National Law Enforcement Handbook For Special Needs Populations

Larry E. Holtz & Barbara J. Morvay created this masterfully written book for the best practices for incident response.

When law enforcement and first responders are called to a scene involving a person with special needs, it can be extremely challenging.

This unique and comprehensive book will prepare you to properly and safely respond to these sensitive incidents while still meeting the responsibilities of your job.

Knowing how to appropriately respond and interact with special needs populations will help you avoid a chaotic, controversial and potentially dangerous situation that could hit the headlines and go viral on social media. Coming Soon to Barnes & Noble and Amazon. Links will be updated. Also Bulk orders can be purchased direct through Scolar. Contact us a Scolarpublications@gmail.com

Earth Wind & Wildlife

A Word Search Puzzle book by Scolar that includes everything from nature with over 1,000 words to search. A great puzzle book, at an affordable price. Perfect for anyone from teens to adults. Order your copy here.

A Puzzle a Day Keeps Your Brain Okay

Scolar Publications is proud to announce a line of Puzzle Books has begun, beginning with the “A Puzzle a Day", series for people with early onset dementia. The book’s word search puzzles were designed for word associations, and frustration free by eliminating backwards words. Order a copy today for your loved one. CLICK HERE

The Indoctrination of our School Children

By Larry E. Holtz, Esq.

Were it not for COVID-19, parents across the Nation would have never found out that their school children were being brainwashed, indoctrinated into a ridiculous political and “woke” culture that sought nothing else but to teach harmful philosophies and hatred toward the United States.

In March 2020, virtually all public school districts in the U.S. shut their doors. For the next 18 months, homes became makeshift classrooms; parents became de facto teachers. And, when parents watched what their children were being taught, they were horrified. As a result, school enrollment declined; the pandemic has been a wake-up call for many families. In this regard, “COVID-19 gave parents and guardians a window into what was happening in their kids’ classrooms and forced them to explore alternative learning arrangements, which included teaching their children at home,” said Sofoklis Goulas and Isabelle Pula in their Hamilton Project article of May 16, 2024.

In one situation, a Texas mother pulled her children out of public school after she heard gender identity discussions. “Classroom politicization and bias were top reasons why a Texas parent decided to home-
school her kids this school year, the mother of four told Fox News.” According to the mother,
“I definitely chose home-schooling for my children because I feel like I’m able to control what they learn, control the speed of which they learn so they learn at a much faster rate, and control outside influences as far as peer pressure, bullying, [and] political agendas.”

According to another parent, her children “were learning wildly inappropriate sexual things, gender-related things and preferences, and they were coming home and stating things about that.” Said this mom: “I was blown away that kindergartners were speaking like that.”

It is interesting to note that more than two-thirds of registered voters opposed gender identity and sexual orientation being taught in elementary school, according to a recent New York Times/Siena poll. But among Democratic voters, 53% supported including gender identity in elementary school curricula. The topic has become a flashpoint at school board meetings across the country. Said former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos: “Union-run schools [are] prioritizing ‘political agendas’ while failing ‘millions’ of American children.”

The schools have been indoctrinating, not educating our children. What’s the difference? Ernest Zarra explains the difference between indoctrination and education in his exceptional article on this topic by comparing these issues.

“Indoctrination” can be defined in a three-part fashion. “First, indoctrination imbues students with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle. Second, indoctrination teaches students to fully accept only the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group. Third, indoctrination teaches students to accept these ideas, opinions, and beliefs uncritically. All three parts of this definition add up to indoctrination, not education.”

Biden’s Pardons of Chinese Spies Raise Alarming Questions About National Loyalty

By Scott R Morvay

In a move that has shocked the nation, President Joe Biden pardoned two high-ranking Chinese spies — Yanjun Xu and Ji Chaoqun — both convicted of serious crimes against the United States. This unprecedented decision, which effectively forgives individuals who worked to undermine American security, demands serious scrutiny. Coupled with lingering questions about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings, including his infamous WhatsApp message stating, “I am sitting here with my father,” the pattern of troubling connections cannot be ignored.

Who Are Yanjun Xu and Ji Chaoqun?

      Yanjun Xu, a senior official in China’s Ministry of State Security, was convicted in 2022 for his role in a plot to steal trade secrets from major U.S. aviation and aerospace companies. He was the first Chinese intelligence officer ever extradited to the United States, and his conviction was seen as a landmark victory for protecting national security.

      Ji Chaoqun, a former U.S. Army reservist, was convicted in January of acting as an unregistered agent of China and attempting to recruit American engineers and scientists to work for Beijing. His espionage activities demonstrated the CCP’s far-reaching efforts to infiltrate American institutions and gather critical information.

      The pardoning of these individuals is not merely a legal decision—it’s a symbolic gesture that appears to disregard the gravity of their crimes and the very real threat they posed to the United States.

The Shadow of Hunter Biden’s Dealings

      The pardons take on an even more ominous tone when viewed alongside the unresolved allegations surrounding Hunter Biden and his dealings with Chinese business interests. The 2017 WhatsApp message, in which Hunter pressured a Chinese businessman by writing, “I am sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,” raises serious questions about the Bidens’ relationship with China.

      This message was not just a casual statement. It was a clear invocation of Joe Biden’s political influence to extract financial gain from a foreign entity—one with ties to the CCP. Financial records have revealed that Hunter and his associates received millions of dollars from Chinese firms. Despite this, the administration has repeatedly dismissed these revelations as politically motivated attacks rather than addressing the facts.

Pardons, Influence, and Compromise

      The combination of these pardons and the unresolved questions surrounding the Biden family’s financial ties to China suggests a troubling pattern. How can Americans trust an administration that forgives convicted spies while its own connections to the very country these operatives serve remain under intense suspicion?

      The pardons of Xu and Ji signal not only a leniency toward individuals who sought to undermine U.S. national security but also a potential willingness to prioritize political interests over safeguarding the nation. It is no longer enough to dismiss these concerns as partisan attacks—this is a matter of loyalty to the United States.

A Betrayal of Trust

      The Constitution defines treason as giving “aid and comfort” to the nation’s enemies. Pardoning individuals who have worked against America’s interests fits uncomfortably close to this definition. The American people deserve answers. Why were these pardons granted? What message does this send to adversaries like China? And how do the president’s actions align with the financial entanglements of his own family?

      These questions cannot be ignored. The American people deserve a leader who prioritizes their safety and sovereignty over personal gain or diplomatic optics. Anything less is a betrayal of trust that undermines the very foundation of the nation. We are all very happy that Biden’s lame duck presidency is coming to an end.

—————

New bill by Florida Rep. Joel Rudman would permit open carry and repeal Florida’s “Red Flag” law

By Larry E. Holtz, Esq.

            On Monday, December 9, 2024, Representative Joel Rudman filed an extensive bill (HB 31) that would allow “open carry” for residents of Florida (§790.013; §790.053), as well as repeal the state’s “red flag” law. Florida’s “red flag” law was passed in the wake of the 2018 mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, where 14 students and three staff members were killed. The law, legally known as “Risk Protection Orders,” allows the state and law enforcement to restrict firearm and ammunition possession from a person who poses a danger to himself or herself or others.

 Said Rudman, HB-31 “reiterates my commitment to freedom and to the Constitution.” In his Facebook post, he continued: “As my first bill for the 2025 session, I have filed a comprehensive piece of legislation that restores and protects our inalienable rights as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.” HB-31, said Rudman, “makes Florida an open carry state.” Consequently, “‘Shall not be infringed’ will mean something here in the Gunshine state!”

            The bill is opposed by Florida’s Senate President Ben Albritton, who says open carry is too dangerous. It is interesting to note that Rudman is running for Congress in a special election. That means he will not be around during the session to vote on his bill. Rudman submitted his resignation, effective Jan. 1, 2025.

            The 32-page bill would also revise the list of places where firearms are currently prohibited. If passed, guns could be carried on college campuses and into polling places. In brief, if the bill passes, here are some of the changes:

·Repeals provisions relating to arrests without a warrant (§790.02) and exemption from licensing requirements for law enforcement officers (§790.051)

·Allows open carrying of any otherwise legal firearm, electric weapon or device (§790.053)

 ·Revises a list of places into which a person may not carry a handgun, concealed weapon or concealed firearm, deleting career centers and colleges or universities (§790.06(12)(a))

·Revises the possession of a handgun or other weapon in a vehicle (private conveyance) to permit the possession of the handgun or weapon on the motorist’s person. (§790.25(4)(a))

 ·Deletes provisions relating to collection of fees for licenses to carry concealed weapons or concealed firearms (§790.6), and allowing school districts to restrict possession of firearms in vehicles (§790.115)

· Revises the definition of “bump-fire stock” (§790.222)

 · Repeals provisions for risk protection orders (§790.401)

_________________________

The Rise of Antisemitism on College Campuses

By Larry E. Holtz, Esq.

In the wake of the October 7th attack on Israel by Hamas, Antisemitism took hold on many college campuses from New York to California. You would think Ivy League university- educated students would understand Israeli history and be able to identify terrorism when they see it or at least understand the geography of the middle east. Instead, they have been brainwashed by teachers, professors, and Tik Tok. They chant, “river to the sea” without knowing what river and what sea they are referring to. Equally upsetting, it is clear that some of the protestors were paid agitators. When their so called “encampments” pop up with matching tents, professional signs, headwraps, masks and more, that’s a good indication there is a heavily financed group paying their bills.

Harvard

      “Harvard’s handling of Jewish student concerns came under intense criticism from Jewish circles after October 7, 2023. President Claudine Gay resigned following a congressional hearing at which she did not say whether ‘calls for the genocide of Jews’ violated university conduct; the school has also been the site of several Title VI investigations at the U.S. Department of Education. At commencement last month, the Harvard Chabad director publicly confronted an invited speaker over what he believed was an antisemitic comment in her speech.”

      “The situation over the past year has been quite grave, and unless we take significant steps forward by the beginning of the coming academic year, we could be in a position similar to last year, which we want to prevent,” Derek Penslar, co-chair of the antisemitism task force, said in an interview published by Harvard’s newswire. As Pershing Square CEO Bill Ackerman stated on “X”:

      “Last Wednesday, I spent seven hours on campus meeting with Jewish, Israeli, and non-Jewish students and faculty at the [school]. … Over the course of the day, it became clear that the situation at Harvard is dire and getting worse, much worse than I had realized.

      Jewish students are being bullied, physically intimidated, spat on, and in several widely-disseminated videos of one such incident, physically assaulted. Student Slack message boards are replete with antisemitic statements, memes, and images. On-campus protesters on the Widener Library steps and elsewhere shout ‘Intifada! Intifada! Intifada! From the River to the Sea, Palestine Shall Be Free!’ as they knowingly call for violent insurrection and use eliminationist language seeking the destruction of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”

Stanford

At a January 2024 fireside chat with the University President, Provost, and Israel’s Special Envoy for Combatting Antisemitism, protesters stood outside chanting “Zionist you can’t hide” and “Go back to Brooklyn.” As Jewish students left the event, the protesters are reported to have yelled threatening messages like, “We know your names, we know where you work and soon we’re going to find out where you live.”

      During Family Weekend in February 2024, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) members disrupted President Richard Saller and Provost Jenny Martinez’s welcome session, chanting “Palestinian blood is on your hands” and “Up with liberation, down with occupation.” And in April 2024, pro-Palestinian protestors set up an encampment at the White Plaza in violation of university policies. During the protests, one individual was photographed wearing a green Hamas headband.

Antisemitism on College Campuses Exposed

The rise in antisemitism on college campuses is deeply alarming. If you’re sending a child off to college or have a family member attending, it’s essential to closely examine the data and each school’s policies to determine whether they are truly committed to protecting students.

Consider the following:

· University administrators made astounding concessions to the organizers of illegal encampments. For example, in the case of Northwestern University, administrators entertained demands to hire an “anti-Zionist” rabbi and divest from and remove the brand, Sabra Hummus, from campus cafeterias.

· University administrators deliberately chose to withhold support from Jewish students. Harvard University’s (Harvard) decision making was particularly egregious, as demonstrated by choices to intentionally omit condemnation of Hamas and acknowledgment of hostages in its widely-criticized equivocal statement on the October 7 attacks, and then-President Claudine Gay asking Harvard Corp. Senior Fellow not to call the phrase “From the River to the Sea” antisemitic hate speech.

· University administrators overwhelmingly failed to impose meaningful discipline for those who engaged in antisemitic conduct. Across the board, enforcement of campus rules was wildly uneven, from Harvard and Columbia faculty playing key roles in derailing discipline toward antisemitic conduct violations and Rutgers University (Rutgers) actually disciplining Jewish students who spoke out against the harassment, to the overall lack of consequences for those involved in encampments at schools including the UCLA, UC Berkeley, Yale University, and MIT.

· University administrators considered Congressional oversight a nuisance at best and with open hostility at worst. Administrators at the University of Pennsylvania, for instance, attempted to orchestrate negative media coverage of Members of Congress who scrutinized the university while Harvard president Claudine Gay disparaged U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik’s (R-NY) character to the university’s Board of Overseers.

      Based on a year-long investigation, the Committee on Education and the Workforce majority, under Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC), has released findings on how antisemitism engulfed college campuses while administrators put the wants of terrorist sympathizers over the safety of Jewish students, faculty, and staff.

_____________________________

Antisemitic Mob Targets Mayweather Over Support of Israel

By Scott R Morvay

Mayweather Receives Award in Israel; Photo via Jerusalem Post

December 13, 2024

Earlier this week, undefeated boxing champion Floyd Mayweather faced an antisemitic mob while shopping in London. He was approached by an individual questioning his vocal support of Israel, a stance that has become increasingly rare among progressive politicians and Hollywood.

According to the New York Post, “A crowd of about 20 to 30 people started rushing him, with some accusing the retired boxer of supporting genocide.” Instead of backing down, Mayweather stood firm, boldly declaring, “I’m proud to support the Jews.”

“I wasn’t punched or touched in any way. Where you’re seeing is my security doing their job to keep things under control.” Floyd Mayweather

This wasn’t just a random encounter; it was a targeted on someone who, despite not being Jewish, has consistently demonstrated unwavering support for Israel. Fortunately, Mayweather’s security team managed the situation professionally, ensuring his safe departure.

Mayweather’s position on Israel is a reminder of what true courage looks like. If more people had the backbone to speak out clearly and unapologetically in support of Israel, these terrorist sympathizers, enabled by a complicit media, would lose the platform they rely on to spread their propaganda.

This incident also sheds light on the troubling state of the United Kingdom. The country’s lax immigration policies and misdirected priorities in law enforcement have created an environment where riots in the streets are ignored, but social media posts can land someone in jail. Anti-Semitism is rising at an alarming rate, and even major cities like London are no longer safe for Jews or even their allies.

The takeaway here is twofold. First, gratitude is due to Floyd Mayweather for standing with Israel and refusing to bow to intimidation. Second, this incident is a stark reminder of the importance of vigilance and action against the growing tide of anti-Semitism.

As the world watches events unfold in the Middle East, it is critical that those who believe in freedom, justice, and the sanctity of human life stand strong and refuse to be silenced.

Mayweather’s resolve in the face of a hostile mob should inspire us all to do the same.

The Culture Wars is Now Available at Barnes & Noble

See at Barnes & Noble by clicking here.

The book can be ordered online or purchased at your local store. If they don’t have it in stock they are happy to transfer one to your store of choice.

The Left Swoons Over a Murderer

by Scott R Morvay

The tragic murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, gunned down in cold blood and captured on surveillance cameras in New York, has sparked a troubling response. The alleged killer, Luigi Mangione, has become a bizarre figure of fascination among some progressives, who seem to be working overtime to justify and even glamorize this heinous act.

Social media platforms are flooded with unsettling posts, including comments expressing attraction to Mangione and countless skits on TikTok and Instagram making light of the crime. Even late-night host Jimmy Kimmel spent minutes of his show fawning over Mangione, further perpetuating a narrative that downplays the gravity of the murder.

Brian Thompson was more than a CEO—he was a father and a husband who worked his way up the ranks without the advantage of an Ivy League education. His story is one of perseverance and hard work, but that doesn’t fit the progressive narrative. To them, all that matters is that he was wealthy and worked in an industry they disapprove of. At the Met Gala, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez famously wore a dress emblazoned with the words “Tax the Rich,” symbolizing the growing disdain for success stories like Thompson’s.

The irony lies in the fact that policies like Obamacare drove up healthcare costs for most Americans and businesses, yet progressives continue to scapegoat people like Thompson as the villains.

Steve Forbes, speaking on Fox News, stated, “There are wanted posters in New York of company executives. That’s an invitation to murder. It shows the moral rot on the left and a real stain on society.” His words underscore the alarming normalization of violence against individuals simply because of their success or profession.

Another troubling aspect of this story is that the weapon used was a “ghost gun,” 3D-printed and untraceable (no serial numbers or brand).

What’s peculiar in this case is that progressives have completely ignored the fact that Mangione came from a privileged background with an Ivy League degree, while Thompson worked his way up from humble beginnings. It’s a contrast that doesn’t fit their narrative. Instead, progressives are portraying Mangione as a modern-day Robin Hood, attacking the successful and disregarding the actual facts.

This case reflects a deeper cultural issue, the selective moral outrage and warped values. Brian Thompson’s murder should be universally condemned.

———-

How We Got Here: Follow the Money

By Larry E. Holtz, Esq.

Decades ago, the Arab world understood that it needed to start funding American colleges and universities in order to gain influence with students and mold young minds. This has been a scary yet successful part of the overall strategy of terrorists. Significantly, they initiated this plan decades ago understanding that over time they could shape students’ perspectives and foster and create all the antisemitism. The universities were unwilling pawns in the plan.

Sources report that American universities have accepted nearly $55 billion in foreign funding; nearly one-fourth came from donors and the governments of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

According to Dr. Mitchell Bard, Ph.D, in his May 2024 article, Arab Funding of American Universities: Donors, Recipients, and Impact: “Nearly three-fourths of the contributions, worth almost $10 billion (76% of the total), do not list their purpose. Most donations with a description of their use are for financial assistance to the 31,000 students from Arab countries (most from Saudi Arabia).”

Arab funding has grown significantly, with nearly one-third of donations made since 2020. In this regard, Cornell is by far the largest beneficiary, with donations worth $2.1 billion. Georgetown follows it with $934 million, Texas A&M with almost $910 million, and Carnegie Mellon with $900 million. Due to lax compliance and enforcement, billions of dollars in contributions were not reported to the Department of Education.

Bard reports that “Qatar is by far the largest source, donating nearly $6 billion. The $13.1 billion total is spread among 288 institutions in every state but Alaska. We know very little

about how the money is spent because of the combined efforts of universities and the U.S. Department of Education under President Joe Biden to conceal the information about the donors and the purpose of their donations.”

Sadly, even tragically, the Arab plan worked. While top tier American colleges and universities soaked up billions in Arab funds, the seeds of antisemitism were being planted and taking root in the minds of their students. The encampments and violence that sprung up in the wake of the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas were as much a part of the terrorists’ plan as were the direct attacks in Israel. While Israelis are reeling from the violence, Americans are drowning in this insidious influence which has fundamentally altered the landscape of academic discourse. The results in Israel and in America underscore the urgent need for educational values that are rooted in equality and critical thinking.

                                 _______________________

The Culture Wars

A Worldwide Battle of Traditional and Nontraditional Points of View

Scolar Publications is proud to announce another book release! We have established international distribution through Amazon. Additionally, in the United States, this book can be purchased online or by request at Barnes & Noble stores.

Enduring Ties

Navigating the Divide Between Traditional Values and Progressive Leftist Ideals Pertaining to Israel

Scolar Publications is proud to announce an addition to our book lineup. This book was a passion project from Scott and with Larry’s guidance we were able to make it a reality. Scolar Publications has a unique formatting methodology that carries over to all the books we publish. Enduring Ties is available in our store and on Amazon.

Texas Constitutional Carry 2025 Edition is now Available

You can order the book through our website or on Amazon. For bulk orders, please contact us at Scolarpublishing@Gmail.com or through the contact page.

The Spanish Version of the Concealed Carry Guidebook Florida Edition 2025 is Now Available.

The book is available for immediate purchase in softcover on this website and Amazon.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

      By Larry E. Holtz, Esq.

The right to keep and bear arms is among the “fundamental rights

necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”[1] This right secures for Americans

a means of self-defense.[2]

      “Like most rights,” though, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller,[4] the Court held that the right applied to ordinary citizens within the home. However, this right is not one “to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”[5]

      In the Heller case, Special Officer Dick Heller was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the District of Columbia Judiciary Building. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to stop the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” At the US Supreme Court, he was successful.

      Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia observed:

      [The District of Columbia] law totally bans handgun possession in the home. It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable.

      [T]he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.  The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” would fail constitutional muster.[6]

      Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down. … It is enough to note … that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense:  It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.  Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

      [T]he District [requires] that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.[7]

      Accordingly, the Court held that the District of Columbia’s “ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”[8]

      The United States Supreme Court has yet to squarely address what types of weapons are “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment. As explained in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment’s protection “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”[9] The Court also noted that “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,”[10] recognizing “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”[11] But this minimal guidance “leaves open essential questions such as what makes a weapon ‘bearable,’ ‘dangerous,’ or ‘unusual.’”[12]

      In United States v. Rahimi,[13] the United States Supreme Court addressed a federal statute that prohibits an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm if that order includes a finding that the person “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [an] intimate partner,” or a child of the partner or individual.[14] Defendant Rahimi was subject to such an order. The question was whether this provision may be enforced against him consistent with the Second Amendment.[15]

      The Court held that “[w]hen a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may—consistent with the Second Amendment—be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect. Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.[16] As applied to the facts of this case, wherein a court found that the defendant posed a credible threat to the physical safety of the victim or her family, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) fits comfortably within the Nation’s tradition of “preventing individuals who threatened physical harm to others from misusing firearms.”[17]

[1] McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 778, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).

[2] New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1, 17, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022).

[3] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 626, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2816 (2008).

[4] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).

[5] United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___, 144 S. Ct. 1889, 1897 (2024) (Act of Mar. 1, 1783, 1783 Mass. Acts and Laws ch.13, pp. 218-219; 5 Colonial Laws of New York ch. 1501, pp. 244-246 (1894)).

[6] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 628, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2817-18 (2008).

[7] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 629-30, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2818 (2008).

[8] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 636, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2821-22 (2008) (emphasis added). In brief, the Court in Heller recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In Buren, the court further held that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. Thus, the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense inside and outside the home. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1, 8-10, 142 S. Ct. 2122 (2022).

[9] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2792 (2008).

[10] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 625, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2816 (2008).

[11] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2817 (2008); Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. 411, 417-419, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 194 L. Ed. 2d 99 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring in judgment)

[12] Harrel v. Raoul, 144 S.Ct. 2491, 2492 (2024) (Thomas, J., concurring).

[13] United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024).

[14] 18 U. S.C. §922(g)(8).

[15] United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___, 144 S. Ct. 1889, 1894 (2024).

[16] United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___, 144 S. Ct. 1889, 1896 (2024).

[17] United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___, 144 S. Ct. 1889, 1896-97 (2024). Note also that in holding that Section 922(g)(8) is constitutional as applied to Rahimi, the Court rejected the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not “responsible.” Said the Court: “‘Responsible’ is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail.” Id. at 1903.

US Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Bump Stocks

June 14, 2024- Posted by Larry E. Holtz, Esq.

On June 14, 2024, the United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision in Garland v. Cargill, threw out a ban on bump stocks, finding that the Justice Department exceeded its authority by classifying the device, which modifies a semiautomatic weapon to fire with the speed and lethality of military arms, as a machine gun.

      The opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, strikes down a rule issued in the aftermath of a 2017 massacre in Las Vegas, Nevada, when a gunman using semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks fired hundreds of rounds into a crowd, killing 58 people and wounding over 500 more.

      Federal law defines a “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U.S.C. §5845(b). With a machinegun, a shooter can fire multiple times, or even continuously, by engaging the trigger only once. This capability distinguishes a machinegun from a semiautomatic firearm. With a semiautomatic firearm, the shooter can fire only one time by engaging the trigger. Using a technique called bump firing, shooters can fire semiautomatic firearms at rates approaching those of some machineguns. Although bump firing does not require any additional equipment, a “bump stock” is an accessory designed to make the technique easier.

      “This case asks whether a bump stock—an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire)—converts the rifle into a “machinegun.” The Court held that it does not. Said the Court: “We conclude that semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” because it does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.”

      For many years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) consistently took the position that semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks were not machineguns under §5845(b). The ATF abruptly changed course after the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, reversing its previous guidance and amending its regulations to provide that bump stocks are machineguns. See 83 Fed. Reg. 13442. The new Rule ordered owners of bump stocks either to destroy or surrender them to ATF to avoid criminal prosecution.

      In this case, Michael Cargill surrendered two bump stocks to ATF under protest, and then filed suit to challenge the Rule, arguing that the ATF lacked statutory authority to promulgate the Rule because bump stocks are not “machineguns” as defined in §5845(b). At the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, agreed, holding that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classified a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b).

      ​Said the Court: A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” as defined by §5845(b) because: (1) it cannot fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger” and (2) even if it could, it would not do so “automatically.” A bump stock merely reduces the amount of time that elapses between separate “functions” of the trigger. Accordingly, the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns.

Supreme Court Addresses “True Threats” of Violence by Larry E. Holtz Esq.

True threats of violence are “outside the bounds of First Amendment protection and punishable as crimes.” Counterman v. Colorado, 143 S.Ct. 2106 (2023). Historically, “true threats” of violence have been an unprotected category of communications. See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359, 123 S.Ct. 1536 (2003).

      The “true” in that term distinguishes what is at issue from jests, “hyperbole,” or other statements that when taken in context do not convey a real possibility that violence will follow (say, “I am going to kill you for showing up late”). … True threats are “serious expression[s]” conveying that a speaker means to “commit an act of unlawful violence.” …

      In Counterman, the United States Supreme Court addressed the question whether the First Amendment additionally requires proof that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements. The Court held that “it does, but that a mental state of recklessness is sufficient. The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence. The State need not prove any more demanding form of subjective intent to threaten another.”

      From 2014 to 2016, Billy Counterman sent hundreds of Facebook messages to C. W., a local singer and musician.

The two had never met, and C. W. never responded. In fact, she repeatedly blocked Counterman. But each time, he created a new Facebook account and resumed his contacts. Some of his messages were utterly prosaic (“Good morning sweetheart”; “I am going to the store would you like anything?”)—except that they were coming from a total stranger. … Others suggested that Counterman might be surveilling C. W. He asked “[w]as that you in the white Jeep?”; referenced “[a] fine display with your partner”; and noted “a couple [of] physical sightings.” … And most critically, a number expressed anger at C. W. and envisaged harm befalling her: “F--k off permanently.” … “Staying in cyber life is going to kill you.” … “You’re not being good for human relations. Die.”

      The messages put C. W. in fear; she believed that Counterman was threatening her life; was very fearful that he was following her; and was afraid she would get hurt. She had trouble sleeping, suffered from severe anxiety; she stopped walking alone, and canceled some of her performances, though doing so caused her financial harm.

      Ultimately, C. W. contacted the authorities, and Colorado charged Counterman under a statute making it unlawful to repeatedly “make[ ] any form of communication with another person” in “a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and does cause that person … to suffer serious emotional distress.” Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-3-602(1)(c). Counterman moved to dismiss the charge on First Amendment grounds, arguing that his messages were not “true threats” and therefore could not form the basis of a criminal prosecution.

      In this appeal, the first dispute was whether the First Amendment demands that the State in a true-threats case prove that the defendant was aware in some way of the threatening nature of his communications. Colorado argued that there is no such requirement. The United States Supreme Court disagreed, holding that “the State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had some understanding of his statements’ threatening character.”

      The second issue focused on “what precise mens rea standard suffices for the First Amendment purpose at issue. … [The Court held] that a recklessness standard is enough.” Said the Court: “Given that a subjective standard here shields speech not independently entitled to protection—and indeed posing real dangers—we do not require that the State prove the defendant had any more specific intent to threaten the victim.”

      In this case, Counterman was prosecuted in accordance with an objective standard. “The State had to show only that a reasonable person would understand his statements as threats. It did not have to show any awareness on his part that the statements could be understood that way. For the reasons stated, that is a violation of the First Amendment.” Accordingly, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Supreme Court Eliminates the “Special Need” Requirement for Carry Permits by Larry E. Holtz

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022)

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022), the United States Supreme Court invalidated New York state’s system for issuing concealed firearm permits, ruling that New York’s law requiring applicants to demonstrate “proper cause,” that is, a “special need for self-protection,” violates the Second Amendment.

            Previously, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Court recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. Here, in Bruen, the Court now holds, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

            According to the Court, 43 states are “shall issue” jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special or urgent need. Because New York State issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, the Court held that the licensing regime violates the Constitution.

            Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas specifically mentioned that carry permit laws in California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey shared New York’s constitutional flaw.

            In New York, a license applicant who wants to possess a firearm at home (or in his place of business) must convince a “licensing officer”—usually a judge or law enforcement officer—that, among other things, he is of good moral character, has no history of crime or mental illness, and that “no good cause exists for the denial of the license.” If the applicant wants to carry a firearm outside his home or place of business for self-defense, the applicant must obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver.” That requires the applicant to prove that “proper cause exists” to issue it. New York case law provides that an applicant shows proper cause only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” In this regard, the Court noted that the “special need” standard is “demanding.” For example, living or working in an area “noted for criminal activity” does not suffice. “Rather, New York courts generally require evidence “of particular threats, attacks or other extraordinary danger to personal safety.” This requirement, held the Court, violates the Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments.

            Said the Court:

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” … We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. …

            Going forward, consistent with Heller and McDonald, to determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, courts should consider “at least two relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because ‘individual self-defense’ is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right, these two metrics are ‘central’ considerations” when determining whether the particular regulation is constitutional permissible.

The Softcover Version is Now Available of the Concealed Carry Guidebook; Florida Edition

You can purchase on Amazon or order on this website.