# data[].attributes.body
1. Each table group needs to find a different current event article that relates to an Amendment right(s).
2. Briefly summarize the article.
3. Explain how it relates to the Amendment(s).
4. Write your opinion on the topic of the article.
5. Cite the article in MLA format.
http://www.citationmachine.net/mla/cite-a-website

# data[].attributes.body
Roanoke county declared that they are a gun right sanctuaries.
The Virginia Citizens Defense League says that there are now more than 40 "Second Amendment Sanctuary counties, towns, and cities"
This relates to the second amendment because this article states that Roanoke county does not support the 2nd amendment
Jenn Gidman - https://www.newser.com/story/283910/after-big-dem-wins-states-gun-advocates-seek-sanctuary.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Newser) - Officials of a Virginia city have rebuffed pleas by gun advocates asking it to declare the city a so-called "Second Amendment Sanctuary." Roanoke Mayor Sherman Lea on Monday announced at a packed City Council meeting that he sees no benefit in validating what the US Constitution already guarantees, per the AP. The declaration to a room mostly filled with people wearing stickers claiming "guns save lives" was met with shouted comments, the most audible being, "We will not comply." News outlets report gun advocates across Virginia have pushed localities to declare themselves gun rights sanctuaries after November's elections put Democrats in control of the Statehouse. The Virginia Citizens Defense League says there are now more than 40 "Second Amendment Sanctuary counties, towns, and cities" in the commonwealth.

In fact, even though Roanoke city rebuffed efforts to join that list, Roanoke County did the opposite on Tuesday with a unanimous vote by its board of supervisors. The vote took place after more than two hours of citizen discussion, in which WSLS reports supporters "engaged in historical hyperbole ... comparing their symbolic movement to that of Colonial American Revolutionists symbolically dumping tea in the Boston harbor." "The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment stands, end of story," one supporter said. "There shouldn't even be any more discussion after that." Others disagreed. "I believe that Roanoke County and the board of supervisors have much more critical and important items to deal with than [discussing] and [passing] a meaningless resolution that is not worth the paper that it's printed on," a critic noted.

(Read more Second Amendment stories.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
After Big Dem Wins, This State's Gun Advocates Are Seeking 'Sanctuary'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Newser) - Officials of a Virginia city have rebuffed pleas by gun advocates asking it to declare the city a so-called "Second Amendment Sanctuary." Roanoke Mayor Sherman Lea on Monday announced at a packed City Council meeting that he sees no benefit in validating what the US Constitution already guarantees, per the AP.

# data[].attributes.body
Right to bear arms has led to lots of people dying because guns are being used for the wrong reasons. Some people shouldn't own guns because they do bad things with them. Bearing arms has led to more bad things than good things. People will be safer in the United States if guns can't be owned by just anybody.

Stewart, Caleb. “Rockingham County Sets Details of Hearing on '2nd Amendment Sanctuary' Proposal.” WHSV, https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Rockingham-County-sets-details-of-hearing-on-2nd-Amendment-sanctuary-proposal-565801311.html.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As more and more counties across Virginia vote to designate themselves 'Second Amendment sanctuaries,' the Rockingham County Board of Supervisors has set the details of their hearing on the topic coming up next week.

As of Wednesday, following more decisions Tuesday night, including Page County voting unanimously for their resolution, at least 40 counties and cities have taken the step of passing the symbolic measures.

Wednesday night at 6 p.m., the Augusta County Board of Supervisors is hearing from the public at Stuarts Draft High School in a meeting that packed the school auditorium.

Similar meetings of other Virginia county boards have broken attendance records, bringing out hundreds of people even in counties with very low populations.

The Rockingham County Board of Supervisors has planned their meeting for Dec. 11, following previously scheduled discussions.

First, they'll hold their regularly scheduled meeting at 3 p.m. at 20 East Gay Street in Harrisonburg. Then, they'll recess for dinner and hold a scheduled 6 p.m. public hearing regarding proposed land-use matters.

Once that hearing is done, the board will recess the meeting and head to Spotswood High School, at 368 Blazer Drive, Penn Laird, Va., for a public hearing on legislation about becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary. Holding the meeting at the high school gives them extra space.

They expect public comment to begin around 7:15 p.m., but the start time may vary depending on the 6 p.m. hearing.

Seating will open to the public at 6:30 p.m.

The movement of counties declaring themselves 'Second Amendment sanctuaries' - a conservative spin on 'sanctuary cities,' which vowed not to work with ICE to deport undocumented immigrants - began shortly after the election earlier this month in which Democrats won full control of the General Assembly for the first time in decades.

Many people in areas that voted along conservative lines believe that their constitutional rights may be threatened under a Democratic-controlled legislature.

Not many bills have been filed for Virginia's 2020 session, but ne gun control bill has already been proposed by a Democrat that's created a stir on social media: SB 16, which would make it a Class 1 misdemeanor "to import, sell, barter, or transfer any firearm magazine designed to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition" and expand the definition of "assault firearm" under Virginia law, prohibiting anyone from possessing a gun that meets the new definition of "assault firearm."

To counter possible gun control laws, the concept of becoming a 'Second Amendment sanctuary' means that a county expresses its intent that its public funds not be used to restrict Second Amendment rights.

The resolutions aren't legally binding, but put forth a public stance on behalf of counties' citizens.

Chairman Davis, with Dinwiddie County, which adopted one of the measures, said their resolution doesn't mean they'll ignore state law though.

"We're not saying 'No, we're not going to stand by the law' or 'This county isn't going to stand by the law.' Wrong. Absolutely wrong. We stand firm on the Second Amendment, we believe we have the right to bear arms."

Democrat leaders say the concept is unnecessary.

"If you look at what we're doing, I don't think it infringes on anybody's Second Amendment rights," said State Senator John Edwards (D-Roanoke).

Edwards said if people want to challenge legislation passed by the General Assembly, the remedy is to go to court.

"I think people are being paranoid and it's totally unnecessary," Edwards told WDBJ7.

Delegate Chris Head (R-Botetourt) has a different view.

"I think this may be a case in which it is justifiable to be concerned, and so that's not paranoia, that's concern," Head said Wednesday afternoon. "The United States Constitution is incredibly clear and unambiguous when it says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. And I think what you're seeing is localities simply wanting to make sure the rest of my colleagues in Richmond understand."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
rockingham county sets details of hearing on '2nd amendment sanctuary' proposal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rockingham County sets details of hearing on '2nd Amendment sanctuary' proposal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As more and more counties across Virginia vote to designate themselves 'Second Amendment sanctuaries,' the Rockingham County Board of Supervisors has set the details of their hearing on the topic coming up next week. As of Wednesday, following more decisions Tuesday night, including Page County voting unanimously for their resolution, at least 40 counties and cities have taken the step of passing the symbolic measures.

# data[].attributes.body
This article describes the recent school shooting in Santa Clarita, California. A 16 year old teen male opened fire on 5 students, and then shot himself. The whole shooting lasted 16 seconds. Two died, while three were wounded. This school shooting relates to the second amendment, or the right to bear arms. Some argue that gun restrictions should be made in place, while others disagree that this violates the constitution.
Fieldstadt, Elisha, and Doha Madani. “Santa Clarita, California, High School Shooting Leaves 2 Students Dead, Multiple Injured.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 22 Nov. 2019, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/los-angeles-county-deputies-respond-report-santa-clarita-school-shooting-n1082231.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A teenage gunman opened fire at a Southern California high school Thursday morning, killing two students and wounding three others, before shooting himself in the head, officials said.

The suspect, whom authorities described as an Asian male who turned 16 on Thursday, was in critical condition at a hospital, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said Thursday night. Surveillance video showed the shooter pull a gun from his backpack in the quad area of Saugus High School, shoot five people and then shoot himself, it said.

"Within approximately 16 seconds, it was over," sheriff's Capt. Kent Wegener said.

Multiple law enforcement sources told NBC News that the suspect was identified as Nathaniel Tennosuke Berhow.

A 16-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy died, authorities said. Three other students - two girls, 14 and 15, and a 14-year-old boy - were also shot before classes began, officials said. They were listed as stable on Thursday night.

All of the victims and the suspect attended Saugus.

"I hate to have Saugus be added to the names of Columbine, Parkland, Sandy Hook, but it's a reality that affects us all throughout the nation, something we're going to have to deal with," Sheriff Alex Villanueva said at a news conference after finding out that the second student had died.

First responders arrived at the school within two minutes of the initial report of the shooting just after 7:30 a.m., Villanueva said.

A .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol with no rounds left in it was recovered, and investigators obtained a search warrant for the suspect's home and were interviewing his girlfriend and his mother.

Investigators said that they had not determined a motive but that they believed the shooter acted alone. Authorities had said earlier that they were investigating an Instagram account belonging to the suspect, but the account turned out not to be associated with him, Instagram told NBC News late Thursday.

Authorities searched for the suspect after the shooting, not immediately realizing that he was one of the six people wounded.

"If you live in neighborhoods anywhere near Saugus High, PLEASE LOCK DOORS and stay inside," the sheriff's Santa Clarita Valley station tweeted before the suspect was identified. "If you see suspect, male dark clothing, in backyards, etc. CALL 911."

"Parents, deputies are on scene everywhere protecting your children," the sheriff's station said.

The Santa Clarita Valley station tweeted just before 8 a.m. that the public should avoid the area of Saugus High School, about 40 miles north of Los Angeles. Minutes later, the office said people were reporting that shots had been fired at the school.
Download the NBC News app for breaking news
A student, Sharon Orelana Cordova, told NBC Los Angeles that she was doing homework when she saw people running, so she started running, too. "When I got out, I saw this person lying down on the ground, and I saw blood all over. It was really scary. I was really, really scared. I didn't know what was going on," she said.

Saugus was placed on lockdown, as were neighboring elementary schools and all of the schools in Saugus' William S. Hart Union High School District, officials said.

Aerial video showed students, with their hands raised, being escorted by deputies away from the school of about 2,300 students, NBC Los Angeles reported. They were transported from the campus on school buses with armed deputies on board.

An area was set up reunify parents with their children at a park about 3 miles away.

Deputy School Superintendent Mike Kuhlman said in a statement that school officials were "in the process of formulating a plan to care for our school and our community - and will continue sharing updates as we learn more - including the plan for the days ahead."

"Our hearts go out to the families of those affected by this terrible incident. Words are insufficient in times such as these," the statement said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom mentioned a stalled bill on universal background checks for gun sales on Twitter on Thursday, adding that President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., "sicken" him.

"260 days of McConnell and Trump doing NOTHING while America continues to mourn," Newsom said. "To bury loved ones. To witness our neighbors, friends, and children gunned down at our malls, churches, and schools."

CORRECTION (Nov. 14, 2019, 3:13 p.m. ET) An earlier version of this story misstated the status of the suspect in the shooting at Saugus High School in Santa Clarita, California. The suspect shot himself in the head and was in critical condition in a hospital; he has not died.

Andrew Blankstein, Pete Williams, Jonathan Dienst and Eric Leonard contributed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Santa Clarita, California, high school shooting leaves 2 students dead, multiple injured

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A teenage gunman opened fire at a Southern California high school Thursday morning, killing two students and wounding three others, before shooting himself in the head, officials said. The suspect, whom authorities described as an Asian male who turned 16 on Thursday, was in critical condition at a hospital, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said Thursday night.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It protects rights that are not listed in the Bill of Rights.

Two hundred and thirty years ago today, on November 20, 1789, New Jersey became the first state to ratify the proposed amendments to the Constitution that we now know as the Bill of Rights. Over the next two years, other states followed suit, culminating in the adoption of the amendments in December of 1791. It almost didn't happen. Supporters of the Bill of Rights won their opponents over, though, thanks in large part to the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment.

If you're straining to remember what you learned in civics class about the Ninth Amendment, you're not alone. Despite the importance of the rights protected by the first ten amendments to the Constitution, surveys over the past few decades have consistently shown that Americans know little about either the Bill of Rights or the Constitution as a whole.

So what's in the Bill of Rights? For starters, it's not long - all together, the ten amendments are only 462 words and could be tweeted out in ten tweets. Those 462 words pack a punch, though, explicitly protecting a broad range of rights, from the freedom of speech to the right to a speedy and public trial. The scope of several of the amendments, such as the Second Amendment and its right to keep and bear arms, remains a hotly contested issue today. Others rarely breach the surface of public discourse - the Third Amendment's prohibition against illegally housing soldiers in the homes of private citizens has been so effective that it has scarcely ever been litigated.

The Ninth Amendment falls into the latter category - it barely registers in the public sphere. If the Third Amendment is the least relevant of the Bill of Rights to Supreme Court jurisprudence, then the Ninth Amendment is the second-least relevant. The Supreme Court's relegation of the Ninth Amendment to the dusty attic of judicial doctrine is odd when you read it, though: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." "Others retained by the people" is powerful language. Does it mean that Americans have constitutional rights not actually written in the Constitution? It depends whom you ask.

During his infamously contentious confirmation hearings as a Supreme Court nominee in 1987, then-judge Robert Bork said the meaning of the Ninth Amendment was too uncertain for judges to enforce, famously comparing it to an uninterpretable inkblot. This fit with Judge Bork's belief that there are no "unenumerated," or unwritten, constitutional rights. Fast-forward 30 years to the 2017 confirmation hearing of Neil Gorsuch, though, and you get a markedly different answer. When Senator Ben Sasse asked then-Judge Gorsuch what the Ninth Amendment means, Gorsuch answered simply: "I think it means what it says," echoing an argument made in a 2006 law review article by Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett titled " The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says."

In his article, Barnett reviews the historical evidence for the meaning of the Ninth Amendment and concludes that the amendment uniquely provides explicit guidance on how to interpret the Constitution. Specifically, it tells us that "unenumerated rights deserve no less protection from courts than those that were enumerated." Accordingly, interpretations contrary to that principle are constitutionally prohibited.

The inclusion of an amendment dictating constitutional interpretation is a result of serious worries among the founding generation that a Bill of Rights would actually lead to less liberty, not more. James Wilson, one of the Constitution's drafters, argued that a Bill of Rights would endanger liberty by implying that any rights left off the list were unprotected. Because it would be impossible to list all the rights that a person holds, it was better not to have a Bill of Rights at all. Instead, he argued, the Constitution protected liberty by carefully limiting the powers held by the government.

The Ninth Amendment was the compromise measure. By clarifying that listing certain rights did not mean that other rights were less protected, the drafters thought that they had covered all of their bases. The rights listed in the first ten amendments would be protected, but so would those that were not listed. That was important, because the rights listed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights amendments are hardly comprehensive. Notably left off the list is the principal right asserted in the Declaration of Independence: the right to "alter or abolish" an unjust and abusive government. This and other rights were included in the Bills of Rights of many state constitutions, but they were not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights amendments to the national Constitution. The Ninth Amendment ensured that these rights would not be demoted to second-class status, as people like James Wilson had feared.

The Ninth Amendment has grown only more important over time. Though the protections of the Bill of Rights amendments originally applied only to the federal government, the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to apply those protections against state governments as well (although which part of the 14th Amendment does this remains the subject of considerable debate). The Ninth Amendment's interpretive rule applies here too, foreclosing the argument that only the rights specifically listed in the Bill of Rights are enforceable against the states.

The animating principle of the Ninth Amendment is one that, as Justice Stevens wrote, "goes to the very core of the constitutional relationship between the individual and governmental authority." Although the Ninth Amendment has only rarely been explicitly invoked by the Supreme Court, you can see its fingerprints on many of the Court's decisions. The Court's protection of unenumerated fundamental rights that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" acknowledges that today, as at the time of the Founding, listing every one of a person's rights is impossible. Our Constitution is one of expansive rights and limited government. The Ninth Amendment's inclusion in the Bill of Rights reminds us, and the Supreme Court, not to interpret it otherwise.

James T. Knight II is a legal associate in the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. @jamestknightii

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Americans Should Remember the Ninth Amendment | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It protects rights that are not listed in the Bill of Rights. Two hundred and thirty years ago today, on November 20, 1789, New Jersey became the first state to ratify the proposed amendments to the Constitution that we now know as the Bill of Rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Gun supporters and the Trump administration argue the prior restrictions put forth on guns violate the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court on Monday waded for the first time in nearly a decade into the debate over gun rights, as it heard oral arguments in a dispute over a New York City rule restricting the transportation of licensed handguns.

Brought by three firearms owners who live in New York City and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the case centers around a regulation that barred firearms owners from transporting their handguns to homes or shooting ranges outside city limits.

Since the case was filed, the regulation has been changed, but under the previous rule, gun owners with "premises" licenses were allowed only to transport their unloaded and locked handguns to seven shooting ranges in New York City.

Gun rights advocates and the Trump administration argued the prior restriction violates the Second Amendment and said the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to transport guns outside of the home.

The original and newly changed rule, Paul Clement, who argued on behalf of the gun owners told the justices, is "premised on a view of the Second Amendment as a home-bound right, with any ability to venture beyond the curtilage with a firearm, even locked and unloaded, a matter of government grace." In legal parlance, curtilage refers to land attached to a house, like a yard or garden.

City officials are urging the Supreme Court, now with a 5-4 conservative majority, to throw out the case altogether because they amended the measure at the heart of the challenge in July. Now, handgun owners can take their licensed firearms to shooting ranges and second homes beyond city boundaries.

Many of the questions during the hour-long oral argument focused on whether the case should be dismissed because the rule in question had been changed.

"What you're asking us to do is to take a case in which the other side has thrown in the towel and completely given you every single thing you demanded in your complaint for relief, and you're asking us to opine on a law that's not on the books anymore," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Clement.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, back on the bench after she was to Johns Hopkins Hospital November 22 after experiencing chills and a fever, said the handgun owners "have gotten all the relief that they sought."

"So what's left of this case?" she asked.

The three gun owners and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association, first challenged New York City's handgun rule in 2013. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, ruled in 2018 that the regulation did not violate the Second Amendment.

In January, the high court announced it would take up the dispute, marking the first time since 2010 the justices would hear a case involving gun rights. In July, New York City officials asked the Supreme Court to drop the dispute since the rule had been changed.

The court in October rebuffed the city's request to toss out the suit and instead said it would hear arguments on whether it should do so, as well as whether the restriction was unconstitutional.

The dispute is one of several blockbuster cases the Supreme Court will hear this term touching on hot-button issues including immigration and abortion. A decision from the justices is expected by the end of June.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court takes up first Second Amendment dispute in almost 10 years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court on Monday waded for the first time in nearly a decade into the debate over gun rights, as it heard oral arguments in a dispute over a New York City rule restricting the transportation of licensed handguns.

# data[].attributes.body
Hundreds of gun supporters gathered at the Virginia Beach City Council meeting. People attended to voice their opinions about the 2nd Amendment sanctuary. Leaders of the group say they don't want gun control imposed on law-abiding gun owners.
This relates to the 2nd amendment because it talks about how everyone should be able to own a gun.
We think this is bad because it talks about the right to have guns and it was saying the guns save lives but we don't believe that. We believe guns should be restricted and not given to everyone.
“Huge Crowd of Gun Rights Supporters Show up to Virginia Beach City Council Meeting.” WTKR.com, 4 Dec. 2019, https://wtkr.com/2019/12/03/huge-crowd-of-gun-rights-supporters-show-up-to-the-virginia-beach-city-council-meeting/.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Hundreds of gun supporters gathered at the Virginia Beach City Council meeting Tuesday night.

They reached max capacity inside the meeting, and people were forced to stand outside of the building.

People attended to voice their opinions about the Second Amendment sanctuary, an issue that was being discussed inside the meeting despite not being on the agenda.

A Second Amendment sanctuary is when a jurisdiction adopts a resolution saying they won't use resources to enforce certain gun control measures that they feel violate the Second Amendment.

Many people were wearing "Guns Save Lives" stickers at the rally.

Leaders with the group Virginia Citizens Defense League say they don't want gun control imposed on law-abiding gun owners. President Philip Van Cleave and Executive Member Brendan Mooney addressed the passionate crowd.

Former Congressman Scott Taylor was among the supporters.

"I feel very strongly, very deeply about protecting the Second Amendment right," said Taylor. This is indicative about people who care about their Second Amendment rights. I guarantee you there are Republicans, Independents, Democrats, people who aren't politically active but want to protect their families and their property, and that is why they are here and you are seeing this across the Commonwealth."

People with the group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America were also at the meeting.

Sibel Galindez said they had a representative address city council.

"We are here tonight to talk to our duly-elected officials, our city council to let them know we are watching, and the Virginians here have spoken and voters have spoken and gun safety legislation will go forward to the General Assembly to be debated as it should," said Galindez.

Supporters say they will attend other city council meetings throughout Hampton Roads as the issue continues to be discussed.
Click here for full coverage of second amendment sanctuary city efforts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Huge crowd of gun rights supporters show up to Virginia Beach City Council meeting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Hundreds of gun supporters gathered at the Virginia Beach City Council meeting Tuesday night. They reached max capacity inside the meeting, and people were forced to stand outside of the building. People attended to voice their opinions about the Second Amendment sanctuary, an issue that was being discussed inside the meeting despite not being on the agenda.

# data[].attributes.body
"Republicans and right-leaning pundits who have come to the defense of President Donald Trump during the impeachment inquiry have consistently attacked the original whistleblower , questioning the person's motive making false claims around the rules for whistleblowing and invoking the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution." This shows that the 6th amendment is linked to the Trump Impeachment inquiry because he wants to meet the whistle blower. It is still under discussion if the 6th amendment applies to his case because it is apart of the political process and not a criminal case.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/politics/sixth-amendment-require-whistle-blower-to-face-donald-trump-fact-check/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
The 8th amendment supports the idea of no unnecessary punishment and this article was about

A public property pertaining to camping on public property would ban anyone from camping on city land or living in cars on the right of way or parking lots that the city owns

This would only be enforced if beds are available at homeless shelters in the area

The 2 homeless men were arrested for sleeping in public

The men violated the 8th amendment and the lawsuit made it all the way to the federal appellate court

The court sided with the homeless men

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SPOKANE VALLEY, Wash. - Spokane Valley City Council approved two ordinances about park regulations and camping on public property on Tuesday amid issues with homelessness.

The ordinance pertaining to camping on public property would ban anyone from camping on city land or living in cars on the right of way or parking lots that the city owns. This would only be enforced if beds are available at homeless shelters in the area. According to the ordinance, violators could face up to 90 days in jail or a $1,000 fine. It also permanently bans camping at City Hall, Balfour Park and CenterPlace/Mirabeau Meadows.

The measure regarding park regulations amends park hours. In the winter, parks would be open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. In the summers, they would be open from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Anyone found in the parks after hours would be cited with a civil infraction and a $50 fine.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal rejected the city of Boise's ban on people sleeping in public place. More than a dozen briefs have been filed to the Supreme Court asking them to consider hearing a Boise-originated case that has had wide-ranging consequences for cities dealing with homelessness.

One of those briefs was authored with help from the City of Spokane, which provided information about its anti-camping efforts to a group of organizations asking the court to overturn the current ruling.

It all began when two homeless men in Boise sued the city for arresting them for sleeping in public.

The men contended the anti-camping ordinance violated their 8th amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment, and the lawsuit made its way up to the federal appellate court, just a step below the Supreme Court.

The court essentially sided with the homeless men.

The judges said the 8th Amendment not only protects people from cruel punishments but also from cruelly making certain unavoidable things a crime.

"As long as there is no option of sleeping indoors... the government cannot criminalize... homeless people for sleeping outdoors... on the false premise they had a choice in the matter," the judges wrote.

The judges found that anti-camping laws sometimes effectively criminalize homelessness by making it illegal to fulfill certain biological needs, like sleeping. If homeless people have nowhere else to go, they are still biologically required to sleep. By criminalizing the act of sleeping, Boise was criminalizing the status of being homeless, the court found.

The judges ruled that cities can't prosecute homeless people for sleeping in public unless there is somewhere else for them to sleep - in other words, enough shelter beds.

Part of the ruling was that to get access to those beds, people can't be forced to participate in religion. That's because the government would effectively be giving them the choice between practicing a specific religion and going to jail for camping, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, according to the court.
RELATED: Man in charge of Spokane's homeless shelter efforts resigns RELATED: How a Boise court case is affecting Spokane's sit-and-lie ordinance RELATED: Neighbors use giant rocks to stop homeless camping in San Francisco

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spokane Valley bans camping on public property, amends park hours

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SPOKANE VALLEY, Wash. - Spokane Valley City Council approved two ordinances about park regulations and camping on public property on Tuesday amid issues with homelessness. The ordinance pertaining to camping on public property would ban anyone from camping on city land or living in cars on the right of way or parking lots that the city owns.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Guns were being transported, locked and unloaded, through New York to gun ranges and other gun valid areas and the State of New York is preventing the transportation of these guns
2. It relates to the second Amendment.
3. I believe that the guns should not have been confiscated because there was no reason to confiscate them. They were in transport in a secure vehicle and they were locked and unloaded.

Livni, Ephrat. “Justices Fire Warning Shots at Supreme Court Hearing on Gun Rights.” Quartz, Quartz, 3 Dec. 2019, https://qz.com/1759708/warning-shots-fired-during-supreme-court-hearing-on-guns/.