Governor Gavin Newsom, of course, is no stranger to self-promotion. His office churns out a steady stream of press releases, videos and social media posts touting his accomplishments, an output that has only intensified as his final year in office approaches and speculation mounts about a possible presidential run.

But when it comes to sheer volume of self-congratulatory messaging, Bonta may have even Newsom beat.

Rarely does a day go by without Bonta’s communications staff issuing some kind of announcement — a press release, a social media post, a video — highlighting an achievement by the attorney general, who brands himself as “the People’s Attorney” fighting for justice on behalf of all Californians.

His office has issued nearly 500 press releases so far this year alone, not counting the additional messaging spread across other platforms.

This week, Bonta has been especially visible during a high-profile trial in Oakland, where California and three other states are suing Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, over allegations that the company intentionally designed its platforms to be addictive to young users. According to Bonta deputy Megan O’Neill, who delivered the opening statement, Meta sought to “hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data and hide the truth from the public.”

As the trial got underway Tuesday, Bonta posted a video outside the courtroom — notably on Facebook, one of the platforms at the center of the lawsuit — stating that his office was working to prove Meta had “designed and deployed harmful features on Instagram and Facebook that lead young users to compulsive use.”

Despite this steady stream of content, much of it never makes it into serious news coverage, largely because it amounts to self-promotion rather than substantive news.

That raises an interesting question: In his more than five years as attorney general, has Bonta’s office ever actually lost a case?

Occasionally, his office will acknowledge a legal setback, criticize the court’s decision, defend the state’s position and vow to appeal. But such admissions are few and far between, and outright losses are almost never candidly discussed.

That’s where what’s known as a “claims bill” comes in. These are pieces of legislation, typically drafted by the attorney general’s office, that authorize state funds to pay out settlements or judgments in cases the state has lost. They tend to move through the Legislature with little scrutiny or public debate.

The latest claims bill, still awaiting final approval before the legislative session wraps up on Aug. 31, would set aside $7.4 million to resolve eight different cases. Among them are four lawsuits successfully brought by gun rights advocates challenging California’s firearm regulations.

Newsom, Bonta and Democratic lawmakers have pushed an extensive slate of gun control measures over the years, many unique to California. But a growing number of these laws have been struck down in court, as challengers increasingly rely on recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings affirming the Second Amendment as an individual civil right.

Two of the cases Bonta’s office lost involved concealed carry permits, while the other two challenged the state’s restrictions on marketing firearms-related products to minors — restrictions that courts found violated free speech protections.

Californians shouldn’t have to wait for a quietly passed claims bill to learn which legal battles the attorney general’s office has lost. Bonta certainly isn’t going to trumpet his own defeats. Instead, the state should follow the lead of the City of Los Angeles, which maintains a public website tracking lawsuits the city has lost and the resulting payouts.

That website currently lists more than 12,000 cases and over $1.1 billion in settlements since fiscal year 2020 — a level of transparency that stands in sharp contrast to the carefully curated image Bonta’s office presents to the public.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Bonta Touts Wins, Downplays Courtroom Setbacks, Records Show appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Since July 1, California has barred the sale of Glocks and similar imitation pistols that can be modified with an aftermarket device to fire fully automatically — a conversion that is already illegal under both state and federal law, with limited exceptions. The U.S. Department of Justice argues the new restriction effectively outlaws “the most popular handgun in America” and amounts to a clear violation of the Second Amendment. A federal judge, however, ruled Thursday that California can continue enforcing the law while the case moves forward.

The lawsuit is the latest example of the state having to defend gun safety measures it enacted in the years following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

Several other legal battles are unfolding simultaneously. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is still weighing a case that could unravel a 2016 voter-approved law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases. Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down state bans — including California’s — on carrying concealed firearms into private businesses and other locations, with Justice Samuel Alito writing that a comparable Hawaii statute unduly restricted people’s ability to carry weapons for self-defense in daily life. And the high court has agreed to take up an Illinois case that could ultimately dismantle California’s ban on AR-15-style assault weapons.

State officials contend the new handgun measure is not a blanket ban on Glocks, but rather a requirement that manufacturers redesign their firearms so they cannot be so easily converted into machine guns.

Gun safety advocates have pushed back against the federal lawsuit. Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and vice president at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the law responds directly to a troubling rise in illegal conversion devices and homemade machine guns — including the type of weapon used in a 2022 mass shooting in downtown Sacramento — and is designed to keep such devices off the streets.

Federal data lends weight to that argument. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the number of semi-automatic pistols recovered from crime scenes that had been illegally converted into machine guns jumped 784% nationwide between 2019 and 2023.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Can California Safeguard Its Gun Control Laws From Federal Challenges? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The high court’s conservative majority found that the Trump administration overstepped when it changed course from predecessors and banned bump stocks, which allow a rate of fire comparable to machine guns. The decision came after a gunman in Las Vegas attacked a country music festival with semiautomatic rifles equipped with the accessories.

The gunman fired more than 1,000 rounds into the crowd in 11 minutes, sending thousands of people fleeing in terror as hundreds were wounded and dozens killed.

The ruling thrust guns back into the center of the political conversation with an unusual twist as Democrats decried the reversal of a GOP administration’s action and many Republicans backed the ruling.

The 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas found the Justice Department was wrong to declare that bump stocks transformed semiautomatic rifles into illegal machine guns because, he wrote, each trigger depression in rapid succession still only releases one shot.

The ruling reinforced the limits of executive reach and two justices — conservative Samuel Alito and liberal Sonia Sotomayor — separately highlighted how action in Congress could potentially provide a more lasting policy, if there was political will to act in a bipartisan fashion.

Originally, imposing a ban through regulation rather than legislation during Donald Trump’s presidency took pressure off Republicans to act following the massacre and another mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida. Prospects for passing gun restrictions in the current divided Congress are dim.

President Joe Biden, who supports gun restrictions, called on Congress to reinstate the ban imposed under his political foe. Trump’s campaign team meanwhile, expressed respect for the ruling before quickly pivoting to his endorsement by the National Rifle Association.

As Trump courts gun owners while running to retake the presidency, he has appeared to play down his own administration’s actions on bump stocks, telling NRA members in February that “nothing happened” on guns during his presidency despite “great pressure.” He told the group that if he is elected again, “No one will lay a finger on your firearms.”

The 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas was carried out by a high-stakes gambler who killed himself, leaving his exact motive a mystery. A total of 60 people were killed in the shooting, including Christiana Duarte, whose family called Friday’s ruling tragic.

“The ruling is really just another way of inviting people to have another mass shooting,” said Danette Meyers, a family friend and spokesperson. “It’s unfortunate that they have to relive this again. They’re really unhappy.”

The opinion comes after the same Supreme Court conservative supermajority handed down a landmark decision expanding gun rights in 2022. The high court is also expected to rule in another gun case in the coming weeks, challenging a federal law intended to keep guns away from people under domestic violence restraining orders.

The arguments in the bump stock case, though, were less about Second Amendment rights and more about whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a Justice Department agency, had overstepped its authority.

Bump stocks are accessories that replace a rifle’s stock, the part that rests against the shoulder. Invented in the 2000s, they harness the gun’s recoil energy so that the trigger bumps against the shooter’s stationary finger, allowing the gun to fire at a similar speed as an automatic weapon.

The Supreme Court majority found that the 1934 law against machine guns defined them as weapons that could automatically fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. Bump stocks don’t fit that definition because “the trigger must still be released and reengaged to fire each additional shot,” Thomas wrote. He also pointed to over a decade of ATF’s findings that claimed bump stocks weren’t automatic weapons.

The plaintiff, Texas gun shop owner and military veteran Michael Cargill, applauded the ruling in a video posted online, predicting the case would have ripple effects by hampering other ATF gun restrictions. “I’m glad I stood up and fought,” he said.

In a dissent joined by her liberal colleagues, Justice Sotomayor said that bump stocks fit under the ordinary meaning of the law: “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,” she wrote. The ruling, she said, could hamstring the ATF and have “deadly consequences.”

ATF Director Steve Dettelbach echoed the sentiment, saying that bump stocks “pose an unacceptable level of risk to public safety.”

The high court took up the case after a split among lower courts. Under Republican President George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama, the ATF decided that bump stocks didn’t transform semiautomatic weapons into machine guns. The agency reversed those decisions at Trump’s urging. That was after the Las Vegas massacre and the Parkland, Florida shooting that left 17 dead.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have their own bans on bump stocks that aren’t expected to be affected by the ruling, though four state bans may no longer cover bump stocks in the wake of the ruling, according to the gun-control group Everytown.

Cargill was represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a group funded by conservative donors like the Koch network. His attorneys acknowledged that bump stocks allow for rapid fire but argued that they are different because the shooter has to put in more effort to keep the gun firing.

The Biden administration had argued that effort was minimal, and said the ATF came to the right conclusion on bump stocks after doing a more in-depth examination spurred by the Las Vegas shooting.

There were about 520,000 bump stocks in circulation when the ban went into effect in 2019, requiring people to either surrender or destroy them at a combined estimated loss of $100 million, the plaintiffs said in court documents.

The post Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on rapid-fire rifle bump stocks, reopening political fight appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Saturday signed the most sweeping gun violence bill in decades, a bipartisan compromise that seemed unimaginable until a recent series of mass shootings, including the massacre of 19 students and two teachers at a Texas elementary school.

“Time is of the essence. Lives will be saved,” he said in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. Citing the families of shooting victims he has met, the president said, “Their message to us was, ‘Do something.’ How many times did we hear that? ‘Just do something. For God’s sake, just do something.’ Today we did.”

The House gave final approval Friday, following Senate passage Thursday, and Biden acted just before leaving Washington for two summits in Europe.

“Today we say, ‘More than enough,’” Biden said. “It’s time, when it seems impossible to get anything done in Washington, we are doing something consequential.”

The legislation will toughen background checks for the youngest gun buyers, keep firearms from more domestic violence offenders and help states put in place red flag laws that make it easier for authorities to take weapons from people adjudged to be dangerous.

The president called it “a historic achievement.”

Most of its $13 billion cost will help bolster mental health programs and aid schools, which have been targeted in Newtown, Connecticut, and Parkland, Florida, and elsewhere in mass shootings.

Biden said the compromise hammered out by a bipartisan group of senators from both parties “doesn’t do everything I want” but “it does include actions I’ve long called for that are going to save lives.”

“I know there’s much more work to do, and I’m never going to give up, but this is a monumental day,” said the president, who was joined by his wife, Jill, a teacher, for the signing.

After sitting to sign the bill, Biden sat reflectively for a moment, then murmured, “God willing, this is gonna save a lot of lives.”

He also said they will host an event on July 11 for lawmakers and families affected by gun violence. The president spoke of families “who lost their souls to an epidemic of gun violence. They lost their child, their husband, their wife. Nothing is going to fill that void in their hearts. But they led the way so other families will not have the experience and the pain and trauma that they had to live through.”

Biden signed the measure two days after the Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday striking down a New York law that restricted peoples’ ability to carry concealed weapons. And Saturday’s ceremony came less than 24 hours after the high court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision, which had legalized abortion nationwide for nearly five decades.

“Yesterday, I spoke about the Supreme Court’s shocking decision striking down Roe v. Wade,” Biden said. “Jill and I know how painful and devastating the decision is for so many Americans. I mean so many Americans.”

He noted that the abortion ruling leaves enforcement up to the states, some of which have already moved to ban abortion or will soon do so. Biden said his administration will “focus on how they administer it and whether or not they violate other laws, like deciding to not allow people to cross state lines to get health services.”

Asked by reporters about whether the Supreme Court was broken, Biden said, “I think the Supreme Court has made some terrible decisions.” He walked away without answering more questions, noting, ” “I have a helicopter waiting for me to take off.”

While the new gun law does not include tougher restrictions long championed by Democrats, such as a ban on assault-style weapons and background checks for all firearm transactions, it is the most impactful gun violence measure produced by Congress since enactment a long-expired assault weapons ban in 1993.

Enough congressional Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the steps after recent rampages in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas. It took weeks of closed-door talks but senators emerged with a compromise.

Biden signed the bill just before departing Washington for a summit of the Group of Seven leading economic powers — the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan — in Germany. He will travel later to Spain for a NATO meeting.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Biden signs landmark gun measure, says ‘lives will be saved’ appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The outline of a bipartisan Senate agreement to rein in gun violence has no game-changing steps banning the deadliest firearms. It does propose measured provisions making it harder for some young gun buyers, or people considered threatening, to have weapons.

And there are meaningful efforts to address mental health and school safety concerns. It all reflects election-year pressure to act both parties feel after mass shootings in May killed 10 people in Buffalo, New York, and 21 more in Uvalde, Texas.

Details of the plan remain in negotiation between Democrats and Republicans, with disagreements over how tightly the initiatives should be drawn. That means the proposal’s potency — and perhaps whether some parts survive — remain undetermined as it’s translated into legislation.

Here’s what’s in and out of the agreement:

A STRENGTHENING, NARROWLY, OF BACKGROUND CHECKS

When people age 18 to 20 try buying firearms, the required federal background check would for the first time include their juvenile crime and mental health records. To allow time for getting data from state and local authorities, the process’ current three-day maximum would be extended up to seven more days, according to aides following the talks. Once the 10 days lapse, the buyer could get the weapon, even if the record search is incomplete.

Currently, dealers considered in the “business” of selling guns are required to get federal firearms licenses. Such sellers must conduct background checks. Bargainers want to cover more people who, while not running a formal business, occasionally sell weapons.

OTHER MEASURED CURBS

The framework calls for grants to help states enforce or enact “red flag” laws that let authorities get court orders temporarily taking guns from people deemed dangerous. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have such statutes, but some lack funds to enforce them robustly.

Penalties would be toughened for so-called straw purchasers, those buying guns for others who don’t qualify. More current or former romantic partners convicted of domestic abuse, or targeted with restraining orders by their victims, would be barred from getting guns. The ban applies today if the couple was married, lived together or had children together.

Inclusion of the tougher restrictions against straw purchasers and estranged partners were surprises because they’d been blocked by Republicans before.

ADDRESSING BROADER PROBLEMS

Democrats say there will be billions of dollars to expand mental health initiatives. This would pay for more community behavioral health centers, strengthened suicide prevention and violence intervention efforts and increased access to mental telehealth visits.

There would be new sums for school safety. These could include better security at building entrances, training for staff and violence prevention programs. The dollar amount is unclear.

HURDLES AHEAD

Democrats responsive to constituents who strongly favor gun curbs want the new law to be as stringent as possible. Republicans want nothing that would turn their adamantly pro-gun voters against them.

This means tough bargaining on the fine print of the legislation.

How narrowly will a new definition of which sellers need federal firearms licenses be written? Are there limits on which juvenile records would be accessible during background checks for younger buyers?

What conditions would states have to meet to qualify for “red flag” funds? What legal protections would people have if the authorities consider them too risky to have firearms?

How much money will the package cost? No one has said, though people familiar with the discussions say a ballpark $15 billion is possible. And how will it be paid for?

A leader of the effort, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told reporters Monday that bargainers plan to pay for the costs with offsetting spending cuts or new revenues. The latter could be a no-go for Republicans.

Leaders hope the package can be written and approved before Congress begins its July 4 recess.

WHAT’S OUT?

President Joe Biden has proposed reviving the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired after a decade, or raising the minimum age for buying one from 18 to 21. He wants to ban high-capacity magazines.

He’d repeal the legal immunity from liability protecting gun makers. He wants safe storage requirements for guns and a federal “red-flag” law to cover states without one.

None of those made it into the bill; nor did universal background checks. Biden backs the agreement anyway in the name of a compromise that would produce an achievement.

PROSPECTS AHEAD?

Ten senators from each party joined in announcing the gun outline and saying they backed it. Those numbers are not a coincidence.

They signal potentially enough support for passage by the 50-50 Senate, where Democrats will need at least 10 GOP backers to reach the usual 60-vote threshold. Besides Murphy, the other lead negotiators were Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C.

Approval in the Democratic-run House is expected, though complications could always emerge.

MORE RESTRICTIONS?

Another bargainer, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said he hopes Republicans will see that “the gun lobby is weaker than they think.” But there are signs that approving future restrictions will be challenging.

For one thing, this spurt of action on guns is Congress’ most significant since the now-expired assault weapons ban was enacted three decades ago. That spotlights how hardened positions can be lasting.

Another clue is the makeup of the agreement’s 20 announced supporters. Blumenthal and Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., are the only two running for reelection this year.

Four others, all Republicans, are retiring in January: Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

The rest don’t face reelection until 2024 or 2026.

They are Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Mitt Romney of Utah.

The Democrats are Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Chris Coons of Delaware, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, allied with Democrats, also backed the proposal.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Tentative Senate gun deal has surprises, and loose ends appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WHY ARE AMERICA’S YOUNG MEN SO ANGRY?

I am not surprised at all the massacres at the hands of young men with firearms. They are not limited in race, color or ethnicity. However, the leading force is white young men. There are exceptions, of course. White young men are angry as hell and they are responding in a way to get attention. Believe me; they are getting the attention they attempt to draw.

So you ask, why are they so angry.

You may differ with me, and that’s okay. We come to answers by differing. The problem didn’t just pop out of the sky without reason. I have a firm belief that it is too easy to say they are mentally ill. I ask the question: Was God mentally ill when he drowned most of the world and allowed only a few in Noah’s Ark to survive? No. If you believe the Bible, he was angry, not crazy. You can call that apples and oranges if you please, but the result is the same.

Now, as to the angry young white men. They were once considered the cream of the crop, the future of the country and American civilization. What happened?

Prior to World War II, most women were home-makers who handled the family morals and taught their children to respect others and led them along the moral highway to adulthood and good citizenship. The attack on Pearl Harbor changed all of that. America went to war and those young men, the cream of the crop, were quickly grabbed up along with their fathers. During the next four years, there was a shortage of manpower on the home front, so women moved into the workforce as they never had.

With daddy at war and mom muscling into the factories, young men for the first time were left pretty much to raise themselves. Life Magazine railed at those young men hanging out on street corners, smoking reefer and getting into trouble.”

But don’t go away. There’s more and I don’t take a position on this; it is merely a fact. When the war was over, along came the G.I. Bill and many of the veterans chose college to seek an education and better-paying jobs. Women in the workforce grew and the fifties changed the family situation more than any other decade in memory.

Many fathers were getting an education; mommy was working, junior was on his own in so many cases, being educated with rock and roll, pot and pills and generally once again on his own. No sooner said and done,” causes” arose in America. First came Brown vs. the Board of Education (which was long overdue) and the educational system was thrown into shock. I remember that as a schoolboy, I went to the school down at the corner and my friends next door had to go several miles to school. I never understood that. However, that is a side story to why so many young men are so angry.

Women’s rights, gay rights, black rights and a variety of other “rights” became the language of the nation.

Everybody had a “right” except young men, predominately white young men. It has festered for several decades. More and more women and girls have moved into an area that traditionally has belonged to boys. The Boy Scouts became the “Boy Girl Scouts.” Discrimination became an everyday throwaway word. Young men continued to be squeezed out.

Guns were being tossed at young men like popcorn at a ball game. Single-shot became multiple shots. Ordinary guns became military guns. The streets were flooded with them. Rock and roll became angrier with each generation. X-boxes filled with violence became the new game replacing Monopoly and learning games. Television became more violent; discipline was abandoned in the home and school. Tools to inspire anger permeated the lives of these young men.

Does it surprise anyone that one day there would be a volcanic eruption? These young men want to be noticed and they’re going about it the wrong way, but to them, it seems like the only way to be seen is to do something that will get them the most attention.

It ain’t right. I hear the worn-out adage, “Guns don’t kill people.” Guns in the hands of someone who shouldn’t have them kill people and will continue to kill people until America starts paying more attention to our disenfranchised young men.

As long as the NRA finances White supremacists who are more interested in getting re-elected than protecting the people they represent, nothing is going to change. Just a few days ago, there were three mass shootings across the country. Tomorrow there will probably be more.

I’m not talking off the top of my head. On my next birthday, I’ll be 99 and I’ve watched this happen over the years.

To put an end to this savagery, I would suggest the following:

1. Parents, pay more attention to your young men. They need you now more than ever.

2. Congress, get off your duffs and pass legislation to take military weapons off the streets.

3. Enact red flag warning laws.

4. Require training and a waiting period before selling guns to anyone. If you want a gun right now, and are not willing to wait, that should be a red flag. You wouldn’t give anyone a torch unless they knew how to use it. You can’t get a driver’s license without a written and driving test.

5. Don’t sell guns to anyone under 21.

Until the voters become angry enough to force Congress to take guns out of the hands of inexperienced young people, don’t expect anything different. I don’t pray, but I’m tempted. Just sayin’

rustystrait@gmail.com

• DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various author’s articles on this Opinion piece or elsewhere online or in the newspaper where we have articles with the header “COLUMN/EDITORIAL & OPINION” do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints or official policies of the Publisher, Editor, Reporters or anybody else in the Staff of the Hemet and San Jacinto Chronicle Newspaper.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post AMERICA’S ANGRY YOUNG MEN appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Curbing abortion rights and expanding the right to be armed in public are long-sought goals of the conservative legal movement that the Supreme Court seems poised to deliver within the next month.

The justices also could ease the use of public funds for religious schooling and constrain Biden administration efforts to fight climate change.

These disputes are among 30 cases the court still has to resolve before it takes an extended summer break, typically around the end of June. That’s a large, though not unprecedented, haul for the court at this point in its term.

June typically is a tense time at the court, where justices are racing to put the final touches on the most controversial cases. But this year, the tension seems to be even greater, with a potentially historic abortion ruling and in the aftermath of a leaked draft opinion that seems to have led to discord inside the court and heightened security concerns.

At least one of the 30 remaining cases will be decided on Wednesday, the court indicated on its website.

___

SLOWER THAN USUAL

The pace of the court’s work has been slower than usual, and it’s unclear how much that has to do with a leaked draft opinion suggesting a conservative majority will overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights and for the first time strip away an individual constitutional right.

The leak occurred in early May and Justice Clarence Thomas has suggested the breach of the court’s confidential opinion-drafting process has done serious damage to the court. “You begin to look over your shoulder,” Thomas said last month at a conference in Dallas.

___

ABORTION AND GUNS

With three appointees of former President Donald Trump, the court now has a 6-3 conservative majority, and abortion opponents might consider anything less than the overruling of Roe and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that affirmed the right to end a pregnancy a bitter defeat.

But even short of explicitly jettisoning the abortion cases, the court is on the verge of dramatically weakening abortion rights. At issue in the case is a Mississippi law that bans abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy, far earlier than the court has previously indicated states can prohibit abortions.

Even before the leak of the draft opinion, the court seemed poised based on arguments in December to uphold the Mississippi law at the very least.

Arguments in November in a case over New York’s gun permit requirements also strongly suggested the court would make it easier to carry a gun in public, a decision that could affect many of the nation’s largest cities.

It’s not clear whether a series of mass shootings in recent weeks has had any effect on the court’s deliberations, or when to release the decision in the New York case.

___

RELIGION, ENVIRONMENT

Among the other significant cases awaiting decisions is a challenge from Republican-led states and coal companies that could hamstring the administration’s efforts to reduce climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. President Joe Biden has set an ambitious goal of slashing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, and power plants account for roughly 30% of carbon dioxide output.

The justices also could rule any day in a lawsuit over a Maine program that offers tuition aid for private education, but excludes religious schools. The decision could ease religious organizations’ access to taxpayer money and fuel a renewed push for school choice programs in some of the 18 states that have so far have not directed taxpayer money to private, religious education.

___

LEAK INVESTIGATION

The court has been mum on the internal investigation Chief Justice John Roberts ordered the day after the leak and assigned to Gail Curley, the marshal of the court.

But CNN has reported that Curley is seeking affidavits and cellphone records from the justices’ law clerks. Competing theories on the left and right have suggested the leaker probably comes from among the 37 clerks, four for each justice plus one for the retired Anthony Kennedy.

The court could examine government-owned cellphones and email accounts, said lawyer Mark Zaid, who frequently represents government whistleblowers. But it couldn’t compel clerks to turn over personal devices or provide access to their own phones without a warrant, Zaid said.

But other lawyers have said the clerks, many who will become leaders in the legal profession, should willingly talk to the court’s investigators.

Zaid and others said clerks should talk to an attorney before agreeing to anything.

___

NO AUDIENCE, NO PERFORMANCE

Before COVID-19 changed things, the court would announce its opinions in public sessions in the courtroom that sometimes produced moments of high drama. In especially closely watched cases, justices on both sides would read summaries of their dueling opinions.

But the courthouse remains closed to the public and, since shortly after the draft abortion opinion appeared, the court has been ringed by an eight-foot barrier and the streets closest to the building also have been closed to vehicles.

Barring a change, the opinions in the abortion and guns cases will be posted online, giving the public quick access, but affording no chance to hear justices state their views.

___

DEADLINES

The justices like to get their work done by the end of June, though they issued their final opinions in early July the past two years. Summer teaching obligations often drive the need to get out of town. This year, it appears that only one justice has a teaching-related deadline. A George Mason University law school program in Padua, Italy, is advertising that Justice Neil Gorsuch will take part.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post 30 cases in a month: Abortion, guns top justices’ to-do list appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New Yorkers under age 21 will be prohibited from buying semiautomatic rifles under a new law signed Monday by Gov. Kathy Hochul, making the state among the first to enact a major gun control initiative following a wave of deadly mass shootings.

Hochul, a Democrat, signed 10 public safety-related bills, including one that will require microstamping in new firearms, which could help law enforcement solve gun-related crimes.

Another revised the state’s “red flag” law, which allows courts to temporarily take away guns from people who might be a threat to themselves or others.

“In New York, we are taking bold, strong action. We’re tightening red flag laws to keep guns away from dangerous people,” Hochul said at a press conference in the Bronx.

New York’s Legislature passed the bills last week, pushing the changes through after a pair of mass shootings involving 18-year-old gunmen using semiautomatic rifles. Ten Black people died in a racist attack on a Buffalo supermarket May 14. A Texas school shooting took the lives of 19 children and two teachers 10 days later.

The quick action in New York further illustrated the sharp divide between Republican and Democratic leaders on how to respond to gun violence.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said after the massacre of children in Uvalde that government should increase security in schools and resources for mental health, but the Republican says stricter gun laws are ineffective. Fellow Republican Gov. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee echoed similar sentiments Monday, a day after gunfire near a Chattanooga nightclub left three people dead and multiple people wounded.

In New York, most people under age 21 had already been banned from owning handguns. People age 18 and over will still be allowed to own other types of long guns, including shotguns and bolt-action rifles.

Part of New York’s new law will also require all purchasers of semiautomatic rifles to get a license, something now required only for handguns.

Proposed federal legislation that would require buyers of semiautomatic weapons to be 21 is advancing in the U.S. House, but is seen as facing long odds in the Senate.

A handful of states require people to be 21 to purchase any firearms, including Florida, which raised the age for legally purchasing a rifle after a 19-year-old gunman killed 17 people at a high school.

Hochul also signed a bill Monday that will restrict sales of bullet-resistant vests and armor only to people in certain professions.

The governor said New York will continue to invest in prevention of gun-related crimes by partnering with local communities and continuing to strengthen laws by putting pressure on Congress.

“Today is the start, and it’s not the end,” said Hochul. “Thoughts and prayers won’t fix this, but taking strong action will. We will do that in the name of the lives that have been lost, for the parents who will no longer see their children stepping off the school bus.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post NY governor signs law raising age to own semiautomatic rifle appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

CBS13 | Contributed

California Gov. Gavin Newsom immediately criticized Republicans after a shooting at an elementary school in Texas killed at least 19 students and two adults on Tuesday.

“Another shooting. And the GOP won’t do a damn thing about it,” Newsom tweeted. “Who the hell are we if we cannot keep our kids safe.”

Newsom’s comments came quickly after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott confirmed the initial death toll of 14 students and one teacher in Tuesday’s incident. Late Tuesday evening, Texas authorities upped the death toll to 21, according to reports, though, it was not clear if that number included the alleged gunman.

Citing California’s efforts to implement “commonsense gun safety laws,” Newsom highlighted statistics that showed the state cutting its gun death rate in half since the 1980s.

“This is preventable. Our inaction is a choice,” Newsom tweeted.

“I am heartbroken for the families that will never see their children again. What should have been a normal school day has been darkened by another horrific act of violence. We cannot accept this as normal even in the constancy of these preventable tragedies. Newtown. Parkland. And now, Uvalde. My prayers and love go out to the victim’s families. America must reckon with the sickness of gun violence. The status quo will only result in more death.” – Darrell Steinberg, Mayor of Sacramento City.

Newsom and California’s progressive policies are frequent targets of right-wing politicians.

Other California politicians also reacted to the Texas shooting with immediate critiques on the lack of progress on gun control.

“Another day, another mass shooting, and more silence from the gun lobby and Republicans who refuse to allow any gun safety reforms to occur,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said in a statement.

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg issued a statement saying, “America must reckon with the sickness of gun violence.”

The suspect in the Texas school shooting, an 18-year-old male, was believed killed by responding law enforcement officers, Abbott said.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Newsom: ‘Who The Hell Are We If We Cannot Keep Our Kids Safe’ appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Less than a year before he was accused of opening fire and killing 10 people in a racist attack at a Buffalo, New York, grocery store, 18-year-old Payton Gendron was investigated for making a threatening statement at his high school.

New York has a “red flag” law designed to keep firearms away from people who could harm themselves or others, but Gendron was still able to legally buy an AR-15-style rifle.

The “general” threat at Susquehanna Valley High School last June, when he was 17, resulted in state police being called and a mental health evaluation at a hospital. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul told Buffalo radio station WKSE-FM that Gendron had talked about murder and suicide when a teacher asked about his plans after school ended, and it was quickly reported but the threat wasn’t considered specific enough to do more. No request was made to remove any firearms from the suspect, New York state police said Monday. Gendron has pleaded not guilty and his attorney has declined to comment.

The revelations are raising new questions about why the law wasn’t invoked and how the effectiveness of “red flag laws” passed in 19 states and the District of Columbia can differ based on how they’re implemented.

WHAT ARE RED FLAG LAWS?

Typically, red-flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders, are intended to temporarily remove guns from people with potentially violent behavior, usually up to a year. In many cases, family members or law enforcement must petition the court for an order, though New York is a rare state in which educators can also start the process.

Removing weapons for that long, however, requires a hearing in which prosecutors must convince a judge that the person poses a risk. Most states also block the person from buying more guns during that period.

Red-flag laws are often adopted after tragedies. Florida did so after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland that killed 17 students. Law enforcement officials had received numerous complaints about the 19-year-old gunman’s threatening statements.

“This is actually one of the very few policies we have available where it actually builds on this vanishingly small point of common ground between public health people who want to stop gun violence and gun owners and the gun industry,” said Jeffrey Swanson, a professor in psychiatry at Duke University who researches gun violence.

But, Swanson added: “The issue is it’s so easy for people to get guns anyway. … It’s not a one-thing problem, and there’s not one solution to it either.”

WHAT DOES NEW YORK’S FLAG LAW SAY?

The 2019 law allows family members, prosecutors, police and school officials to ask courts to order the seizure of guns from someone who poses a danger to themselves or others. The subject of the court action is also prohibited from buying guns while the order is in effect.

An explanation of the law on a state government website says the law made New York the first state to give teachers and school administrators the ability “to prevent school shootings by pursuing court intervention.”

The online description, crafted before the Buffalo shooting, expresses optimism about the law’s impact, saying it would both safeguard gun rights “while ensuring that tragedies, like the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, are not repeated.”

The question is why one wasn’t used in Gendron’s case.

WHAT’S THE PROCESS OF REQUESTING AN ORDER?

Someone seeking an order files a simple, two-page application with the primary county court. It’s considered a civil case, with no criminal charge or penalties involved.

A judge decides whether to issue a temporary order on the same day the application is filed, according to a New York courts website. If it is issued, police take the guns.

A hearing, involving witnesses and evidence, is set within 10 days. If the judge decides to issue a permanent order, it would remain in effect for a year. The petitioner can ask for an extension.

HAS THERE BEEN PUSHBACK TO THE LEGISLATION?

Some opponents of the red-flag legislation in New York feared it could lead to false accusations by family members or others with a grudge against a gun owner.

Legislators in New York and elsewhere were aware of the potential legal pitfalls and drafted laws in such a way to avoid constitutional challenges, said Eric Ruben, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice who also teaches law at SMU Dedman School of Law in Dallas.

Among the safeguards in New York, he said, is a relatively high standard of proof — clear and convincing evidence — required to secure a final, yearlong order, he said. The law also includes penalties for false applications.

DO RED-FLAG LAWS SAVE LIVES?

The law, Ruben said, “poses significant obstacles” for someone under a red-flag order wanting to buy firearms because they are entered in the background check system as long as the order is in effect. “It wouldn’t stop someone from illegal purchases, however.”

Experts in red-flag laws contend that the laws have undoubtedly saved lives, be it in cases involving planned mass shootings, suicides or potentially deadly domestic violence cases.

“Certainly, red-flag laws are more than anything else aimed at trying to stop mass shootings,” said Dave Kopel, research director at the Colorado-based libertarian think tank Independence Institute, which supports gun rights. “But they can be and should be used for more than just that. A handful of killings or suicides is horrific enough.”

Swanson worked on a study that estimated Connecticut prevented one suicide for every 10 to 20 people subjected to gun seizures. A 2019 California study found it was used in mass-shooting threats 21 times. Maryland authorities granted more than 300 petitions in the three months after its law went into effect, including at least four threats of school violence.

That research shows the laws have worked, said Allison Anderman, senior counsel for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, though absolute proof can be tough.

“It’s very hard to prove a law is effective based on things not happening,” she said. “We still have a problem where we have more guns than people in this country, and this patchwork system of laws and our overall weak laws.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Buffalo shooter’s previous threat raises red-flag questions appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.