Cases Attacking the Second Amendment the Supreme Court Refused to Hear

H/T AmmoLand.

Why is the Supreme Court avoiding these cases?

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Because the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in cases discussed infra,* had blatantly ignored and dismissed Heller and McDonald precedent, Justice Thomas and the late Justice Scalia, and, later, Justice Gorsuch, were visibly annoyed, angered really, at the failure of the High Court to take up any of the cases, as evidenced in several dissenting comments. These cases include:

Silvester vs. Becerra: Petition for certiorari denied on February 20, 2018

“Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit improperly applied lenient scrutiny in a Second Amendment challenge to the application of California’s full 10-day waiting period to firearm purchasers who pass their background check in fewer than 10 days and already own another firearm or have a concealed carry license; and (2) whether the Supreme Court should exercise its supervisory powers to cabin the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s concerted resistance to and disregard of the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions.”

California’s full 10-day waiting period to firearm purchasers remains in effect.

Justice Thomas was livid. He said:

“The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect that right, McDonald v. Chicago. . . . Because the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution, courts cannot subject laws that burden it to mere rational-basis review. District of Columbia v. Heller.

But the decision below did just that. And it is symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.

If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court. Because I do not believe we should be in the business of choosing which constitutional rights are “really worth insisting upon,” Heller . . . I would have granted certiorari in this case.”

Drake v. Jerejian: Petition for certiorari denied on May 5, 2014

No hearing; no comment

“Issue: (1) Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a ‘justifiable need’ for doing so.”

The weblog, outside the beltway, had this to say about the case:

“Well it’s official. The Supreme Court has abdicated the Second Amendment.

No Second Amendment right, in New Jersey, to carry a handgun outside the home; and proof of “justifiable need” to carry handgun outside the home for self-defense remains in effect in New Jersey

“Today, the Court denied cert in Drake v. Jerejian, the New Jersey carry case. This case offered a perfect vehicle to test whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home. It was relisted a few times, which this term has been a prerequisite to cert. Yet, it was denied today.

Since the Supreme Court decided McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, they have not deigned to take a single Second Amendment case. Not one. Several have been relisted a few times, but all ultimately denied, with not even a statement concurring or dissenting from denial of cert.

As I noted in this post, this strategy of ‘deny, deny, deny’ is reminiscent of the absence of Cert grants in cases concerning Guantanamo Bay. There, the Court seems content to let the D.C. Circuit rewrite habeas law. I suppose, in a similar fashion, the Court is happy with a plethora of nation-wide Circuit splits about the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.”

Jackson vs. City & Cnty. of San Francisco: Petition for certiorari denied on June 8, 2015

“Issue: Whether San Francisco’s attempt to deprive law-abiding individuals of immediate access to operable handguns in their own homes is any more constitutional than the District of Columbia’s invalidated effort to do the same.”

The requirement to keep handguns inaccessible in-home remains in effect in San Francisco.

(Thomas dissenting; Scalia joins dissent) Thomas writes:

“‘Self-defense is a basic right’ and ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Less than a decade ago, we explained that an ordinance requiring firearms in the home to be kept inoperable, without an exception for self-defense, conflicted with the Second Amendment because it ‘ma[de] it impossible for citizens to use [their firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.’ District of Columbia v. Heller. Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it. Because Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document, I would have granted this petition.”

Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois: Petition for certiorari denied on December 7, 2015

“Issue: (1) Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with a class of constitutionally protected ‘arms’ that includes the most popular rifles in the nation; and (2) whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with ammunition magazines that number in the tens of millions and make up nearly half of the nation’s total stock of privately owned ammunition magazines for handguns and rifles.”

Semiautomatic weapons defined as ‘assault weapons,’ even if in common use remain illegal in City of Highland Park, Illinois

Thomas dissenting:

“The City of Highland Park, Illinois, bans manufacturing, selling, giving, lending, acquiring, or possessing many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic firearms, which the City branded “Assault Weapons.”

The City gave anyone who legally possessed ‘an Assault Weapon or Large Capacity Magazine’ 60 days to move these items outside city limits, disable them, or surrender them for destruction. Anyone who violates the ordinance can be imprisoned for up to six months, fined up to $1,000, or both.

Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by ‘the political process and scholarly debate.’

But Heller repudiates that approach.

There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.

Kolbe vs. Hogan: Petition for certiorari denied on November 27, 2017

No hearing and no comment

Issues: (1) Whether District of Columbia v. Heller excludes the most popular semiautomatic rifles and magazines from Second Amendment protection; and (2) whether they may be banned even though they are typically possessed for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home.

Maryland’s ban on ‘military-like’ ‘assault weapons’ and ‘high-capacity magazines upheld.

Peruta vs. California: Petition for certiorari denied on June 26, 2017

Issue: Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

California law denying law-abiding citizens the Second Amendment right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in the absence of a showing of “good cause” remains in effect.

Thomas Dissenting; Gorsuch joins Dissent:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arm[s] shall not be infringed.’ At issue in this case is whether that guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Neither party disputes that the issue is one of national importance or that the courts of appeals have already weighed in extensively. I would therefore grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.

The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully dissent.”

It is one thing for a lower Federal Court to abdicate its responsibility to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution. It is quite another thing for the U.S. Supreme Court to do so. The lower Courts take their cue from the Highest Court in the Land. If the Supreme Court abdicates its responsibility, it should well expect the lower Courts to do so as well.

And, they have.

The Great Depression vs Today’s Economy

Pacific Paratrooper

circa 1937: Four men sitting on a step reading a newspaper during the Great Depression. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)

What happened during the Great Depression is very different from what is happening today, but there are some lessons in that history.

We’re starting to see some devastating economic indicators related to the global pandemic. More than 3 million people filed first-time unemployment claims the third week of March. On Thursday, we’ll find out how many people filed for unemployment in the fourth week, and on Friday, we’ll get the first monthly unemployment report since large parts of the economy started shutting down.

One of the big questions on your mind is probably: Just how bad things are going to get? That’s why we asked a few historians to tell us about the economic crises of the past — and in particular, the Great Depression — and what we should be…

View original post 749 more words

Despite Lockdown, Chicago Has Deadliest Memorial Day In 5 Years

H/T Bearing Arms.

I bet these thugs did not practice social distancing.

Chicago isn’t a safe place.

Well, let me rephrase that. Parts of Chicago aren’t safe places. Much of the Windy City is just as safe as pretty much anywhere else. Millions walk down those streets every day and are never witness to violence and lawlessness, despite what we tend to see in the news. That’s because much of that lawlessness is confined to specific neighborhoods, and those are places most people don’t really go.

But people don’t look at violence as a neighborhood issue. They look at it as a community issue. We look at it as a community issue.

After all, reports aren’t generated about violence in specific neighborhoods, but in particular cities, and in that regard, Chicago sure looks like it’s not a very safe place.

Especially after Memorial Day weekend, which was so deadly the new police commissioner had to speak out about it.

In his first press conference confronting the grim realities of Chicago gun violence, new Police Superintendent David Brown promised some familiar-sounding solutions on Tuesday, the day after the deadliest Memorial Day weekend in five years.

Ten people were killed and at least 39 people wounded in shootings over the three-day weekend, according to police.

Brown called the violence “alarming, and “unacceptable” and lamented that the statewide stay-at-home order, in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic, did not seem to impact the gunshots that echoed in historically high-crime neighborhoods.

“The stay-at-home order did little to prevent violence, particularly in the parts of the West and South side[s],” Brown said. “These incidents primarily involved disputes between rival gang factions, as well as clashes involving the sale of illegal drugs.”

What, Brown thought that the very people who routinely ignore laws regarding shooting people and buying guns despite the copious gun control laws that infect the state of Illinois would follow a simple stay-at-home order?

Really?

Oh, that’s adorable.

At some point, people have to come to understand that the criminals that infest our inner cities don’t respect the rule of law. They respect force. They respect strength. They respect violence.

That’s about it.

They’re not going to worry about some virus. Keep in mind that these are generally younger people. That’s a demographic that’s notorious for acting like they believe they’re immortal. Does anyone really think they’re going to be concerned about a virus that doesn’t actually have that high of a mortality rate, particularly for young, healthy people?

Probably not.

Which means they’re going to do the kind of thing they normally would. Expect, because of the virus, there are likely fewer witnesses around and fewer police officers actually patrolling the streets. It’s like a Memorial Day wonderland for the Chicago criminal, so they made the most of it.

Couple that with heightened tensions due to months of quarantine, stress stemming from economic concerns, and the virus and yeah, you’ve got a recipe for violence.

In fact, the stay-at-home order was never going to prevent it. How could it? After all, at this point, it might well have been the cause of some of it.

Nevada Governor Changes Up Restrictions On Churches After Criticism From DOJ

H/T Flag And Cross.

A Godless DemocRat is forced to change his attitude about worshipers congregating.

Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak changed up his restriction on church reopenings in the state late Tuesday evening after getting reamed by the Justice Department for treating them “unequally.”

This is a phenomenon that we have seen play out all across the country as governors, some drunk with power, others just simply scared and trying to keep people safe from the coronavirus, crack down on gatherings. Now, when the crackdown is aimed at all gatherings, it’s not a violation of the Constitution. However, when churches are singled out, then that goes against the First Amendment.

Here’s more on this from Washington Examiner:

Trending: Looters Steal ‘TV’s & Groceries, Clothes’ After the Death of George Floyd In Minnesota (Watch)

Under Sisolak’s news rules, churches will be allowed to reopen at a maximum capacity of 50 people beginning Friday. The previous regulation only allowed for 10 people. Sisolak’s announcement came after he canceled a news conference because a member of his staff tested positive for the coronavirus.

The Justice Department’s letter, dated Monday, warned Sisolak that his phased plan for reopening the state, which allows businesses but not churches greater freedom in capacity limits, is a violation of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.

“We understand these directives were issued in the midst of an uncertain situation, which may have required quick decisions based on changing information,” the letter read. “We are concerned, however, that the flat prohibition against 10 or more persons gathering for in-person worship services — regardless of whether they maintain social distancing guidelines — impermissibly treats religious and nonreligious organizations unequally.”

The letter sent by the DOJ was similar in tone to one that was delivered to the state of California last week for Gov. Gavin Newsom, asking for churches in the state to be allowed to reopen for services.

President Trump stated on Friday of last week that he would “override” any governor who decided against allowing churches to reopen over Memorial Day weekend.

The First Amendment is one of our most important rights and is critical to a Christian’s belief that God commands us to meet together to worship Him. When this is violated, it goes beyond just breaking the law. It forces people to violate their conscience, which is a sacred place for every citizen.

This Week In Gun Rights, Pennsylvania, New York, California, Louisiana, The Second Circuit, the ATF, and More! [VIDEO]

H/T The Truth About Guns.

A look at things that affect the Second Amendment around the nation.

This is TTAG’s weekly roundup of legal and legislative news affecting guns, the gun business and gun owners’ rights. For a deeper dive into the topics discussed here, check out this week in gun rights at FPC

Meltdown after new pro-gun bill in Pennsylvania

man scream horror fear

On Wednesday, Pennsylvania House Republicans passed H.B. 2440. It’s not even three pages long, but the Pennsylvania House Democrats seem to believe that the sky is falling over the Commonwealth. The contents of the bill are pretty straightforward: in a single paragraph, the House voted to establish shooting ranges, sportsman clubs, hunting facilities, firearms and ammunition manufacturers, retailers, importers, and distributors as life-sustaining businesses. The bill protects these entities and their employees from being put out of business or restricted in operation by the state.

What was the response from the Pennsylvania House Dems? Big bad scary ghost guns and 3-D printed guns will be sold to felons! Illegal gun sales are now okay! And it’s going to “make[] the wild, wild west look like Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood.” How much fun that sounds aside, there’s a few things to talk about.

First of all, you can’t make something that’s illegal “okay” under the law – it’s either illegal or it’s not. Politicians often take this route to make a mountain out of the proverbial molehill of not doing additional banning. Second, if you thought “ghost guns” were going through Cabelas and brick-and-mortar FFLs, what is it you’re so scared of?

Five anti-gun bills pending advance in California

Colorful California Map Collage Of Stars, And Scratched Round Re

The measures included AB2847, a microstamping bill; AB2362, which jacks up fines for gun dealers; AB2617, shoring up gun violence restraining orders; AB2699, setting requirements for handgun storage (because I guess Heller is just a distant memory); and SB914, which imposes still more restrictions on loaning a firearm.

Odd Second Circuit ruling on serial numbers

serial number

In an opinion released by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the court determined that the sentencing enhancement for obliterating or altering a serial number on a firearm applies to any serial number on the firearm. Here’s why that’s wrong, and why this determination is bad for gun owners.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires that certain firearms have a serial number. Unfortunately the court overlooked the part where the Act specified the number must be on the frame or receiver. You know, the part that’s legally a gun.

The Court chose to take an aggressive, blanket approach. The law’s clear intention surrounds the serial number on the “firearm” component. However, factories choose to place serial numbers on more parts than are required. Slides, barrels, bolts, and other less regulated components often have serial numbers. The Second Circuit’s interpretation, at least with respect to a sentence enhancement, includes those non-essential serials on things like slides, which aren’t in and of themselves firearms.

By misinterpreting this requirement, the Second Circuit has increased the probability of defendants spending more time in prison for something as immaterial as swapping out a barrel or a slide, even when the issue at trial has nothing to do with something related to ballistics. The Court should at least clarify that the Gun Control Act only affects the frame and receiver so as to prevent this decision from reaching conduct far beyond the intent of the legislature.

New Zealand and New York see a surge in gun crimes, homicides

New Zealand Guns

After the Christchurch incident in New Zealand, the country’s prime minister did exactly what any progressive with virtually unchecked power would do—she banned guns. A lot of guns. It’s a classic story—whenever there’s a tragedy involving things that you generally don’t like, ban them while the iron is hot and the people upset. The problem is, none of these policies do anything to prevent the acts they respond to. Well, Kiwis are learning a hard lesson this year, with rates of gun crimes and gun-related killings the highest they’ve been in a decade.

What does any crafty politician do in response? They blame something else, of course. Auckland city councillor Alf Filipaina thinks the cause might be gangs, or drugs, or domestic violence. Maybe ghosts? Alf isn’t really sure, so he’s taking the safe route and leaving the door open to more gun control. If the trend keeps up, I’m sure more laws will be just over the horizon.

In yet another example of how gun control doesn’t stop violent crime, reports indicate that New York City, probably the most difficult jurisdiction in which to legally buy a gun, is experiencing a surge in shootings, with incidences increasing 21 percent over the last year. What’s driving the increase? Well, I’m not a statistician, but according to the comptroller, unemployment could reach 22% in June, a record for the city.

Louisiana is advancing new pro-gun bills

Louisiana politicians are salty this session. Sure, that’s not really news, but this time they’re mad about four bills making their way through the state legislature. The first is House Bill 140, which would prevent local authorities and governments from restricting firearms possession (Pittsburgh, take note). I’m sure they think that passing laws at a local level is practical, but all local restrictions tend to do is inhibit rights, create legal inconsistency within a broader jurisdiction, and cause the prosecution of people who usually don’t deserve it.

The second bill is House Bill 334, which would authorize concealed handgun carry in churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship. The law previously required individuals to get advance permission from the place of worship, and that congregants be notified of the grant of permission, as well as imposing additional training and insurance requirements.

The last two bills address states of emergency and natural disasters. House Bill 746 would permit anyone who lawfully possesses a firearm to carry it during a mandatory evacuation in these situations, and House Bill 781 establishes that firearm and ammo manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, suppliers, and retailers are essential businesses that can’t be shut down in a crisis. As a bonus, House Bill 781 also limits restrictions on gun possession under emergency curfews.

ATF 4473 Changes

Form 4473 and GLOCK (courtesy fbi.gov)

ATF is rolling out a new 4473 this summer and all FFLs must convert over no later than November 1st of this year. Sure, it’s not exactly the sexy content you usually read this column for, but it’s important. First is relocation of the firearm information on the form. On the new version, the manufacturer/import, model, serial number, type, and caliber are the first thing you see. Some in the industry are happy about this change because it reduces the risk of error and if the transaction is stopped midway through filling out the paperwork, the FFL doesn’t have to recall the identifying details of the firearm. The previous form had the firearm’s information on the second page.

The second noticeable change to the 4473 is the inclusion of “borough” and “parish” next to “county.” Apparently people were mistaking “county” for “country” so often that the ATF decided to place the other terms nearby to reduce the likelihood of buyers writing U.S.A.

The third change is the least visible, but the most significant. The new 4473 will include a non-binary option for specifying sex on the form. Up until now, it was legally difficult for non-binary individuals to obtain a firearm from an FFL when neither option was appropriate for them. The ATF previously made a stir when it opined that transfers ought be denied to individuals who did not select “male” or “female.”

Personally, I wonder why the ATF even cares. As long as enough information is given to identify the purchaser, there is no reason to deny someone who isn’t accurately described by any individual factor. While I’d prefer the “sex” box be eliminated altogether (and race—it’s really none of their business). I hope the addition of this third option eases the strain on those affected and will hopefully lead to more people embracing their right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Joe Biden Repeats His Haunting Threat Against Bill of Rights

H/T Western Journal.

Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden strikes again.

This man is mentally unfit to be a dog catcher let alone become president.

The shocking wave of authoritarianism unleashed during the current crisis only seems to have reinforced former Vice President Joe Biden’s view of constitutional amendments.

Speaking to Wired in an interview published Thursday, Biden said that no amendment is “absolute,” thus suggesting that even something as precious as the freedoms guaranteed under the Bill of Rights are not set in stone.

Responding to a public curiosity about his gun control platform, Biden explained not only what he felt about the Second Amendment, but all of the similarly vital constitutional amendments as well.

“From the very beginning you weren’t allowed to have certain weapons,” Biden said. “You weren’t allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.”

“Anybody think you should be able to go out and have a machine gun these days?” Biden asked.

“The answer is no, we have a rational policy. No amendment to the Constitution is absolute.”

While his statement is technically true, this should not be a fact that’s used to push an agenda.

Our rights to speak and worship freely, to defend ourselves with a firearm and even to have a trial by a jury of our peers all hinge on constitutional amendments that can be repealed by a difficult (but feasible) process.

Even the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, is fair game — at least if you take Biden’s reasoning to its logical end point.

This isn’t likely to win him any fans in the African-American community, especially after previous gaffes seemingly demeaning them.

Constitutional amendments — whether we’re talking about the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Sixth Amendment or 13th Amendment — are there for a reason, and it’s terrifying to think that liberal politicians like Biden are so enthusiastic about stripping away the rights guaranteed under the Constitution in order to push an agenda.

Of course, this isn’t the former vice president’s first attempt at highlighting the fact that constitutional amendments are not set in stone.

In 2019, Biden claimed that “no amendment is in fact absolute” while speaking about gun control, scoffing at patriots and others who take their rights seriously.

“These guys will tell you, the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots,” Biden said then, according to the Washington Examiner. “Give me a break.”

Fortunately for Americans, altering the framework of the Constitution is a daunting task.

Since amendments can’t be simply cut from the document due to their binding nature, additional amendments must be passed to change other ones.

Article V of the Constitution lays out the process for passing such a serious measure. First, either a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress or a convention called by legislatures in two-thirds of the states is needed just for an amendment to be proposed.

Three-quarters of state legislatures or state conventions must then ratify the amendment for it to go into effect.

While our system is built on a web of checks and balances not only between different branches of government, but also between the citizenry and the state itself, Biden’s remarks are a haunting threat to hear from a presidential candidate.

Scoffing at our rights, many of which took bloodshed to obtain, puts Biden’s flippant and dangerous view of our nation’s most important document on full display.

Reopening the economy only works if people return to work

H/T The Washington Examiner.

End the gravy train and people will return to work.

Last week, I visited a local shop in Camden, Maine, that caters largely to tourists. On my way out, I asked the owners how they were holding up. They, of course, replied that they are desperately concerned about their business and are just trying to survive — like most business owners across the country right now.

The entrepreneurs also said they were having a difficult time getting their employees to come back to work because they’re receiving close to $1,000 a week for not working. It’s a confusing and concerning problem for these business owners because they took the Paycheck Protection Program funds that were supposed to help them keep employees on the payroll.

This is not a unique story.

Business owners across the country are lamenting that people are not coming back to their jobs, even when offered. For small businesses able to survive the quarantine, more will need to be done to get their workers off welfare and back in the workforce. It’s going to require thoughtful action from state and federal leaders, as well as strict enforcement of existing laws regarding unemployment benefits. Thankfully, some of the nation’s governors are making bold and commonsense moves to address the three-headed monster of a health crisis, budget woes, and businesses on the brink of extinction.

Gov. Ron DeSantis in Florida, for example, made wise decisions early on to make sure nursing homes were prioritized for protection. He figured out long before the experts and the pundits did that long-term care units needed a different policy response than beaches. If Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York had taken the Florida approach early on, who knows how many lives may have been spared?

Other governors around the country made good decisions to help with the health crisis as well. Gov. Greg Abbott in Texas was one of the many who relaxed hundreds of regulations to help add to the healthcare workforce and provide flexibility during a time of severe social distancing.

With a flattened curve and the end of the health crisis hopefully within sight, many governors are turning their attention to the economy.

While these states loosen restrictions, our greatest challenge may be ahead: There are tens of millions unemployed, and businesses around the country are closing or just clinging to survival. Congress created this problem, in large part, by adding a $600 per week unemployment benefit on top of the usual benefit so that many made significantly more money staying at home than they made while working. This is the perfect storm for wide-scale unemployment fraud and abuse.

Additionally, most states’ unemployment trust funds are being drained at an alarming pace. Welfare dependency skyrockets as well, putting even further strain on state and federal budgets and driving millions further from returning to the productive jobs they had before the coronavirus and bad policy from Congress struck.

To address this crisis, the administrations of Gov. Kim Reynolds in IowaGov. Phil Scott in VermontGov. Mike Parson in Missouri, and several other Republicans are making it clear that able employees need to return to their jobs if they are offered back to them. If they don’t, they will not be eligible for unemployment benefits. Of course, there are exemptions for those with real circumstances that don’t allow them to work.

This policy is simple, and it isn’t new. It is already well-established law, but they are wise to make it clear the law must be followed in their states.

How these governors execute the details and make sure the law is being followed will also be critical to success. Reopening the economy only works if people return to work. The Trump administration has done their part as well, issuing guidance last week encouraging states to remind businesses and the public about this law, and giving businesses the resources they need to get people back into jobs.

While the opportunity for wise early action on the health crisis has passed, it’s not too late for governors around the country to step up amid the budget and business crisis. When we look back on this point in time, we will remember those governors who gave it their all to reignite our economy — if they have the courage to act.