The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case involving the right to carry firearms outside the home. The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Corlett, is the first Second Amendment case the high court has taken in more than a decade.
The case involves a legal challenge to a New York law which prohibits the concealed carry of handguns in public. The plaintiffs applied for a concealed-carry license from the state of New York but their applications were rejected.
New York state law requires applicants to show that they have a “special need” and “proper cause” to qualify to hold firearms under state law, and the state decided the plaintiffs did not meet that standard. New York usually grants concealed carry licenses only to security professionals or others who can demonstrate that they face grave threats due to their occupation or public identity.
The applicants who were denied a permit argue that the state’s limits on concealed carry violate the Second Amendment, since New York does not allow the open carry of firearms, and the law makes it virtually impossible for the ordinary law-abiding citizen to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm either.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the dispute could be a watershed moment for the Second Amendment. The Court hasn’t made a substantive ruling on the scope of the Second Amendment since 2008, when it held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep arms in their home (and not just those Americans who were members of a “militia”).
Two years later, the Court ruled in another case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, which didn’t break new ground on the Second Amendment but did clarify that the individual right articulated in Heller did not just protect Americans from federal gun laws that would seek to deny them the right keep arms in their homes, but from similar laws passed by state and local governments as well.
While the individual right to keep arms in the home articulated in Heller was an important development, it did nothing to answer questions about the legality of many other gun laws. And since Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court has gone out of its way to avoid ruling on any Second Amendment cases, rejecting numerous challenges to other gun regulations.
Here in our state, the Mississippi Justice Institute filed a constitutional challenge last year to an executive order that banned the open carry of firearms in the City of Jackson, ostensibly due to Covid-19. That lawsuit relied in part on the Mississippi Constitution, which explicitly protects the open carry of firearms. But the lawsuit also alleged that the executive order violated the Second Amendment, and thus could have resulted in precedent that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms outside the home. However, the case never got that far, as the city ultimately conceded the lawsuit and a consent decree was entered by the Court which ordered the City of Jackson to never again ban the open carry of firearms.
Who would have thought that in 2021, nearly 230 years after the Second Amendment was ratified, that we still wouldn’t have firm precedent on whether Americans have a right to bear arms outside of their home? That question will likely soon be answered.
For the past century, the United States has been in a league of her own. From the first flight and the mass production of automobiles to the advent of radio and television through to the digital revolution, almost all the great innovations have happened in America.
Europe might have been home of the world’s first industrial revolutions, with the Dutch leading the way in the 18th century and the English in the 19th. But the United States has pretty much eclipsed any European achievement ever since.
Today those living in the United States have tended to live better, longer, and more prosperous lives than people anywhere else on the planet. For all the talk of income inequality in the US today, the lowest quintile of Mississippians enjoys a standard of living beyond the reach of the richest Americans 50 years ago. Even poor Americans generally live better lives than the richest Asians and Africans – and even middle-class Europeans.
America’s success has not happened by accident. The United States did not prosper because of geography or the uniqueness of the landscape. Still less was America’s economic advance a product of exploitation and slavery, as some of the radical left insist. America’s industrial take-off happened after, not before, the abolition of slavery.
No, the thing that puts America in a league of her own is her commitment to the ideas of liberty and limited government. Her founding ideals are her secret sauce.
Yesterday, however, President Biden set out a path that would take America in a very different direction. What Biden proposes is nothing less than the “Europeanization” of the United States. Instead of limited government, the new administration is looking to drive US government spending to the levels it is in many of those less happy lands across the Atlantic.
The radical progressives in DC are proposing a European style system of wealth redistribution. Under the guise of fighting climate change, federal fiat will command and control economic activity. There will be punitive increases in corporation and capital gains taxes.
“Don’t worry” the progressives tell us. “Only companies are going to pay higher corporation taxes”. Claiming that only companies pay for corporation taxes is a bit like claiming that it is my car, not me, who pays for gas tax.
As for the idea that only the super-rich will have to pay more personal taxes, that is what they once said in Europe. Today tens of millions of Europeans hand over almost half of what they earn in one form of tax or another.
Under Biden’s ‘American Families Plan’ the federal government is going to have a plan for your family. There is due to be a quasi-socialist expansion of federal oversight of childcare and education, with government taking control of nurseries and classrooms.
The Biden administration would make the United States less American and more European. As the federal government grows bigger, the economy will become less dynamic and innovative. The United States, rather like Europe has opted to do, would take a holiday from history - all at the moment China has begun to challenge the global order.
Fortunately, not all is yet lost. Thanks to the genius of the Founding generation, the United States is still a union of states, not a centralized province run directly from DC. The States – with their governors, legislatures, and courts – are the last line of defense against overbearing government. That is why we at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy are working to outline an agenda for economic freedom and limited government that can be delivered here in the Magnolia State.
What we are working towards is a national movement to restore and renew the American republic, and to make good the Founding Ideals that have made America such a success.
For the past century, the Western world has prospered and prevailed less because of Europe, but because of the United States. If the West is to flourish in the future, it will be because we make Europe more like America, rather than America more like Europe.
“People overestimate what they can accomplish in one legislative session and underestimate what they can accomplish in ten.”
In this series, we are conducting a review of all Mississippi lawmakers have accomplished over the last 10 years. Again, the list provided here is not comprehensive, and we feature only the policies we like, some of which were initiated by MCPP (marked by an *asterisk* below).
Conservative lawmakers are often criticized for using “God and Gun” policies to distract voters from what are suggested by some to be more important issues. We see no reason why lawmakers need to choose between broad civil liberty protections and economic liberty. In the last few weeks, we have highlighted legislative accomplishments in three areas: religious liberty protections, pro-life protections, and Second Amendment (and Other) protections.
Here are Mississippi’s best-in-the-nation religious liberty laws:
In 2013, the Legislature passed the Mississippi Student Religious Liberties Act (SB 2633), sponsored by Senator Chris McDaniel. The law protects the free speech and freedom of assembly rights of students wishing to pray or express a religious viewpoint in a public-school setting.
In 2014, Mississippi joined 19 other states in enacting state-level RFRA protections (SB 2681), sponsored by Senator Phillip Gandy. RFRA stands for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It requires that the state of Mississippi not enact policies that would “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion. The federal “Equality Act,” which has already passed the U.S. House, specifically overrides federal RFRA protections.*
In 2016, the Mississippi Legislature passed the “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act,” sponsored by Speaker Philip Gunn (HB 1523). This law prevents the state government from enforcing discriminatory policies against those with strongly held beliefs related to the proper ordering of marriage and human sexuality. The law protects adoption agencies, businesses, and churches, among others. It is the strongest law of its kind in the country. The law has been upheld by the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.*
Just as technology has expanded access to – well, everything – technological innovation is a key to expanding healthcare access. One of the nation’s top experts in this area is Dr. Robert Graboyes, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center.
In this article, I’ll give a brief summary of a fascinating interview with Dr. Graboyes, which highlights the changing nature of health tech. Dr. Graboyes discusses the ways that technology can be used to increase the quality of healthcare while simultaneously reducing costs.
The discussion covers technological innovations such as portable electrocardiogram (EKG) machines, telehealth, and medical drones. Dr. Graboyes also mentions the importance of conducting a risk-benefit analysis when evaluating innovative medical technology.
The portable EKG example Dr. Graboyes mentions regards a portable EKG machine that he has personally used. The machine has helped him determine if he needed to go to the emergency room due to a personal condition. The information that the portable EKG provides him has saved him tens of thousands of dollars by helping him avoid potential emergency room visits.
Dr. Graboyes also highlights the merits of telehealth through a story about how the technology impacted his own family. A physician was conducting a video conversation with Graboyes’ grandmother and determined that she had to go to the emergency room immediately because she was in the early stages of septic shock. Graboyes noted that the biggest barrier to more expansive implementation of telehealth practices that could help more patients is licensure restrictions. Since this interview was conducted in 2019, many states, including Mississippi, have relaxed their licensure restrictions as a reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Graboyes further discusses a story involving the use of medical drones to carry blood samples and blood supplies in Rwanda. He stated that the United States is researching the concept in North Carolina, and that its potential benefits are extraordinary.
Finally, he concludes the interview by seeking to quell the fears that many regulators have about embracing new technological innovations. It is important to measure the risks and benefits of each program. He recognizes that many people feel that we need to be more cautious about utilizing medical technology, but compared the technological advances in the medical industry to those in the information technology industry.
Graboyes notes that the IT industry has exploded in terms of advancements, but the healthcare industry has only made marginal advances by comparison. He believes that the reason for this is because of the regulations hampering medical technology growth.
There are risks that come with innovation in any industry, but if the benefits outweigh those perceived risks, then the pursuit is worthwhile. Graboyes compares the current healthcare industry to a fortress, focused on protecting the various professionals and industries dedicated to the current healthcare apparatus. He encourages innovation through a frontier model as an alternative to the fortress strategy. This model would encourage growth with less regulation, but with the potential for greater risk. However, as stated before, if the benefits outweigh the risks, it is worth pursuing the technology.
All in all, Robert Graboyes makes a compelling case for embracing new and innovative medical technologies that will potentially lead to higher quality care, and that will also reduce costs and reduce the frequency of hospitalizations. Instead of hindering these innovations, Mississippi should cut red tape to encourage the adaption of revolutionary medical technologies.
The 2020 Census results have arrived, and the facts are in. Mississippi was one of only three states (alongside Illinois and West Virginia) to lose population in the last ten years.
While we may not have lost a seat in the House of Representatives, we did not grow. When one looks around the country at the states that are prospering and expanding, it becomes quite clear that there is a plethora of natural economic growth driving their success.
In these states, new businesses are not just brought in on the back of taxpayer funded grants and subsidies. They are instead attracted to the strength of the workforce that is present, the friendly tax and regulatory environments, and the hubs of opportunity.
Patrick Gleason, the Vice President of State Affairs at Americans for Tax Reform noted that, “[t]he average top personal income tax rate for states losing seats in Congress is 6.5%, which is 46% greater than the average top income tax rate for states gaining seats (4.45%).”
The states that gained the largest share of the population, and with this, more congressional seats, have some of the best tax structures in the country. Florida has no income tax. Texas has no income tax. Montana has no sales or local taxes and low property taxes. Colorado has a taxpayer bill of rights that makes it very difficult to impose additional tax burdens on state residents.
Much of our population loss is driven by millennials departing the state. It has been reported that Mississippi is losing this generation of residents faster than any state in the country. The departure of our younger population is especially terrible as it reflects not only lost citizens, but a lost investment, as much of this population attended public schools and then colleges in Mississippi, only to take themselves elsewhere.
We will not be able to grow as a state, until we overcome the hurdle that we have in incentivizing folks to stay. After all, if many young people are trying to leave, why would new people be inclined to move in? This collective “brain drain” has left Mississippi less competitive in the long run.
I personally chose to move back to Mississippi. Many of my friends have at some point chose to come here, to stay here, or to return here. Mississippi is a warm, hospitable place with a unique culture, but if there is not a job here for you, then one is forced to move elsewhere.
We should be radical when it comes to ambitiously crafting an environment that fosters economic growth. Mississippi should be the easiest place in the country to start, maintain, and grow a business.
As the 2020 Census shows, we have little to lose. Now is the time to take courageous efforts to outpace others by making it easier to work, live, and thrive in our wonderful state. Only if we commit ourselves to establishing a foundation ripe for economic growth will the 2030 Census bring brighter news.
The genius of our country’s founding document, the Constitution, is that it limited the power of government and empowered individuals to lead their lives as they saw fit, which in turn allowed America to become the freest and most prosperous country in the world.
The framers carefully constructed a government that had just enough power to impose civil order, protect citizens from foreign invaders and secure individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but not enough power to violate those rights itself. To achieve this, they confined the powers of the federal government to those specifically listed in the Constitution and divided that power among three branches of government.
But this system only works if we have an independent judiciary. The framers envisioned the judiciary as the guardians of individual rights, willing and able to strike down laws passed by the political branches of government if they violated the Constitution. That role is inherently anti-majoritarian.
Any law that is passed by a majority of our elected representatives, and signed into law by a popularly elected president, is presumably popular among some broad swath of Americans. But being popular does not make a proposed government action just, or constitutional. Our rights are too important to be infringed simply because a majority is willing or even eager to do so.
It is simply unrealistic to expect judges to strike down popular but unconstitutional laws if they expect political retribution for doing so. That is why the Constitution invested the federal judiciary with lifetime tenure, to insulate it from political pressure and allow it to act as a guardian of our freedoms and a constraint on government excesses.
But political pressure can be brought to bear to undermine our independent judiciary in other ways. If judges fear that unpopular but constitutionally correct rulings will lead to court-packing, they will be just as unwilling to act as a bulwark against government overreach. Why would they? Pushing too far today could erode their ability to do so tomorrow.
Even worse, court-packing would turn our independent judiciary into just another political branch of government. If one party packs the court, the other party will do the same as soon as it regains power. The cycle would continue indefinitely, and lead to judges being put on the court for their loyalty to a party and supposed willingness to “balance the court” rather than their loyalty to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Once we lose our independent judiciary, the rest of our Republic will follow with it.
Some fear that the courts have already become partisan tools for the political branches. We all disagree with some court decisions. But overall, the courts have protected our Constitution and the individual rights it protects. This has been a precious gift to our young nation that we must preserve for future generations. To throw it away for short term political gain would be madness.
Of all the challenges associated with starting a business and launching a bright idea, perhaps there is no greater obstacle than gathering capital. But the power of the internet has revolutionized the way that individuals start and invest in businesses. The new funding methods are vast, with numerous new financial options available.
In the beauty of the free market, start-ups provide a catalyst for innovation, economic growth, and job creation. But with the often-high costs of starting a business, there is little debate that start-ups need capital. No matter how much potential a business idea might have, it must have capital investment to succeed. It would be a vast understatement to say that new businesses need as many options on the table as possible as they work to pursue their goals, and their options can sometimes be quite limited.
However, in the age of the internet and the smartphone, more and more funding options are opening up for start-ups. One innovative way to generate business capital through the internet that has emerged in recent years is an investment model known as “crowdfunding.”
Although crowdfunding has multiple forms, a particularly promising form is known as “equity crowdfunding.” Equity crowdfunding raises capital through a campaign that markets a company's potential and offers prospective investors equity in the company. When someone contributes to the crowdfunding campaign, they receive a percentage of the company's profits.
Since most of the investments are small and spread out across dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of investors, it allows new businesses to market their company's potential to the general public and garner more funding. Usually, online platforms market these campaigns, and many have been highly successful. The campaigns provide a funding mechanism for innovators to focus on developing new innovations that are well-funded and receive feedback from investors as they innovate.
For instance, Oculus, a virtual reality headset start-up, started in 2012 with a crowdfunding campaign goal of $250,000. The campaign ended up raising almost ten times the original goal, reaching $2.4 million. Just two years later, Facebook purchased the company for $2.3 billion.
Another campaign led to the launching of SkyBell, one of the first of the “smart doorbell” developers that raised its first several hundred thousand dollars in funding through crowdfunding. The examples are numerous. In fact, crowdfunding has been estimated to generate more than $17 billion a year, with projections for the amount to grow even higher in the coming years. Who knows when the next billion-dollar company will get its start from crowdfunding?
In a day in which the government heavily regulates so much of the financial sector, policymakers should review the potential reforms that could be made to increase the feasibility of crowdfunding as an innovative business funding model.
Although much headway has been made on the federal level with crowdfunding policy, there is a need to reform many of the outdated and ineffective crowdfunding policies in many states. Such reforms would increase the potential for state-based crowdfunding successes as well. By reforming regulations on crowdfunding, states can increase opportunity and encourage innovation by expanding the funding options available to start-ups and small businesses.
The beauty of the American experiment is the potential for each state to bring new ideas to the table to increase prosperity and expand opportunity. State crowdfunding policy reforms for the 21st century could be a way to do just that.
Matthew Nicaud is the Tech Policy Specialist for the Mississippi Technology Institute, a division of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
“People overestimate what they can accomplish in one legislative session and underestimate what they can accomplish in ten.”
In this series, we are conducting a review of what Mississippi lawmakers have accomplished over the last 10 years. The list provided here is not comprehensive, and we feature only the policies we like, some of which were initiated by MCPP (marked by an *asterisk* below).
Over the past 10 years, Mississippi has gone from the middle-of-the-pack on gun rights to near the top. Below is a review of just some of the Second Amendment protections passed by the Legislature.
Before we get to the gun bills, however, worth mentioning is an important law MCPP worked on (typically, we have left the Second Amendment fights to other groups).
In 2016, Mississippi lawmakers had a great deal of discussion about eliminating the problematic practice of civil asset forfeiture. Rep. Chris Brown succeeded in passing a transparency law (HB 1410) to better track such forfeitures and institute some accountability.*
In 2019, an effort led by MCPP’s Mississippi Justice Institute defeated an attempt to revive the practice of administrative forfeiture.*
Second Amendment Protections
In 2011, the Legislature (HB 506) allowed gun owners who had completed special training to carry their weapon in a courthouse (NOT the same as a courtroom).
In 2013, HB 2, sponsored by Rep. Andy Gipson, confirmed the right to open carry, clarifying that a visibly holstered gun is not a concealed weapon.
That same year, HB 485, sponsored by Rep. Mark Baker, protected concealed-carry permit holders from having their names released via a public records request.
In 2014, the Legislature passed HB 314, sponsored by Rep. Gipson. This law creates a complaint procedure that allows citizens to challenge policies and ordinances that restrict gun ownership.
In 2014, the Legislature also created a Second Amendment Tax Free Weekend with SB 2425.
In 2015, SB 2619 recognized military and law enforcement training as meeting state enhanced concealed carry requirements.
Also in 2015, the Legislature passed SB 2394, which waived concealed carry licensing requirements “for a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver carried in a purse, handbag, satchel, other similar bag or briefcase or fully enclosed case.”
In 2016, Rep. Andy Gipson sponsored the Mississippi Church Protection Act (HB 786), which provides legislative guidance for churches wishing to set up a security team for the protection of their congregation.
Finally, 2016 saw the passage of “constitutional carry,” contained in HB 786. Constitutional carry stipulates that people may carry a gun, whether concealed or not, without a government-issued license. Mississippi was the 9th state to pass this protection.
Also embedded in HB 786 is a codification of the well-established “Anti-Commandeering Doctrine.” Thanks to now Agricultural Commissioner Andy Gipson, Mississippi law states: “No federal executive order, agency order, law not enrolled by the United States Congress and signed by the President of the United States, rule, regulation or administrative interpretation of a law or statute issued, enacted or promulgated after July 1, 2016, that violates the United States Constitution or the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 shall be enforced or ordered to be enforced by any official, agent or employee of this state or a political subdivision thereof.”*
You may have never had your eyebrows threaded, or your eyelashes extended, or makeup applied to your face. So why should you care that Governor Reeves signed legislation a few weeks ago that allows people to provide those services without being licensed?
Licensure laws may not seem like a pressing issue, but overregulation of the service industry is causing real harm in our state.
Excessive licensing laws have cost the state an estimated 13,000 jobs. That means we could add almost three times as many workers as the Nissan plant employs simply by eliminating unnecessary laws, and it wouldn’t cost taxpayers a dime.
The costs of excessive licensing fall disproportionately on the poor, minorities, and young people looking to get their start in life.
Unfortunately, eliminating unnecessary licenses is easier said than done. These exemptions were carved out only after brave business owners sued or threatened to sue the state for their right to work.
One of those lawsuits was filed by Dipa Bhattarai, an international student. She has been threading – removing stray hair by using a twisted cotton thread – for most of her life. It is a safe and common technique that originated in South Asian countries like her home country of Nepal.
Dipa saw an opportunity to pursue her version of the American Dream, and opened Deeva Brows and Beauty, a threading studio with locations in Columbus and Starkville.
Then the cosmetology board – our state’s eyebrow police – forced her to shut down. You see, she had not paid thousands of dollars to take 600 hours’ worth of classes to get a license. The kicker? The required classes don’t even teach anything about eyebrow threading.
Dipa partnered with the Mississippi Justice Institute (“MJI”), a nonprofit, constitutional litigation center that I work for, to challenge the constitutionality of the law. Ultimately, the state decided to back down and repeal the law rather than keep defending it in court.
But the cosmetology board continued trying to shut down other niche beauty businesses. This time, they sent the eyelash police after Amy Burks, who owns Lavish, an eyelash extension lounge in Madison.
Eyelash extensions are available for purchase in self-adhesive strips at most retail outlets. However, in recent years many customers have started paying lash technicians to apply individual false eyelashes, which results in a more natural look. This is a time-consuming and tedious process, but it is safe and easy to learn.
Mississippi law does not specifically require a license for lash technicians, but that did not stop the cosmetology board from interpreting the law to allow them to demand a license anyway.
Again, there is a kicker. If you guessed that the required classes don’t even teach anything about eyelash extensions, you are catching on.
After seven years of safely and openly running her business, Amy was issued a citation for operating an unlicensed salon.
Amy also teamed up with MJI, which sent a letter to the board threatening to file another lawsuit. The state again decided it would rather amend the law than face litigation.
It took yet another lawsuit to clear the way for Mississippians to apply makeup without a license, even though hundreds of millions of people apply makeup every day without formal training.
After years of honing her skills, Karrece Stewart started Get Glam Beauty, a makeup business in Fulton. She teaches makeup techniques and wants to be able to apply makeup for clients as well. But that would require a license.
Makeup is a very small component of the required training, which is primarily focused on skincare and hair removal. And given that applying makeup is not dangerous, this coursework is not needed to prevent any real harms.
Karrece filed her own lawsuit, this time retaining a private law firm that was willing to help her for free. And the pattern continued. Rather than defend the indefensible, the state decided to change the law.
This year’s exemptions are not the first time Mississippi has had to amend its cosmetology laws in response to litigation. In 2005, the state delicensed African-style hair braiding after Tupelo resident Melony Armstrong filed a lawsuit.
It’s encouraging to see the little guy – or in these cases, the little gal – fight back and win. But these small changes required litigation and front page news stories. Most victims of government overregulation suffer in silence. Mississippi’s elected leaders should continue to seek ways to eliminate excessive licensing laws that keep the American Dream out of reach for so many.
This opinion piece by Aaron Rice, Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute, originally appeared in the Clarion Ledger.