday.

While substantially weaker than the assault weapons ban, high-capacity ammunition magazine restrictions and broad background check expansions that most Democrats support, the gun provisions set out in the framework could, if enacted, represent the most significant new federal firearms restrictions enacted since the mid-1990s.

Under the tentative deal, a federal grant program would encourage states to establish “red flag” laws that allow authorities to keep guns away from people found by a judge to represent a potential threat to themselves or others, while federal criminal background checks for gun buyers under 21 would include a mandatory search of juvenile justice records for the first time.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... framework/

Honestly, we have a social problem, a problem with bullying and believe me banning guns won't keep guns out of bad guys hand.

[caltrek]

Senators strike bipartisan gun deal, heralding potential breakthrough
Source: Washington Post

A bipartisan group of Senate negotiators is set to announce Sunday that it reached a tentative agreement on legislation that would pair modest new gun restrictions with significant new mental health and school security investments — a deal that could put Congress on a path to enacting the most significant national response in decades to acts of mass gun violence.

The framework deal was confirmed Sunday by three people involved in the negotiations who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss their status ahead of a formal announcement, which is expected midday Sunday.

While substantially weaker than the assault weapons ban, high-capacity ammunition magazine restrictions and broad background check expansions that most Democrats support, the gun provisions set out in the framework could, if enacted, represent the most significant new federal firearms restrictions enacted since the mid-1990s.

Under the tentative deal, a federal grant program would encourage states to establish “red flag” laws that allow authorities to keep guns away from people found by a judge to represent a potential threat to themselves or others, while federal criminal background checks for gun buyers under 21 would include a mandatory search of juvenile justice records for the first time.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... framework/

Honestly, we have a social problem, a problem with bullying and believe me banning guns won't keep guns out of bad guys hand.

I think it is a statistical argument. No, it will not keep guns out of the hands of "bad guys" - but it can lessen the number of bullies (or their "victims") that have easy access to assault rifles, etc.

In my day, ancient pre-history to most of the rest of you, we had bullies in school. We even had periodic knife fights. Still, we did not have mass killings from gun fire, at least not in the schools that I attended. I do recall one mass killing sniper incident on a college campus, but that was much more an exception to the rule.

It is like Covid. To a certain extent we were doomed to suffer some casualties (once it made its leap to infecting humans). Still, there were certain policies that helped mitigate the problem, and the some times failure to implement those policies meant more deaths. At least IMHO. Same with the regulation of guns. It will not completely solve the problem, but at least reduce the number of casualties around the margins.

[weatheriscool]

Portland resembles an 'open air drug market' after legalizing hard drugs: Overdose deaths skyrocket by 41% in the Democrat-led city as homeless addicts collapse on sidewalks
UK Daily Mail ^ | June 16 2022 | GINA MARTINEZ
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... drugs.html

The streets of Portland resemble an 'open air drug market' after state officials' scheme to decriminalize hard drugs led to a surge in overdose deaths, critics claim.

Law enforcement agents say that the streets of Portland are full of homeless addicts openly buying and selling drugs and that signs of drug addiction are actually increasing statewide, Fox News reported.

Photos show the desperate situation in the liberal Pacific Northwest city, where people can be seen shooting up drugs or passed out in broad daylight.

[wjfox]

[weatheriscool]

Texas Republicans pass resolution denying Biden won 2020 election
Source: CBS News by way of MSN

The Texas Republican Party officially rejected the results of the 2020 presidential election over the weekend, passing a resolution in its platform that falsely blames election fraud in five battleground states for President Joe Biden's victory over former President Donald Trump. The resolution refers to Mr. Biden as "acting" president.

...

It claims that the elections in five states violated Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution because "various secretaries of state illegally circumvented their state legislatures in conducting their elections in multiple ways, including by allowing ballots to be received after November 3, 2020."

Reviews of the vote tallies and various recounts did not change the outcome of any state's election. Officials including Attorney General William Barr have repeatedly rejected claims that there was widespread election fraud. The president and his allies waged dozens of unsuccessful legal battles and looked to the Supreme Court to help deliver Mr. Trump a second term in the White House after Mr. Biden was declared the winner, asking the justices to take up numerous disputes that sought to halt the certification of election results from key battleground states.

But the Supreme Court appeared not to have an appetite to wade into the disputes -- it rejected requests to fast-track cases that took aim at the election results in Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia and Pennsylvania and spurned other challenges to the outcome of the election in those four states.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 75677bf22a

[caltrek]

As Right-Wing Majority Shows Its Face, Confidence in Supreme Court Hits All-Time Low
by Julia Conley
June 23, 2022

Introduction:

(Common Dream) A new poll out Thursday reveals that the confidence the American people have in the U.S. Supreme Court is at an all-time low—dropping 11 points since the right-wing majority took hold last year and amid major rulings, including the expected overturning of Roe vs. Wade, unpopular with the voting public.

Just 25% of Americans have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the Supreme Court, down from 36% one year ago.

The poll was taken from June 1-20, about a month after a draft opinion was leaked showing that the right-wing majority voted earlier this year to overturn Roe, a ruling that would immediately end access to legal abortion care for millions of Americans in 26 states and likely reduce access in states that protect abortion rights.

Fifty-eight percent of Americans oppose overturning the landmark reproductive rights ruling, according to a Gallup survey taken a year ago.
The court's approval rating is five points lower than its previous low, which was recorded in 2014.

Read more here: https://www.commondreams.org/news/202 ... -time-low

caltrek's comment: Sadly, of the conservative justices, only Roberts seems to give a hoot about the declining legitimacy brought on by the right-wing orientation of the court. The attitude seems to be “we are in charge, so public opinion (outside of the deepest red of states) be damned.” The court has an opportunity to prove me wrong by returning to sanity on such cases as the potential for re-affirming Roe v. Wade. I am not optimistic on that score.

[caltrek]

The court has an opportunity to prove me wrong by returning to sanity on such cases as the potential for re-affirming Roe v. Wade. I am not optimistic on that score.

Apparently, even as I was writing those words, this news was breaking:

Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade, Ending 50 Years of Federal Abortion Rights
by Dan Mangan and Kevin Breuninger
June 24, 2022

Introduction:

(CNBC) The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion in the U.S. in 1973.

The court’s controversial but expected ruling gives individual states the power to set their own abortion laws without concern of running afoul of Roe, which for nearly half a century had permitted abortions during the first two trimesters of pregnancy.

Almost half the states are expected to outlaw or severely restrict abortion as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, which is related to a highly restrictive new Mississippi abortion law.

Other states plan to maintain more liberal rules governing the termination of pregnancies.

Justice Samuel Alito, as expected, wrote the majority opinion that tossed out Roe as well as a 1992 Supreme Court decision upholding abortion rights in a case known as Planned Parenthood v. Caseys. He was joined in that judgment by the five other conservatives on the high court, including Chief Justice John Roberts.

Read more here: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe-v- ... ghts.html

caltrek’s comment: Even Chief Justice Roberts joined in this shameful decision. This is a result of giving Republicans the power to appoint justices to the court.

Edit: Axios has also filed a report on this ruling, with a lot of information that is duplicative of what CNBC has reported: https://www.axios.com/2022/06/24/roe-wa ... n-abortion

Also from Axios with an interesting map summarizing the state by state impact: https://www.axios.com/2021/10/31/roe-v- ... ississippi

[wjfox]

[wjfox]

[weatheriscool]

Wisconsin doctors halt abortions following court ruling
Source: AP

By SCOTT BAUER

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Doctors across Wisconsin said they would immediately stop providing abortions, even as questions remained about the enforceability of a 173-year-old state ban, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling striking down its Roe v. Wade decision on Friday.

Wisconsin has an 1849 law that bans abortion, except to save the life of the mother, but whether that law is enforceable is expected to be challenged in court. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, said he would have news next week about how his office would respond to Friday’s ruling.

The nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Council, which is comprised of attorneys who advise the Legislature, indicated in a memo that the enforceability of the state ban will likely have to be decided by a judge.

Under the Wisconsin law, doctors could be charged with felonies for performing abortions and face up to six years in prison and $10,000 in fines.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us- ... 0f1faff587

MURDER COMES WITH THE CHARGE OF MURDER! Who wouldn't of guessed it!

[weatheriscool]

House votes 234-193 to give final approval to bipartisan compromise gun bill spurred by Texas and N.
Source: New York Daily News

N.Y. mass shootings

The House of Representatives voted 234-193 to give final approval to a compromise gun bill that won some bipartisan support after last month’s bloody massacres in a Buffalo, New York supermarket and a Texas elementary school in Uvalde.

In a mostly party-line vote, the Democratic-led House quickly passed the bill that modestly tightens some restrictions after the Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve it over the vehement objections of right-wing gun-rights advocates.

Only 14 Republicans joined all Democrats in voted for the bill including Rep. Chris Jacobs (R-N.Y.), the Buffalo-area lawmaker who decided not to run for reelection after his support for modest gun restrictions sparked an angry GOP backlash.

“Every day, gun violence steals lives and scars communities — and this crisis demands urgent action,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AAYPIsB

This will be found as unconstitutional. The government shall not infringe!!

[wjfox]

MURDER COMES WITH THE CHARGE OF MURDER! Who wouldn't of guessed it!

Who is being murdered? What are their names? A foetus isn't a person.

[wjfox]

This will be found as unconstitutional. The government shall not infringe!!

What harm will this bill cause you personally? Please explain, specifically.

[Vakanai]

This will be found as unconstitutional. The government shall not infringe!!

What harm will this bill cause you personally? Please explain, specifically.

While I have nothing against this bill myself, to be fair to weather, it isn't about whether it causes anyone harm personally, but whether or not it infringes on constitutional freedom.

[caltrek]

House votes 234-193 to give final approval to bipartisan compromise gun bill spurred by Texas and N.
Source: New York Daily News

N.Y. mass shootings

...

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AAYPIsB

This will be found as unconstitutional. The government shall not infringe!!

Who knows what a right-wing Supreme Court will decide. The operative Amendment reads:

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.

• So, the whole clause is dependent upon the existence of a "well regulated militia." Well regulated definitely meaning accountability. Accountability implies some government infringement, so the whole Amendment is self-contradictory

• "Arms" meant muskets. At the time it did not mean assault rifles because such sophisticated weapons did not exist. Today, the word "arms" also include portable nuclear explosive devices. Do you think we should allow freedom of possession of such weapons?

• Conservative justices have, in my mind quite arbitrarily, decided that since "well-regulated militias" no longer exist, that phrase is simply rendered inoperative. Yet, if that clause is inoperative, then why shouldn't the whole Amendment also thus be read as being inoperative?

• As conservative Republican Pat Buchanan once observed, the Constitution says what the Supreme Court wants it to say. Should common sense thus be banned from a reading of that Amendment?

[caltrek]

Wisconsin doctors halt abortions following court ruling
Source: AP

By SCOTT BAUER

...

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us- ... 0f1faff587

MURDER COMES WITH THE CHARGE OF MURDER! Who wouldn't of guessed it!

It is only "murder" if a human life is defined as starting at the moment of conception. Is it not more reasonable to refer to a standard such as "viability outside of the womb" or "upon reaching a state of self-awareness." One could easily go in the opposite direction and conclude that unfertilized eggs constitute human beings. Meaning that as technology becomes more advanced, it would be defined as "murder" for a woman to refuse to surrender her unfertilized eggs. Just how ridiculous do you believe we should get?

[weatheriscool]

Wisconsin doctors halt abortions following court ruling
Source: AP

By SCOTT BAUER

...

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us- ... 0f1faff587

MURDER COMES WITH THE CHARGE OF MURDER! Who wouldn't of guessed it!

It is only "murder" if a human life is defined as starting at the moment of conception. Is it not more reasonable to refer to a standard such as "viability outside of the womb" or "upon reaching a state of self-awareness." One could easily go in the opposite direction and conclude that unfertilized eggs constitute human beings. Meaning that as technology becomes more advanced, it would be defined as "murder" for a woman to refuse to surrender her unfertilized eggs. Just how ridiculous do you believe we should get?

I am mostly talking about after 20 weeks past conception. Once the baby starts feeling....I think the concept of later term abortion is extremely evil. I'd be ok with it before this point. The left is giving a hell of a lot of fire power to the right by allowing it up to literal birth.

[weatheriscool]

NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL
ISSUES DIRECTIVE REQUIRING
CARRY PERMIT APPLICATIONS
TO BE PROCESSED WITHOUT
"JUSTIFIABLE NEED"

June 24, 2022. At the close of business today, and in light of the Bruen decision, the New Jersey Attorney General issued a directive to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors mandating that NJ carry permit applications now be processed WITHOUT an applicant having to prove "justifiable need."

CLICK HERE to see a copy of the directive.

The effect of this directive is to remove any doubt that the Bruen decision applies in New Jersey, and that someone applying for a concealed carry permit in the Garden State need only satisfy typical requirements, such as:

https://www.anjrpc.org/page/NJDropsJustifiableNeed

[Vakanai]

Wisconsin doctors halt abortions following court ruling
Source: AP

By SCOTT BAUER


Read more: https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us- ... 0f1faff587

MURDER COMES WITH THE CHARGE OF MURDER! Who wouldn't of guessed it!

It is only "murder" if a human life is defined as starting at the moment of conception. Is it not more reasonable to refer to a standard such as "viability outside of the womb" or "upon reaching a state of self-awareness." One could easily go in the opposite direction and conclude that unfertilized eggs constitute human beings. Meaning that as technology becomes more advanced, it would be defined as "murder" for a woman to refuse to surrender her unfertilized eggs. Just how ridiculous do you believe we should get?

I am mostly talking about after 20 weeks past conception. Once the baby starts feeling....I think the concept of later term abortion is extremely evil. I'd be ok with it before this point. The left is giving a hell of a lot of fire power to the right by allowing it up to literal birth.

Except the left don't allow it up to literal birth. Like nowhere can you go get an abortion a day before your due date, that's not a thing that's ever been legal in any state, and no credible liberal politician has ever argued for it.

[Time_Traveller]

Roe vs Wade: Protests sweep the US after abortion rights overturned

Saturday 25 June 2022

Abortion rights advocates staged protests across the US on Friday after the Supreme Court scrapped the constitutional right to abortion.
Protests were held in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco as well as in Chicago, Seattle and other cities. In New York and Los Angeles, people chanted: "Rise up for abortion rights."

It comes after the Republican-controlled court ended constitutional protections for abortion that have been in place for nearly 50 years by deciding to overturn the landmark Roe vs Wade ruling.

It is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half of US states.

In Phoenix, police reportedly fired tear gas from the windows of the Arizona Capitol building to disperse hundreds of people demonstrating outside, as lawmakers briefly huddled in a basement.

The lawmakers were working to complete their 2022 session as thousands of protesters gathered on the Capitol grounds in Phoenix on Friday night.

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-06-24/pro ... ion-rights