There is only one moment that has been forever seared into the collective memory of living Americans: the horrific terrorist attacks on our homeland twenty years ago on September 11, 2001.
We all know exactly where we were that day. We remember the feelings of confusion as the initial reports came in. The horror of watching fellow Americans jump to their deaths and the towers collapse. The anger at realizing that we were watching an intentional attack. The fear of what would come next. The acts of heroism we witnessed. The unity that followed. The resolve to prevail. The vows to never forget.
If we had known on September 11th that America would not suffer another terrorist attack during the next twenty years, we would have been relieved and even overjoyed. It’s easy to forget that now. Sometime during the past ten or fifteen years, the fear of another major terrorist attack receded. It wasn’t something that average Americans worried about at all. But twenty years ago, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the single biggest fear gripping America was the fear of another large-scale terrorist attack.
We saw daily warnings and color-coded terrorist threat advisories on our televisions. We worried about how easy it would be for a lone terrorist to detonate a dirty bomb in a crowded metropolitan area. We worried that attacks on our infrastructure could cripple us. We worried about becoming the next victim of terrorism anytime we boarded planes, trains, or even buses. We worried that every crowded sporting event might become a massacre.
For the past two decades, none of that has come to pass. Instead, thousands of our brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters fought the enemy overseas and prevented the fight from coming here. While most Americans returned to their normal lives after the shock of 9/11 wore off, our veterans paid the cost for that normalcy for the next two decades. Nearly 2,500 American veterans were killed in Afghanistan. Hundreds more were injured, and countless others still carry the hidden wounds of war.
Unlike many of America’s past wars, the war in Afghanistan was not supported by a military draft. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who fought in Afghanistan were part of an all-volunteer force. Many of those veterans dropped their life plans and enlisted in the military after 9/11 specifically so they could join the fight to defend our nation, our values, and our way of life. They did this even though nobody asked them to and despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of their colleagues and peers did not.
Americans are blessed to have a unique generation of volunteer veterans in our families, communities, and workplaces. As we mark the 20th anniversary of 9/11 and take stock of the past two decades, we should be sure to honor their sacrifices.
Aaron Rice is an Iraq War veteran and a Purple Heart recipient. He is also the director of the Mississippi Justice Institute, a nonprofit, constitutional litigation center and the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
Facts don’t have to answer to anyone. But is this true in our day when Big Tech social media is the established forum of public discourse? If one were to use the Big Tech content labels and fact checks as the ultimate arbitrators of truth in the public square, the facts would change almost daily. Unfortunately for Big Tech, facts don’t answer to anyone, not even the experts.
At the beginning of 2020, the news of a strange, new, deadly virus that originated in Wuhan, China went out like shockwaves across the globe. Almost immediately, the social media scene became abuzz with millions of voices reacting to the news of a virus that would threaten their health, jobs, futures, and very lives.
As reports began to flow out of China that the virus had possibly originated through a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, social media began circulating this possibility. But before the public discourse got too carried away with a free discussion of the virus origins, social media fact-checkers decreed in early 2020 that such conversations contributed to misinformation and banned any user that purported such a view. The experts had spoken, and those who dissented would be silenced.
After summarily declaring that the Wuhan lab leak theory was so untrue that it could not even be spoken of, Big Tech platforms such as Facebook, had a policy change several months later. The experts had spoken again. This time they determined that now the lowly rank-and-file Americans should be permitted to discuss the lab leak theory that it would have been dangerous for them to discuss only months before.
Granted, these are private sector companies that enact social media censorship. But the massive size, liability protections, and political connectedness of Big Tech call into the question whether or not Big Tech companies have control over public discourse that has grown beyond the proper extent of the private sector. Indeed, many of these private sector moderators have a power over public discourse that sometimes carries a greater sway than even the government itself.
However, such power in Big Tech hasn’t kept the influence of big government out of content moderation. For instance, in the case of the Covid lab leak theory, social media executives communicated directly with government bureaucrats to determine what content to remove. Such actions turned the content moderators into the government’s proxy henchman. As if this were not enough, some have advocated for Big Tech to be formally and legally directed to take down posts that the government considers misinformation.
Is this censorship at the bidding of “the experts” truly the type of public discourse that America can thrive in? We live in a day in which there is widespread civil disagreement on issues ranging from immigration to Covid, and from critical race theory to gun control. Just about every party has the same facts to work with, but many come to differing conclusions. Yet, for practically every issue, there is an “expert” who attempts to establish the acceptable narrative.
America has a long heritage of open discussion and debate of facts under the microscope of the public square. While censorship and the tyranny of the experts might be the status quo in some societies, there are few things more dangerous to a free-thinking society. Those at the top must not control the state of public dialogue.
Facts and ideas are the currency of civil discourse. The powers that be should not leverage their clout to suppress the open and robust discussion of the facts. This is America. Every thinking person should be permitted to civilly discuss and review the facts before them. Such an environment is critical for free-thinking citizens to draw their own conclusions about the pressing questions that confront our nation -without Big Tech censorship and the tyranny of the experts.
As the nation gradually exits COVID and heads back into regular operations, the climate is ripe with opportunity to consider questions regarding the merits of regulatory freedom. Throughout the country, states have taken different stances on how to best approach the pandemic.
Some, such as New York and California, instituted a strong lockdown policy that vastly expanded government control over social and economic activities, while others, such as Florida and South Dakota, took a more hands-off approach, ensuring that the principle of individual autonomy drove good social and economic policy. These differing approaches offer a unique opportunity to evaluate whether the government is necessary to solve all of society's problems. History, free-market principles, and experience would certainly say that it is not.
For example, Brad Polumbo of the Foundation for Economic Education asserts the data is overwhelmingly in favor of free states over those states that locked down completely. For one, studies by The Lancet in July of 2020 and the Frontiers for Health in November of 2020 demonstrated that the stringency of COVID regulations showed no correlation with the numbers of COVID deaths within those states that promoted lockdowns.
Instead, studies indicated that the stringency of COVID regulations led to great economic cost as businesses took significant financial hits. Social consequences have included an increase in suicides, domestic violence, and drug overdoses.
Meanwhile, when comparing lockdown states to those that took a more relaxed approach, the result is quite telling. In terms of unemployment, those states that have prioritized lockdowns have taken longer to return to normal than those that took a more relaxed position. On top of that, most states that took the hands-off approach are much better positioned with unemployment (about 3 percent) than those that took a strict lockdown approach.
On a practical level, the pandemic offered the opportunity to really put various philosophical and economic principles to the test. As the pandemic comes to a close, it is evident that mistakes were made. Not adhering to principles of economic and social freedom may have been one of those mistakes. When making this kind of evaluation, hindsight is, of course, always going to be 20/20. However, the data demonstrates that moving forward, the best policy is that which adheres to limited government and prioritizes individual autonomy.
The Covid experience has only further demonstrated that there is no reason, pandemic or otherwise, that justifies government shutting down people’s lives and taking away their freedoms. As Mississippi and the nation at large return back to normal, it is critical that the protection of individual freedom and establishment of limited government ought to be the priority.
Protesters around the world seem to know what too many Americans have forgotten: that the American flag is the greatest symbol of independence and liberty that has ever been known.
That is exactly why a number of Cubans continue to wave and march with American flags in their hands as they protest the failing communist regime on the island.
Thousands of protesters in over 40 cities have now taken to the streets in Cuba to declare their desire for freedom and voice their frustrations with their communist authoritarian government. This is no small thing. Never before have we seen in Cuba protests of this scale.
These are people who know the potential cost of their actions. Their public opposition to the regime could mean their death. Already, over 100 people have gone missing. Dozens have been arrested. Protesters have been beaten by security forces. Cuba’s president has labeled protesters “counter-revolutionaries” and has called for force against them.
For over 60 years, dictators have run Cuba, oppressing the people and stifling growth and prosperity. While the people starve, party elites have sucked up power and wealth. While housing crumbles, new hotels and resorts are built to bring money to the government. While the communists declare liberation, they silence and crush the freedoms of the people.
In order to stifle the protests and the transmission of videos highlighting government violence, the Cuban government shut down internet on the island. This was a blatant attempt to block communications amongst the grassroots organizers of this tremendous display of opposition.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis even called on Florida-based companies to attempt to provide internet access to the people of Cuba during this time. He noted in a press conference that communist regime leaders “don’t want the truth to be out, they don’t want people to be able to communicate.”
Just 90 miles away from American shores, many of the Cuban people look to our nation for hope. Thousands of Americans themselves have experienced the horrors of the Cuban regime or have relatives that are still there, which makes this moment all the more important.
Every American should seek to support the Cuban people and denounce the communist government. After 60 years, a nation stands stuck in the past, clinging to a broken economic and political system that has left far too many in poverty. Our political leaders should be held to account and we ought to demand the utmost clarity in their condemnations of the Cuban regime.
The failures of the Cuban government are a stark reminder to those who call for socialism and communism to be implemented in the United States. Those political ideologies have failed in both a spectacular and consistent manner. They have failed systematically across cultures and continents. The loud cries of the Cuban people should be a chilling wake-up call to all those who advocate for or tolerate these vicious ideologies in Mississippi and the rest of the United States.
On March 3, 2020, New York’s legislature authorized Governor Cuomo to unilaterally suspend any law or issue any directive that was necessary to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Importantly, that authorization expired a year later, on April 30, 2021. Law-abiding gun owners in New York should probably be thankful for that expiration clause, since Governor Cuomo has since become the first Governor in the nation to declare a “gun violence disaster emergency” in the state on July 6, 2021.
Because the broad COVID-19 emergency authorization has expired, Governor Cuomo is relying instead on a more limited state law that allows him to temporarily suspend other laws, if doing so would help him address a disaster declared by the state. Importantly, this authority comes with more limits than the COVID-19 authorization. While the Governor may temporarily suspend laws, he may not issue directives. Additionally, the suspension of any laws must be more targeted to safeguard the health and welfare of the public, and impose less of a deviation from existing law than was required under the COVID-19 authorization.
Perhaps these limitations are why Governor Cuomo’s executive order does not impose any new restrictions on gun owners in the state. Rather, the executive order suspends certain restrictions in the state’s finance laws in order to allow the Governor to direct money towards community efforts to reduce gun violence, and to enter into contracts and other written agreements meant to address gun violence.
Funding freed up under the executive order will be used to fund a variety of efforts. These efforts include community activity and summer jobs programs for at-risk youths, programs to track and provide resources to emerging gun violence hot spots, and a new state police unit to stop guns coming in from other states that are illegal under New York law. There are also initiatives meant to strengthen relationships between police and the communities they serve.
While Governor Cuomo is clearly proud of the boldness of his executive order, which he described as “the first-in-the-nation gun violence disaster emergency," it does not come anywhere close to the brazen willingness to flout clearly established law that was exhibited by a gun-related executive order issued by Jackson Mayor Lumumba on April 25, 2020.
Mayor Lumumba’s order purported to “suspend” the right to openly carry a firearm in the City of Jackson, despite the fact that the Mississippi Constitution explicitly protects the right to open carry, and declares that the right to openly carry cannot even be regulated in our state. While the executive order invoked the COVID-19 pandemic as its justification, it did not claim that the order would reduce the transmission of COVID-19 or that gun violence that had occurred during the pandemic was caused by people exercising their right to openly carry firearms.
MCPP’s legal arm, the Mississippi Justice Institute, filed a lawsuit against Mayor Lumumba two days after he issued the executive order. The lawsuit argued that Mayor Lumumba’s order violated the Mississippi Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, and various state laws. Six weeks later, a federal court entered an order which permanently banned the City of Jackson or any of its officials from ever again issuing an order restricting the right to openly carry firearms, and provided for contempt of court proceedings against any city officials who violate the court order.
Regardless of the differences between the executive orders in New York and Jackson, one thing is clear: our executive branch officials need to stop governing by emergency. Routine public policy issues should not be decided unilaterally by dressing them up as “emergencies.” Whether emergency powers are invoked to build a border wall that Congress will not fund, or to ban guns in a state committed to gun rights, those actions erode the Rule of Law and eliminate the normal give and take that is supposed to occur in a democratic republic made up of a diverse people with many different priorities, beliefs, and values.
Even if those lofty ideals were not enough, practical concerns should dictate the same response. If we cheer on government officials who exceed their legitimate power to pursue our preferred policy outcomes, we have no recourse when other officials similarly abuse their powers for ends we disapprove of. The only way to prevent such abuses is to limit government power, no matter who is currently in charge.
Some claim that we are too polarized to govern effectively using our normal democratic processes, but our country has been through worse. We experienced deep divisions during the eras of the Founding, Reconstruction, McCarthyism, Civil Rights, and the Vietnam War, just to name a few. That we are experiencing deep divisions again today is no reason to throw away our precious inheritance of constitutionally limited government.
With new COVID cases remaining persistently low and multiple vaccines available to all adults, Mississippi appears to have fully returned to “normal.”
Employers navigating this return have adopted a wide range of policies, from requiring masks for non-vaccinated employees to requiring most employees to get vaccinated. Are these policies legal?
Yes, with very few exceptions.
First, remember that Mississippi is an “at will” employment state. That means an employee can quit his or her job for any reason or no reason at all. Likewise, an employer can fire an employee for any reason (as long as it would not violate discrimination laws covering protected classes) or no reason at all.
This means that employers have a very wide scope in setting the rules that employees must follow. After all, it’s their business. And if an employee doesn’t like the employer’s policies (like a mask or vaccine policy), they can quit the job if they so choose.
Some employees mistakenly believe that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) prevents their employer from asking about their vaccine status. HIPAA prevents certain covered entities which have sensitive patient health information from sharing it with others without the patient’s consent. It does not prevent employers – or anyone else for that matter – from asking anyone about their health information.
Some of this confusion may stem from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prevents employers from asking job candidates if they have a disability before making a job offer and requires employers to maintain the confidentiality of any employee medical information obtained after hiring. But nothing in the ADA prevents an employer from asking employees about their vaccine status during a pandemic or requiring vaccinations for employees.
The ADA does require employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees who cannot get vaccinated due to a disability or sincerely held religious belief. However, such an accommodation is not required if it would pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.
Another source of confusion seems to be a section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which prevents the government from mandating vaccines that have only received an emergency use authorization from the FDA. But that law does not prevent private employers from requiring their employees to receive such vaccines as a condition of employment.
The best advice for employees is to ignore any claims they see on social media regarding their employer’s rights or responsibilities. If an employer adopts policies that concern you, talk to them about your concerns. If a compromise cannot be reached, and if the issue is important enough to you, then it’s ultimately up to you to decide if you want to continue your employment relationship. It’s a free country after all.
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.
“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.*
“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.”*