ACT NOW: Weapons of war don’t belong in our communities

Project 2025 would increase gun violence, reversing historic declines Problems viewing this email? [View it in your browser]( [Center for American Progress]( InProgress from the Center for American Progress To make sure you never miss an email from us, please add progress@americanprogress.org to your contacts or safe senders list. Thanks for staying connected with us! From the grocery store to the park, Project 2025 would allow almost anyone to carry firearms in public [Pistols are seen in custom-made holsters during a rally at the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas, on January 1, 2016.]( Photo credit: Getty Images After [surging nearly 30 percent]( in 2020, gun violence is falling at a [historic rate]( for the second year in a row. However, rather than building on this momentum by passing stronger gun laws and increasing investments to tackle the root causes of violence, the far-right extremists behind Project 2025 want to put the power—and profits—back in the hands of the corporate gun lobby. Their radical policy agenda would make it easier for people who want to commit violence to carry guns and harder for law enforcement to solve violent crime. Many of the dangerous ideas pushed by Project 2025 and the corporate gun lobby are already being championed by lawmakers. One of the most extreme of these ideas is the [Concealed Carry Reciprocity (CCR) Act](. This legislation would overrule state laws on carrying concealed guns, making it so almost anyone can carry firearms in public. By forcing states to recognize concealed carry laws from other states with weak or nonexistent standards, CCR would enable tourists with criminal histories to carry loaded and hidden firearms in busy places such as Times Square in New York, L.A. Live in Los Angeles, and the National Mall in Washington, D.C.—no questions asked. If CCR were enacted, research strongly suggests that the United States would experience increases in violent crime, in petty disputes escalating into shootings, and in unsolved offenses. With the toll of gun violence already costing the United States an estimated [$557 billion]( and [nearly 50,000 lives]( each year, we cannot afford to weaken concealed carry requirements. [Learn More]( Take action: Weapons of war don’t belong in our communities [Overhead view of “RIP” written in chalk on pavement alongside pieces of sidewalk chalk.]( Photo credit: Getty Images At a time of [historic declines in gun violence]( across the country, Congress should work quickly to build on this success by passing other lifesaving laws, including banning assault weapons. Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have repeatedly been used to commit some of the deadliest mass shootings in modern U.S. history. These weapons of war continue to contribute to the daily toll of gun violence in communities around the country. Tell Congress to act immediately to keep these dangerous weapons out of U.S. communities: [Act Now]( Q: What will Project 2025 do? A: Project 2025 will bring us to the brink of authoritarianism. [Image of the white house with text over top: If you asked me about Project 2025]( [SHARE THIS]( These unconstitutional, anti-immigrant state laws undermine the federal government’s authority over immigration [Migrants wait to be processed on the Ciudad Juarez side of the U.S.-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas, on September 21, 2023.]( Photo credit: Getty Images From [Texas]( to [Iowa]( to [Oklahoma]( and [beyond]( these Republican-led states are enacting immigration enforcement laws that are unquestionably illegal. These anti-immigrant state laws clearly run afoul of a [2012 decision]( by the U.S. Supreme Court, which largely struck down an anti-immigrant Arizona law that impermissibly intruded into an area reserved exclusively for the federal government. Each of these states’ measures claims to assert state authority to regulate immigration and decide core questions such as who may be allowed to enter or remain in the country, who may be required to leave, and how such decisions are to be made. Several of these laws take it a step further, allowing state officials to assume unprecedented powers and disregard federal authority over immigration. While several of these laws allow state officials to arrest and prosecute people suspected of having illegally entered the country or reentered after having previously been denied admission, the Texas and Iowa laws additionally require state court judges to order that noncitizens be removed from the country following conviction and require state officials to facilitate their removal. Those laws additionally prohibit state courts from delaying prosecutions even while the federal government is in the process of deciding whether an individual may be entitled to remain in the country lawfully. Just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the clear rule that the executive branch of the federal government [“retains discretion over whether to remove a noncitizen from the United States.”]( In addition to paving the way for rampant racial profiling that will disproportionately affect these states’ nonwhite residents, these provisions are duplicative of federal criminal law provisions that already prohibit illegal entry and reentry. Moreover, their enforcers risk removing people from the country in violation of federal law and U.S. treaty obligations. So far, federal courts have blocked these laws from taking effect, but proponents of these laws may be setting up cases to see if the Supreme Court will reverse course and abandon its longstanding precedent in this area. [Keep Reading]( ICYMI: Presidential immunity and Project 2025 go hand in hand 🤝 The radical Supreme Court majority ruled in [Trump v. United States]( that future presidents have full immunity from criminal prosecution for illegal actions that are part of their core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for illegal but official acts. This ruling opens the door for a future president with unchecked power to act outside the law. Yesterday, the Center for American Progress hosted distinguished panelists [Akhil Amar]( [Tess Bridgeman]( and [Erwin Chemerinsky]( to discuss how this ruling lays the groundwork for the extreme Project 2025 agenda and the necessary reforms to fend off this growing authoritarian movement. [tweet: "There's no question that the president can fire the attorney general. The question is, can the president have the attorney general assassinated?" Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of @BerkeleyLaw on the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling.]( [Share This]( Follow us on [Follow us on Twitter]( [Follow us on Facebook]( [Follow us on YouTube]( [Follow us on Instagram]( [Support CAP]( [Manage Email Preferences or Unsubscribe]( [Privacy Policy]( [Center for American Progress]( Center for American Progress 1333 H Street NW Washington, D.C. 20005 [supporter]