Connect with us

Global

The United States Supreme Court Concealed Carry Postgame

Avatar

Published

on

The following is a transcript of a video I published on Monday, November 8th. The oral argument in NYSRPA v. Bruen took place on November 3rd. The video can be viewed at Rumble, Bitchute, and Odysee.

The decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen has now been made.

Unfortunately, the only ones who know what that decision is are the Justices and their clerks. And they aren’t talking.

Until the opinion is published, we can only speculate about what it might say.

The range of possibilities is from nothing, which is to say the case could be dismissed as improvidently granted, to whatever the majority of justices want the opinion to say.

One very real possibility is that the proper cause requirement for a concealed carry permit does not violate the Second Amendment.

In oral argument, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor reminded their fellow justices that the Court’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller said that prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment.

Chief Justice Roberts said the Heller opinion decides this case. If that is true then his vote added to Justices Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor makes four justices and only one more vote is needed to uphold the New York state proper cause requirement for a concealed carry permit.

One very real possibility is that the Justices don’t extend the Second Amendment outside of the home.

Another possibility is “Constitutional Avoidance.”

For some unknown reason, judges seem to think that they are obligated to avoid constitutional questions if they can.

One aspect of the proper cause requirement for a concealed carry license in New York State is that there are no objective standards when it comes to issuing a license.

The issuing officer has the unbridled discretion in what constitutes proper cause.

There isn’t even a written policy created by some legislative body that establishes guidelines for issuing licenses.

That is reason enough for even the liberal justices to say that the petitioners’ due process rights were violated, and if they can get two other justices to go along with them then the justices can avoid answering the Second Amendment question.

It is unlikely that the Second Amendment question presented to the Court will be avoided but it is a possibility.

Assuming that there are not five justices who would avoid the question then this is the question SCOTUS will be deciding in NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

The following is NOT the question #SCOTUS will be deciding in NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

Oral argument in NYSRPA v. Bruen took place on Wednesday, November 3rd. On Friday, November 5th, the nine justices met in private conference to discuss the case, and vote on its outcome.

The case has been decided and the decision assigned to a justice to write the majority opinion.

But we won’t know what the decision was or what the opinion says until it is published.

If Chief Justice Roberts was in the majority then he will assign the writing of the majority opinion to another of the justices in the majority or he can write the opinion himself.

If Chief Justice Roberts is in the minority then the senior-most judge in the majority will assign the opinion to a justice or write the opinion himself. Justice Breyer is the senior justice on the liberal side of the bench.

It is very rare but a justice can switch sides between the time the decision is made and assigned to the justice who will write the majority opinion and the time the opinion is published.

If it is a 5 to 4 opinion then the decision on who will write the opinion lands in the lap of the senior-most justice in what is now the new majority.

The time for oral argument was allotted as follows: 35 minutes for the NYSRPA petitioners, 20 minutes for the New York State respondents, and 15 minutes for the Acting Solicitor General.

That adds up to one hour and 10 minutes. Oral argument ran long. It ran for one hour and fifty-seven minutes.

NYSRPA v. Bruen was supposed to be a very simple case.

Remember, the justices rewrote the question presented by the petitioners from “Whether the SecondFortun Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense. to “Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Most people don’t think there is a difference between the two questions. If there were no difference then the justices would not have rewritten the question presented to the Court for it to decide.

Supreme Court Rules 24 and 14 limit the scope of the opinion to the question presented. The Conservative justices are sticklers for sticking to those rules and have criticized their fellow liberal justices for answering a different question than the one that was presented.

And so whatever else the justices might say in their opinion, it is as certain as one can be that they will answer the limited concealed carry question they rewrote.

The late Justice Scalia once filed a partial concurrence and partial dissent to a case. He said that he concurred with the opinion in order to provide the five-vote majority, but he also dissented in order to criticize the four justices for violating the rules by not limiting the scope of the opinion to the question presented.

I am not aware of any justice on the current court who has ever done that.

In the past, the liberal justices simply ignored the criticism of the conservative justices for answering a question that was not presented, and the conservative justices don’t answer different questions than the one presented to the Court to decide.

We will have to wait to see whether or not the opinion, in this case, is limited to the rewritten question presented to the Court.

Instead of answering the question presented to the Court, the NRA lawyers filed its brief on the merits that argued in support of the question it had originally presented in its cert petition.

Which was a question the justices rejected and substituted with their own.

By the NRA doing this the NRA, for all intents and purposes, handed victory to the State of New York by defaulting on the question, and it raised the possibility that the justices would dismiss the case as improvidently granted.

But then New York did something even more inexplicable than the NRA.

Instead of limiting its brief on the merits to the concealed carry question presented to the Court, the New York lawyers took a very high dive into a very deep rabbit hole by answering a different question from the one presented to the Court.

And to add one more Mad Hatter to the rabbit hole, the Biden Administration filed an Amicus brief and asked to participate in oral argument. Its request was granted.

Oral argument was interesting if for no other reason than it gave us the opportunity to hear what the justices who were not on the bench when the Heller or McDonald opinions were argued and decided had to say about the Second Amendment.

Justice Kagan, who was not a justice when Heller and McDonald were argued and decided, did ask questions in NYSRPA v. New York City but they were mostly procedural questions.

Justice Gorsuch had already indicated that he is a supporter of the Second Amendment.

This is the first Second Amendment case for Kavanaugh and Barrett as justices.

Justice Barrett in her confirmation hearing promoted herself as another Justice Scalia.

But in the NYSRPA v. Bruen oral argument, she asked two worrisome questions that Justice Scalia would never have asked because the answer was obvious to him.

One of Justice Barrett’s questions wasn’t so much a question as a statement that Times Square on New Year’s Eve is a sensitive place and therefore not a place protected by the Second Amendment.

Another of Justice Barrett’s questions was just as worrisome. Justice Barrett asked the New York Solicitor General if the justices were bound by the Heller opinion.

Fortunately, Chief Justice Roberts near the end of the oral argument said there was no need to revisit the Heller opinion.

So Chief Justice Roberts cancels out Justice Barret if she is inclined to overrule the Heller opinion.

And if what Justice Barret said in oral argument truly reflects a weak-kneed support of the Second Amendment then she won’t be writing the majority opinion if there are five justices who are strong supporters of the Second Amendment.

Justice Kavanaugh revealed that he is a textualist, not an originalist. Justice Kavanaugh also revealed that he believes the right to bear arms is a right bestowed by the government.

A right that comes from the government is a right the government can take away.

Justice Scalia was not an originalist, he was a textualist. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Justice Kavanaugh said that a permit can be required, which is both worrisome and telling given that the NYSRPA did not and is not challenging any requirement that one have a permit. The only thing the NYSRPA is challenging is the applications of the New York State “proper cause” requirement for being issued a permit to carry a handgun concealed.

Fortunately, Chief Justice Roberts opposes a permit requirement when an enumerated right is involved.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court invited Alan Gura to challenge the District of Columbia permit requirement but Gura refused. And so the majority opinion in Heller said that it was not going to address the licensing requirement when it could have said that the government cannot condition the Second Amendment right on a government-issued permission slip.

Given that the NYSRPA does not challenge the license requirement in this case, it is likely, but not certain that the opinion, in this case, will likewise say that it does not address the requirement to first have a license.

Before the oral argument took place, I predicted that Justice Kagan, being a clever justice, would point out that the Heller opinion had already held that prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment. Which she did. I also predicted that Justices Sotomayor and Breyer would also hammer the other justices on that point.

Justice Sotomayor weighed in but all we got from Justice Breyer was a remark that he voted against the Heller opinion, along with a lot of gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Justice Kagan did note that according to the Heller opinion, Open Carry is the Second Amendment right even though she doesn’t like Open Carry and suspects that most people, or at least most New Yorkers don’t like it either.

Justice Thomas’ questions were puzzling. If he hadn’t been a justice strongly in support of the Second Amendment since, and including, the Heller opinion, I would be very worried.

Justice Thomas sounded very tired during the oral argument. I’ll chalk it up to that.

On the whole, the justices were debating a case that was not before them.

The justices were debating a challenge to the New York city licensing scheme, which was not before them.

If the two NYSRPA petitioners win and get their unrestricted concealed carry licenses they still will not be allowed to carry any firearm in Times Square, or in a New York subway, or anywhere in New York City.

Indeed, the NRA lawyer half-jokingly said that he can wave subways as a place where his clients seek to carry a handgun presumably because there is no subway in the state outside of New York City.

Unsurprisingly, the NRA lawyer, Paul Clement, once again argued that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry.

Justice Kagan asked him to explain why?

The reason the NRA lawyer gave was that modern views have changed.

And because modern views have changed then states can ban what has always been the right protected by the Second Amendment — Open Carry — in favor of something which has never been a right protected by the Second Amendment — concealed carry.

Millions of gun-owning morons applaud that but because they are morons they have not considered the ramifications of subjecting fundamental, individual rights to popular opinion.

If popular opinion is what decides what the Second Amendment means then New York, and California, and every other state and the Federal government is free to ban the possession of handguns as well as the possession, use, and carrying of all firearms.

And ban the mere possession of all arms for that matter.

Given that New York State does not ban the Open Carry of most rifles and shotguns, and nobody is challenging or defending New York City’s ban on all Open Carry, or even challenging the license requirement that handguns be carried concealed, there is no live case or controversy involving Open Carry, and without a live case or controversy, the justices do not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of a law not challenged.

But that doesn’t mean that they can’t otherwise give their reasoning in support of their position and to the extent that their position casts any doubt on the Second Amendment right to Open Carry defined in the Heller opinion, the lower Federal and state court judges will use it as an excuse to eviscerate the Second Amendment right.

I don’t know what the majority of justices will say in the opinion but one thing seems pretty clear, at least seven of the justices recognize that there is a right to bear arms in public for the purpose of self-defense and if they say so in their opinion in this case then I win my California Open Carry lawsuit.

If the justices say that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry, that would not necessary doom my California Open Carry lawsuit because it is an undisputed fact in my lawsuit that concealed carry substantially burdens my ability to defend myself even if I lived in a jurisdiction that issued concealed carry licenses and even if I had a concealed carry permit.

Given that self-defense is the core of the Second Amendment right and given that the State of California does not dispute that concealed carry licenses substantially burdens my core right of self-defense, and given that the State of California by its own admission did not submit any defense of California’s Open Carry bans then procedurally. I don’t see how the state wins without the three-judge panel assigned to my lawsuit making something up.

But I don’t think that will happen. It will take the vote of five justices in order to overrule the holding of the Heller and McDonald opinions that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and to overrule the holding of the Heller and McDonald opinions that prohibitions on concealed carry are constitutional.

Ironically, Justice Breyer is not going to write or join in an opinion that says Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry. And without Justice Breyer’s vote, I don’t count five justices who would vote to overrule the Heller and McDonald opinions.

But I could be wrong. I did not count five votes in favor of Dick Heller winning his case or five votes in favor of applying the Second Amendment to the States. Justice Scalia was the surprise vote, and the fifth vote needed to those narrow 5 to 4 victories for the Second Amendment.

My California Open Carry lawsuit was filed on November 30th, 2011.

As of today, my lawsuit is still pending before the 9th circuit court of appeals and is on hold pending the Supreme Court decision on whether or not to grant the cert petition in Young v. Hawaii, which in turn appears to be on hold pending the publication of the opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen.

You should know, but just in case you don’t, my lawsuit (Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom et al) has priority over the NRA/CRPA concealed carry lawsuit (Flanagan v. Bonta).

There will be a decision in my case before there is a decision in Flanagan v. Bonta.

If I win then the NRA/CRPA loses its concealed carry case even if the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen publishes an opinion in favor of NYSRPA.

All I need to win my lawsuit is for SCOTUS to say that the right to keep and bear arms extends outside the doors to my home.

Contrary to what you might have heard, my lawsuit is not stayed, but it is being held pending the SCOTUS decision on whether or not to grant the Young v. Hawaii cert petition.

There is a three-judge panel assigned to my case, and I have already fully briefed and argued my case before the three-judge panel.

Flanagan v. Bonta does not even have a three-judge panel assigned to the case and won’t until approximately 14 weeks before oral argument is calendared to take place.

If the Young v. Hawaii cert petition is granted and argued on the merits then it is pretty much guaranteed that my lawsuit will be put on hold until SCOTUS issues its decision in that case which in turn means that the NRA/CRPA concealed carry lawsuit will likewise have to wait for both the decision in Young v. Hawaii and for the three-judge panel opinion in my California Open Carry lawsuit, Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom et al.

For there to be oral argument in Young v. Hawaii this term, which ends in June of 2022, its cert petition will have to be granted by early January if SCOTUS follows the normal briefing schedule.

But as we have recently seen, SCOTUS is free to expedite briefing and oral argument.

That said, the most likely outcome is that SCOTUS will either simply reverse the opinion of the 9th circuit court of appeals and remand the Young v. Hawaii case, or SCOTUS will deny the cert petition.

Regardless of what happens next with the Young v. Hawaii case, the ball lands in my court next.

That’s all for this video. Please subscribe to this video channel and please subscribe to my newsletter at CaliforniaOpenCarry.com

Charles NicholsRead More

Original Source: newsblaze.com

Global

Government Trusted Capital Provider Now Offering Government Contract Financing

Avatar

Published

on

Leonid (previously Endeavour) is a trusted capital provider that now offers government contract financing. This new service will provide much-needed finance to small and medium-sized businesses seeking to bid on government contracts, complete government projects, or expand their working capital.

Government contract financing is a substantial challenge for government contractors. And although the government will eventually pay its bills, it is common knowledge that these payments are typically slow. Before the government pays your invoice, you need to fund your company’s operations.

Unfortunately, many of these contractors do not have access to traditional bank loans because those loans require collateral by commercial property that these companies don’t own. Thus, the typical government contractor is one whose operations are financed by expensive short-term loans or generous personal lines of credit or by equity investments from family members or friends. These may be workable solutions in the short term, but companies need long-term financing to grow and prosper.

Leonid’s government contract financing program

Leonid’s government contract financing program provides government contractors like you with the flexibility they need to manage business growth and cash flow issues while waiting for government payments. Your business can participate in larger contracts and earn more revenue using Leonid’s government contract financing solution.

Leonid has a track record of providing working capital solutions to small businesses in aerospace & defense, cybersecurity, and intelligence. With nearly $25 million in transactions since its inception, Leonid has developed an in-depth understanding of the needs of small businesses and the challenges they face in finding appropriate financing solutions.

Leonid deploys its deep expertise in these industries to provide working capital solutions tailored to the specific needs of your business. So, when you partner with them, you get

Flexible financing terms,No charges for program access or monthly service fees,Quick access to funds for your government contracts (typically within 30 days or less),No rigorous application process,Upfront funding before work begins,Pay off your loan in full anytime, without the worry of penalties or additional fees of any kind,The peace of mind of collaborating with a trusted government provider who has experience on classified projects

With available financing growing yearly, funding may be available now to complete the job or bid on new contracts and cover payroll. Leonid is prepared to meet your financing needs – whether bidding on a contract or fulfilling it, submitting a proposal or an invoice, or ready to expand operations or meet payroll.

Leonid specializes in Government Contract Financing – helping clients with working capital before the project begins. With years of experience working on government projects, these scientists and engineers know the unique financial challenges they can pose to small businesses.

As part of the commitment to honor service and sacrifice, Leonid donates half its profits to veteran and military communities. As a result, they contribute 50 percent of their revenue to non-profits that help military families.

To learn more or to apply for Government Contract Financing, visit www.https://leonidfinance.io/ or contact Leonid at [email protected]

Read More

Original Article: newsblaze.com

Continue Reading

Global

Social Media Trends to Revamp Your Marketing Strategy in 2022

Avatar

Published

on

When TikTok surpassed the 1 billion user mark in September of 2021, the other social media networks knew they had to change their algorithms. Adam Moserri, the head of Instagram, soon after announced that the platform is “no longer just a square photo-sharing app.”

This meant businesses needed to change their marketing strategies for the turn of 2022. It’s no surprise that online trends are constantly changing. But for a small business, it’s like being a small fish in the ocean. They need to keep up with the competition and find ways to stand out.

We’ll take a look at some of the latest trends for maximizing your social media accounts as a small business by providing relative statistics in 2022.

Know Your Audience

Before you can tackle your social media strategy, you need to know your audience. This includes fully understanding their demographics, personality, and buying behaviors.

This is incredibly important because you have to know where your audience is actively spending their time online. If you want people to make a purchase, you have to know where to engage with them.

The most recent demographics in 2022 for the top social media channels include:

Facebook: Ages 25-34 with 43% of users female and 57% maleTikTok: Ages 10-19 with 61% of users female and 39% maleTwitter: Ages 18-29 with 38% of users female and 62% maleInstagram: Ages 25-34 with 48% of users female and 52% malePinterest: Ages 50-64 with 78% of users female and 22% maleLinkedin: Ages 25-34 with 48% of users female and 52% male

Knowing where to spend your time connecting with your audience will allow you to make the most of your social media marketing efforts.

Select Your Channels Wisely

One of the biggest mistakes many small businesses make when they first begin using social media is trying to be everywhere at once. Unfortunately, that’s not a productive use of your time.

It’s better to select two or three platforms to focus your energy on rather than spreading yourself too thin. The goal is to build a community and set yourself apart as an industry leader.

Get Connected With Social Media Affiliates and Influencers

A major social media marketing strategy in 2022 is affiliate or influencer marketing. Instagram announced in March of 2022 a new program called Instagram Monetization. Content creators can now make money based on the number of reels they make and how many views they get.

This is an excellent incentive for creators and a huge opportunity for small businesses. You can collaborate with these influencers to tap into other people’s audiences to promote their products or services.

Two main types of influencers can be beneficial to your small business. Typically they are seen for either being:

Micro-influencers: profiles with 500 to 10,000 followersMacro-influencers: profiles with 10,000 to 1 million+ followers

As a small business, it may be more beneficial to start by connecting with micro-influencers who have a similar following to your target audience. It’s an effective social media hack to make your business grow faster by generating new leads through someone else’s audience.

Give Something Away For Free

When you’re new to social media, you have to work on gaining a following. A great way to do this is by giving away something for free.

For instance, if you’re an eCommerce store that sells heaters, you can offer your followers a free heaters buyers guide. You can post this on your website or offer it as an exclusive guide they can only receive by signing up for your email list.

This way, you’re combining your efforts and using social media as a way to get pertinent buyer information, such as email addresses. Now you can connect with them to turn leads into sales.

Set Goals And Track Them

Just like in other forms of sales and marketing, you need to have a goal with your social media accounts. This should be actionable and measurable.

Are your goals to generate more leads?Are you looking to spread brand awareness?Do you want to have more people visit your website?

Start with one of these three broader topics. Then get specific with your goal. Some examples of goals could be:

Generate 50 leads in Q1 through InstagramGrow following on TikTok by 5,000 in two monthsIncrease website traffic by 20,000 unique visitors monthly by the end of Q2

The most important thing when setting a specific social media goal is to have a way to track them. Most platforms offer basic insights for business profiles.

You may need to set up specific landing pages on your website, create advertisements, or implement email campaigns for your business to track more diligently.

Conclusion

As a small business starting on social media, the most important takeaway is to have a better understanding of your target audience.

This will shape how you move forward with your marketing strategy – where you focus your efforts, the types of content you create, and your overall goals for your platforms.

Read More

Article: newsblaze.com

Continue Reading

Global

Ruth, the Moabite, and the Courage to Dare

Avatar

Published

on

A few days ago, we celebrated the Holiday of Shavuot, 2022, or as the non-Jewish world calls it, Pentecost.

The main protagonist of the Book of Ruth’s story is Ruth the Moabite, a Biblical figure and the great grandmother of King David.

So let’s talk about one woman, a special and super brave one, named Ruth. She was so special that a Biblical scroll was written about her. Interestingly enough, Ruth and Esther, two biblical women, are the only ones about whom a biblical scroll was written and their name is celebrated with admiration.

The Story of Ruth

On Shavuot we read the Book of Ruth, briefly summarized below.

Elimelech was married to Naomi and they had two sons, Machlon and Kilion. Following a famine in the land of Israel, they moved to Moab. The two boys assimilated. They married Moabite women, named Ruth and Orpah.

One day, tragically, Elimelech died and ten years later, his two sons died as well, and their wives became widows.

Naomi, Elimelech’s wife, decided to return to the land of Israel, to her homeland. Her two daughters-in-law wanted to join her but Naomi begged them to stay in their homeland, Moab.

Orpah was convinced and she stayed in Moab. But Ruth was stubborn. She repeatedly told Naomi, “Your people – my people and your God – my God. Wherever you go, I go.” And she declared that only death will separate her from Naomi. Naomi could not persuade her to stay in Moab.

Image by Jeff Jacobs from Pixabay

Arriving In Judah

Naomi and Ruth arrived in Judah – widows, poor, and destitute. They arrived in Bethlehem during the harvest season, and Ruth decided to exercise her right as a poor woman, the right to gather wheat at the edge of the wheat field.

And here, as if by chance, she came to the field of Boaz, a relative of Naomi, a respected man and a property owner. Boaz saw Ruth among the gatherers in the field, and he liked her. He wanted to know about her and her family, and when he heard what she had done for her mother-in-law, Naomi, he decided to give her favorite treatment.

After a while, Naomi advised Ruth to go at night to the threshing floor where Boaz stayed during the time of wheat sowing, and to lie at his feet in order to get Boaz to marry her. It seems that Naomi was asking Ruth to use the seductive “weapon” for that purpose. This is not the mitzvah of yibbum (form of levirate marriage found in Judaism) in the simplest sense of the word, because the mitzvah of yibbum in practice is only carried out by marrying the wife of a late brother who did not leave heirs; but it is related to the custom of yibbum – marriage between the wife of the dead man and her relative.

Ruth obeyed Naomi, she bathed, perfumed and put on her dresses, and went down to the threshing floor at night and lay at the feet of Boaz.

And so, in the middle of the night, Boaz noticed Ruth lying at his feet, and she asked him to redeem her and marry her.

Happy ending – all is well: Boaz decided to redeem her and he married her.

And Ruth bore him a son, who was to be King David’s grandfather.

Courageous Decision

But why did Ruth’s story touch my heart?

Because of her courage. Because of her decision to leave the familiar and known to her, her homeland, and to follow her mother-in-law to a country that was foreign to her.

Because she did not let her fears drive her decision. She dared, she picked up the glove, and just flowed. She said to the Creator, to the universe, to what was unbeknown to her, or to that supreme power – I flow with you, I trust in you. I agree to leave the familiar and the known, to get out of my circle of comfort, and dare.

How many times do we miss opportunities in life because we are afraid to leave the familiar and the known: to succeed, to evolve, and to grow?

In the story of Ruth, there is a message for each of us. Jump into the water; get out of the known and the familiar; silence the fears; take down all the walls of defense. Dare.

Each of us is totally worth it. All each of us has to do is believe in ourselves and trust in our abilities and the same supreme power.

Courage, Faith, and Daring

At every Shavuot holiday, remember to have the courage, faith, and daring power as Ruth, the Moabite, had over 3000 years ago!

Read More

Source Here: newsblaze.com

Continue Reading

Trending

OMNT.com