Monday, August 3, 2026
Home Blog Page 889

Historic ruling: Roe v. Wade overturned, abortion laws sent back to the states

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
57
Historic ruling: Roe v. Wade overturned, abortion laws sent back to the states

By CASEY HARPER | THE CENTER SQUARE

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that prevented states from banning abortion.

The court ruled 6-3 that there is no Constitutional right to an abortion and that it is therefore up to each state to decide how to handle the issue.

“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives,” a syllabus of the ruling reads. 

The high court called the Roe v. Wade ruling “egregiously wrong.”

“Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided,” the court said. “Casey perpetuated its errors, calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side. Those on the losing side – those who sought to advance the State’s interest in fetal life – could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views. The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe.”

Several states have already lined up legislation to restrict abortion in anticipation of this ruling.

“Finally, the Court considers whether a right to obtain an abortion is part of a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents,” the ruling said. “The Court concludes the right to obtain an abortion cannot be justified as a component of such a right. Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s ‘concept of existence’ prove too much.”

The case in question began with a legal challenge to a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch last year requested that the Supreme Court use that case to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The ruling comes after the court last year allowed a Texas law to stand that banned abortions after six weeks, when a baby’s heartbeat is detectable.

A leak from the Supreme Court earlier this year that indicated Roe v. Wade could be overturned sparked controversy and led to protests outside multiple Justices’ homes and a failed assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Fencing and barricades were erected around the court, and law enforcement presence increased after the leak. Demonstrators on both sides gathered outside the court all week along with law enforcement in anticipation of the ruling.

Pro-life advocates celebrated the ruling.

“Laws across the country can now affirm that life is a human right and ensure women have greater access to the support and resources they need and deserve,” Alliance Defending Freedom General Counsel Kristen Waggoner said.

Now, the energy on abortion will likely ramp up at the state level, where each state government can now decide how to handle the controversial issue.

“We now turn to the states to ensure that unborn children and their mothers are protected from the gruesome reality of abortion, and that they receive the care and resources they need to flourish,” Waggoner said. “Mississippi asked the court to overturn Roe because that case was egregiously wrong and had no basis in constitutional text, structure, or history. Additionally, Roe’s changing standards have long been unworkable, which is why so many pro-life laws ended up in court. It also failed to account for changing science, which demonstrates that life begins at conception. Today is a day of celebration, but the battle continues, as states either respect or shirk their responsibility to protect the life and health of women and children.”

This story is developing.

Department of Law reviewing Supreme Court ruling on state funding of faith-based schools

Suzanne Downing
-
9
Department of Law reviewing Supreme Court ruling on state funding of faith-based schools

The Alaska Department of Law is reviewing Tuesday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Carson v. Makin for any impact on Alaska law.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that a Maine law violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause by permitting public funds to be spent for tuition assistance at private nonsectarian schools, but not at private religious schools.

As the court has leaned more conservative, it has begun to side with parents and religious institutions that have challenged “Blaine Amendment” state policies prohibiting them from receiving education-related funds that were available for government schools.

The court’s three leftist justices dissented from the majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision “upended constitutional doctrine” and she has a “growing concern for where this Court will lead us next.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling explained that states “need not subsidize private education,” but if they choose to do so, they cannot categorically exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of religious exercise.

“The question on Alaskans’ minds is what does this mean for our own state constitution’s prohibition on spending public funds on a private education?” said Deputy Attorney General Cori Mills. “Initially, what we know is that the specific facts of this case are not directly on point for Alaska. The case involved discriminating against religious schools compared to other private schools. Our constitution distinguishes between a private and a public education. However, the details matter, and we will need to fully review and evaluate the opinion to determine what, if any, impact it has,” Mills said.

Alaska does not have a private school tuition program directly analogous to the Maine law at issue in Carson. Article VII, section 1 of Alaska’s Constitution provides that public funds shall not be used “for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.” 

“We know that Alaska’s public correspondence school program has been in the news recently, but that is a separate issue from the broader potential impacts of this Supreme Court case, which is focused on the religious versus non-religious distinction,” Mills clarified. “The department is still reviewing the administration of Alaska’s correspondence school program under state law and will separately be looking at the broader questions raised by this case,” she said.

Alaska, by statute, provides that “a correspondence study program may provide an annual student allotment to a parent or guardian” and that this allotment may be used “to purchase nonsectarian services and materials from a public, private, or religious organization” provided certain criteria are met.

Sen. Sullivan votes ‘no’ on gun law

Suzanne Downing
-
28

Sen. Dan Sullivan has parted ways with Sen. Lisa Murkowski on the gun control legislation being pushed by Senate Democrats and a handful of Republicans.

Murkowski voted yes on cloture on the bill, ending debate, and Sullivan voted no. The measure has the votes to pass now that the debate portion of bill-making is over.

“One of my top priorities as a U.S. Senator has been to work with my colleagues on vitally-needed solutions to address the mental health crisis, especially among young Americans, that is unfolding across our nation,” Sullivan said.

“This is a challenge that is clearly at the heart of the recent horrific shootings. This is where our focus should be, and this legislation represents a good start in that regard. The authors of this legislation included provisions that I believe could help address mental health challenges. As a cosponsor of the STOP School Violence Act, enacted in 2018, I was also pleased to see significant funding included to improve school safety,” he said.

“However, the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and I have repeatedly committed to Alaskans that I will not support any legislation that infringes on that right. In that regard, I have serious concerns about the broad discretion this legislation leaves up to federal courts and Biden administration officials as it relates to the implementation and interpretation of the bill’s vaguely defined firearms restrictions and due process provisions. Alaska is unique. Alaskans use firearms for protection, hunting, subsistence, and recreation—and we take any infringement on our Second Amendment rights very seriously.”

Murkowski votes to advance gun control, and Tshibaka blisters her as anti-Second Amendment

Can Tara Sweeney make the ballot? Group files lawsuit asking court to decide that she can

Suzanne Downing
-
27
Can Tara Sweeney make the ballot? Group files lawsuit asking court to decide that she can

Updated: The lawsuit referenced in this story has been filed by the Birch Horton Bittner and Cherot law firm. The plaintiffs are Sunny Guerin, of Anchorage, who is a Doyon shareholder; Vera Lincoln of Fairbanks, an Arctic Slope Regional Corp. shareholder; and Elizabeth Asisaun Toovak, ASRC shareholder living in Utqiagvik. The case has been assigned a number: 3AN-22-06795CI, and the first hearing to schedule a hearing has been set for 3:30 p.m. Thursday, June 23 in Anchorage Superior Court, Judge William Morse presiding.

Although congressional candidate Tara Sweeney received less than 6% of the votes cast in the recent congressional special election primary election, there is a chance that the courts will place her on the “final four” ballot in August.

A group of rural Alaskans associated with Sweeney filed lawsuit Thursday against the Division of Elections, whose director has ruled that Alaska Statute provides no path for a fifth-place finisher to move up to the final four ballot, even if one of the four drop out.

The Alaska election laws were muddied up by Ballot Measure 2 authors, and the authors of the ballot measure appear to be behind the lawsuit, which itself has the possibility of further mucking up Alaska elections.

Al Gross suddenly dropped out of the race earlier this week, claiming he had no path to win as a candidate without a party. He was the third-place finisher, behind Sarah Palin and Nick Begich. The fourth place finisher was Mary Peltola of Bethel.

Sweeney was fifth with 5.92% of the vote. The lawsuit will assert that she should be moved into the final four, since there is a vacant spot.

The Alaska Republican Party has endorsed Nick Begich and the Alaska Democratic Party has endorsed Mary Peltola. Both Palin and Sweeney, both Republicans, have not gone through the Republican Party’s vetting process.

Sweeney issued a statement saying that Begich, the only male in the top four, was trying to block women from being on the ballot and “his desire to limit the choices for women everywhere, including Alaska.” She said she is not part of the lawsuit but believes she should be on the ballot. Gross has endorsed both her and Peltola.

Begich’s campaign had filed a request with the Division to clarify the law pertaining to moving people onto the ballot who had not won a spot.

The Division of Elections will have to consider whether it will still be able to make the Aug. 16 general election schedule. The decision would be a hasty one from the Superior and then the Alaska Supreme Court, presumably in time for the June 25 certification of the election. This likely means a weekend decision from the Alaska Supreme Court.

This is a rapidly developing story.

Sweeney’s statement is here:

After the lawsuit was filed, the Sweeney campaign issued another statement:

“Like many Alaskans, including those that filed this challenge, I agree that under the law, I should be able to advance into the final four for this special primary election. The law is clear that Alaskans deserve a choice amongst four candidates, no less.


“I’m confident the intent of the law will prevail and Alaskans will have at least four candidates from which to choose during the general election.

“It is concerning to me that Nick Begich sought immediate legal action to block the advancement of my candidacy to limit the choices for Alaskans.He is clearly threatened by my candidacy and for good reason – I’m focused on empowerment, bringing people together and doing what is right for Alaska and Nick Begich is only concerned about his political ambitions.

“If I advance to the final four, I can promise you I will bring my fighting Alaska spirit to center stage. This election is critical and we need an effective leader fighting for Alaska in Congress, and I know I’ve got what it takes.”

Analysis: Gross drops, and Murkowski to consolidate power as allies maneuver to put Sweeney on ballot

Glen Biegel: Vote for candidates who are pro-life and will help slow down the abortion machine

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR
-
33
Glen Biegel: Vote for candidates who are pro-life and will help slow down the abortion machine

After I endorsed Nick Begich for U.S. Congress, I received a panicked call from a relative.  “Nick is not pro-life!  People are saying YOU aren’t pro-life!”  

Let’s discuss the election to replace the late Congressman Don Young by answering these questions: Are you pro-life? Am I? Is Sarah Palin? Is Nick Begich?  

When I endorsed Nick over Sarah, it was a close decision. I didn’t denigrate Sarah in my endorsement, and I don’t do that now. Using ranked choice voting, we will need to consider the best character traits from each acceptable candidate, and rank one first, and the other second.  Never make a ranked choice vote for the party of inflation, death, fatherlessness, violent protest and fear; the Democrats.  

Are you pro-life?  I have found many who say the only candidate who is pro-life is for government intervention to prevent 100% of abortions. They say, if your candidate is only for government intervening on behalf of the child 99.5% of the time (excluding rape and incest), then your candidate is not pro-life. Is this reasonable?

Am I pro-life? I have nine children. I have sat on the board of Alaska Right to life for 13½ years. While on the board, I ran for office against someone we had endorsed, who backtracked on their pledge and voted to publicly fund abortion. Life is a sifting issue for me for political candidates. You can be right on every other issue, but if you will fund abortion, vote against parental or informed consent or are pro-choice, then you will not get my vote. Let’s agree that I may be pro-life, and see if we can cover any remaining ground together.  

Sarah Palin is pro-life. Her last child was diagnosed as special needs in the womb, she knew it, and gave that baby life anyway.  

Is Nick pro-life? Well, put it this way, is any imperfect person capable of advancing the fight against abortion? I offer three experiences to support my ‘Yes’ answer.  1. When I was on the board of Alaska Right to Life, did we actually save any babies and how did we do it? 2. How do those in D.C. stop some abortions?  3. Does God use imperfect people to accomplish good works and therefore should we? 

Did Alaska Right to Life save babies? In the late 1990s, with massive Republican majorities, we had elected enough ‘pro-life’ Republicans that they stopped public funding of abortion (elective abortions performed with Medicaid dollars). Only 20% of these Republicans were against abortion 100% of the time. Still, with these imperfect people’s votes, over 1,000 babies were saved in those two years and are still among the living. Unlike the view that we must only elect people who will ban all abortions, in Alaska, we’ve never voted to ban all abortions, but we still saved 1,000 children.

How does this principle apply to federal candidates? Here’s an interesting fact: Alaska Right to Life organized its 70,000 members to vote in a weak Democrat in the Democrat’s open primary in 1980 (thereby removing Sen. Mike Gravel from office)  This allowed Frank Murkowski to be elected in the general election. Frank had promised to vote pro-life to our board for that assistance, and had a 100% pro-life voting record while in D.C. 

Frank Murkowski never had the opportunity to ban abortion outright. However, he did save thousands of babies by voting on the Hyde Amendment, restricting public funding of abortion, and preventing the U.S. from funding pro-abortion groups or providing abortions overseas. This is the primary D.C. “pro-life” legislation. He supported originalists for the Supreme Court who may finally be ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, and return the abortion issue to the States.  

What about God? God does not require perfect people to accomplish good. The Bible is full of imperfect people doing God’s will. As no one is perfect except Jesus, there is no Biblical foundation for only working with 100% perfect people to accomplish good. Since our world is fallen, we must accept imperfect solutions to the world’s problems when that is the best we can do today.

Saving babies is a complicated process. If you are involved in the life movement for any length of time, you know this. We pray, counsel, picket, instruct, and try to find candidates who will help save at least some children while in the womb and care for them afterwards. When you understand how some abortions are prevented, you might find out that an absolute position on abortion assists the abortion industry. Allow me to explain this fully.

Abortion in the U.S. is like a powerful machine. Picture this machine having a large tilted plane with 3,000 unborn children placed into it. Each day, the machine’s plane plunges into water, drowning and thereby ending the lives of those children. Some of the children are very close to the surface. If the tilted plane didn’t go down quite as far in the water, a child near the surface would be saved from drowning. Some are on the deep end of the plane, and die well below the water’s surface. We elect politicians to adjust the machine’s depth.  

Today, the Democrats are in charge, and 3,000 more babies are loaded into the machine. There is no prevention of the plane plunging into the water: 3,000 die. We have an election at the end of the day, and a candidate says, “I am the critical vote to end public funding of abortion, but I am not going to force giving birth on a woman who was raped. If s/he was elected, then the next day, the killing machine would only plunge 50% of the way into the water, and 1,500 would be saved.  

When you say, “I will only support a candidate if they are 100% pro-life,” you are acting in pride, and not prudence. The abortion machine does not have an off button. We have never voted to ban all abortions in the U.S. at the federal level. By any measure of public will, we never will. When you say, “I value ALL those babies”, in ranked choice voting, you are also saying, “If we can’t save them all, we shall save none of them. Those are the only two results that my worldview will accept. I wash my hands.” 

What does it mean to vote pro-life? There are regular votes to prevent funding, provide support for judges who will end the travesty of Roe, ensure conscience clauses, protect religious liberty, etc. Voting pro-life starts with the understanding that EACH individual baby, as well as all of them, is infinitely precious.

If Christ would leave his flock for the sake of the one sheep, how can we deny our duty to save at least one? Our vote requires prudence and accepts that God did not give us a perfect on/off world. He gave us this messy world that requires us to work with the less than perfect people to do at least some good.  

Practically speaking for Washington D.C., Nick and Sarah are both pro-life. Nick has promised me that he does not support public funding, he publicly opposes abortion in all cases, but will not vote to mandate the outcome when the woman faced rape or incest. Nick or Sarah will have many votes on the life issue, like the Hyde Amendment, thereby helping stop the abortion machine from plunging so deeply each day. If enough pro-life Republicans are elected, they will save lives.

In conclusion, If you don’t vote for BOTH Nick and Sarah, and a Democrat is elected, the abortion machine will continue to plunge 3,000 more children to their deaths each day.  I believe we will all be judged on prudent votes to save at least some of these children.  Please accept these two candidates are sufficiently pro-life, and keep in mind the babies we can save when discerning how to vote.  Life is complicated.  Voting to save lives, moreso.

Question: Would you only accept a candidate who will end 100% of crime, 100% of hunger, 100% of homelessness, 100% of fatherlessness; but never have that vote? Or do you support tough-on-crime legislators who accept a reduction of 50% of crimes vs. pro-crime, anti-police candidates on the other side? The idea that the world has an off-switch for sorrow, pain and evil is one of the great errors of many conservatives, and many people I call friends.

Glen Biegel is a talk show host and cyber security professional in Anchorage.

Win Gruening: Confusion over ranked-choice voting persists

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
9
Win Gruening: Confusion over ranked-choice voting persists

By WIN GRUENING

Most Alaska voters have had an opportunity to consider the modifications to Alaska’s election system since Ballot Measure 2 was enacted in November 2020.  Articles regarding the changes have flooded the news.  The Division of Elections has crafted educational videos and mailings attempting to explain it all.

Yet, with less than eight weeks remaining before Alaska’s first ever ranked-choice election (the special election to fill  Rep. Don Young’s remaining term), uncertainty and misperceptions abound. 

Just in case you missed it, in a nutshell, there were two main changes:

  • Partisan primaries are replaced with open top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices; and
  • in the general election, traditional ballots will be replaced with ranked-choice voting (RCV) where voters can rank the top four candidates that win in the primaries.

Based on what happened in the all-mail top-four primary that was just concluded, voter confusion over ballot procedures will continue. With 48 candidates on the special primary ballot, the top-four finishers were Sarah Palin, Nick Begich, Alan Gross, and Mary Peltola. In some voting districts, with voters having only one choice to make, as many as 17% of votes were invalidated. While the Division of Elections has not released details, the rejection rate may reflect the inherent pitfalls of mail-in voting.  

Nevertheless, it’s obvious that voters had difficulty following the instructions provided. One wonders how voters will fare in the upcoming RCV election that is far more confounding and complex. 

Then, if that wasn’t confusing enough, even before all the votes were counted, Alan Gross, the third-place finisher, pulled out of the race. It’s not clear if Tara Sweeney, who finished fifth, can replace Gross in the special general election.  

While the Division of Elections has ruled against adding Sweeney to the slate, who ultimately appears on the special general election ballot hinges on some rather odd wording in the original ballot measure. The language pertaining to candidate withdrawals for special primary elections excludes a reference to a U. S. House election.  It seems that this may trigger an appeal that will likely go to the Alaska Supreme Court and necessarily be decided on an expedited basis.

Claims that this new voting system reduces partisanship have yet to be proven. Rumors of skullduggery are rampant.  If nothing else, this whole fiasco points out what happens when laws are passed through un-vetted ballot measures.

Meanwhile, combing through social media postings, it’s apparent voters have been strategizing about how to rank various candidates on the ballot. Early on, one poster asked the question about the upcoming RCV special general election on August 16 : If there are multiple candidates from different parties on the ballot, how should I vote?”

Dozens of answers were widely divergent. Many suggested to only rank candidates with whom you are comfortable. Reportedly, Jason Grenn, who chaired the pro-RCV campaign committee, Alaskans for Better Elections, has told supporters “don’t rank anyone you don’t want to see elected.” So, presumably, voters listening to him may only rank one or two candidates and leave any others unranked.

Others opined just the opposite, saying voters should rank all the candidates. The theory is simple: even if you dislike several of the candidates, surely there are differences among them and based on those differences you should have preferences. 

This seems obvious but partisan strategists are sending mixed messages. 

In this election, it may take three elimination rounds to determine a winner that garners a majority of the votes. If you only vote for one or two candidates, you potentially  will have exhausted your vote and you may have no say in the final vote tally that determines the winner. 

That’s just the opposite of what RCV purports to accomplish.

It is, however, what Alaskans voted for when we passed Ballot Measure 2 by a bare 1% margin in a campaign where the ballot measure sponsor, financed by outside interests, outspent Alaskans 10:1. 

So, remember, your vote goes further by ranking all the candidates.  Whether you lean left or right politically, surely you can acknowledge there are differences between Nick Begich, Sarah Palin, and Mary Peltola (and perhaps Tara Sweeney, if an appeal is successful) – and can thus rank them appropriately.

That’s my theory and I’m sticking to it.

After retiring as the senior vice president in charge of business banking for Key Bank in Alaska, Win Gruening became a regular opinion page columnist for the Juneau Empire. He was born and raised in Juneau and graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1970. He is involved in various local and statewide organizations.

Reasons for ballot rejection: Signatures, postmarks

Reasons for ballot rejection: Signatures, postmarks

Suzanne Downing
-
22
Reasons for ballot rejection: Signatures, postmarks

The Alaska Division of Elections Review Board says that the top reason that ballots were rejected during the special congressional primary election was due to missing witness signatures. Over 36% of the 7,489 ballots rejected were missing the witness signature. Another 26% had late postmarks, and 21% were missing an identifier.

For example, in District 12 Eagle River, 5,645 ballots were received, with 23 not having an identifier matching voter records, 2 ballots hand delivered after election day, 1 duplicate ballot, 1 empty ballot envelope, 44 with no identifier provided, 1 with registration inactive, 43 postmarked after Election Day, 1 voter not registered, 58 improper or insufficient witnessing and 10 that were unsigned by voters.

In District 39 Nome, 1,756 ballots were accepted, and 296 rejected. Of those rejected, 34 had an identifier that did not match voter records, 1 was a duplicate ballot, 45 had no identifier provided, 2 came from people who registered too late, 4 ballots were received too late, 174 had improper or insufficient witness signatures, 36 voters neglected to sign their ballot envelope.

The mail-in congressional special primary is part of the process for determining who will fill the remaining term of the late Congressman Don Young, who died March 18. Until that is decided by voters, Alaska is without representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. The special general election for this seat is Aug. 16, at the same time the regular primary is conducted for House, Senate, Governor, and state House and Senate districts.

All the districts’ raw data on rejected ballots is contained in this PDF:

Absentee Review Board Details_Special Primary 6.21.2022 (1)Download

Skagway rockslide takes out cruise ship dock

Suzanne Downing
-
44
Skagway rockslide takes out cruise ship dock

3:30 pm update: The Railroad Dock will remained closed to allow an engineer to assess the damage. Ships being reaccommodated are: Carnival Miracle, after dock, tendering passengers to the Small Boat Harbor; Ruby Princess, Broadway Dock, Norwegian Jewel, Ore Dock.

An early morning rockslide in Skagway at the cruise ship dock rained down massive boulders onto the dock that just minutes later would have been filled with tourists disembarking a cruise ship. Portions of the dock are crushed but the dock is still usable. The damage is on the east side of the dock, rather than the west side, where the ships are tied up. Geotechnical engineers are coming to Skagway on Friday to assess the damage.

The area has been problematic in the past and presents an ongoing challenge for Skagway. The rockslide came from property owned by the Municipality of Skagway.

This morning, longshoremen were on the dock, tying up the Discovery Princess in the forward berth and placing the ramp that passengers use to leave the ship.

About 20 minutes after the longshoremen left and about 20 minutes before passengers would have started to disembark, the rocks came down in the area that last slid in 2017. This slide is in a nearby steep area, not in the same area as the 2017 slide.

The Discovery ship was subsequently moved to the aft berth and passengers are being tendered by small boats into the small boat harbor.

As a result, the cruise ship Quantum of the Seas has skipped its Skagway stop this morning, as there is no place for it to tie up. The dock is the only one that can handle the largest class of cruise ships that come into Southeast Alaska.

Rocks came down off the mountain onto the cruise ship dock in Skagway, but no one was injured.

Breaking: Second Amendment is not a second class right, Supreme Court rules, as it strikes down NY gun restriction

Suzanne Downing
-
12
Breaking: Second Amendment is not a second class right, Supreme Court rules, as it strikes down NY gun restriction

By a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated a New York law that limits who can get a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public.

New York required people wanting a license to carry a concealed handgun outside their home to show “proper cause,” which the New York courts determined had to be something more than a simple desire to protect themselves or their property. Applicants had to prove that they had a heightened need for self defense, such as that they were the subject of repeated physical threats. Other states with similar laws include California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

The New York law has been on the books for a century until two men in New York challenged it after their applications for concealed-carry licenses were denied.

The opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, with the court’s three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer — dissenting.

The court wrote that Americans have a right to carry “commonly used” firearms in public for personal defense and that the Second Amendment is not “second class” constitutional right that is subject to greater restrictions “than other Bill of Rights guarantees,” he wrote.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Senate advanced legislation that would create stricter gun laws across the states, including allowing states to enact red flag laws, which provide legal paths for removing firearms from people deemed by authorities to be unstable. The proposed law would also require mental health checks of 18- to 21-year-olds who are buying firearms and the law has numerous other provisions.

It’s a red flag for Republicans: Majority polled fear abuse of red flag laws
Murkowski votes to advance gun control, and Tshibaka blisters her as anti-Second Amendment
1...888889890...1,807Page 889 of 1,807

About us

Must Read Alaska is news of people, politics, policy, culture, and happenings in Alaska.

Contact
4021 West Hill Road,
Homer, AK 99603

Op-Ed/Article:
[email protected]

Subscription: [email protected]

The latest

Opinion: Voters Should Be Wary About Campaign Finance Initiative Backed by Out-of-State PACs and Unions

AK Voices 1
By Wyatt Young Nelson Understanding who is funding a campaign...

Palmer-Based Company “Mountain Dog” Receives Alaska’s Manufacturer of the Year Award

Industry 0
Mountain Dog, a Palmer company that manufactures premium pet...

The Alaska Law Mainstream Media Hopes You Never Hear About: AK Stat § 11.41.150 (2025) “Murder of an Unborn Child”

Justice 3
"bortion is life and death and I think for...

© Must Read Alaska