fbpx
Connect with us

The Center Square

Whose to blame for cartel violence? Some Democrats say U.S. gun manufacturers | Texas

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By Bethany Blankley | contributor – 2024-06-07 08:52:00

(The Center Square) – Several U.S. House Democrats, led by two Texans, have introduced a bill that would strip certain gun rights from Americans as they blame American gun manufacturers and Republicans for Mexican cartel violence.

They make similar arguments as the Mexican government, which claims in a lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers – Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et.al., v. Mexico – that the manufacturers are responsible for cartel violence.

After a federal judge dismissed Mexico's lawsuit in 2022, on appeal, the First Circuit Court ruled in favor of Mexico. Next, a 27-state coalition led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to throw out the case.

Advertisement

The coalition argues the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 balances “Americans' Second Amendment right with the need to keep guns away from criminals while protecting firearms companies from being held liable for crimes committed with their products.”

The First Circuit ruled that Mexico's claims fall within an exception to PLCAA, which Knudsen's coalition argues is a wrong interpretation of the law.

“Rather than take responsibility, Mexico and anti-gun activists are trying to blame and bankrupt American companies that follow the law,” Knudsen said. “The appeals court erred in their decision and the Supreme Court needs to correct it.”

As cartel violence surged in Mexico, its outgoing president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, implemented a “hugs not bullets” policy with the cartels. He also blamed Americans for Mexico's violence, as dozens of candidates were murdered in Mexico's most recent election cycle, The Center Square reported.

Not soon after Mexico's “bullets before ballots” violence, U.S. House Democrats introduced their bill.

Advertisement

U.S. Reps. Joaquin Castro and Veronica Escobar of Texas introduced the Stop Arming Cartels Act “to address the sale and trafficking of firearms from the United States to transnational criminal organizations around the world.” It would prohibit “the further sale of 0.50 caliber rifles” and regulate existing 0.50 caliber rifles by “applying the same reporting requirements for handguns to rifles.”

“When I speak to leaders in Latin America and the Caribbean, their number-one request is for Congress to stop American weapons of war from falling into the hands of the gangs that are destabilizing their countries,” Castro said. “Especially in Mexico, access to .50 caliber rifles has fundamentally altered the balance of power between criminal organizations and the government and allowed cartels to become virtually untouchable.”

It is largely illegal for Mexican citizens to own firearms, with only one shop in all of Mexico where a small caliber weapon can be legally purchased in a heavily guarded military base, The Los Angeles Times has reported.

Weapons trafficking, a felony, is already illegal in the U.S., American gun manufacturers do not sell their products to transnational criminal organizations, and the PLCAA protects them from such lawsuits, Second Amendment proponents argue.

Escobar also blamed Republicans for Mexican and Latin American gun violence. “A refusal to act would mean continuing to arm transnational criminal organizations and cartels that purchase these weapons for illicit acts,” she said. She also says the bill would “prohibit the sale of certain rifles to prevent further violence and bloodshed.”

Advertisement

The Democratic lawmakers point to reports claiming Mexican cartels' weapons of choice are .50 caliber rifles purchased throughs straw buyers and then trafficked south to Mexico. They cite a Violence Policy Center report that has documented examples of how long range .50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles create an “imminent threat to national security.”

The ammunition “can penetrate light armor, down helicopters, destroy commercial aircraft, and blast through rail cars and bulk storage tanks filled with explosive or toxic chemicals, all with potentially catastrophic effect. Although designed for use by the military on the battlefield, 50 caliber anti-armor rifles – and armor-piercing and armor-piercing incendiary ammunition for them – are easily available on the U.S. civilian market,” the report states.

The bill, which is likely not to advance in the Republican-controlled House, highlights a concerted effort by Democrats to restrict gun rights of U.S. citizens, knowing that cartel members do not legally purchase weapons, critics argue.

“This bill will not keep firearms out of the hands of the cartels or stop gun violence in America or abroad,” Knudsen told The Center Square. “This is simply an attempt by the left and anti-gun activists to encroach on the Second Amendment right of law-abiding Americans who should not be punished for the cartel's criminal behavior. If countries south of the border were actually interested in stopping crime and gun violence, they would fix their broken policies that created the problem.”

The bill would ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer or possession of .50 caliber rifles excluding for governmental use. It would create a new regulation of .50 caliber rifles for lawful U.S. gunowners who currently possess the rifles under the National Firearms Act by assigning a fee waiver and 12-month grace period to register on the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

Advertisement

It also would create an exception to the PLCAA, enabling victims of gun violence to sue manufacturers and dealers who engage in firearm transactions that violate the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. It would mandate that firearms dealers report multiple sales of rifles to state and local law enforcement agencies, mirroring the current requirement for handguns.

Read More

The post Whose to blame for cartel violence? Some Democrats say U.S. gun manufacturers | Texas appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com

Advertisement

The Center Square

Texans praise court ruling halting Biden LNG export ban, remain cautious | Texas

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By Bethany Blankley | contributor – 2024-07-03 13:23:00

(The Center Square) – Texans are praising this week's ruling halting a partial liquified natural gas (LNG) ban imposed by the Biden administration.

Judge James Cain Jr. of the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Department of Energy's partial LNG export ban in a lawsuit filed by a coalition of states led by Louisiana and Texas, the Gulf states that lead the U.S. in LNG exports.

Cain said the ban was implemented “completely without reason or logic and is perhaps the epiphany of ideocracy.”

Advertisement

The states argue the ban was unconstitutional and a political ploy in an election year after U.S. LNG exports and domestic natural gas consumption broke records, The Center Square reported.

Texas leads the U.S. in oil and natural gas production and in LNG exports, providing a lifeline to European countries previously dependent on Russian oil, The Center Square first reported. A senior advisor to the president, John Podesta, recently acknowledged the critical role of U.S. LNG exports earlier this year.

“The US is now the number one producer of oil and gas in the world, the number one exporter of natural gas, and that's a good thing, because following the illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the need that Europe had to rely on different sources rather than Russia fossils, it was important that the US could step up and supply a good deal of that need,” he told The Guardian.

But after the administration implemented the ban, LNG exports declined, causing concern in the industry.

While the court's decision “is certainly something to celebrate, how the Biden administration responds will be even more critical because we're already seeing impacts from the LNG pause,” Ed Longanecker, president of the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO), told The Center Square.

Advertisement

“The Administration's pause caused global uncertainty in America's ability to supply reliable, affordable energy, leading to a 15% drop in LNG Sale and Purchase Agreements in the first half of 2024, compared to the same time period in 2023. This enabled suppliers in Asia and Canada to step in and acquire larger market shares, and Russia to once again become the largest natural gas supplier to Europe,” he said.

Pointing to the administration aggressively halting lease sales on federal land and offshore, he said, “As we saw with the stay on the federal oil and gas leasing pause at the beginning of this administration, court orders don't necessarily translate into immediate action from the Biden administration. And that's what we need right now – real and immediate evidence that the administration will review permits expeditiously to reduce the uncertainty in the markets.”

The court ruling “means Biden's illegal ban does not prevent Texas natural gas from reaching market while the lawsuit continues … producers can take their natural gas to market instead of flaring it. This will protect Texas jobs and keep our critical energy industry running,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said.

It also “achieves the right result,” Texas Oil & Gas Association president Todd Staples said. “U.S. natural gas has ushered in a new era of energy security by providing for needs here at home and to allies around the globe.”

The Biden administration implemented the ban claiming LNG exports increased domestic energy costs and methane emissions, contradicting federal data, The Center Square reported.

Advertisement

In contrast to the administration's approach, Texas' governor, legislature and voters supported creating a new $5 billion Texas Energy Fund to primarily advance natural gas development and infrastructure.

On the same day as the court ruling, Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick issued a joint statement saying they were prioritizing fast-tracking building more dispatchable energy, seeking to expand the program by another $10 billion.

“Texas has already received notice of intent to apply for $39 billion in loans [through the Texas Energy Fund], making the program nearly eight times oversubscribed. With the new projections for 2030, we will seek to expand the program to $10 billion to build more new plants as soon as possible,” they said.

They're referring to a recent projection that Texas is expected to need nearly double the energy to power its grid by 2030. The need is due to several factors, including more residents and businesses relocating to Texas, Texas being the energy capital of the U.S., and record demand for domestic natural gas consumption largely made possible by Texas producers.

Advertisement

Read More

The post Texans praise court ruling halting Biden LNG export ban, remain cautious | Texas appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com

Continue Reading

The Center Square

Federal judge pauses Biden’s partial liquefied natural gas export ban | National

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By Dan McCaleb | – 2024-07-01 20:00:00

(The Center Square) – A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked the Biden administration's ban on new exports of liquified natural gas exports to non-free trade agreement countries.

Judge James Cain Jr. of the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Department of Energy's partial LNG export ban after more than a dozen states sued, arguing the ban was illegal.

“It appears that the DOE's decision to halt the permit approval process for entities to export LNG to non-FTA countries is completely without reason or logic and is perhaps the epiphany of ideocracy,” Cain wrote in his ruling.

Advertisement

The ban was put in place, according to the Biden administration, because the exports “no longer adequately account for considerations like potential energy cost increases for American consumers and manufacturers beyond current authorizations or the latest assessment of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.”

After the Department of Energy announced the ban in January, 16 states filed suit, including Louisiana.

“This is great for Louisiana, our 16 state partners in this fight, and the entire country,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement following the judge's decision. “As Judge Cain mentioned in his ruling, there is roughly $61 billion dollars of pending infrastructure at risk to our state from this illegal pause. LNG has an enormous and positive impact on Louisiana, supplying clean energy for the entire world, and providing good jobs here at home.”

Louisiana was joined by Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming in the lawsuit. 

Advertisement

Read More

The post Federal judge pauses Biden's partial liquefied natural gas export ban | National appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com

Continue Reading

The Center Square

U.S. Supreme Court declines to rule whether social media feeds are free speech | National

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By Kenneth Schrupp | – 2024-07-01 15:31:00

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue a ruling but unanimously vacated the judgments of and remanded a set of cases regarding social media moderation and algorithms back to federal appellate courts. The court also ordered lower courts to more closely examine the laws' application beyond curated feeds and suggested they explore how the laws could still apply to other features, such as direct messaging.

Florida and Texas both passed laws limiting social media content moderation and algorithmic sorting — which the court says was in response to a feeling “feeds [were] skewed against politically conservative voices” — and requiring notification detailing exactly why any posts are in violation of content moderation rules. District courts, following suits by trade association NetChoice, issued injunctions against both, with the Eleventh Circuit Court upholding the injunction against Florida's law, and the Fifth Circuit Court — which ruled social media companies are “common carriers” like mobile phone service providers that can't discriminate — reversing the injunction against Texas' law.

By remanding and vacating both the appellate courts' decisions, the Supreme Court did not definitely rule on the matter, but suggested, especially with regard to the Fifth Circuit, how the lower courts should move forward this time around. 

Advertisement

“This Court has many times held, in many contexts, that it is no job for government to decide what counts as the right balance of private expression—to “un-bias” what it thinks biased, rather than to leave such judgments to speakers and their audiences. That principle works for social-media platforms as it does for others,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan in the court's opinion. “Contrary to what the Fifth Circuit thought, the current record indicates that the Texas law does regulate speech.” 

The court then went on to say the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit Courts should more broadly consider First Amendment implications of Florida and Texas rules in social media beyond the content feeds, such as in direct messaging or determining the order in which online reviews are shown to consumers. 

“Curating a feed and transmitting direct messages, one might think, involve different levels of editorial choice, so that the one creates an expressive product and the other does not,” wrote Kagan. “If so, regulation of those diverse activities could well fall on different sides of the constitutional line.” 

This means lower courts could expand consumers' speech protections to less-curated products such as direct messages, but free speech legal experts say it's unlikely.

“Having attended the oral argument in the NetChoice cases, I think the court was more really just trying to explore how regulations would apply to different functions,” said Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “Parsing out direct messages where the platform doesn't have any involvement in the message from others could be used as part of that argument, but I don't think you can reach that conclusion just from that one off-hand remark from Kagan.”

Advertisement

The cases now go back to the Fifth and Eleventh District Courts for new rulings under the Supreme Court's instructions.

Read More

The post U.S. Supreme Court declines to rule whether social media feeds are free speech | National appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News from the South

Trending