Blue state GOP rep forced to remove 2A sticker from laptop: 'Offensive'
"I had to cover up this, they couldn't stand my sticker," Colorado Republican state Rep. Ken DeGraaf said during remarks on the state's House floor, pointing to paper covering up a sticker in support of the Second Amendment on a laptop he carried with him to the chamber.
"It said 'shall not be infringed' and signed '2-A' and that was considered offensive, which I understand would be offensive to this bill," he continued.
The remarks come as Colorado lawmakers debate a controversial gun control bill that would limit the sale of some semiautomatic firearms that rely on detachable magazines, such as the popular AR-15 platform.
Nm Lawmakers Warn Sweeping Gun Control Bill Primed For Passage Shows Dems 'Are Dead-set On Disarming Us'
The legislation, Colorado Senate Bill 25-003, would be one of the strictest gun control measures in the country, something the state's Democratic lawmakers argue is necessary to keep citizens safe.
Read On The Fox News App
"Preventing gun violence is one of the most effective ways that we can make our communities safer and save lives. Semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines are uniquely lethal and dangerous," state Rep. Meg Froelich, a Democatric sponsor of the bill, told KKTV. "This bill is a commonsense solution to ensure that people receive effective training and meet the requirements under state and federal firearm laws before purchasing the most lethal weapons on the market. From background checks and waiting periods to limits on high-capacity magazines, Colorado Democrats have enacted multiple laws to protect Coloradans from future gun violence."
Gov. Desantis Makes Push To Repeal Florida's Red Flag Laws
The bill has passed the state's Senate and a second reading in the House, according to the KTTV report, which noted that lawmakers largely expect the legislation to be ready for a final vote in the coming week.
The bill has faced stiff resistance from Republicans such as DeGraaf, who argue the legislation would run afoul of the U.S. Constitution.
DeGraaf accused his Democratic colleagues of being offended by the Constitution during his remarks on the House floor, pointing to the forced removal as an example.
As DeGraaf lamented the covering of the sticker, he was informed that the only reason for the request was because such displays are banned in the "well" of the chamber, which sits between the chamber's front desk and the first row of member seats.
"So OK, no displays of the Constitution in the well, got it," DeGraaf quipped back.Original article source: Blue state GOP rep forced to remove 2A sticker from laptop: 'Offensive'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
a minute ago
- Newsweek
New Poll Shows Top 2028 Presidential Candidates in Swing State
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new poll by Emerson College Polling released on Friday shows potential 2028 Republican and Democratic presidential contenders picked by North Carolina primary voters. Why It Matters Early polls in crucial swing states like North Carolina have gained significance as potential contenders for the 2028 presidential election begin to emerge. Even with the election still a few years away, polling can offer insight into candidate viability, voter sentiment, and evolving party dynamics, particularly after the pivotal 2024 election cycle. North Carolina, often considered determinative in recent presidential contests, could offer a bellwether for national trends as both major parties consider their direction and platform for 2028. What To Know In the Emerson College survey conducted from July 28 to 30, of 1,000 North Carolina registered voters, Vice President JD Vance is leading the Republican nomination with 53 percent among likely Republican primary voters—well ahead of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis with 7 percent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio with 5 percent. Vance jumped 7 points from a previous survey taken in June by Emerson. In the Democratic field, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was the top choice among likely primary voters at 17 percent, followed by former Vice President Kamala Harris at 12 percent and California Governor Gavin Newsom at 10 percent. The survey shows 24 percent are undecided. The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, with separate credibility intervals for primary subgroups. Harris, meanwhile, announced this week that she is not running for California governor in the next cycle, fueling speculation she is considering another presidential run. In an interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Thursday, the former vice president said she thinks the political system is "broken" and does not want to be in it right now. She added she would always "be part of the fight" though. Friday's poll also shows that 40 percent of the swing state voters say their family's finances are worse off than one year prior, 32 percent say they are about the same and 28 percent say they are better off now. Former Vice President Kamala Harris and then Vice President-elect, JD Vance can be seen departing the White House ahead of the Inauguration of then President-elect Donald Trump on January 20 in Washington, D.C. Former Vice President Kamala Harris and then Vice President-elect, JD Vance can be seen departing the White House ahead of the Inauguration of then President-elect Donald Trump on January 20 in Washington, D.C. Photo byWhat People Are Saying Political science professor at Columbia University Robert Y. Shapiro to Newsweek via email Friday: "The Democratic primary polling is much too early and all we are seeing is name recognition for past presidential candidates and ones in the news lately in a visible way. On the Republican side, DeSantis and Rubio are damaged goods as past losers in the past Republican primaries in 2016 and 2024. Vance is on the rise by virtue of being Vice President and visible when he echoes or advocates more strongly Trump's MAGA positions and what Trump—and he—have done. He has not been defeated in any past major election so untarnished in that respect." What Happens Next Major candidates are not expected to announce their 2028 campaigns until after the 2026 midterm elections, in keeping with recent electoral cycles. However, the field of likely contenders is potentially taking shape as politicians such as Buttigieg, Newsom, and others make public appearances and pursue national media opportunities. Vance's strong polling position places him at the forefront of Republican prospects.
Politico
a minute ago
- Politico
Why Trump's newly announced tariffs aren't a done deal
THE LAW ON LIBERATION DAY — On Thursday, Donald Trump announced sweeping new tariffs against U.S. trading partners that will go into effect next week. The announcement came on the same day that an appeals court grappled with the question of whether Trump's tariffs are even legal. Indeed, there is a strong argument that the tariffs are illegal and unconstitutional. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which on Thursday held oral argument on two major tariff challenges — one from a group of small businesses and the other from a coalition of twelve states led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield — seems like it may ultimately agree. Rayfield was pleased with how it went. 'If you were an outside observer watching the hearing and you had to pick a party to stay in the shoes of, I think you would prefer to be in the state's shoes after Thursday's hearing,' Rayfield said in an interview with POLITICO this afternoon. That seems to be the consensus among close observers. 'Federal appeals court judges on Thursday sharply questioned President Donald Trump's authority,' POLITICO's Kyle Cheney and Doug Palmer wrote. Reuters put it similarly, while the Associated Press reported that the judges 'expressed broad skepticism' toward the government's arguments. The New York Times' account said that Brett Shumate, the lawyer arguing for the government, 'at times faced an icy reception.' This is not that surprising if you have been following this legal saga closely. The Constitution explicitly gives the power to impose tariffs to Congress. Congress has passed several trade laws that provide the president with the power to impose tariffs in certain circumstances, but they do not grant the sweeping and unreviewable power that the Trump administration has claimed — and indeed requires in order to support Trump's tariffs as a legal matter. Meanwhile, the statute that has actually been invoked by the Trump administration — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — has never been used to impose tariffs over the course of the nearly half-century that it has been on the books, and it makes no mention of tariffs in the text. It was in fact passed to limit the president's emergency economic powers. On top of that, the key case cited by the government in its favor does not actually support their position (usually a bad thing). Thus far, two lower courts have ruled against the administration on this issue — a unanimous three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade and a federal district court judge in Washington, D.C. Both rulings have been stayed pending appeal. Thursday's argument concerned the first of those rulings and was conducted in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. If the government loses in the Federal Circuit, it is still possible that the Supreme Court's conservative justices could agree to hear the case and ultimately rule in Trump's favor. On the merits, that outcome would be hard to square with the conservative majority's stated commitment to textualism as a mode of statutory interpretation, as well as the major questions doctrine that was developed in recent years by the conservative justices, who used it in 2023 to strike down much of the Biden administration's student-loan forgiveness effort. In the student-loan forgiveness case, the conservative justices relied crucially on the fact that the program was estimated to cost taxpayers roughly $500 billion, according to a budget model from the University of Pennsylvania. They concluded that this warranted a particularly rigorous and stringent mode of statutory interpretation. The estimated cost to taxpayers in that case pales in comparison to the estimated cost for Americans resulting from Trump's tariffs, according to a model at Yale University. That model currently estimates that Trump's latest tariff framework will result in an average per household income loss of $2,400 this year alone, that it will result in a 0.5 percentage loss in real GDP this year and next year, and that the economy will lose nearly half a million jobs by the end of 2025. None of this has stopped the administration from plowing forward. At this point, the administration may be hoping for a victory at the Supreme Court (assuming they lose at the Federal Circuit) or, perhaps, simply planning to do as much as they can to advance their tariff policy before a day comes when it is definitively thrown out by the courts. They have already been aided in this regard by the Supreme Court, intentionally or otherwise. In mid-June, the two businesses that prevailed in federal district court in Washington asked the Supreme Court to short-circuit the appeals process and take the case up immediately for review. 'In light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims, challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process (even on an expedited timeline),' the companies' lawyers wrote. The companies' request was far from crazy, particularly given the fact that the conservative justices have moved quickly in a variety of major court challenges to the Trump administration's actions since Trump's inauguration. Three days later, however, the Supreme Court denied their request, with no explanation. Perhaps not coincidentally, those expedited rulings have favored the Trump administration, while in the case of Trump's tariffs, a critical mass of conservative justices may ultimately be compelled to rule against Trump — if, that is, they actually adhere to the interpretive and constitutional principles that they claim to follow. In the meantime — and as the administration has been struggling in the courts to defend its policy — the Trump administration is evidently moving forward undeterred. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's author at akhardori@ What'd I Miss? — Trump demands firing of BLS chief after soft jobs report: President Donald Trump called for the ouster of the head of the Labor Department's statistical arm this afternoon after the latest monthly jobs report came in well under expectations. 'I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY,' Trump wrote in a social media post. 'She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified.' Trump reprised prior accusations that the Bureau of Labor Statistics under Commissioner Erika McEntarfer surreptitiously put out overly rosy jobs numbers at the tail end of the Biden administration that were subsequently revised in order to influence the election. Economists have roundly dismissed these claims as a misunderstanding of the agency's revision processes. — Huckabee, Witkoff visit US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation amid global outcry: Senior U.S. officials visited a distribution center for the American-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation today, pledging to report back to President Donald Trump about the foundation's operations and devise a plan to address starvation in the strip amid growing global outcry over the humanitarian crisis. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee and special envoy Steve Witkoff made a rare trip to Gaza today amid heightened pressure — including from within MAGA circles — to reconsider the administration's support for Israel's war on Hamas and intervene in Gaza's hunger crisis. — Corporation for Public Broadcasting shutting down: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced today it was shutting down its operations after President Donald Trump rescinded funding for the nonprofit, which it used to support public radio and TV stations around the country. The CPB — which was established by Congress decades ago as an independent nonprofit — said it will begin 'an orderly wind-down' after Trump signed a measure last month to claw back $1.1 billion in grants appropriated to CPB over the next two fiscal years. — Ghislaine Maxwell transferred to less restrictive prison after DOJ meeting: Days after sitting down with one of the highest-ranking members of the Justice Department, Ghislaine Maxwell has been transferred to a less restrictive minimum security federal prison camp in Texas, her attorney said. Maxwell's attorney David Oscar Markus said today she had been moved to Federal Prison Camp Bryan, a facility for female inmates in Southeast Texas. He declined further comment. Until this week, Maxwell, the onetime girlfriend of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, had been serving a 20-year sentence for her 2021 conviction for sex trafficking crimes in Florida, at FCI Tallahassee, a low-security prison. — Trump, escalating war of words with Russia's Medvedev, mobilizes two nuclear submarines: President Donald Trump said today he mobilized two nuclear submarines 'to be positioned in the appropriate regions' in response to threatening comments by Russia's former president Dmitry Medvedev. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he was taking that action 'just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that. Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' Medvedev on Thursday referenced Russia's nuclear capabilities amid an escalating battle on social media sparked by Trump's latest efforts to increase economic pressure on the Kremlin in hopes of reviving diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine. AROUND THE WORLD RAISING THE BAR — Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni reacted with fury today as the EU's top court raised the threshold for member countries to reject asylum-seekers. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) said EU nations may only create national lists of safe countries outside the bloc if they fully justify their assessments with public sources. According to the court, a country can only be considered 'safe' for repatriation if 'the entire population' is protected across all regions. Meloni called the court's decision 'surprising' and a power grab by EU judges. 'Once again, the judiciary, this time at the European level, claims spaces that do not belong to it, in the face of responsibilities that are political,' she said. SLOVENIA STEPS OUT— Slovenia became the first EU country to ban all weapons trade with Israel, citing the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The government also prohibited the transit of weapons to or from Israel through Slovenia, the administration in Ljubljana said in a statement Thursday. Slovenia said that it decided to act independently from the EU, as 'due to internal disagreements and disunity,' the bloc is unable to take action against Israel. Though the European Commission proposed partially suspending Israel's association agreement with the EU this week, member countries have yet to agree on it. Nightly Number RADAR SWEEP WEEKEND WARRIORS — Under the threat of Chinese invasion, more and more Taiwanese civilians are signing up for civil defense classes. US intelligence predicts that China will be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027 as China builds up its aircrafts and warships. Armed with airsoft guns that fire plastic pellets, men and women train on the weekends in converted garages and empty warehouses to prepare a civil resilience. Beyond armed defense, officials and private organizations have amped up drills for attacks on critical infrastructure and cyberattacks. Yian Lee reports on the 'soft militarization' of Taiwanese civilians for Bloomberg. Parting Image Jacqueline Munis contributed to this newsletter. Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
NBC News
a minute ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court raises the stakes in a Louisiana redistricting case
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday expanded the scope of a Louisiana congressional redistricting dispute that has been pending for months by ordering new briefing on a legal question that could further weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act. The court issued an order asking the lawyers to address whether, in seeking to comply with the 1965 law that protects minority voting rights, Louisiana violated the Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments enacted after the Civil War to ensure Black people were treated equally under the law. If the court rules that the state did violate the Constitution, it would mean states cannot cite the need to comply with the Voting Rights Act if they use race as a consideration during the map-drawing process, as they currently can. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law. wrote on his Election Law Blog that the order "appears to put the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act into question." That provision bars voting practices or rules that discriminate against minority groups. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority is often receptive to arguments that the Constitution is 'colorblind,' meaning no consideration of race can ever be lawful even if it is aimed at remedying past discrimination. In 2013, the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Alabama and further weakened it in a 2021 case from Arizona. The justices heard arguments in the Louisiana case on more technical, less contentious questions in March and was originally expected to issue a ruling by the end of June. Even then, the constitutional issue loomed large. The new order did not indicate whether the court will hear another round of arguments before it issues a ruling in the case. The Louisiana map in question, which is currently in effect, includes two majority Black districts for the first time in years. The complicated case arose from litigation over an earlier map drawn by the state legislature after the 2020 census that included just one Black majority district out of the state's six districts. About a third of the state's population is Black. Civil rights groups, including the Legal Defense Fund, won a legal challenge, arguing that the Voting Rights Act required two majority Black districts. But after the new map was drawn, a group of self-identified 'non-African American' voters led by Phillip Callais and 11 other plaintiffs filed another lawsuit, saying the latest map violated the 14th Amendment. As recently as 2023, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Voting Rights Act in a congressional redistricting case arising from Alabama. But conservatives raised questions about whether key elements of the law should ultimately be struck down.
