Alf Beauman

Hem
Sverige
Umeå
Alf Beauman

Forumhus i Vingen: A limited partnership founded 2016 organization number 969778-9841 — Owner ©2017
(2)

24/06/2024

ClimateBillions of people just felt the deadly intensity of climate-fueled heat wavesRescuers carry away a man affected by the scorching heat as Muslim pilgrims perform the symbolic 'stoning of the devil' ritual as part of the Hajj pilgrimage in Mina, near Saudi Arabia's holy city of Mecca, on Sunday. (Fadel Senna/AFP/Getty Images)June 22, 2024 at 12:30 Sweden TimeDozens of bodies were discovered in Delhi during a two-day stretch this week when even sundown brought no relief from sweltering heat and humidity. Tourists died or went missing as the mercury surged in Greece. Hundreds of pilgrims perished before they could reach Islam’s holiest site, struck down by temperatures as high as 125 degrees.The scorching heat across five continents in recent days, scientists say, provided yet more proof that human-caused global warming has so raised the baseline of normal temperatures that once-unthinkable catastrophes have become commonplace.The suffering came despite predictions that a year-long surge of global heat might soon begin to wane. Instead, in the past seven days alone, billions felt heat with climate change-fueled intensity that broke more than 1,000 temperature records around the globe. Hundreds fell in the United States, where tens of millions of people across the Midwest and Eastern Seaboard have been sweltering amid one of the worst early-season heat waves in memory.“It should be obvious that dangerous climate change is already upon us,” said Michael Wehner, a climate scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. “People will die because of global warming on this very day.”That much of this week’s heat unfolded after the dissipation of the El Niño weather pattern — which typically boosts global temperatures — shows how greenhouse gas pollution has pushed the planet into frightening new territory, researchers say. Scientists had expected this summer might be somewhat cooler than 2023, which was the hottest in the Northern Hemisphere in at least 2,000 years.But with summer 2024 just getting started, there are ominous signs that even more scorching conditions may still be on the horizon.A tourist is carried from the ancient Acropolis site by First Aid personnel, in central Athens, on June 12. (Petros Giannakouris/AP)June is already all but sure to set a 13th-consecutive monthly global average temperature record, said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist who works for the payments company Stripe. Next month, he added, the planet could approach or surpass the highest global averages ever measured.Whether the unyielding trend of record heat will ease soon, with an expected transition from El Niño to its cooler counterpart, La Niña, isn’t yet clear, scientists said. Scientists are also still analyzing individual extreme weather events to determine how much climate change influenced them, if at all.What is obvious: the way humans have caused baseline temperatures to surge.“We’ve got the highest greenhouse gas concentrations in the last 3 million years. Carbon dioxide traps heat, so the temperature of the planet is rising,” said Michael McPhaden, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “It’s real simple physics.”‘Exceptional’ heat is arriving sooner and lasting longerThough not all temperatures seen around the world this week were unprecedented, they were nonetheless evidence of how the climate has shifted in a way that makes hot weather more likely to arrive earlier and last longer.For some 80 percent of the world’s population — 6.5 billion people — the heat of the past week was twice as likely to occur because humans started burning fossil fuels and releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, according to data provided to The Washington Post by the nonprofit Climate Central.Nearly half that number experienced what Climate Central considers “exceptional heat” — conditions that would have been rare or even impossible in a world without climate change.“What is really standing out is how many [heat waves] are happening at the same time,” said Andrew Pershing, the nonprofit’s director of climate science.All week long, “exceptional” conditions could be found across much of Africa, the Middle East, southern Europe and Southeast Asia. Surging air-conditioning demand crippled power grids in Albania and Kuwait. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the past week has seen more than 1,400 high temperature records fall around the globe.Since the start of the industrial era, human activities — mostly burning fossil fuels — have warmed the planet by about 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit). Earth’s temperature over the past 12 months has been even hotter, averaging about 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.To assess how warming increases the likelihood of a given heat event, Climate Central uses multiple global climate models to calculate how often that temperature would have occurred in the preindustrial climate and how frequently it is reached today. The technique, which has been peer reviewed and published in an academic journal, underscores how warming has juiced the chance of temperatures at the edge of what people can tolerate.The mercury in Hartford, Conn., on Thursday reached 98 degrees Fahrenheit, the highest temperature ever recorded for that day. Climate Central’s analysis found those conditions are twice as likely under current levels of warming — and they will only occur more often as the world continues to heat up.Peter Fousek, secretary-treasurer for the Connecticut Tenants Union, spent the last few days going door to door in overheated buildings to check on low-income residents who were unaccustomed to such prolonged and severe heat. He recalled one East Hartford man who came to the door dripping with sweat, while the aged air conditioner wheezing in the background did little to keep his apartment cool.“It’s really kind of terrifying to watch the way these heat waves are happening in this increasingly volatile climate,” Fousek said.Climate change isn’t just making high temperatures and other extreme events more likely, Wehner said. It also makes every disaster that does occur more intense.Wehner’s research has found that heat waves like the one unfolding in the United States are now roughly 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter because of how humans have altered the planet. Strong hurricanes are at least 14 percent wetter because the warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. And storm surges are unfolding in oceans that are in some places more than a foot higher than they were half a century ago — allowing floodwaters to reach heights never seen before.“We have been predicting for at least the past two decades that extreme weather would become yet more dangerous as the world warms,” Wehner said. “This is not a surprise.”View of the Santa Catarina River flooding caused by the passage of tropical storm Alberto in Monterrey, Mexico, on Thursday. (Julio Cesar Aguilar/AFP/Getty Images)Early summer heat could hint at more global recordsThe global heat is to be expected after a historically strong El Niño pattern developed this winter and dissipated earlier this month, climate scientists said. The same thing happened in 2016, which had been the hottest year observed since at least the 1850s — until a surge of global heat began breaking those eight-year-old records a year ago.But this time, eight more years of greenhouse gas emissions warming the planet means the otherwise natural boost in global warmth is pushing the planet even further into uncharted territory, McPhaden said. That is despite the fact that the latest El Niño was “not in the same league” as the supercharged pattern of 2015-2016.“The impacts of this event were amplified by the warm background conditions,” McPhaden said. “What had been an intense El Niño rainfall became an extreme El Niño rainfall.”El Niño, during which unusually warm Pacific waters rise to the surface and transfer vast amounts of heat into the atmosphere, has fingerprints around the globe, including heat across southern and eastern Asia and heavy rainfall in eastern Africa. Those fingerprints were especially pronounced not because this El Niño pattern was excessively strong, but because it developed in a world where greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, McPhaden said.“Those effects we typically associate with a stronger El Niño event were much stronger simply because this El Niño occurred in a much warmer world,” he said. “It’s not just the temperature of the Pacific that matters anymore. It is, what’s the global temperature baseline on which El Niño is developing?”Though El Niño is over, the echo of its warming influence appears increasingly likely to push 2024 average annual temperatures above the record set in 2023, Hausfather said.For June, global temperatures are likely to be slightly warmer than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels, Hausfather said.Last July brought the hottest average global temperatures scientists had ever seen — the hottest, they estimate, in more than 100,000 years. It’s possible the planet surpasses that milestone next month, Hausfather said, and it’s almost certain to come close to it.Climate scientists have been predicting the end of El Niño will bring a global cooling trend, but they haven’t seen it arrive yet.“If temperatures stay at current elevated levels, we’d roughly tie last July,” Hausfather said. “Either way, it’s super hot. It’s just a question if, is it hotter than we expected, or not?”A month or so ago, Hausfather said he estimated relatively slim odds of the planet hitting another record high average temperature next month. The chances have more recently appeared to reach about 50/50, he said. And after seeing such shocking warmth over the past year, he said he is too “humbled” to bet against another record.

22/06/2024

It is always something of a memorable sight to see back in life

22/06/2024

Europe
U.S. restrictions put key Russian air bases out of firing range, officials say
(The Washington Post)
Morgunov and Kostiantyn Khudov
June 21 at 7:12 PM CET
KHARKIV, Ukraine — A new U.S. policy allowing Ukraine to fire certain American weapons at Russian territory has led to a reduction in some Russian attacks but still restricts the range enough that it prevents Ukraine from hitting key airfields, two Ukrainian officials said. Those airfields are used by Russian jets that drop the deadly glide bombs now inflicting the greatest damage on military positions and civilians.

The Ukrainian officials said the United States has restricted Ukraine to firing less than 100 kilometers, or about 62 miles, from the border. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the rule. U.S. officials declined to specify the limitation but said the Ukrainians’ assertion of less than 100 kilometers was incorrect.
“The U.S. has agreed to allow Ukraine to fire U.S.-provided weapons into Russia across where Russian forces are coming to attempt to take Ukrainian territory,” said a Pentagon spokesman, Maj. Charlie Dietz. “This is not about geography or a certain radius, but if Russia is attacking or about to attack from its territory into Ukraine, Ukraine has the ability to hit back against the forces that are hitting it from across the border.”
Ukraine is also permitted to use U.S.-supplied air defense systems to strike Russian planes “if they’re about to fire into Ukrainian airspace,” Dietz said.
National security adviser Jake Sullivan emphasized the point in an interview on PBS, saying: “This is not about geography. It’s about common sense. If Russia is attacking or about to attack from its territory into Ukraine, it only makes sense to allow Ukraine to hit back against the forces that are hitting it from across the border.”

While officials in Kyiv do not want to be seen as publicly contradicting their American counterparts, it is clear that the Ukrainian military does not believe it has as much latitude as the statements from White House and Pentagon officials seem to suggest.
And the results of Ukrainian strikes in the three weeks since Washington approved Ukraine’s request to use certain Western weapons to hit Russian territory corroborate the Ukrainian description of a significantly restrictive range.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a Washington-based think tank, reported this month that the U.S. policy limiting Ukraine’s usage of American weapons in Russia had effectively created “a vast sanctuary … which Russia exploits to shield its combat forces, command and control, logistics, and rear area support services that the Russian military uses to conduct its military operations in Ukraine.”
One Ukrainian defense official said that permission to use U.S. weapons to strike inside Russia “has definitely changed things. The enemy has certainly felt it, especially directly on the front line.”
But the official added, “Neither the range nor the category [of weapons] is sufficient.”

A man in military uniform outside a destroyed building in the village of Tsyrkuny, north of Kharkiv city, in May. (Ed Ram for The Washington Post)
In its report, the ISW said the easing of U.S. restrictions in areas close to Kharkiv had reduced Russia’s “ground sanctuary” — the area still out of Ukraine’s reach with U.S. arms — by merely 15 percent, essentially preserving Russia’s military advantage against Ukraine.
Only “a small area along the Russian-Ukrainian international border” in Russia was permitted for targeting, the ISW said.

In a war of attrition that has seen huge loss of civilian life, the ISW said much more could be done to reduce Russia’s advantage. “The U.S. policy change, while a step in the right direction, is by itself inadequate and unable to disrupt Russian operations at scale,” it said.
Since the shift in U.S. policy, Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, has experienced much-needed respite after months of relentless attacks by Russian missiles, local officials said.
Footage in early June from Russia’s Belgorod region just across the border appeared to show a Ukrainian strike using a U.S.-provided HIMARS rocket system on a Russian S-300/400 system, the ISW reported.
Striking the S-300 and S-400 launching points reduced missile attacks on Kharkiv city from 25 in May to zero so far this month, said Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov.
“The situation massively changed” in the city — which sits just 19 miles from the Russian border — once the U.S. restrictions were lifted, Terekhov said.
Still, the mayor said his city remains “under the constant threat” from glide bombs — modified Soviet-era weapons that Russia drops from airplanes.

The bombs can weigh thousands of pounds and are equipped with guidance systems. They are typically dropped from more than 15 miles behind the Russian border, but the planes take off from bases farther away, beyond the U.S.-approved strike range.
Russia fired more than 3,200 such bombs at Ukraine in May alone, President Volodymyr Zelensky said last month. Ukrainian air defense systems struggle to intercept the bombs.

This month, Russia fired six glide bombs on Kharkiv city, killing one person and injuring seven, Terekhov said. Many more have targeted military positions.
Ukraine is waiting for its first batch of U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets, which could help deter Russia from dropping so many of the bombs. Ukraine is also developing its own such bombs to drop on Russian positions, although it’s unclear how effective they may be.
Right now, however, officials say Ukraine’s inability to deter Russian glide bomb attacks is the main shortcoming in the otherwise effective U.S. policy change.
The change “helped to reduce terror strikes against Kharkiv,” another Ukrainian official said. “That’s why we say that [a] longer distance for us will help to reduce much more … Putin’s ability to continue this war.”

A heavily damaged residential building in Kharkiv’s city center in May. (Ed Ram/For The Washington Post)
For more than two years, the Biden administration refused to let Ukraine use U.S.-provided weapons to hit targets inside Russia, citing fears of a direct conflict between the United States and Russia. Instead, Ukraine was limited to using the U.S. weapons on targets in Russian-occupied Ukraine.
The rules changed last month after Russia unleashed a new invasion across the border into the Kharkiv region, displacing thousands and stirring fears of an advance on Kharkiv city.
Both sides sustained major losses. Ukraine managed to prevent the Russian forces from taking significant territory, but battles continue in the border regions.
Even under the new rules, however, President Biden has refused to greenlight the use of long-range U.S. weapons, such as the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, leaving Ukraine to continue to rely on its own homemade drones for strikes deeper inside Russia.

Last month, Kharkiv experienced attacks that killed 39 people and injured 239 in what Terekhov called “a terrifying disaster.” Washington announced the policy change on May 30 and, within days, Kharkiv city saw a sharp reduction in air alarms and Russian attacks.
Despite the relative improvement, Kharkiv city urgently needs improved air defenses to protect civilians from the glide bomb attacks, Terekhov said.
“For us now this question is a matter of life,” he said. “If we will have the most modern air defense systems and if we will have the modern planes, then they will be scared to use these planes because they can be struck down and they will not be able to approach close to the border.”

Air bases close to the border give Russia a major advantage, and in April an open-source researcher with the handle RedIntelPanda posted satellite images on X showing the construction of a new base in southern Russia with a runway estimated to be 5,900 feet long.
The airfield is close to a military logistics hub near Alexeyevka, a town in Belgorod region, about 45 miles from Ukraine border.
Military officials acknowledged that the policy change made a dramatic difference for life in Kharkiv but said it has not protected Ukrainian military positions from regular assault by glide bombs.
Maj. Nadiia Zamryha, press officer of the 14th Brigade, said troops fighting near Kupyansk in the northeast of the Kharkiv region continue to come under regular attack from antiaircraft missiles, glide bombs and unguided rockets.

Biden’s change allowed Ukraine to target “areas where equipment is concentrated and locations from where missile strikes are launched on the territory of Ukraine; not a single S-300 missile has hit Kharkiv. This is a fact,” said Denys Yaroslavsky, commander of a reconnaissance battalion in Ukraine’s 57th Brigade. “At the same time, this has not significantly changed the situation directly on the front line.”
“The city of Vovchansk,” he added, “continues to be destroyed by aerial bombs, artillery and everything else they have.”

22/06/2024

Democracy in America
Nevada judge dismisses case against Trump electors, citing jurisdiction
Nevada’s attorney general’s office said it would immediately appeal the decision, which affects six Republicans charged for their role in the 2020 election.
Former president Donald Trump attends a rally in Las Vegas on June 9. (Eric Thayer for The Washington Post)

June 21 at 9:30 PM CET
A Nevada judge on Friday dismissed the case against six Republicans who submitted certificates falsely declaring Donald Trump the winner of the 2020 election.
Clark County District Court Judge Mary Kay Holthus ruled the state should have filed the case in another county. Prosecutors said they would appeal her decision.
Trump supporters in Nevada and six other states that President Biden won sent official-looking documents to Congress claiming Trump was the true victor. In Nevada, they were charged in December with offering a false instrument for filing and uttering a forged instrument, felonies that together come with a maximum of nine years in prison. Those who were indicted include Nevada GOP chairman Michael J. McDonald.
The judge issued her ruling from the bench after attorneys for the Republicans argued the case should have been filed elsewhere because the meeting of Trump electors occurred more than 400 miles from Las Vegas, in Carson City.
A spokesperson for Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford told The Washington Post that the state plans to “immediately” appeal the judge’s decision. The statute of limitations ran out shortly after the case was filed in Clark County, which appears to make refiling the case in another jurisdiction impossible.
The appeal will go to the state Supreme Court, which could decide the case or send it to a lower appeals court. Briefing will likely take months and a decision before the November election appears unlikely.
Attorneys for the Nevada Republicans said they were pleased with Friday’s decision and turning their attention to the state’s appeal.

“The judge followed the law and correctly determined that Clark County doesn’t have jurisdiction,” said attorney Monti Levy. “I’m very confident that our Nevada Supreme Court will uphold Judge Holthus’ decision.”
Republicans involved in the elector meetings in four other states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin — separately face charges from local or state prosecutors. Their cases are not affected by Friday’s decision.
Republicans in the remaining states, Pennsylvania and New Mexico, were not charged. Unlike in other states, the paperwork they submitted included language saying their electoral ballots should be counted only if Trump were determined to be the actual winner.

22/06/2024

Courts & Law
Supreme Court upholds gun ban for domestic violence restraining orders
Narrowly tailored ruling did not address how the 2022 Bruen decision may impact other gun laws being challenged in lower courts.

Jennie Spanos, from Pensacola, Fla., demonstrates outside the Supreme Court on Friday. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post)

June 21 at 9:52 PM CET
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prevents people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having fi****ms — its first major Second Amendment decision since a 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights.
The court said the Constitution permits laws that strip guns from those deemed dangerous, one of a number of fi****ms restrictions that have been imperiled since the conservative majority bolstered gun rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
“When 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 fi****ms while that order is in effect,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the 8-1 ruling.
But the decision was limited in scope, leaving for another day more difficult questions about the viability of other gun-control measures, such as laws banning military-style semiautomatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, or restrictions on gun possession by nonviolent offenders.
The 2022 Bruen decision required the government for the first time to point to historical analogues when defending laws that place limits on fi****ms. That ruling has led to a spate of court challenges against limits on gun possession, including the one in this case, United States v. Rahimi.
Even as the justices overwhelmingly upheld gun restrictions for domestic abusers, five of them chose to write separately from Roberts, suggesting deep divisions — including among the conservatives — over how lower courts should evaluate and consider historical practices when reviewing Second Amendment challenges to other gun-related laws.

The ruling somewhat loosened the test outlined in Bruen by emphasizing that modern laws need not have a “historical twin,” but rather a “historical analogue” to survive legal scrutiny.
“Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases,” Roberts wrote. “These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the Bruen decision, was the lone dissenter on Friday, insisting that it would be unconstitutional to take a gun from someone who is under a restraining order but not charged with a crime.
“The question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order — even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot,” Thomas wrote. “The Court and Government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence.”
How the justices ruled

Attorney General Merrick Garland praised the court’s decision, saying the law protects victims by keeping guns out of the hands of people who threaten them.
“As the Justice Department argued, and as the Court reaffirmed today, that commonsense prohibition is entirely consistent with the Court’s precedent and the text and history of the Second Amendment,” Garland said in a statement.
The challenge to the law was brought by Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer who was placed under a restraining order after a 2019 argument with his girlfriend. He argued that the government had violated his Second Amendment rights by blocking him from possessing guns.

Rahimi knocked the woman to the ground in a parking lot, dragged her back to his car and fired a shot at a bystander, according to court records. The girlfriend escaped, but Rahimi later called her and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. The pair have a child together.
A Texas court found that Rahimi had “committed family violence” and that such violence was “likely to occur again in the future.” It issued a protective order that suspended Rahimi’s gun license, prohibited him from having guns, and warned him that possessing a firearm while the order remained in effect might be a federal felony.
Rahimi later violated the protective order and was involved in five shootings between December 2020 and January 2021, according to a government brief.

Ruth Glenn, president of Survivor Justice Action, at a rally in front of the Supreme Court as oral arguments are heard in the case of United States v. Rahimi on Nov. 7. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post)
In early 2021, Rahimi was arrested at his Texas home, and police found guns, ammunition and the protective order. He was charged with illegally possessing a weapon since he had a restraining order against him.
Rahimi argued in federal court that he had the right to possess guns, but a judge ruled against him on that issue. Afterward, he pleaded guilty to the federal charge and received a sentence of six years in prison. He continued to challenge the law related to restraining orders. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reheard his case and sided with Rahimi following the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling.
That decision struck down a New York law barring law-abiding citizens from carrying guns outside the home for self-defense. In the opinion, Thomas established a new test for gun laws: Restrictions on ownership must have a parallel in American history. The decision has endangered all types of gun regulations and left lower court judges divided over how to evaluate long-standing restrictions, in some cases asking whether they should call on historians to help.

On Friday, the Supreme Court expanded the historical sources courts can look to when evaluating modern gun restrictions to include not just statutes and regulations, but also commonly followed legal practices — such as the tradition in the nation’s founding era of stopping individuals who threaten harm to others from using a firearm.
Laura Edwards, a Princeton University legal historian, said the separate opinions from multiple justices, including all three Trump nominees — Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — suggest real differences over how courts should use history and tradition.
“What you’re seeing is the court confronting the complications of using the past as the means of securing and legitimatizing legal principles,” said Edwards, who submitted a brief in the case with other historians. “History does not have definitive answers for you.”
The Bruen decision’s emphasis on historical tradition continues to ripple out through lower courts in other gun-related cases, and historians have been summoned to testify on the issue and provide expertise.
Tim Carey, a law and policy adviser at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, predicted the justices, as well as the lower courts, “will likely continue to disagree on what relation to historical tradition is sufficient to uphold modern gun laws.”
“So far, we know that exact historical twins of modern-day laws are not required and relevantly similar means of regulation are okay,” he said in an email. “But what exactly fills the murky space in between these two ends of the spectrum remains unclear.”

The justices seemed to acknowledge that plunging into history is a sizable task.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her concurring opinion, said Bruen has required a “mad scramble for historical records.”
“This case highlights the apparent difficulty faced by judges on the ground,” she wrote. “Make no mistake: Today’s effort to clear up ‘misunderst[andings]’ … is a tacit admission that lower courts are struggling. In my view, the blame may lie with us, not with them.”
Gun-control advocates and groups representing victims of domestic violence praised the court Friday for upholding what they described as an effective protection for women and their families. Fi****ms are used in about half of domestic violence homicides, and more than half of female homicide victims are killed by current or former male partners.
The Supreme Court “rightly refused to end a common-sense safety measure that has been making our families and communities safer for decades,” Esta Soler, president of the nonprofit Futures Without Violence, said in a statement.
The gun-rights organization Gun Owners of America decried the court’s decision, saying it would result in the disarming of people who have never committed domestic violence. Individuals like Rahimi who are deemed dangerous should be prosecuted, the organization said, and punished.
“These restraining orders do not prove someone guilty of a violent crime, and they often are weaponized by attorneys,” the group’s senior vice president, Erich Pratt, said in a statement. “For those people to lose their enumerated rights, even for a temporary period of time, is a disgrace. If someone is dangerous, charge them with a real crime, convict them in a court of law, and get them out of society.”

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled against the federal government in a different gun rights case, overturning the federal ban on bump stocks announced by the Trump administration after the devices were used in a 2017 mass killing on the Las Vegas Strip.
In its 6-3 ruling, the majority said bump stocks, which allow guns to fire bullets in rapid succession, do not qualify as machine guns under a 1986 law that barred civilians from owning new versions of the weapons.

Adress

Universitetstorget 4
Umeå
90187

Telefon

+46708183942

Webbplats

https://wixsite.com/alfbeauman-1, https://mobile.twitter.com/forumhus

Aviseringar

Var den första att veta och låt oss skicka ett mail när Alf Beauman postar nyheter och kampanjer. Din e-postadress kommer inte att användas för något annat ändamål, och du kan när som helst avbryta prenumerationen.