by Bob Barr | Jun 29, 2022 | Townhall Article |
TownhallLast week’s Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen was a historic moment for gun rights in America. Lest Second Amendment advocates engage in a lengthy celebration, however, they had best prepare for more pitched battles at the state and local levels, where firearms opponents will fiercely defend their turf.An individual right to possess a firearm was – finally – recognized by the Supreme Court in its 2008 Hellerdecision, and extended to all the states two years later in McDonald. Extending that fundamental natural right to self-preservation outside one’s home, which is the essence of last week’s ruling, serves also as a welcome update to the Court’s almost plodding effort to reclaim gun rights from decades of liberal encroachment. Nevertheless, the decision, important as it is, merely shifts the theater of operations from the national to the state and local levels where Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion in Bruen, excellent in form and substance, in effect ushers in a new phase of Leftist scheming on gun control.Like Heller, Bruen is pivotal in impact, but limited in scope. In a concurring opinion supplementing Thomas’ six-member majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh (joined by Chief Justice Roberts), stressed that the ruling would not necessarily limit the ability of states to establish requirements for concealed carry – only that they cannot arbitrarily deny the right to carry. As with Heller, in the uncertainty created by Kavanaugh’s opinion, we now will be forced to contend with myriad regulatory tricks by local and state governments to undermine this latest ruling.Immediately after Heller, for example, District of Columbia officials went to work finding loopholes around the “individual right” to keep and bear arms affirmed by the...
by Bob Barr | Jun 27, 2022 | Daily Caller Article |
Daily CallerIt is now the law of the land, signed last Saturday by President Biden – the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.” Hidden deep within one of its most controversial provisions, dealing with Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), more commonly known as “Red Flag Laws,” is language that provides a clever way for judges to ignore the “constitutional rights” that purport to guard against abusing these problematic provisions.The bill itself – S.2938 – is 81 pages long; somewhat short by today’s standards, when bills running to hundreds of pages are not uncommon.It is not until a reader is well into the text of the bill that the “Firearms” provisions are laid out in any detail, and this is where the real problem becomes clear – clear, that is, if you read carefully the provisions regarding ERPOs.As is standard operating procedure for federal legislation, S.2938 does not directly mandate that states or local governments implement red flag laws. It does so by offering states money to do the federal government’s bidding. Uncle Sam knows that state and local governments are always eager to receive federal largesse, even with the inevitable strings attached.In this instance, the “bipartisan” legislation (14 House Republicans joined with 15 of their colleagues in the Senate) provides that “Byrne” grants, which have been a vehicle to shovel money to states for criminal justice programs since 1988, can be used to establish “extreme risk protection order programs.” This authorization is linked directly to a list of “due process rights” that attach to such grants. This laudable language is expansive, and warns that no such program can “violat[e] or infring[e] the Constitution...
by Bob Barr | Jun 27, 2022 | Uncategorized |
RealClear PoliticsFrom dialysis to chickens, the U.S. Department of Justice and its regulatory compatriot, the Federal Trade Commission, are flexing Uncle Sam’s antitrust muscles, notwithstanding strong headwinds from skeptical judges and juries. As the United States Chamber of Commerce recently warned in a brief filed with the courts, “Allowing [DOJ] to retroactively criminalize behavior strikes at the heart of the ordered liberty guaranteed to all Americans.”The work of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division receives far less public attention than its bigger brother, the Criminal Division, and the 93 U.S. attorneys who prosecute the vast majority of cases brought each year against individual and corporate defendants. Still, the broad reach of modern federal antitrust laws, dating to the early 20th century (the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1909 and the Clayton Act five years later), can strike fear into the hearts of major corporations and their executives, who can be targeted for either civil or criminal prosecution, with hefty fines possible in either context.While far smaller, the FTC can employ its regulatory reach in tandem with the Antitrust Division to boost policy initiatives favored by an administration intent on punishing the business sector. In this regard, the Biden administration has been particularly aggressive. Fortunately for the free market, the results of this push have been less than impressive. However, recent actions by both the FTC and the Antitrust Division clearly signal this administration’s intent to continue using both its civil and criminal powers to attack the business sector.In a highly unusual if not unprecedented move, the head of the Antitrust Division, Jonathan Kanter, declared that its lawyers would try for a third time...
