#Kansas Constitutional Amendment

[captainofthetidesbreath]

also, if you live in the United States and are eligible to vote, I sincerely am begging that you take the time to vote tomorrow if you have not already. take the time to set aside a block to research the candidates on your ballot and cast a vote tomorrow. it is critical that Republicans do not gain seats in either the House or the Senate—or in your local districts!

please, at minimum it is a matter of harm reduction, and voting to block conservatives from gaining more seats with which to influence the direction of national, state, and local policy is sincerely important and critical to moving forward. even if it doesn't work as instantly as people want it to, voting does indeed work.

[batboyblog]

Things the Biden-Harris Administration Did This Week #29

July 26-August 2 2024

President Biden announced his plan to reform the Supreme Court and make sure no President is above the law. The conservative majority on the court ruled that Trump has "absolute immunity" from any prosecution for "official acts" while he was President. In response President Biden is calling for a constitutional amendment to make it clear that Presidents aren't above the law and don't have immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office. In response to a wide ranging corruption scandal involving Justice Clarence Thomas, President Biden called on Congress to pass a legally binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court. The code would force Justices to disclose gifts, refrain from public political actions, and force them to recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have conflicts of interest. President Biden also endorsed the idea of term limits for the Justices.

The Biden Administration sent out an email to everyone who has a federal student loan informing them of upcoming debt relief. The debt relief plan will bring the total number of a borrowers who've gotten relief from the Biden-Harris Administration to 30 million. The plan is due to be finalized this fall, and the Department of Education wanted to alert people early to allow them to be ready to quickly take advantage of it when it was in place and get relief as soon as possible.

President Biden announced that the federal government would step in and protect the pension of 600,000 Teamsters. Under the American Rescue Plan, passed by President Biden and the Democrats with no Republican votes, the government was empowered to bail out Union retirement funds which in recent years have faced devastating cut of up to 75% in some cases, leaving retired union workers in desperate situations. The Teamster union is just the latest in a number of such pension protections the President has done in office.

President Biden and Vice-President Harris oversaw the dramatic release of American hostages from Russia. Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, former Marine Paul Whelan held since 2018, Russian-American reporter for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Alsu Kurmasheva convicted of criticizing the Russian Military, were all released from captivity and returned to the US at around midnight August 2nd. They were greeted on the tarmac by the President and Vice-President and their waiting families. The deal also secured the release of German medical worker Rico Krieger sentenced to death in Belarus, Russian-British opposition figure Vladimir Kara-Murza, and 11 Russians convicted of opposing the war against Ukraine or being involved in Alexei Navalny's anti-corruption organization. Early drafts of the hostage deal were meant to include Navalny before his death in Russian custody early this year.

A new Biden Administration rule banning discrimination against LGBT students takes effect, but faces major Republican resistance. The new rule declares that Title IX protects Queer students from discrimination in public schools and any college that takes federal funds. The new rule also expands protections for victims of sexual misconduct and pregnant or parenting students. However Republican resistance means the rule can't take effect nation wide. Lawsuits from Republican controlled states, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, means the new protections won't come into effect those states till the case is ruled on likely in a Supreme Court ruling. The Biden administration crafted these Title IX rules to reflect the Supreme Court's 2020 Bostock case.

The Biden administration awarded $2 billion to black and minority farmers who were the victims of historic discrimination. Historically black farmers have been denied important loans from the USDA, or given smaller amounts than white farmers. This massive investment will grant 23,000 minority farmers between $10,000 and $500,000 each and a further 20,000 people who wanted to start farms by were improperly denied the loans they needed between $3,500-$6,000 to get started. Most payments went to farmers in Mississippi and Alabama.

The Biden Administration took an important step to stop the criminalization of poverty by changing child safety guidelines so that poverty alone isn't grounds for taking a child into foster care. Studies show that children able to stay with parents or other family have much better outcomes then those separated. Many states have already removed poverty from their guidelines when it comes to removing children from the home, and the HHS guidelines push the remaining states to do the same.

Vice-President Harris announced the Biden Administration's agreement to a plan by North Carolina to forgive the state's medical debt. The plan by Democratic Governor Roy Cooper would forgive the medical debt of 2 million people in the state. North Carolina has the 3rd highest rate of medical debt in the nation. Vice-President Harris applauded the plan, pointing out that the Biden Administration has forgiven $650 million dollars worth of medical debt so far with plans to forgive up to $7 billion by 2026. The Vice-President unveiled plans to exclude medical debt from credit scores and issued a call for states and local governments to forgive debt, like North Carolina is, last month.

The Department of Transportation put forward a new rule to bank junk fees for family air travel. The new rule forces airlines to seat parents next to their children, with no extra cost. Currently parents are forced to pay extra to assure they are seated next to their children, no matter what age, if they don't they run the risk of being separated on a long flight. Airlines would be required to seat children age 13 and under with their parent or accompanying adult at no extra charge.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development announced it is giving $3.5 billion to combat homelessness. This represents the single largest one year investment in fighting homelessness in HUD's history. The money will be distributed by grants to local organizations and programs. HUD has a special focus on survivors of domestic violence, youth homeless, and people experiencing the unique challenges of homelessness in rural areas.

The Treasury Department announced that Pennsylvania and New Mexico would be joining the IRS' direct file program for 2025. The program was tested as a pilot in a number of states in 2024, saving 140,000 tax payers $5.6 million in filing charges and getting tax returns of $90 million. The program, paid for by President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, will be available to all 50 states, but Republicans strong object. Pennsylvania and New Mexico join Oregon and New Jersey in being new states to join.

Bonus: President Biden with the families of the released hostages calling their loved ones on the plane out of Russia

[headspace-hotel]

on November 8th the state of Kentucky will vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that will say that there is no right to abortion in the state

No exceptions for rape or incest are permitted under current state law, and the proposed amendment doesn't clarify even whether exceptions w/endangerment to the pregnant person's life are allowed 

This will be a much harder fight than Kansas had but at least gerrymandering can't help them now

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Anna Spoerre at Missouri Independent:

A campaign to enshrine abortion rights in Missouri’s constitution said Friday that it collected more than 380,000 signatures in just three months, more than twice the likely total needed to qualify for this year’s statewide ballot.  The coalition, called Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, is hoping to put on the November ballot a measure that would legalize abortion up to the point of fetal viability. Since June 2022, nearly every abortion has been illegal in the state with the exception of medical emergencies. 

In order to put a citizen-led constitutional amendment before voters, the campaign had to collect signatures from 8% of voters in six of Missouri’s eight congressional districts. That total equates to more than 171,000 signatures.  The campaign on Friday morning announced they officially turned in 380,159 signatures to the Missouri Secretary of State’s office. A breakdown of how many signatures came from each district, which will ultimately determine if they met the threshold needed to qualify, was not provided. But the coalition said they collected signatures from each of Missouri’s counties and congressional districts. “Hundreds of thousands of Missourians are now having conversations about abortion and reproductive freedom; some are sharing their own abortion stories for the very first time; and all are ready to do whatever it takes to win at the ballot box this year,” Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Abortion Action Missouri and spokesperson for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement. “Together, we are going to end Missouri’s abortion ban.”  

The effort kicked off 90 days ago, requiring a massive undertaking to reach the May 5 signature deadline. The coalition is led by Abortion Action Missouri, the ACLU of Missouri and Planned Parenthood affiliates in Kansas City and St. Louis. [...] Around the same time the abortion campaign was announced, a separate coalition organized to oppose them. That group, called Missouri Stands with Women, spent the past few months leading a “decline to sign” campaign, urging people not to sign the initiative petition. So far, they’ve been vastly out-fundraised by Missourians for Constitutional Freedom. “Out-of-state Big Abortion supporters think the fight is over,” Stephanie Bell, with Missouri Stands With Women, said in a statement Friday. “They could not be more wrong when it comes to standing up for life in Missouri.”

With more than 380,000 signatures across the state of Missouri submitted, despite harassment from anti-abortion extremists with their "decline to sign" intimidation campaign, the pro-abortion rights Missourians for Constitutional Freedom group is highly confident that their ballot measure will qualify for the November ballot.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Reading the headlines over the last couple of days, you would think the biggest political story about this election is Trump’s pathetic attempt to challenge Vice President Kamala Harris on the size of her rally crowds.  Look at this Truth Social post!  Trump says she used AI to create fake photos of her crowd at an airport in Detroit!  There was even a story in my newsfeed from a polling expert pointing out that you cannot calculate support for a candidate by crowd size.  If crowd size were what mattered, Bernie Sanders would be president by now, he reminded us.

Political narratives are strange beasts – at least they were until Trump came along and made them even stranger.  It used to be that fights over policies and personalities and the pasts of politicians drove elections.  When John Kerry ran in 2006, Republicans took his war record in the Navy in Vietnam and “Swift-boated” him by twisting his service into something it wasn’t.  They’re trying to do the same thing with Tim Walz right now, creating a fake story that he was somehow derelict in his duty when he retired from 24 years of service in the National Guard to run for congress not long before his unit in Minnesota was deployed to Iraq.

Then Trump showed up and proved that you can do it using lies alone.  That’s what his ridiculous story that Kamala Harris is using AI to fake her crowd size was.  Trump proved that if you tell enough lies again and again and again, something will stick, and then you can run with it. 

You will notice in the above paragraphs that the political narratives I gave as examples were all driven by men:  Men running for office; men’s careers being dissected and put on display; men using lies and misinformation to create stories about each other where there really aren’t any.  Even the political narrative about Hillary Clinton during her presidential run in 2016 was created by men:  Roger Stone interfacing with Guccifer II to get Hillary’s emails leaked to the press; Trump taking the fake “issue” about “her emails” and making it a central feature of his campaign.

But this week, a campaign narrative driven by women entered the picture in a big way.  On Monday, Arizona election officials announced that they had received enough signatures on petitions – in fact 50 percent more than was required – to put access to abortion on the ballot in November.  On Tuesday, Missouri officials certified enough petition signatures to allow a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine the right to abortion in the state’s constitution.

Both of these things are a big, big deal.  The drives to collect enough signatures to get the referendum measures on the Arizona and Missouri ballots were run by women.  Referendums on abortion have already been approved for a November vote in Florida, Nevada, Colorado, and South Dakota.  Petitions have been submitted in Nebraska and Montana for similar abortion ballot measures and await approval by election officials.  State constitutional amendments will be on the ballot in New York and Maryland that will guarantee access to abortion as well.  The New York Times reminded us in a story today that ballot measures guaranteeing a right to abortion have passed in all seven states where they have been put to a vote since Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022.  The red states of Kentucky and Kansas were among the states that passed abortion rights measures by referendum. 

Arizona and Nevada are crucial battleground states in the presidential election that will be decided in November.  Having the issue of abortion on the ballot alongside the decision to vote for either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, who brags about having appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe, is expected to help Democrats from Vice President Harris on down the ballot, including pivotal races that will determine control of the House and the Senate next year.

Abortion is not just a so-called “women’s issue.”  Until two years ago, the right to abortion was embedded in the language of the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection of the laws for all.  It was part of the central argument that established a right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, which involved the right of couples to use birth control.  The fight over abortion rights, often framed as the right of a woman to control her own body, also involves the right to privacy for all of us.  Right wing lawsuit-factories such as the Alliance Defending Freedom have already stated their intention to sue to overturn Griswold, as well as other Supreme Court decisions based on the 14th Amendment involving same sex marriage and the right to love whoever you want in any way you want in the privacy of your bedroom.

With Kamala Harris running for president, Democrats will have the opportunity to emphasize that so-called kitchen table issues such as inflation and taxes are also women’s issues because our candidate is a woman, and that is a good thing.  It is definitely a good thing that abortion will be on the ballot in at least two key swing states, and it's even better thing that the person driving the political narrative for the Democratic Party this year is a woman. 

[fated-mates]

Want to phonebank with other romance aficionados and some of your favorite authors? We're getting ready to do it again this fall. Sign up to be emailed when we're ready.

Since its launch, Fated States has delivered:

More than 450 volunteers to make nearly 425,000 calls to get out the vote during the general elections of 2020 and 2022,

More than 75 volunteers to make 125,000 calls into Georgia during the runoff elections in early 2021,

Nearly 50 volunteers to make 15,000 calls into Kansas in advance of the state’s constitutional amendment to restrict abortion access,

Volunteers to phonebank for California special elections, to Beto O’Rourke’s well-check calls into Texas during the ice storms of 2021, and more.

Phonebankers with Fated States have supported organizations working to elect Democrats in Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, New York City, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin and more.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

In two 5-1 opinions, the court built on a 2019 decision in which it said the state’s Constitution protects abortion rights and that lawmakers seeking to restrict abortion must meet a high “strict scrutiny” test. The decisions cement Kansas' role as a key abortion access point for patients across the broader region.

The Kansas Supreme Court struck down two laws restricting abortion on Friday, affirming its prior interpretation that ending a pregnancy remains a constitutionally protected right in Kansas.

In two 5-1 opinions, the court built on a 2019 decision in which it said the state’s Constitution protects abortion rights and lawmakers seeking to restrict abortion must meet a high “strict scrutiny” test. When Republican lawmakers asked voters, in 2022, to amend the constitution to stipulate that it does not protect abortion rights, Kansans overwhelmingly declined to do so.

“We stand by our conclusion that section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects a fundamental right to personal autonomy, which includes a pregnant person’s right to terminate a pregnancy,” wrote Justice Eric Rosen in one of the majority opinions.

A decision against abortion providers would have been monumental, not only for Kansans but for the thousands of women across the region who now travel to Kansas each year to get abortions that have been banned in their home states. A large majority of patients at Kansas abortion clinics now come from Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and farther afield.

The court’s majority upheld lower court rulings that two laws restricting abortion — passed several years ago by Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature — were unconstitutional. One law, passed in 2015, banned an abortion method frequently used in second-trimester abortions called ‘dilation and evacuation.’ The second law, passed in 2011, imposed licensure restrictions on doctors who provide abortions that exceeded those imposed on other medical providers.

Neither law had been in effect because of permanent injunctions by lower courts.

In his decision striking down the dilation and evacuation ban, Rosen wrote that the State of Kansas does have a compelling interest in “promoting respect for the value and dignity of human life, born or unborn” but said that the law is not narrowly tailored to that interest.

The clinic restrictions “do not survive strict scrutiny and are constitutionally infirm,” Justice Standridge concluded in the second majority opinion.

The decisions were both 5-1, with Justice Caleb Stegall — the only justice to dissent from the 2019 decision — dissenting and Justice Keynen Wall not participating in the decision.

Stegall wrote that he dissented from the Friday opinions for the same reasons he dissented in 2019.

“The majority’s imagined section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights bears no resemblance at all — in either law or history — to the actual text and original public meaning of section 1.”

Stegall also criticized the majority’s use of the term “pregnant person” instead of “women.”

“I cannot help but notice that pregnant women have been quietly — decisively — evicted from this court’s abortion jurisprudence,” he wrote.

The Center for Reproductive Rights represented the Kansas doctors who challenged the laws. Nancy Northup, the organization’s president and CEO, commended the court’s opinions.

“This is an immense victory for the health, safety, and dignity of people in Kansas and the entire Midwestern region, where millions have been cut off from abortion access,” Northup said in a news release. “We will continue our fight to ensure Kansans can access the essential healthcare they need in their home state.”

Kansans for Life, the state’s leading anti-abortion organization, rebuked the decisions.

“Adding insult to injury, extremely liberal judges of the Kansas Supreme Court have now overturned basic health and safety standards for abortion facilities,” KFL spokesperson Danielle Underwood said in a press release.

“It hurts to say, ‘we told you so,’ to the many Kansans who were misled by the abortion industry’s assurances that it would still be ‘heavily regulated’ in our state if voters rejected the 2022 amendment,” Underwood added.

Several new abortion laws took effect in Kansas earlier this week, but one of them — a law requiring doctors to ask patients getting abortions their reason for doing so — is being challenged in court. A Johnson County judge said Monday that doctors could add the law to a larger lawsuit they brought against a handful of older state abortion restrictions, including a 24-hour waiting period. The judge agreed to temporarily block the older laws while the case proceeds.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment told providers it will “not, for now” enforce the abortion reasons law, providers said Monday. The health department has not responded to requests seeking to confirm that.

[tomorrowusa]

Ohio voters handed anti-abortion Republicans a stinging defeat. Those voters approved Issue 1 which puts reproductive freedom into the Ohio Constitution. The just passed amendment also protects the right to contraception and fertility treatment.

Results are still coming in. But with 85% of the votes counted, about 55.5% of Ohioans voted to protect reproductive freedom. And most of the remaining uncounted votes come from large urban counties which approved Issue 1 with over 65% of the vote.

Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday that ensures access to abortion and other forms of reproductive health care, the latest victory for abortion rights supporters since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. Ohio became the seventh state where voters decided to protect abortion access after the landmark ruling and was the only state to consider a statewide abortion rights question this year. The outcome of the intense, off-year election could be a bellwether for 2024, when Democrats hope the issue will energize their voters and help President Joe Biden keep the White House. Voters in Arizona, Missouri and elsewhere are expected to vote on similar protections next year. Ohio’s constitutional amendment, on the ballot as Issue 1, included some of the most protective language for abortion access of any statewide ballot initiative since the Supreme Court’s ruling. Opponents had argued that the amendment would threaten parental rights, allow unrestricted gender surgeries for minors and revive “partial birth” abortions, which are federally banned. Before the Ohio vote, statewide initiatives in California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana and Vermont had either affirmed abortion access or turned back attempts to undermine the right. Issue 1 specifically declared an individual’s right to “make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” including birth control, fertility treatments, miscarriage and abortion.

It's a great victory for women and freedom in general. And it's a bad omen for GOP prospects in 2024.

Donald Trump carried Ohio both in 2016 and 2020. But the Republican insistence on controlling women's bodies will probably hurt the party there and elsewhere. And any attempt by the GOP to moderate its stand on abortion will result in major pushback by radical fundamentalist Christians who would like to return to the societal standards of the 17th century.

[cliff-montgomery]

The Thorny Problem of Straw Purchases in U.S. Gun Law

by Cliff Montgomery - Feb. 15th, 2024

Yesterday’s mass shooting at a parade intended to celebrate the Kansas City Chiefs’ recent Super Bowl victory over the San Francisco 49s once again reminds us of the need for serious gun laws and gun law reform.

On February 9th, two short reviews on current federal gun laws were released by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The CRS refers to itself as a “ non-partisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress.” In short, it prepares concise, easy-to understand reports on matters of the moment to members of the U.S. and their affiliated staff members.

We will cover those two short studies for our readers. Tonight, we look at the report Gun Control: Straw Purchase and Gun Trafficking Provisions in Public Law 117-159, better known as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

Straw purchases are defined by the study as “illegal firearms transactions in which a person serves as a middleman by posing as the transferee, but is actually acquiring the firearm for another person.”

Below, we offer readers most of the central statements found in the CRS report:

“On June 25, 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA; S. 2938; P.L. 117-159). This law includes the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, provisions of which amend the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA, 18 U.S.C. §§921 et seq.) to more explicitly prohibit straw purchases and illegal gun trafficking. Related provisions expand federal law enforcement investigative authorities.

Federal Firearms Law

“The GCA is the principal statute regulating interstate firearms commerce in the United States. The purpose of the GCA is to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement in ongoing efforts to reduce violent crime.

“Congress constructed the GCA to allow state and local governments to regulate firearms more strictly within their own borders, so long as state law does not conflict with federal law or violate constitutional provisions.

“Hence, one condition of a federal firearms license for gun dealers, which permits the holder to engage in interstate firearms commerce, is that the licensee must comply with both federal and state law.

“Also, under the GCA there are several classes of persons prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition (e.g., convicted felons, fugitives, unlawful drug users). It was and remains unlawful under the GCA for any person to transfer knowingly a firearm or ammunition to a prohibited person (18 U.S.C. §922(d)). Violations are punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is the principal agency that administers and enforces the GCA, as well as the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA, 26 U.S.C. §§5801 et seq.).

“The NFA further regulates certain firearms deemed to be especially dangerous (e.g., machine guns, short-barreled shotguns) by taxing all aspects of the making and transfer of such weapons and requiring their registration with the Attorney General.

Straw Purchase Provision

“Straw purchases are illegal firearms transactions in which a person serves as a middleman by posing as the transferee, but is actually acquiring the firearm for another person.

“As discussed below, straw purchases are unlawful under two existing laws. Prosecutions under those provisions have been characterized by some as mere paperwork violations and, hence, inadequate in terms of deterring unlawful gun trafficking.

“P.L. 117-159 amends the GCA with a new provision, 18 U.S.C. §932, to prohibit any person from knowingly purchasing or conspiring to purchase any firearm for, on behalf of, or at the request or demand of any other persons if the purchaser knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the actual buyer

is a person prohibited from being transferred a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §922(d);

plans to use, carry, possess, or sell (dispose of) the firearm(s) in furtherance of a felony, federal crime of terrorism, or drug trafficking crime; or

plans to sell or otherwise dispose of the firearm(s) to a person who would meet any of the conditions described above.

“Violations are punishable by a fine and up to 15 years’ imprisonment. Violations made by a person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that any firearm involved will be used to commit a felony, federal crime of terrorism, or drug trafficking crime are punishable by a fine and up to 25 years’ imprisonment.

Gun Trafficking Provision

“Gun trafficking entails the movement or diversion of firearms from legal to illegal channels of commerce in violation of the GCA. P.L. 117-159 amends the GCA with a new provision, 18 U.S.C. §933, to prohibit any person from shipping, transporting, causing to be shipped or transported, or otherwise disposing of any firearm to another person with the knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that the transferee’s use, carrying, or possession would constitute a felony.

“It would also prohibit the receipt of such firearm if the transferee knows or has reasonable cause to believe that receiving it would constitute a felony. Attempts and conspiracies to violate these provisions are proscribed as well. Violations are punishable by a fine and up to 15 years’ imprisonment. […]

GCA Interstate Transfer Prohibitions

“The GCA generally prohibits anyone who is not a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) from acquiring a firearm from an out-of-state source. [But] Interstate transfers among unlicensed persons may be facilitated through an FFL in the state where the transferee resides. […]

GCA Record-keeping and Straw Purchases

“Under the GCA (18 U.S.C. §926), Congress authorized a decentralized system of record-keeping allowing ATF to trace a firearm’s chain of commerce, from manufacturer or importer to dealer, and to the first retail purchaser of record. FFLs must maintain certain records, including ATF Forms 4473, on transfers to non-FFLs as well as a parallel acquisition/disposition log.

“As part of a firearms transaction, both the FFL and purchaser must truthfully fill out and sign the ATF Form 4473. The FFL must verify the purchaser’s name, date of birth, and other information by examining government-issued identification (e.g., driver’s license). The purchaser attests on Form 4473 that he or she is not a prohibited person and is the actual transferee/buyer. […]

“[However,] straw purchases are not easily detected because they only become apparent when the straw purchase is revealed by a subsequent transfer to a prohibited person.

Other GCA Gun Trafficking Prohibitions

“According to ATF, gun trafficking often entails an unlawful flow of firearms from jurisdictions with less restrictive firearms laws to jurisdictions with more restrictive firearms laws, both domestically and internationally.

“Such unlawful activities can include, but are not limited to, the following:

straw purchasers or straw purchasing rings in violation of the provisions described above;

persons engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(1)(A), punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment;

corrupt FFLs dealing off-the-books in an attempt to escape federal regulation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(b)(5), punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment; and

trafficking in stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(j), punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

“Under current law, offenders could potentially be charged with multiple offenses under both the preexisting GCA provisions such as those discussed above and 18 U.S.C. §§932 and 933.

“Since P.L. 117-159 went into effect on October 31, 2023, 250 defendants have been charged with gun trafficking, including 80 charged with violating the law’s straw purchase provision.

“In January 2024, the National Shooting Sports Foundation—an industry trade group for the firearms industry—noted that the ATF has yet to implement two parts of P.L. 117-159: ‘Firearm Handler Background Checks’ (FHCs) and instant point-of-sale background checks when an FFL buys from a private individual.

“The former would allow FFLs to use the NICS to background check FFL employees and has been in regulatory review since September 26, 2023. The latter would allow FFLs to instantly identify if a weapon is stolen at the point of sale by authorizing importers, manufacturers, and dealers of firearms to access records of stolen firearms in the National Crime Information Center; it has been in the interim final rule stage since May 17, 2023.”

[alainamama17]

Steps to Establish Initiatives and Referendums If You Live In a State Without Them

If you live in any of these states, your state does not have the initiative and referendum process.

Alabama Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Indiana Iowa Kentucky Kansas Minnesota New Hampshire New Jersey New York North Carolina Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin

If you don't know what initiative and referendums are, here's what they are.

Referendum: This is an electoral process where voters can express their opinion on government policy or proposed legislation. It can be obligatory, meaning certain actions, like constitutional amendments, must be put to a popular vote, or optional, where a vote on a law passed by the legislature is required only if petitioned by a specified number of voters.

Initiative: This process allows citizens to propose new laws or constitutional amendments. An initiative can be direct, where the proposal goes straight to a vote, or indirect, where it first goes to the legislature and, if rejected, then to a popular vote.

In the U.S., these are forms of direct democracy that give power to the people to shape legislation and policy directly, rather than through elected representatives. They are tools that can empower citizens to have a more active role in governance, especially at the state level, as there is no federal initiative and referendum process.

Steps to Establish Initiatives and Referendums If You Live In a State Without Them

Residents of states without an initiative and referendum process can push to establish these processes through several steps. Generally, the process includes:

Preliminary Filing: Submit a proposed petition to a designated state official, often the Secretary of State.

Review of Petition: Ensure the petition conforms with statutory requirements and, in some states, a review of the language of the proposal.

Ballot Title and Summary: Prepare a ballot title and summary for the proposed initiative or referendum.

Signature Collection: Gather the required number of signatures from registered voters within the state.

Submission and Verification: Submit the signatures for verification.

Ballot Placement: Once verified, the measure is placed on the ballot for a public vote.

It’s important for residents to organize and campaign effectively to gather support for their cause. They may also need to work with legal experts to ensure that their proposed measures are in line with state laws and regulations. Additionally, public awareness campaigns can help educate voters about the benefits of having an initiative and referendum process in their state.

[drst]

May 16, 2024 (Thursday)

Seventy years ago, on May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. That landmark decision declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.

Brown v. Board was a turning point in American history.

It established that the U.S. government would, once and for all, use the Fourteenth Amendment to protect American citizens from discriminatory legislation written by state legislatures.

Added to the Constitution in 1868, in the wake of the Civil War, as southern state legislatures were writing laws that made Black Americans subservient to white Americans, the Fourteenth Amendment asserted that the federal government could, and must, stop such discrimination. It established that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It gave Congress the power to enforce the amendment.

In the late nineteenth century, the Supreme Court nodded to racial segregation in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, getting around the Fourteenth Amendment by asserting that separate accommodations were fine, so long as they were “equal.” But in 1954 a unanimous court under Chief Justice Earl Warren, who had previously been the Republican governor of California, ruled that racial segregation established by state law in public schools denied to Black children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

“Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” it wrote.

Just two weeks before it decided Brown v. Board, the Supreme Court had decided Hernandez v. Texas, which established that not only Black Americans, but also Mexican Americans and all other nationality groups, were entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Over the following decades, the Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws against interracial marriage and gay marriage, and to establish equal rights for women, including the right to abortion. It also ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, constitutional.

That new legal framework, embodied in Brown v. Board, both established the equal rights that were central to the modern era and sparked a backlash against them.

The federal requirement that states desegregate their public schools spurred southern state legislatures to pass laws and resolutions to block or postpone desegregation. In 1956, ninety-nine congressmen, led by South Carolina Democrat Strom Thurmond, wrote the “Declaration of Constitutional Principles,” quickly dubbed the Southern Manifesto, denouncing desegregation as unconstitutional.

Lawmakers also found ways to transfer tax dollars to private schools, which were not covered by the Supreme Court’s decision. Attendance at so-called segregation academies exploded. By 1958, more than 250,000 students had migrated to segregation academies, a number that jumped to a million by 1965.

Those opposed to racial equality made common cause with those businessmen determined to get rid of federal regulation of business. In 1955, William F. Buckley Jr., the son of an oilman, started National Review, a periodical that promised to stand against an active government that protected labor and regulated business. Buckley said he would tell the “violated businessman’s side of the story.”

In National Review, Buckley gave Virginia newspaper editor James Kilpatrick a platform to assure readers that desegregation challenged American values. Black Americans had no right to the equality declared unanimously by the Supreme Court, Kilpatrick wrote. Rather, the white community had an established right “to peace and tranquillity [sic]; the right to freedom from tumult and lawlessness.” Desegregation would lead to bloody violence, he promised, implying that Black Americans would rage and riot, although, in fact, it was the white community that was attacking Black Americans.

In 1964, Arizona senator Barry Goldwater brought these two themes to his presidential campaign. He stood firm on the idea that the federal government had no business either regulating business or protecting equality. In The Conscience of a Conservative, published under his name in 1960, Goldwater asserted that the federal government had no power over schools at all and certainly could not order them to desegregate.

Goldwater accepted the Republican presidential nomination in July 1964, less than a month after three civil rights workers registering Black Americans to vote had disappeared in Mississippi. Goldwater told his cheering supporters: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and…moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Strom Thurmond publicly announced that he would vote for Goldwater.

Goldwater lost in a landslide, but his loss fed the backlash against federal protection of equality, especially after Congress passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act to expand Black and Brown voting, moving many of those voters into the Democrats’ camp. In 1968, Republican Richard Nixon courted Thurmond and white southerners with a promise to slow down desegregation and a defense of state’s rights. The so-called Southern Strategy moved the former Dixiecrats to the Republican Party.

Religious traditionalists, particularly those among the Southern Baptist Convention, also opposed the federal government’s support for equality, although they got less press in the early years of that expansion. In their view, the Bible laid out hierarchical social arrangements, especially patriarchy. Government defense of women’s equality was a direct assault on their worldview.

When he ran for the presidency in 1980, former California governor Ronald Reagan courted those religious traditionalists, and in 1985 his people made them a key part of the Republican coalition. Americans for Tax Reform brought together big business, evangelicals, and social conservatives under the leadership of Grover Norquist, who had been an economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Traditional Republican business groups can provide the resources,” Norquist explained, “but these groups can provide the votes.”

In the following decades, Republican leaders used racist and traditionalist dislike of equal rights to turn out voters who would let them put their economic policies—cuts to taxes and deregulation of business—into place. But those opposed to equal rights found themselves out of step with a majority of voters and unable to get their policies enshrined into law as courts continued to uphold equal rights for racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and women.

The backlash against the federal protection of equal rights based on the Fourteenth Amendment entered a new era with the election of Donald Trump. In contrast to his predecessors, Trump let the racist and sexist voter base of the party drive policy. White evangelicals, especially, found in Trump an answer to their frustration at being sidelined by the courts and a majority of American voters.

Despite his own lack of personal virtue, Trump was willing to smash through the laws and court decisions that had supported equality since the 1950s, offering to center the country on traditional religion and racial hierarchies in exchange for power. Under him, traditionalists saw the courts stacked with extremists who would prioritize their evangelical faith across society, including by ending the federal protection of abortion rights.

Their fight to return Trump to power is part of their fight to establish traditional religion, rather than the equality promised in the Fourteenth Amendment, as the nation’s fundamental law. As Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows wrote to Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, as they plotted to overturn the decision of voters in 2020 to reject Trump: “This is a fight of good versus evil. Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it.”

Today, almost exactly seventy years to the day after Brown v. Board ushered in a new era of equality and democracy in the United States, MAGA Republican lawmakers Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Michael Cloud (R-TX), Eli Crane (R-AZ), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Bob Good (R-VA), Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), Ralph Norman (R-SC), and Andy Ogles (R-TN) traveled to Manhattan to stand with Trump at his criminal trial for falsifying business records to interfere in an election. The lawmakers made it clear that their determination to control the country has made them give up not only on the equality promised in the Declaration of Independence and defended by the Fourteenth Amendment, but also on democracy.

Echoing the promise of the right-wing Proud Boys to Trump before they stormed the U.S. Capitol to install Trump into office despite the will of the voters, Gaetz tweeted: “Standing back and standing by, Mr. President.”

--Heather Cox Richardson. May 17, 2024

[tocitynews]

Kansas Supreme Court Reaffirms Abortion Rights Are Protected By Constitution, Striking Down 2 Laws –Kansas City Kansas reporting/NPR

In two 5-1 opinions, the court built on a 2019 decision in which it said the state’s Constitution protects abortion rights and that lawmakers seeking to restrict abortion must meet a high “strict scrutiny” test. THE DECISIONS CEMENT KANSAS' ROLE AS A KEY ABORTION ACCESS POINT FOR PATIENTS ACROSS THE BROADER REGION. The Kansas Supreme Court struck down two laws restricting abortion on Friday, affirming its prior interpretation that ending a pregnancy remains a constitutionally protected right in Kansas.

In Two 5-1 Opinions, The Court Built On A 2019 Decision In Which It Said The State’s Constitution Protects Abortion Rights And Lawmakers Seeking To Restrict Abortion Must Meet A High “Strict Scrutiny” Test. When Republican Lawmakers Asked Voters, In 2022, To Amend The Constitution To Stipulate That It Does Not Protect Abortion Rights, Kansans Overwhelmingly Declined To Do So.

“We stand by our conclusion that section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects a fundamental right to personal autonomy, which includes a pregnant person’s right to terminate a pregnancy,” wrote Justice Eric Rosen in one of the majority opinions.

[bisexualdinahlance]

Starting to see a lot of really generic meme posts telling people to vote that aren't like that helpful so here's something: even if you feel your vote in the presidential election doesn't matter (which like, I get, the prez race is utterly fucked right now) you should still vote in local elections.

Lower level politicians are super important especially because so often people don't pay a lot of attention to them, but then can have a huge impact on budgeting and local laws. Judges are something no one ever looks into and so despite being elected they kind of just get to get away with whatever because no one pays attention or wants to do the research on them prior to voting time. Laws and state constitutional amendments are also put on the ballots and have in the past been used to do things like legalize/decriminalize marijuana but also have been used to try to ban abortion (which Kansas famously voted down). In my home state I swear there's also a ballot measure about increasing the police budget for at least one city every year lol.

This is also the only way we're ever going to get more than Dem vs Rep ballots lol. People never talk about it because it fucks with their "vote blue no matter who" argument, but in a lot of states the only way to get third party candidates on the ballots is through petitions and THEN people consistently voting for that party. Third parties can lose statewide ballot access from not enough people voting for them and then have to petition again. Like obviously we're not likely getting any serious third party candidates for president unless something explodes but on a state and local level this can make a difference.

Idk mainly posting this because the way some people talk it's clear they don't think any race matters but the presidential one when that is the furthest from the truth.

[archiveofkloss]

karlie kloss for the washington post: “Abortion should be on Missouri’s ballot this fall”

Democrats and Republicans may not agree on much these days, but since Roe v. Wade was overturned, many of us have found common ground: protecting reproductive freedom. The truth is, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe in a woman’s right to choose.

Abortion has been on the ballot in some form in seven states since the Supreme Court struck down Roe. In all of them — from blue Vermont and California to deep-red Montana and Ohio — voters have said loud and clear: Bans off women’s bodies. Many other states will hopefully have their say on abortion rights in November. One is Missouri, my home state

Growing up in St. Louis with three sisters and a dad who is a doctor, I didn’t see reproductive health as a political issue. It was real life. And policymakers were making women’s lives harder by limiting access to care. Even under Roe, it became virtually impossible to get an abortion in Missouri because of strategically placed hurdles to accessing care and requirements so narrow that eventually only one abortion clinic remained open in the entire state. Then the Trump administration appointed justices to the Supreme Court who ultimately overturned Roe. Minutes later, Missouri became the first state to ban abortion without exceptions for rape or incest — only for a few medical emergencies such as “imminent death.”

If their first tactic for chipping away at our rights was at clinics, their next target is the ballot box. Missouri now has the chance to protect it. Missourians for Constitutional Freedom is working to get an abortion amendment to the state constitution on the November ballot. But anti-choice Republicans are trying to make it harder for that to happen by weakening direct democracy.

First, Missouri’s secretary of state tried to add overtly partisan and misleading language to the ballot initiative to restore abortion rights. Thankfully, the Missouri Supreme Court stopped him. Now state Senate Republicans are overriding 200 years of precedent by significantly raising the threshold for constitutional amendments to pass. Under their new scheme, a simple majority of voters statewide would no longer be enough to pass an amendment. Instead, an amendment would need to win a majority in five of the state’s eight congressional districts (five of which are deeply conservative).

This is all part of a nationwide playbook to rip away our freedoms. In Kansas, antiabortion politicians tried to confuse voters with convoluted language on an abortion referendum. In Ohio, they tried to make it harder for a majority of voters to change the state’s constitution to protect abortion rights. Their efforts failed spectacularly, but that isn’t stopping lawmakers in Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Florida and Montana from trying similar tactics. Activists in those states are trying to give voters a voice on abortion this November, and politicians are trying to silence them.

For most people, reproductive health care isn’t about politics — it’s deeply personal. It’s fundamentally about freedom, dignity and bodily autonomy. That’s why I’ve been engaged on this issue since I was a teenager. In 2012, I trained as a clinic escort to protect patients arriving for appointments at Planned Parenthood in St. Louis. Years later, I became involved with the incredible team at CHOICES in Carbondale, Ill. — across the state line from Missouri — and dozens of other clinics. When Roe fell, these clinics were overwhelmed. To help fill the gap, I launched an organization called Gateway Coalition to direct funding to various Midwest groups to provide accessible abortion care. And I continue to learn from organizations such as the Abortion Bridge Collaborative Fund advisory council and Abortion Care Network.

Karlie Kloss gathers signatures for the Missouri Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment with a volunteer from Abortion Action Missouri in St. Louis in March.

Through clinic visits and meetings with providers, center operators, and movement leaders across the country, I’ve learned how desperately patients need abortion care and what clinics go through to provide it. Clinics are being closed down, doctors are being blocked from providing care, and women are being forced to carry pregnancies against their will.

The Missouri I know supports freedom. Missourians know that decisions around pregnancy — including abortion, birth control, IVF and miscarriage care — are personal and private, and should be left up to patients and their families. As a mother, sister, daughter, friend and someone who cares deeply about the dignity of others, I’m working toward a future where everyone has the freedom to access abortion affordably and on a timeline that meets their needs. The Missouri Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment is an important step toward that future. We have to pass it, and then we have to build on it. I’m committed to staying in this fight until abortion is safely and affordably available for every patient nationwide.

If you agree that patients, not politicians, should make their own health-care decisions — or simply that a small minority should not prevent a majority from winning at the ballot box — make your voice heard this election cycle.

If you’re in Missouri, that means signing the petition for the Missouri Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment by May 5, volunteering to gather signatures from others and then voting for the ballot initiative in the general election. Across the country, that means showing up at the polls when politicians try to twist the rules to serve their anti-choice agenda. And, this November, it means voting for candidates for president and Congress who will codify the protections of Roe v. Wade into federal law — and rejecting those promising to further restrict our reproductive rights.

Our fundamental freedoms are on the line — the right to abortion, and now, the right to have our voices heard at the ballot box.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jessica Valenti at Abortion, Every Day:

After nearly two years of losing elections, Republicans think they have an answer to their abortion problem: If you can’t beat them, pretend to be them. With Americans furious over bans, support for abortion right skyrocketing, and the issue winning every ballot measure since Roe was overturned, conservatives’ new strategy is to propose ‘pro-choice’ amendments of their own. Disguised as initiatives to protect abortion rights, these measures would actually trick voters into codifying Republican bans. In Arizona, for example, Republicans are considering a ‘pro-choice’ amendment to distract from anger over the 1864 ban and to undercut a real abortion rights measure. A leaked strategy document shows that the amendment would claim to protect abortion up until 15 weeks, but be made toothless by restrictions enshrined alongside it. Republicans are even tossing around feminist-sounding names like the “Arizona Abortion Protection Act” and the “Arizona Abortion and Reproductive Care Act.” The goal is to make Arizonans believe they’re voting to protect abortion rights while directing them away from the measure that would actually do so.

Something similar is happening in Nebraska, where a coalition of anti-abortion groups proposed a measure they hope will distract from a genuine abortion rights amendment. After the pro-choice group Protect Our Rights launched a ballot initiative to protect abortion until ‘viability’, conservatives proposed a similar-sounding amendment, Protect Women and Children. This measure would supposedly allow abortion in the first trimester. But the Nebraska amendment wouldn’t actually make abortion more available. Just like the proposal the Arizona GOP is considering, it’s a massive deception. Nebraska already has 12-week ban; that means this ballot measure would codify a Republican ban into the state constitution, making it virtually repeal-proof. Still, to trick voters, anti-abortion politicians are calling the measure “a second, better choice.” (It is not a coincidence that this amendment has been endorsed by Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Nebraska Right to Life, and the Nebraska Family Alliance.)

Republicans trying to fool voters by using pro-choice rhetoric isn’t new. When an anti-abortion amendment was on the ballot in Kansas in 2022, conservative groups sent voters misleading text messages telling them to “Vote YES to protect women’s health.” (A ‘yes’ vote would have removed abortion protections.) And when Virginia Republicans were pushing a 15-week ban, they insisted the law wasn’t a ‘ban’ at all, but an effort to “keep abortion legal” for the first weeks of pregnancy. In a moment when Americans overwhelmingly want abortion to be legal, Republicans are desperate to sound as reasonable, moderate, and even as ‘pro-choice’, as possible. Their extremist talking points haven’t worked; that’s why they’ve shifted from taking about ‘bans’ and abortion being ‘murder,’ to using words like ‘consensus’ and ‘compassion.’ Conservatives need voters to believe that they’re seeking some sort of middle ground. The truth? They will say anything to ban abortion and to keep it banned. They’d rather craft elaborate, deceptive ballot measures than lift wildly unpopular and unwanted restrictions. And they’d rather frame their policies as pro-choice than risk losing another vote.

The good news is that all of this means conservatives’ current tactics aren’t working. Their messaging is failing miserably, and every effort to stop ballot initiatives has reminded Americans that Republicans are passing these bans against our wishes. 

Jessica Valenti's latest Abortion, Every Day entry sounds the alarm about the GOP's deceptive use of ballot measures to trick people into voting into codifying abortion bans using pro-choice language.

[darkmaga-retard]

Monday September 9, 2024 Truth Bomb

Karen Bracken

RFK Jr. exposes how pediatricians make money from vaccinating children and AG Kobach (Kansas) sues Pfizer for lying about its COVID vaccine - Thanks to Marcus - 5 min. 20 secs. VIDEO

Kamala and the lids on Starbucks coffee cups - There are just no words - 30 secs. VIDEO

Just another fabricated story by Kamala. Her grandmother was betrothed at 12 years of age and married at 16. At that time in India’s history (remember she is talking about her grandmother) this would not have been possible. Her body language alone tells you she is lying. She also lied about being bussed to school as a little girl. Another lie. She was taken to live in Canada when she was 7 years old and did not return to the US until she went to college. She also failed her bar exam on the first try. I wonder if the year in which she “passed” the exam she was dating Willie Brown?? AND THE BIGGEST LIE OF ALL………that she is eligible to be President. She is NOT eligible to be VP or President. She is NOT a natural born citizen. Given her parents were in the US originally (not to become citizens) but to go to school on a temporary Visa she was not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” so she is really not even a citizen. And just add another wrinkly…..The Constitution of both India and Jamaica state clearly is a citizen of Jamaica or India has a child outside Jamaica or India that child is a citizen of Jamaica/India. Does anyone really think our founders would ever have agreed that a foreigner could come to America drop a baby and that baby was a citizen let alone a natural born citizen? The 14th Amendment only bestows citizenship not natural born citizenship and it only pertained to the slaves that were born on US soil and up until the 14th Amendment were not considered citizens. DO SOME RESEARCH. Just sayin. All Trump has to do on Tuesday is shut up and let her talk. She will destroy her own campaign if he does - 30 secs. VIDEO

Biden Admits Inflation Reduction Act Was Deceptively Named - this was the biggest rip off of tax payer money ever to be passed and the Republicans helped it move forward folks. Here is just one example of where some of that IRA monet went. 45 states (including my state of TN) took money from the IRA to create a TN State Climate Action Plan. Only 5 states had the guts to stand down. FL, SD, KY, WY, IA so because the state refused the feds sent money to their largest cities. Some of these states have refused even at the city level but surely not enough. Every red state should have refused this money. ARTICLE

SURPRISE! Tim Walz Championed a Group With Ties to the WUHAN LAB in China - there can be no doubt at all that Walz is owned by the CCP. The CCP put another of their boys in play - ARTICLE

Why euthanasia should be illegal and why you should oppose it - many of the reasons listed as to why euthanasia is never a good idea have already happened in Canada under the MAID program. ARTICLE