New York, NY — Whether or not municipalities have the right to restrict firearms has sparked a heated discussion in the latest Republican presidential debate. It's a timely issue, because the nation's highest court will consider a Second Amendment case this spring. Although it's a Washington, D.C., case, the Supreme Court's ruling will describe the extent to which cities like New York can restrict certain weapons in an effort to quell urban violence.

The NAACP-Legal Defense Fund has filed a brief in the case. Ted Shaw, NAACP director counsel and president, says New York has a law similar to, but not quite as restrictive as, the District of Columbia law that was struck down by a lower court.

"When you talk about urban areas where gun violence is ubiquitous and people, unfortunately many of them young and black, are killing one another at alarming rates, then it's reasonable for a municipality to try to do something to restrict gun violence."

The lower court found that the Washington, D.C., law violated the Second Amendment guarantee to gun ownership. Shaw says the Supreme Court must determine the existence or scope of that ownership right, and balance it against the right of local government to enact firearms regulations to protect public safety.

Although some people believe the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms without restriction, Shaw says the Supreme Court never has held that. He says a 1939 ruling linking the right to bear arms to the need to maintain a strong militia should not apply to modern restrictions.

"When folks are engaging in this gun violence, it's not because they are keeping guns to be part of a militia. Militia meant something different in 1791 than it means now. So, we believe these laws are reasonable and necessary for the sake and lives and well-being of our citizens."

Shaw notes that the District of Columbia law does allow people to own shotguns, rifles and other weapons that are not concealable, but he argues that urban areas need to be able to protect their citizens from concealed weapons and assault rifles. Such weapons, he says, deprive many urban residents, particularly African-Americans, of the "right to live and to succeed in life."

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, in June.



get more stories like this via email

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas says it is monitoring protests at college campuses, after almost 60 students protesting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were arrested during a demonstration at the University of Texas in Austin.

State troopers on horses and in riot gear were called in to control the crowd. ACLU Staff Attorney Brian Klosterboer said students planning to participate in peaceful protests should know their rights.

"We encourage everyone to follow the guidance of law enforcement even if they believe that law enforcement might be violating their First Amendment or constitutional rights," said Klosterboer. "It's important that people try to stay safe. Remember, they also have a right to remain silent. You can ask if you are free to leave."

Charges were dropped against the protesters in Austin. Students also held a sit-in at the University of Texas in Dallas and a walkout was held at the University of Texas in Arlington.

Following the arrests of the protesters, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said on the social media platform X that the students belonged in jail, and accused them of hate speech.

Klosterboer said when state officials attack free speech, they undermine the core of democracy.

"Texas public universities were specifically designated by Gov. Abbott as traditional public forums," said Klosterboer. "That's where students and others who are engaging in any kind of speech, whether it's passing out Bibles and religious literature or engaging in protests for human rights. That's where free speech is at its apex."

He added that if someone feels their civil liberties have been violated, they can file a complaint on the ACLU website.

The demonstrations in Texas are part of nationwide protests calling for a ceasefire between the Israeli forces and Hamas.





get more stories like this via email

The Montana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has filed class-action lawsuit challenging a measure barring people from listing a gender on their birth certificate other than the one they were born with.

Montana lawmakers passed Senate Bill 280 in 2021, which requires a court order to change gender on a birth certificate. A state court issued an injunction against the measure but now the state health department has put a total ban on changes to sex designations on birth certificates.

Akilah Deernose, executive director of the ACLU of Montana, called the measure part of a "concerted and unrelenting attack" on the civil rights of people who identify as transgender.

"We've previously sued on the birth certificate issue," Deernose pointed out. "Once again, we're seeing the state implement laws and rules and policies that unfairly target transgender people."

On the other side, some people argued birth certificates contain vital statistics and should be based on the facts at the time of birth. The suit awaits action in state court.

Deernose noted beyond privacy rights, the birth certificate measure has the potential to force a person to declare themselves to be someone other than who they are, based on their declared identity.

"And who they know themselves to be," Deernose observed. "That puts them at risk of discrimination and also forces them to out themselves every time they share those identity documents."

The suit also challenges a motor vehicle department policy forbidding changing sex designations on driver's licenses.

New York state lawmakers have appointed members to the Community Commission on Reparations Remedies, created through legislation Gov. Kathy Hochul signed in 2023.

Its goal is to examine the legacy of slavery and its continuing impacts on black New Yorkers. The commission will develop a report outlining recommendations for addressing these inequities.

Linda J. Mann, co-founder of the African American Redress Network, said there is one problem facing the commission: a lack of funds.

"It is absolutely imperative that funds for these types of task force, because of the amount of research that's going into it, is an imperative," Mann emphasized.

While the bill had plenty of Democratic support, it drew the ire of Republican lawmakers.

Many areas of the country are determining how to redress past disparities Black people face. A recent report found philanthropies have received millions in funds stemming from depriving Black people of opportunities to build wealth similar to those of their white counterparts.

The New York commission will have to present its findings in 2025.

A 2021 Pew Research survey showed three-quarters of Black Americans surveyed support reparations, while only 18% of white Americans support it.

Along with the U.S., countries worldwide are navigating reparations, with Mann noting they are not always compensatory.

"We're not talking about just altering economic wellness," Mann pointed out. "There's other ways in which historical harms have led to disparities in education, in health, in housing."

Beyond New York, California is the only other state to have created a reparations commission. California's reparations task force recommended some compensatory reparations based on factors such as health harms, mass incarceration and over-policing, housing discrimination and the devaluation of African American businesses. But, it wasn't certain how much all of this would amount to.