The National Rifle Association (NRA) released a video on Thursday imploring its followers to stock up on firearms and “fight back” against liberals. But many Americans were horrified by the inflammatory message, fearing that it could spark violence.

The lobbying group’s video claims that liberal Americans are indoctrinating children, “assassinating [the] real news,” and using Hollywood celebrities to further their narrative. Titled “The Violence of Lies,” the video claims that when police stop the demonstrators from protesting they will be accused of police brutality.

The spot, which runs a bit over a minute, is narrated by conservative talk show host Dana Loesch, a NRA spokeswoman. Her chilling commentary is paired with haunting black and white stock footage of scenes across America, including various demonstrations.

“The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country, and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth,” Loesch says in the video.

The NRA video also claims there has been a surge in left-wing violence, which is false, according to Vox.

The NRA hasn’t released any statement regarding the video, instead simply retweeting Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s claims regarding his interview with Loesch. Loesch defended the ad by telling the New York Times:

I hardly think that condemning violence is inciting violence. I think the ad is very clear — there are excerpts from actual riots that are included in the ad, and that’s exactly what I’m addressing.

The video is another example of the NRA’s habit of using “apocalyptic, paranoid rhetoric” to advance the idea that people must defend their gun rights. One example cited by Vox is a 2013 op-ed by NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre claiming that if liberals succeed in passing gun control then a lawless America would follow.

Soon after the video went public a petition was organized asking Facebook to removed the video from its site.

“The video tries to create an ‘us-vs-them’ narrative and pit Americans against one another,” the petition, which has over 25,000 signatures, said. “It paints liberals as liars and as violent, unruly protesters who law-abiding gun owners need protection from.”

Liberals weren’t alone in criticizing the NRA video–many gun owners were horrified at the provocative advertisement. Multiple Facebook users commented on the post with comments claiming they were cancelling their membership or condemning the veiled encouragement of violence against liberal demonstrators.

Another comment compared the video to George Orwell’s “1984” and Ivan Pavlov’s experiments with salivating dogs, according to Huffington Post.

But still other Facebook comments were grateful for the video “describing 100 percent exactly what happened,” according to Time.

Multiple politicians denounced the NRA video on social media. Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy said he believes the NRA is telling followers to shoot people and that he recommends people cancel their membership. Virginia Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam said he found the video “dangerous and wholly inappropriate.”

Former television personality Montel Williams also chimed in on Twitter. Williams added his own comment to a tweet from Black Lives Matter activist Deray McKesson who noted that the response would surely be different if a minority made the video.

This ad doesn’t speak for me as a proud, responsible gun owner. I find it disgusting. @Everytown @sandyhook https://t.co/1BDKXLHTym

— Montel Williams (@Montel_Williams) June 29, 2017

There was also criticism from terrorism experts. Ex-CIA intelligence analyst Cynthia Storer, now an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, spent 20 years in the agency focusing on counterterrorism and al-Qaeda specifically, according to Newsweek. “The NRA is feeding an us vs them narrative of the kind that fuels all extremist movements,” Storer tweeted. “Extremism sparks extremism in return. It’s a vicious cycle and the world burns.”

If the NRA was seeking publicity, then the group hit a home run. But if the organization wanted to start a dialogue or help fix a fractured America, this is a failure. It isn’t the first politically hyperbolic video, and it won’t be the last, but in this case the impact could be conflict and a widening of the gap in an already polarized American public.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NRA Video Sparks Reactions from Both Supporters and Opponents appeared first on Law Street.

Soon after President Donald Trump was sworn in, he signed a directive that said for each new regulation, two Obama-era regulations would be revoked; a reverse two-for-one. In his first month and a half as president, Trump and his cabinet have worked at an unprecedented clip to reverse the Obama Administration’s rules. Trump has frozen, suspended, or terminated roughly 90 regulations put in place under Obama, many as a response to opposition from industry leaders and advocates. Here are five rules that Trump has worked to scrap. 

Lead on Federal Lands

As President Barack Obama was leaving office, he issued an order to ban hunters from using lead bullets and anglers from using lead tackle when hunting and fishing on federal lands. The order was designed to protect wildlife from lead poisoning. Days after Trump’s swearing in, the National Rifle Association (NRA) issued a press release, which said the lead ammunition ban imposed a “considerable financial hardship” on hunters and anglers “by forcing them to use more expensive alternatives.” On March 2, Ryan Zinke, the freshly confirmed Secretary of the Interior, revoked Obama’s order.

Consumer Protection

In January, major communications companies–Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, and others–signed a petition against an Obama-era rule that required “reasonable measures” to protect consumers’ personal information–Social Security numbers, browsing history, and more– from being stolen by hackers or other actors. The rule would have a “potentially deleterious impact on consumers, competition, and innovation,” the companies wrote. Last week, the Federal Communications Commission issued a stay on the rule.

Clean Water Rule

In the waning days of Obama’s tenure, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers broadened the scope of water sources in the U.S. that are to be protected and regulated. The California Farm Bureau Federation responded that the rule would prove “economically harmful for California agriculture.” The group wrote: “In order to comply with the regulation, farmers and ranchers will become increasingly reliant on attorneys and consultants, making farming the land more difficult and costly.” Last week, Trump issued an executive order to review the law, and to begin the process of rolling it back.

Gun Control

Under an Obama-era regulation, people on disability insurance and Supplementary Security Income would be barred from purchasing guns. The Social Security Administration would be forced to give the personal information of people who qualified as “mentally disabled” to the Department of Justice. This rule was equally opposed by two wildly different groups: the NRA and the American Civil Liberties Union. Both groups said that it broadly paints all people with mental disorders as potentially violent, and therefore unfit to own a gun.

In December, soon after Obama enacted the rule, the NRA issued a statement that said the rule “would stigmatize the entire category of beneficiaries subject to reporting.” Last week, Congress repealed the rule, and Trump signed the repeal.

Emissions Standards

On January 12, the Obama Administration issued an order dictating emissions standards and miles per gallon requirements for automobiles by 2025. Two dozen of the world’s largest automakers–from Toyota to Aston Martin–sent a letter to Scott Pruitt, the new EPA administrator. The letter said the rule was rushed, and needs a more thorough evaluation to determine if “the future standards are feasible” and “cost-effective.” While the rule has yet to be revoked, the Trump Administration has signaled it would likely reverse the rule as early as this week.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Here Are Five Obama-era Regulations Trump Has Worked to Scrap appeared first on Law Street.

Hashtag of the day: #HalftimeShow. People are prepping for the Super Bowl on Sunday and Lady Gaga is the halftime performer. As Gaga has been very vocal in her critique of Donald Trump, many are expecting her to make a political statement. All she has said so far is, “I believe in the spirit of equality.” Let’s hope for a good show and read on for today’s rants:

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Kellyanne Conway Just Gave Us More #AlternativeFacts

Ever since Kellyanne Conway coined the term “alternative facts,” she has been on a roll. In an interview with MSNBC last night she talked about the “Bowling Green Massacre” as justification for President Donald Trump’s travel ban. She claimed that President Obama banned Iraqi refugees in 2011 after two refugees carried out a massacre in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

.@KellyannePolls says that 2 Iraqi refugees “were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre.”
(There was no such massacre.) pic.twitter.com/sD3Nnb5xfE

— Joe Sonka (@joesonka) February 3, 2017

But, there was never such an attack. The Obama Administration did slow down the intake of refugees in 2011 after two Iraqi men tried to send money and weapons to al-Qaeda. But those men never planned a massacre and most certainly didn’t carry one out. And Obama’s “Iraqi refugee ban” is a significantly more complicated and nuanced issue than Conway made it out to be. People on social media immediately started having fun with the new “alternative facts,” but it’s no joke to many that some members of Trump’s team believe they can spout completely false information to justify their actions.

I was a student at BGSU when the Bowling Green Massacre didn’t happen. I’ll never be able to not forget what I didn’t see that day.

— Jim Osborne (@ozzy4873) February 3, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced a bill on Tuesday that would fine lawmakers for photographing or recording events in the chamber, in what is likely a direct response to a June sit-in staged by Democrats. After the House cut the CSPAN video feed during the sit-in, which was a response to the House refusing to take up a gun-control bill, the Democratic lawmakers pulled out their phones, took photographs, and live streamed the protest on Periscope, garnering millions of views.

The new rules “will help ensure that order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives so lawmakers can do the people’s work,” Ryan’s  spokeswoman said in a statement. First violations will incur a $500 fine–deducted from the guilty lawmaker’s salary–and subsequent breaches will lead to a $2,500 fine. The next Congress will vote on the bill on January 3, and lawmakers from either party can propose amendments to the 34-page bill before that date.

Led by Georgia Representative John Lewis, a Democrat, the 25-hour sit-in was a response to Ryan’s refusal to allow a vote on gun control measures proposed after the Orlando nightclub shooting. While most happenings in the chamber are streamed by CSPAN, Ryan effectively shut off the cameras when he called for recess after Lewis and dozens of other lawmakers began the demonstration. To ensure the public still had a window into the chamber, the participants used their phones to live-stream the event, and CSPAN picked up the feed. The movement was referred to as #NoBillNoBreak on social media.

After Ryan, who received plenty of flack from GOP lawmakers after failing to respond to the sit-in, announced the bill, Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA), tweeted his reaction:

Dear @HouseGOP, you can fine me & @HouseDemocrats all the way into bankruptcy for #gunviolence sit-in, but we will always speak for victims.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) December 26, 2016

Some experts say that the rules could potentially violate Article 1 of the Constitution. Mike Stern, a former lawyer for the nonpartisan House counsel’s office, told Politico that the Constitution “gives the House the authority to discipline members; I have never heard of anything where an officer of the House was given that authority.” Rather than have fellow lawmakers handle disciplinary action, Ryan’s bill would grant the House Sergeant-at-Arms unilateral authority. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), responded by saying the bill’s language “appears to raise constitutional concerns.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Lawmakers May Be Fined if They Take Photographs in the Chamber appeared first on Law Street.

One of the deadliest cities in America, Chicago, recorded its 500th homicide over Labor Day weekend, making 2016–with four months yet to pass–the deadliest year in a decade in a city where gang-related violence has ruptured in recent years. By the close of the weekend, according to Chicago Tribune data, 512 people in Chicago had been killed this year. Most of the violence occurred from Monday morning into dawn on Tuesday, as all 13 victims died from gunshot wounds. Last weekend, 65 people were shot in total.

According to the Tribune, police attributed the late surge in shootings to retaliatory acts by gang members at holiday gatherings. Many of the homicides took place in the city’s South Side neighborhoods, the nucleus of violence during a historically bloody summer. In August alone, 90 people were killed, the highest single month tally since June 1996.

As the final days of summer tick away, 2016 is projected to be Chicago’s deadliest year in at least a decade. The deadliest city with two million citizens or more (a handful of other cities–St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore–see more murders on a per capita basis), Chicago is on track to record its highest murder rate since the early 2000s. The projected homicide rate for the city for 2016 is 24.1 deaths per 100,000 people. New York, where murder rates have been steadily declining, is on pace for a substantially lower homicide rate, at 3.8 per 100,000 people.

Violence over the Labor Day holiday brought Chicago’s gun-related homicide total to 512 in 2016#LostStreetsChicago https://t.co/p3TuhFbg4r

— BBC News US (@BBCNewsUS) September 6, 2016

A majority of Chicago’s victims die as the result of gun violence. Proponents of gun-control argue the city needs stricter gun ordinances. But Illinois has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. The reality is that 60 percent of the city’s guns were purchased out of state–many from Indiana–and driven back into the city.  The state government is taking political steps to address the city’s exorbitant violence.

A few weeks ago, Governor Bruce Rauner (R-IL), passed a law to address people without gun-owner IDs  bringing firearms into Illinois. The law reclassifies the act from a crime to a felony, which would carry a penalty of four to 20 years in prison, and up to 30 years for repeat offenders.

Labor Day weekend was the deadliest of the three holiday weekends thus far in Chicago. Six fatalities were recorded over Memorial Day weekend, and five during the July 4th weekend. Among those killed over the weekend was a retired pastor, but most of the victims were 20-something year old males.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chicago Records 500th Homicide of the Year Over Labor Day Weekend appeared first on Law Street.

Happy 4th of July Law Streeters! If you need help with your barbecue banter this Independence Day, look no further than Law Street’s top trending articles from last week. Beef up your small talk with facts on Britain’s historic Brexit vote, the integration of big data into women’s healthcare, and the Supreme Court’s decision to prevent domestic abusers from owning firearms. ICYMI–Check out the top stories below.

1. Brexit: What You Need to Know in the Aftermath of Britain’s Historic Vote

Britain voted on Thursday to end its 43-year membership in the European Union. The withdrawal process will be long–it will most likely be two years until Britain is entirely sovereign–and fraught with difficult decisions for the nation’s future, but the vote has sent tremors within the now-former EU member-state and beyond. Here is a briefing on Brexit and what it might mean for the future. Check out the full story here.

2. Big Data: A Revolution for Women’s Healthcare

Since 1990, the Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR®) has been advocating for innovation in women’s healthcare. The organization is on the cutting edge of the newest research trends, and each year SWHR picks a different theme to highlight at its annual gala. At this year’s event, one message rang loud and true: we’re officially in the age of big data. Almost everything we do–from voting choices, to commercial purchases, to Netflix binge-watching, can be recorded and analyzed to glean patterns. But the incorporation of big data into healthcare is particularly exciting, and promises to revolutionize medical treatment for women. Read on for a sampling of how we’re now integrating big data into patient treatments, and what it means for women’s health. Check out the full story here.

3. Supreme Court Decision Prevents Domestic Abusers from Owning Firearms

The 6-2 ruling prevents anyone convicted of “reckless domestic assault” from being able to own firearms. This case involves two men from Maine, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong III, who were convicted of unlawfully possessing firearms due to previous convictions for domestic assault. Under both state and federal law, anyone with a domestic violence conviction cannot possess firearms. Check out the full story here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Looks like the Red Cross Made A Racist Mistake?

Earlier this month, the Red Cross released posters for pool safety depicting ‘cool’ and ‘uncool’ ways to act around a pool. While pool safety is very important, the imagery used in this particular poster is very worrisome. Only children of color are shown as being unruly and uncool but white children are shown being safe and calm. Why? Because prejudice! People on social media were so ready to call them out:

Hey, @RedCross, send a new pool poster to @SalidaRec bc the current one they have w your name on it is super racist pic.twitter.com/TY8MmFB3Qk

— John Sawyer (@JSawyer330) June 21, 2016

Seriously…did no one #AmericanRedCross see the #unconsciousbias in this ‘super racist’ pool poster https://t.co/Ks7xyMiGZx

— Star Jones (@StarJonesEsq) June 27, 2016

The Red Cross has since ceased production of the posters and issued an official apology. Yikes!

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Gun Control: Voisine v. United States

The decision: The 6-2 ruling prevents anyone convicted of “reckless domestic assault” from being able to own firearms.

Some background

This case involves two men from Maine, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong III, who were convicted of unlawfully possessing firearms due to previous convictions for domestic assault. Under both state and federal law, anyone with a domestic violence conviction cannot possess firearms.

Both men claimed that, under federal law, they were allowed to own firearms because their convictions were deemed “reckless” conduct rather than “knowing” or “intentional.”

Under Maine state law, it is a misdemeanor to “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” cause bodily harm to another person. The Federal law, however, only mentions “intentionally” or “knowingly” causing harm as a misdemeanor, so Voisine and Armstrong tried to claim that their convictions fell under “reckless” domestic assault. As a result, they claimed that under federal law they were lawfully allowed to possess firearms despite their misdemeanor convictions.

While this may seem like a minor technicality, it would’ve potentially allowed people convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault to be able to lawfully own firearms.

The Court shut these claims down by ruling that “reckless domestic assault qualifies as a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.'”

Justice Thomas’ Dissent

Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the two justices who did not join the majority decision, wrote a scathing dissent accusing the decision of being restrictive of Second Amendment rights. He wrote in his opinion:

We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly. At oral argument the Government could not identify any other fundamental constitutional right that a person could lose forever by a single conviction for an infraction punishable only by a fine.

This isn’t the first time that Justice Thomas has been outspoken on this case. Back in February, Thomas famously broke a 10-year streak of never asking a question during oral arguments for this same case. With his question, he claimed that the federal laws that prevented domestic abusers from obtaining firearms were in violation of constitutional rights.

What does today’s ruling mean?

While it was technically already illegal for anyone with a misdemeanor conviction of domestic assault to own a firearm, today’s ruling just closed a loophole. It demonstrated the court’s general support for some gun control measures by offering greater protections to victims of domestic violence.

The decision was another win for advocates of stricter gun control measures.

Read the full opinion here.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Decision Prevents Domestic Abusers from Owning Firearms appeared first on Law Street.

In response to inaction around gun control policy, Democratic representatives sat on their butts to encourage Republican legislators to get off theirs in what is now the longest running House sit-in on record.

The sit-in lasted more than 24 hours, extending beyond the republicans’ vote to adjourn the session until after the July 4 recess.

At 6 a.m. June 23, more than 19 hours after the sit-in began, roughly 20 democrats remained on the floor, according to the Washington Post. More than 170 democrats participated in the sit-in over the course of 26 hours, according to CNN. In case you’re wondering how they’ve made it this far, I’ve compiled some of their survival tactics below.

1. Bring in reinforcements

Senate Democrats made frequent visits and didn’t arrive empty handed.

Gifts included blankets, phone chargers, toiletries, and, Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s oh-so-historical contribution: Dunkin’ Donuts.

Massachusetts knows: America — and #NoBillNoBreak — runs on @DunkinDonuts. #birthdaydonuts#holdthefloorpic.twitter.com/XG1wzU5q41

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 23, 2016

(Dunkin Donuts has not released any public statement confirming or denying the company’s use of guerrilla advertising.)

2. Don’t forget to take selfies

When C-SPAN turned its cameras off, the representatives–realizing it’s 2016–turned to Periscope and social media to stream video of all the sitting action.

Well this is historic, the feed of the House floor being broadcast by a member on Periscope https://t.co/AkP1yehu07

— Luke Russert (@LukeRussert) June 22, 2016

I’m on the House floor with @repjohnlewis & Dems staging a sit-in to demand action on commonsense gun legislation pic.twitter.com/byIivby5gG

— Rep. John Yarmuth (@RepJohnYarmuth) June 22, 2016

3. Be careful what you chant for

From Wednesday into early Thursday morning, the representatives chanted, “No bill, no break,” which made for a catchy hashtag and an ambitious commitment to their seating choices.

.@SpeakerRyan, we will not leave without acting for the victims & families of reckless gun violence. #NoBillNoBreakpic.twitter.com/eTB1WMATMd

— John Lewis (@repjohnlewis) June 23, 2016

Well, the democrats ended the sit-in shortly after 1 p.m. Thursday, and no bill had been passed. An aide told CNN that they felt they had made their point, though.

Video shared by @VeraMBergen shows the crowd chanting “we’re with you” following end of #DemocraticSitInpic.twitter.com/16qaz8GbFA

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) June 23, 2016

4. When in doubt, bury exhaustion and failure to enact policy change under a nicely worded Terminator reference.

Rep. John Lewis, who spurred the sit in, said, “We must come back here on July 5th [when Congress returns to session] more determined than ever before.”

They’ll be back.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Sit-In “Runs on Dunkin'” appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below

Kim Kardashian Speaks Out Against Senates Decision on Gun Control

Last night, the Senate voted in opposition to strengthening gun control, specifically four amendments that could potentially limit individuals purchasing guns. Like many others, reality TV personality Kim K. took to Twitter to voice her concerns:

So sad! The senate voted against background checks being needed to buy guns. So terrorists on fbi’s wanted lists can legally still buy guns

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) June 21, 2016

Oh & mentally ill people can buy guns without a background check too.

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) June 21, 2016

The fact that anyone can so easily access guns is so scary & after all of the devastating loss the Senate should have not failed us!!!

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) June 21, 2016

It is true the Senate failed to make a crucial decision on gun control, an issue that Americans are increasingly worried about. Perhaps we’ll have to wait until the next mass shooting…again. Until then…

@KimKardashian future First Lady

— . (@sIayallday) June 21, 2016

@KimKardashian Kim for senate 2017

— guylaine (@guylainecoco) June 21, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 21, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. tends to follow an apathetic cycle when it comes to gun control; a mass shooting occurs, Republican politicians blame it on terrorism or mental illness, or anything other than gun control, and Democrats blame it on weak gun control. Gun control legislation is brought up, not passed, and another mass shooting happens.

A week after the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, with 49 people murdered at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando and days after Senator Chris Murphy’s (D-Connecticut) 15 hour gun control filibuster, the Senate will vote tonight on four gun control proposals. 

The Murphy amendment, proposed by Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut)

The Murphy amendment features the largest expansion of present gun control rules by closing the “gun show loophole” and requiring private gun show sales to enforce background checks. The amendment also seeks to expand The National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS), the background check database used for gun sales.

The Grassley amendment, proposed by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

The Grassley amendment seeks to improve the NICS to notify law enforcement if somebody who has been investigated for terrorism by the FBI within the last five years attempts to buy a gun. The amendment also seeks to clarify language and documentation on mental health that would bar some from obtaining guns.

The Feinstein amendment, proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California)

Also known as the “no fly, no buy” amendment, Feinstein’s proposal would allow the attorney general to deny gun sales with “reasonable belief” that the buyer is connected to terrorism. This lower standard than “probable cause” extends beyond the “no-fly” watch list.

The Cornyn amendment, proposed by Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)

The Cornyn amendment allows up to a 72-hour wait period for individuals on terrorism watch lists who attempt to buy guns. This amendment is supported by the NRA.

The Democratic priority at this point is to close background check loopholes included in sales at gun shows, online sales, and more, the Cornyn and Grassley amendments have been chastised as not doing nearly enough. Further, the focus on barring individuals suspected of terrorism from buying guns is important but, frankly, does not address the problem behind the remarkably high number of mass shootings in the U.S.

In fact, of the 18 largest mass shootings in U.S. history (each having 10 or more fatalities), only 3  had expected terrorist connections: the Pulse Nightclub shooting, the Fort Hood shooting, and the San Bernardino shooting. These shooters were all self-radicalized and the FBI couldn’t find any connection between them and international terrorist regimes. Further, most recent American mass shooters obtained their guns legally with passed background checks, despite half of them having criminal histories or turbulent mental health backgrounds.

So far we have yet to see legislation that proposes a solution to the “typical” mass shooter in the U.S.: a person working independently due to feelings of anger, vengefulness, and unstable emotions or mental health reform on a larger scale.

The Grassley and Feinstein amendments are more or less misled in their focus on the “terrorism gap,” which hasn’t proven to be prevalent in the U.S. and essentially panders to public fears. The Cornyn amendment offers essentially no solution—does a 72 hour waiting period really work? The Murphy amendment offers imperative safeguards against people who shouldn’t be able to obtain a gun, but, with the NRA and gun rights playing such a pervasive role in Republican politics, will the GOP vote in the public interest?

The Senate vote for these four amendments is scheduled for 5:30 P.M. on Monday.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will U.S. Gun Control Strife End with Monday’s Senate Vote? appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging a gun ban in Connecticut Monday, sidestepping the debate on gun control yet again.

The ban, enacted in 2014, applies to semi-automatic guns like the one used in Orlando last week. Despite a challenge to the constitutionality of this ban, SCOTUS decided not to weigh in.

The Connecticut ban was created in response to the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 and replaced a federal ban that expired in 2014.

Since the Supreme Court won’t hear the case, the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that “because the prohibitions are substantially related to the important governmental interests of public safety and crime reduction, they pass constitutional muster,” will stand and the ban will remain in place.

THANK YOU SCOTUS for upholding the weapons ban, confirming that it’s not unconstitutional to ban AR-15 & other assault style #guns. #ENOUGH

— DorkPrincess (@Nu_Age_Girl) June 20, 2016

This isn’t the first time the gun debate has been turned away from the Supreme Court steps. In fact, SCOTUS has not taken up a case concerning civilian weapons since District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, when the court ruled that individuals can keep guns in their homes for self protection.

@sawsharee @Hope012015 Living in California I’m handcuffed & shackled just for being a resident. #2A #Constitution

— imjustsaying Cruz (@tellthetruuuth) June 20, 2016

SCOTUS’s reluctance to get involved is nothing new, but its refusal is just one more spark in the flame for activists trying to fight firearms with fire.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Won’t Hear Case on Connecticut Gun Ban appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the Orlando shooting, the debate over guns and gun control is now front and center in the political sphere. Earlier this week, Senate Democrats filibustered for almost 15 hours in order to pressure the Senate into talking about gun control. Social media has also been abuzz with arguments on both sides of the debate over gun control.

While all of these stories have been in the news, some specific decisions by lawmakers also drew national attention. Andy Holt, Tennessee state representative for the 76th district, has received criticism for his plan to give away not one, but two AR-15 assault riffles at a fundraiser later this month.

Holt announced this gift on Facebook last Friday, two days before the death of 49 people and injury of dozens more in the Orlando club. After the announcement, the Republican representative was criticized for his decision to raffle off two of these guns because of their similarity to one of the guns found on Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter.

As a result Holt posted several Facebook posts defending his giveaways. Holt told the Tennessean, “We should not focus on the gun itself. We should focus on the depravity of the heart of the person who’s pulling the trigger.”

Needless to say, several members of the community were outraged by Holt’s giveaway following the horrific shooting.

Wonder if Andy Holt has thought out liability? Or morality, or decency? likely not. https://t.co/JfS8LYy3jE

— p-daddle (@payalayap) June 14, 2016

TN State Rep. Andy Holt is an insensitive, uncompassionate, and heartless man. #ShametoTN https://t.co/hkTXrjkPNB

— Jeremy Jordan (@j_mich23) June 14, 2016

Tenn. State Rep. Andy Holt is a disgrace to our state and tip the religion he professes to believe in. Boo. https://t.co/xkGPftBn06

— Jennifer W. Spirko (@jenspirko) June 14, 2016

In response to his decision, Holt received death threats, although there is confusion over whether or not the threats were real. Following the threats, Holt blamed the media for the negativity surrounding his event:

So, thanks to the brilliant media for their lies that have resulted in death threats to my family and staffer. Not that we are afraid seeing as how we’ve got our shotgun rifles, 4-wheel drive, and know how to survive. But, it is sad. In fact, it’s disgusting.

In addition to his other Facebook posts, Holt responded to his critics with some harsh words:

I’m sick and tired of the media and liberal politicians attacking our right to keep and bear arms. I’ll do everything I can to ensure the 2nd Amendment is protected and people are equipped to exercise their innate right to self-defense. SHARE if you’re standing with me! I wonder if I were giving away airplanes if the headlines would read… “Evil Andy Holt giving away same model of airplane used in 9/11 terror attack for law abiding citizens to use…”

It comes as no surprise that Holt’s decision to raffle off guns is so controversial, given the heavy media coverage surrounding gun violence in the last week. As tragedies like Orlando continue to happen and gun death counts continue to rise, debates over how accessible guns should be will only become more prevalent.

We, as a country, need to decide if 93 gun deaths in 72 hours is a statistic we can live with, in the name of the Second Amendment. Or, maybe, we will work to shape gun policy and stop letting Representatives like Holt control the narrative on what our right to bear arms should look like at the expense of thousands of lives a year.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Tennessee Lawmaker Gives Away Guns at Fundraiser appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

CNN’s Anderson Cooper Grills Florida Attorney General

Anderson Cooper got up in Florida AG Pam Bondi’s face about her perceived hypocrisy following the Orlando shooting. Bondi certainly had her feathers ruffled and was very much unable to explain herself when Cooper asked why she claimed to be a champion for gay and lesbians even though her Twitter feed was littered with posts supporting animal rights, and she argued against gay marriage in court. Woof!

.@andersoncooper grills Florida AG Pam Bondi over gay rights record https://t.co/KYvuZ7srCP https://t.co/pGTkx0KVkN

— CNN (@CNN) June 14, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 15, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Major organizations, public figures, and social media users called on everyone to #WearOrange on Thursday, as part of a campaign to create awareness about gun violence. The campaign was created by the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, which declared on the campaign’s official site that the color orange was chosen because it “symbolizes the value of human life” and “hunters wear orange in the woods to protect themselves and others.”

June 2 is official National Gun Violence Awareness Day. This year, it immediately followed Wednesday’s murder-suicide incident at UCLA, which led to the death of a professor and forced the campus on lockdown during one of its busiest times of the year.

Here’s a sampling of some of the responses on social media:

We cannot accept our level of gun violence as the new normal. We must take action to prevent this from happening again & again. #WearOrange

— President Obama (@POTUS) June 2, 2016

These gals are down for the cause #WearOrange @Everytown pic.twitter.com/osycQmyAUo

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) June 2, 2016

Trying to force a smile as I do this today. We are all Bruins! https://t.co/cmWiGKg9BT #WearOrange pic.twitter.com/ei2Q70JR6S

— Perez (@ThePerezHilton) June 2, 2016

The noise around gun violence is loud. Orange is louder. Join me today and #WearOrange. pic.twitter.com/DRuiikzrgm

— Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) June 2, 2016

It’s gun violence awareness day #wearorange pic.twitter.com/FpK8Ninueb

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) June 2, 2016

Comedy Central posted a clip from “Inside Amy Schumer” that provided a humorous look at the absurdities surrounding U.S. gun laws:

Spreading awareness the only way we know how. #WearOrange https://t.co/Gi2DvzGwpXhttps://t.co/BiAF42yn2x

— Comedy Central (@ComedyCentral) June 2, 2016

But this campaign expanded well beyond simple wardrobe choice: #WearOrange events were held around the country to bring people together in solidarity for the cause.

With 372 mass shootings in 2015, this campaign has never felt more timely and necessary.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post #WearOrange Brings Attention to Gun Violence in America appeared first on Law Street.

Mass shootings in the United States generate intense media, public, and political attention, often leading to strong policy responses as well. But according to a recent working paper, those responses aren’t exactly what you might expect. Professors at Harvard Business School researched the aftermath of mass shootings and found that while these events did often lead to a significant increase in gun legislation, those efforts actually tend to make guns more available to the public. Here’s what you need to know about the new research:

The Main Takeaways

While most attempts to study gun legislation focus on the efforts’ effects on the sale and use of guns, these researchers sought to understand what prompts changes in gun laws. Professors Michael Luca, Deepak Malhotra, and Christopher Poliquin highlight three primary findings from their research:

• Mass shootings are salient public events that lead to strong policy responses from state legislatures.
• Despite the relatively small number of people who die from mass shootings–by their measure, fewer than 100 people die each year due to public mass shootings while approximately 30,000 people die from gun violence each year–such events have a disproportionate effect on gun legislation.
• They find, surprisingly, that mass shootings lead to a loosening of state gun laws. This is largely because both parties respond to gun violence in different ways and legislatures controlled by Republicans are more likely to enact new gun laws after a mass shooting.

The researchers find that a single mass shooting corresponds with a 15 percent increase in gun legislation introduced the following year. They note in the paper, “A single mass shooting leads to an approximately 15 percent increase in the number of firearm bills introduced within a state in the year after a mass shooting.” That increase is particularly significant in the context of gun-related deaths. Under their measure of mass shootings, these incidents lead to about 0.3 percent of all gun deaths but prompt a significant amount of legislation.

While it may not be surprising that high-profile events lead to political responses, the extent of that response may be. According to the researchers:

Our estimates suggest that the per-death impact of mass shootings on bills introduced is about 66 times as large as the impact of gun homicides in non-mass shooting incidents.

Policy Responses

Another important takeaway is that these events tend to spark strong responses from policymakers, but the content of those responses–whether they are proposals to strengthen or loosen gun control laws–largely depends on the party in control of the state legislature. They find that in Republican-controlled legislatures, mass shootings lead to a 75 percent increase in laws that loosen gun restrictions. On the other hand, they found no statistically significant effect on enacted laws when Democrats control the legislature.

In their research, the authors looked at several reports and databases of mass shootings in combination with the LexisNexis bill tracking service in order to determine the legislative response to mass shootings. After identifying bills proposed in response to mass shootings, they coded each bill in terms of whether they tightened or loosened gun laws. To isolate incidents that are generally considered mass shootings, they only looked at shootings that are public events, with three or more deaths, and where the victims are not related to the shooter. They also controlled for a wide range of variables to try and find a causal connection between these shootings and enacted laws.

Looking at state government responses to these events provides some important, and often overlooked, insight into how mass shootings shape gun policy. We might assume that when tragic events like these occur and generate a large amount of attention, policymakers would respond with laws that restrict gun sales. While that does happen, when you look at bills that make it all the way into law, they tend to have the opposite effect.

Party Control Matters

Because Republicans generally do not believe that stronger gun control will reduce mass shootings, they instead respond to these events with laws that correspond to their underlying ideological views. When looking at laws that were actually enacted, the evidence suggests that Republicans are more likely to put their policy preferences into effect. While the researchers do not attempt to explain why in their paper, they find that Democrat-controlled legislatures do not lead to a significant increase in enacted laws that restrict gun sales.

Gun control is one of the most polarizing issues in American politics, with Republicans and Democrats strongly split on the appropriate level of restrictions for gun buyers. This split explains, in part, why politics largely determines the response to these events. Put simply, these events tend to drive policymakers to push for laws that their existing political beliefs support; and Republican-controlled legislatures are considerably more likely to put those laws into effect.

One of the primary problems here–and an important driver of political polarization between the two parties–is a lack of consensus on effective policies to prevent gun violence. Democrats believe that additional restrictions and safeguards to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands are necessary. Meanwhile, Republicans are skeptical of the effectiveness of these efforts and argue that people should be entitled to protect themselves from danger. As a result, policymakers respond to mass shootings based on what they already hold to be true and not necessarily with evidenced-based proposals to reduce gun violence.

What’s Next?

This research also highlights some important questions for policymaking going forward. In the paper, the authors write:

We find that even random and infrequent events that account for a relatively small portion of total societal harm in a domain might nonetheless be crucial levers for policy consideration and change.

Although they find that the responses to mass shootings are largely based on existing ideology, it’s worth questioning whether events–which account for about 0.3 percent of all gun deaths–should have such an outsized influence.

The important takeaway from all of this isn’t necessarily that public mass shootings lead to looser gun laws, but why exactly that happens. In the United States, American citizens and their elected officials are far from consensus on what the best response to gun violence should be. While research suggests we should treat gun violence as a public health issue–much like tobacco or automobile accidents–agreement on specific policies can be difficult to come by and the solutions are often more complicated than simply making it harder to buy guns.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Mass Shootings Lead to Looser Gun Laws? appeared first on Law Street.

A well-known cliché when talking about gun control in the United States is the saying, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” It would be more accurate to say that guns don’t commit murder since a gun can accidentally kill you. But for a murder to have been committed there needs to be some level of intent on the part of a human being. Depending on the degree and the state, those levels of intent are different, but when we think of a killing as a murder we typically think of something that the person did “on purpose.” Back in the day criminal law referred to this mindset as “malice aforethought,” a phrase still sometimes used when discussing murder. It isn’t very illuminating since “aforethought” can mean in the blink of an eye and you don’t really need “malice,” or motive, to be found guilty of murder. But it does show that in criminal law, usually what we are looking to determine is whether that individual meant to kill someone.

Tort law is different. Most tort law is all about negligence. Were you acting as a reasonable person would act in that situation? If not, we may feel the need to punish you. This mythical reasonable person is the standard for how we should behave in society and people who are injured by someone not acting up to that standard should be compensated. The word “reasonable” appears so many times in a torts casebook that a law school drinking game involving it would be “outrageous.” That is also what you need to prove for some intentional torts–any conduct that would cause a reasonable person to shout “Outrageous!”

Tort law is all about economics. We do so much commerce and interact so often with each other that people are bound to get hurt. We use products every day that are dangerous, in some cases extremely dangerous, without thinking much about it.

Take ovens, for example. The convenience of using them far outweighs the potentially catastrophic costs if yours happens to explode. Modern ovens are pretty safe, I’m guessing. I didn’t research how often they explode so as not to freak myself out. But even if they were not, we have decided as a society to have them anyway and if a few of us lose our eyebrows it is just the cost of doing business. Rather than have everyone give up ovens, we have come up with a system where the injured party can be compensated by the person who made the oven. If they deviated below the standard of care that a reasonable person, in this case, a reasonable oven maker perhaps, would give to its construction.

Are guns any different? The issue of manufacturer liability for the makers of guns has become a hot topic in the presidential primary, particularly on the Democratic side. The argument centers around a 2005 law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), and whether it should protect companies that manufacture guns from civil liability for injuries or deaths caused by the guns they make. Not if the gun explodes because it was improperly made, but if someone purchases it and then shoots a victim. Given the extent of gun violence, should we have a different standard for a product that is designed to kill?

Are Guns Special?

Before we delve right in, take a look at this clip from one of the Democratic debates where Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders tackle the issue of gun manufacturer liability. It provides a good overview of some of the main points and emotional influences on the debate.

When Can You Sue?

The great myth surrounding this question is that somehow the gun manufacturing industry has somehow finagled a way to be completely immune from all liability for any defect in their products. That isn’t the case. If you’re out hunting and you fire your weapon and the bullet flies out of the wrong end of the gun and kills you, your estate will be able to sue the manufacturer of that weapon under a few different theories. Either because that gun (the individual gun involved or all the ones like it) was improperly made, or it was made according to a faulty design. Either way, if you really were using the gun as a reasonable person would you’d likely have a winning case. Even a jury that didn’t know a whole heck of a lot about guns would probably think you were right to assume the bullet would shoot away from you when you pointed it at your target.

What the PLCAA essentially does is it declares that we are not going to allow courts to hear a lawsuit from a victim or a victim’s family against a gun manufacturer when a third party used that gun in a criminal act. If this law did not exist, these cases could be brought to trial but that doesn’t necessarily mean the gun manufacturers would or could be held liable for what happened. It would just mean that instead of having a blanket rule about this kind of case, we are going to force judges to dismiss the same thing over and over. PLCAA is really just a law saying “don’t even bother” to people seeking to bring this type of suit.

It gets into the weeds a bit when you start looking at sellers of guns who may target individuals who aren’t legally allowed to buy a gun, or who sell to a “strawman,” or a buyer who buys in bulk just to sell to others in order to avoid a background check. But are those sales where the seller, and or, gun manufacturer themselves doing something illegal or helping others to subvert the law? That’s a very different scenario from a legally purchased product, which meets safety standards for that industry, then being used to commit a crime.

You can once again see Senator Sanders trying to make that distinction here. It’s also one of the few times you’ll hear someone bragging about getting a “D-.”

Standards for Guns

The statutory shield for gun manufacturers that the PLCAA puts in place does not necessarily grant greater immunity to gun manufacturers relative to the immunity that other industries enjoy.

It is just one that we have put in place for a product that, by its very design, is meant to injure and kill. Other products that can injure and kill are not regulated to the same extent but they do not enjoy this statutory immunity. Not because they have a powerful lobby but because there aren’t enough cases to warrant passing a law that tells people to not waste court time bringing a suit that is likely to be dismissed.

Take knives as an example. I have a set of knives; I bought them on Craigslist. Not from a manufacturer but from someone who had some knives to sell. There was no regulation telling her she should assess my mental state and Henkel (the original manufacturer) had absolutely no idea that I was buying knives they made. They’re well-balanced and sharp. Equally adept at slicing chicken or people (I presume). If I used those knives to cut up my mother into tiny pieces instead of a chicken (just an example!) my father would be laughed out of court if he sued Henkel. Why? Because they had nothing to do with it. Their knife did the job it was intended to do and with remarkable German efficiency sliced what I wanted to slice. We don’t bother to have a law that says you can’t sue the manufacturer of a knife for this because so few people try doing it. That isn’t the case with guns.

The argument could be made that knives have a dual functionality, a legitimate one to make food, and an illegitimate one to commit harm. Guns only have one purpose, which is to cause injury, and on that basis, the regulation should be different. Manufacturers are on notice that their product is likely to be used to commit a crime and they have decided to make them anyway. Therefore, it is justifiable to hold them partially responsible when someone commits a crime with their gun. That argument may not hold water. In fact, it may lean even more heavily toward not holding manufacturers liable because the one thing that makes a properly functioning gun part of a crime is the person using it. Their behavior is the difference between a tool that stops your home from being burglarized or a tool that kills innocent children. It has nothing to do with the product. You could make the same argument about a sex toy used in a rape or sexual assault. What makes it part of a crime is the intent of the criminal actor, not the company that made it.

That isn’t to say that a manufacturer should never be held liable for a product that isn’t defective but is improperly sold or marketed. Using sex toys again as an example, if the manufacturer advertised the product as ideal for raping someone or targeted their advertising to a sex offenders registry, they could potentially be held liable civilly for their actions, maybe even criminally. But as with gun manufacturer liability, they would be being held liable on the theory that they did something illegal or helped others to do so. Not for anything to do with the functionality of their product.

We don’t currently have a separate rule for guns. What we have done is codified the idea that criminals are the ones responsible for the crimes that are committed with guns specifically. The way we have already acknowledged in our legal structure that criminals are responsible for the crimes that they commit with any product.

Conclusion

Guns are the weapon of choice for criminals for several reasons, one of which is that they are relatively easy to get–just check online. And while a criminal armed with a semi-automatic or an automatic weapon is more dangerous to more people than one armed with a knife, the mass shootings still make up a relatively small percentage of crimes. A gun policy based on that fails to deal with the many types of crime where other weapons, such as a knife, would be as effective.

If you think back to the Democratic debate in the first clip you’ll notice Secretary Clinton make the argument that increased liability is an attempt to deal with the epidemic of gun violence. There is a very real problem in the United States with people who get access to guns, sometimes through illegal means and sometimes through perfectly legal channels, who go on to commit violence. Perhaps the situation has changed since 2005 when the PCLAA was enacted and we need to reassess the balance that was struck with allowing these kinds of lawsuits to go forward. The law puts a standard in place for the manufacturer to have “knowingly” sold a weapon to someone who fails to pass a background check, but shields them in cases where they didn’t “know.”

There are more options than having the manufacturer need to actually know they are selling it to someone who failed the background check and a blanket liability whenever someone commits a crime. The mens rea (guilty mind) for murder comes in a variety of flavors, from intent to depraved indifference. Even extreme negligence can get you jail time in some cases. If we wanted to increase the number of people who could potentially sue a gun manufacturer but still keep it somewhat limited we currently have the legal tools to do so.

The question is–should we do so? Does the nature of a gun as a weapon, and the modern day weapon of choice for criminals, make it somehow unique among the various dangerous products we use? We know that we have a problem with gun violence and increased liability for gun manufacturers would probably put a lot of them out of business–depending on how easy you made it for them to be sued and the kind of judgments that were awarded. It might decrease the amount of guns available, which might reduce gun violence.

Or do we have standards for liability for guns the way we do for other products that could be used as weapons, holding them responsible if their product is defective or their sale is criminal but not holding them responsible for criminal acts from third parties. That would mean we treat guns like any other product that we sell instead of a special category of goods that need different rules.

Resources

New York Times: Congress Passes New Legal Shield For Gun Industry

PolitiFact: Clinton: Gun Industry is ‘Wholly Protected’ From All Lawsuits

NPR: Are Gun-Makers ‘Totally Free’ Of Liability For Their Behavior

Cornell University Law Schoo: PCLAA

New York Times: Justices Reject Suit Faulting a Vaccine

CNN: Why Sandy Hook Parents are Suing a Gunmaker

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Should Gun Manufacturers Be Held Accountable By Victims of Gun Violence? appeared first on Law Street.

March was a significant month for guns in America. Iowa Governor Terry Branstad signed a bill that legalized the use of gun suppressors, or silencers, in the state which went into effect immediately. Rhode Island lawmakers spent the month weighing over a dozen bills that could completely transform the state’s gun culture. A Pennsylvania law that allowed the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups to sue cities that enacted strict gun control policies may come back into effect. These stories suggest that the country is shifting away from traditional gun control laws and opening the door to open carry in more locations. However, two stories which have flown relatively under the radar made March a victory for gun control supporters.

In November 2014, Washington enacted a law that created universal background checks for all gun sales, including those between private citizens. New data just released from the FBI shows that the law has blocked 50 gun purchases by felons since it went into effect. Nearly 4,000 felons tried to purchase guns in Washington over the past year but thanks to the new law, many of those private sales were blocked. There has been debate over whether 50 is a significant number–Dave Workman, of the gun rights group The Second Amendment Foundation, claimed that the number was too small to demonstrate the law being effective and cited the fact that there have been no prosecutions related to the law as evidence of its failure. However, law enforcement officers argue that 50 prevented sales is a significant number, as any one of those guns could have been purchased and used in a crime without the intervention of the new law. Washington is still reeling from a mass murder committed in February, so the idea that increased background checks could prevent even a small fraction of violent deaths makes the law worthwhile.

At the University of Washington, a different approach to gun safety has emerged, paying special attention to suicide prevention. After her husband committed suicide with a gun, Professor Jennifer Stuber reached out to local gun stores to start a dialogue about suicide and the role of gun retailers play in aiding those who wish to take their own lives. Stuber asked gun store employees if they were concerned that they might be selling guns to customers who were suicidal and received a resounding, collective yes. She reached out to the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, recruiting them as allies. Stuber’s efforts were the foundation of a bill signed into law this March that unites the firearm industry, pharmacists and suicide prevention activists.  The law establishes a suicide prevention task-force that will train both gun store owners and pharmacists in suicide prevention messaging. Pharmacists will be required to complete six hours of suicide prevention training to receive accreditation while gun retailers will be offered a voluntary course online. This may seem like a relatively small victory, but in reality it will change the dynamic of gun sales significant. Mental health and gun violence have frequently been connected and even small steps towards acknowledging that guns should not be sold without consideration for a person’s mental state are major leaps for gun sense advocates. Twenty years ago, this kind of law would never have gone into effect because the conversation simply did not exist yet. However, after a decade filled with mass shootings, effective gun control is no longer an idealistic goal–it is an immediate necessity.

Laws like the ones that passed in Washington this month represent an encouraging, albeit small, step in the right direction.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Breakthroughs in Gun Regulation in Washington State appeared first on Law Street.

Jamie Gilt is not having a great month: the Florida mom and pro-gun activist, who was shot by her four-year-old son on March 9, now may be facing charges for allowing her son access to firearms. Police are recommending that Gilt face a misdemeanor charge, which could carry a sentence of up to 180 days. Ironically, the same day that the incident took place, Gilt had bragged on Facebook that her son “gets jacked up to target shoot,” according to The Washington Post.

The shooting occurred while Gilt was driving, when her loaded gun slid out from underneath the front seat into the backseat where her son Lane was sitting. To add to Gilt’s bad luck, Lane had also apparently just learned how to unbuckle himself out of his booster seat, so he was able to pick up the gun and shoot it through the seat into his mother’s back.

Her Facebook page, “Jamie Gilt for Gun Sense,” has since been taken down, but was apparently flooded with criticism after the incident went public. Her posts included “pro-gun messages, Second Amendment memes, and posts supporting the NRA, as well as photos of her posing with weapons.” Her Twitter account also appears to have been deactivated.

Jamie Gilt bragged about how her son gets “pumped” about guns …

Her 4 yr old shot her in the back.

* sigh * pic.twitter.com/Qg7Iww0lJg

— SuperSoulSistah (@ctv556) March 9, 2016

Under Florida law, it is a second degree misdemeanor if a firearm is not safely stored, and a minor is able to gain access to it as a result. Gilt’s gun was loaded and unholstered under the front seat, which authorities allege could be a violation of this law.

What may be the biggest irony here: the woman who was a strong advocate for gun rights can now be an example for why stricter gun control measures are beneficial.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Pro-Gun Activist Shot By 4-Year-Old Son to Face Charges appeared first on Law Street.

Today, Wayne LaPierre, the CEO and Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, released a video in which he challenged President Barack Obama to a debate. This comes on the heels of executive orders released by Obama in which the president expanded background checks, emphasized that anyone who sells guns needs a license, and called for a beefing of up gun law enforcements, among other facets. After releasing information about the executive order, Obama participated in a town hall on guns with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, and criticized the NRA for not attending, saying: “And by the way, there’s a reason why the NRA is not here. They’re just down the street. And since this is the main reason they exist, you’d think they’d be prepared to have a debate with…a president.” Today’s video from LaPierre appears to be in response to both that comment and the executive orders; watch it for yourself:

In the video, LaPierre invites Obama to join him in a one-on-one, one-hour debate, with a moderator that they have both agreed upon, and without any “pre-screened questions”–the NRA alleges that CNN only offered them pre-screened questions for the town hall with Obama, and that’s why it chose not to participate.

I get that Obama basically invited a debate with LaPierre when he called the NRA out for not attending the CNN town hall, but I don’t think he should take LaPierre up on this offer, and here’s why: the NRA does not deserve that kind of respect, particularly not after this video.

The NRA has relatively high levels of support, that’s for sure. In a Gallup poll conducted in October 2015, the NRA was viewed as favorable by 58 percent of Americans. The NRA sees particularly high favorability among gun owners, with 78 percent viewing the NRA favorably. While it’s unclear how high gun ownership is in the United States–a recent National Opinion Research Center (NORC) poll puts the percentage of American households that have a gun at 31 percent–it’s clear that guns are, for many, a part of daily American life.

Yet despite the fact that the NRA has relatively high levels of support, so do the kinds of actions Obama is advocating for in the executive orders. For example, 85 percent of Americans are in favor of conducting background checks on those buying guns. Another 79 percent want laws that prevent people who are deemed mentally ill from buying guns, and 70 percent want a database that tracks gun sales. The things that Obama is advocating can’t be considered extreme unless you want to say that 85 percent of Americans are extreme–yet the NRA goes so far as to make claims that Obama “wants to destroy the NRA before the election, so that Hillary can destroy the Second Amendment after it.” The NRA is clearly using fear-mongering to rally support.

Part of me would love to see a showdown between LaPierre and Obama. But at the same time, LaPierre should not be given the national platform to have that conversation unless he’s willing to use facts instead of scare tactics–and this video makes me doubt that.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama Shouldn’t Debate Wayne LaPierre: Here’s Why appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Monday, everyone. While you wait for that coffee to kick in, check out Law Street’s best stories of the week. ICYMI, here they are.

1. The Personal Care Products Safety Act: Modernizing Outdated Regulations

Everyone uses cosmetics, lotions, soaps, and other personal care items as a part of daily life, and we trust that those products are safe. But who actually determines whether or not a personal care product is safe? The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has jurisdiction over the regulation of personal care products, however, the Agency continues to follow outdated guidelines that don’t reflect recent scientific breakthroughs. In an attempt to change this outdated system, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced the Personal Care Products Safety Act (S. 1014) to the Senate in April. The proposed bill is a bipartisan initiative and has the backing of many cosmetic and personal care product companies and the support of advocacy groups such as the Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR ®). Look into the full issue here.

2. Fitbit Lawsuit Claims HR Monitors are “Dangerously Inaccurate”

 If you were thinking about shelling out hundreds on a new Fitbit to help jump start your New Year’s fitness resolution, you may want to think again. The popular fitness tracking company is under scrutiny after being sued in a class action lawsuit from users alleging that the heart rate monitors in the trackers are “dangerously ineffective.” Read the full story here.

3.  Conservatives Don’t Like Gun Control, So They Mock Obama’s Tears

“It is always encouraging to see American citizens focusing on the really important parts of big political events,” she says with heavy sarcasm. During his speech yesterday morning announcing new executive actions on gun control, President Obama outlined several facets of his new initiative to make guns safer and harder to obtain. He also teared up when referencing the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Guess which part conservatives are choosing to focus on.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama has officially announced that he will not be endorsing a candidate in the increasingly contentious Democratic primary between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders. This comes after some speculation that a recent op-ed written by Obama about gun control was essentially criticism of Bernie Sanders, but this morning on “Meet the Press,” Obama’s White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough made it clear that no endorsement was intended, and Obama does not plan on endorsing a candidate in the primary.

McDonough referenced the fact that Obama’s actions come with plenty of precedent, stating: “We’ll do exactly what has been done in the past.” He also added that no matter who the nominee ends up being, he will be “out there” campaigning. According to Fox News this is pretty traditional behavior:

George W. Bush didn’t endorse his party’s nominee in 2008 until March 5, by which point Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had just about locked up the bid. Ronald Reagan didn’t endorse his sitting Vice President, George H. W. Bush, as the Republican nominee until May 1988. Reagan said he wanted to wait until the outcome of the nomination race was clear.

McDonough’s statement came after Obama published an op-ed in the New York Times late last week where he stated: “I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform.”

Some viewed this as an attack on Bernie Sanders, who hasn’t taken as hardline a stance on gun control as Hillary Clinton throughout his career in the Senate. A point of particular contention has been that he supported a 2005 law that would give gun manufacturers legal immunity in instances where their guns are used to commit crimes.

However, Obama’s press secretary, Josh Earnest, indicated that the quote in Obama’s op-ed wasn’t any sort of reference to Sanders, saying:

The President was quite intentional about raising this issue as it relates to gun manufacturers, but that was not any sort of secret or subtle signal to demonstrate a preference in the presidential primary.

Earnest also pointed out that Obama wasn’t “intimately familiar” with Sanders’ voting record. So, while it isn’t surprising that Obama isn’t endorsing any candidate until the primaries are over, in this case it appeared that a repeat was necessary.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hillary vs. Bernie: Obama Isn’t Getting Involved appeared first on Law Street.

“It is always encouraging to see American citizens focusing on the really important parts of big political events,” she says with heavy sarcasm. During his speech yesterday morning announcing new executive actions on gun control, President Obama outlined several facets of his new initiative to make guns safer and harder to obtain. He also teared up when referencing the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Guess which part conservatives are choosing to focus on.

In case you’ve forgotten, the Sandy Hook shooting, which took place in 2012, ended with 20 elementary students and six staff members dead. Today, President Obama was introduced at the podium by Mark Barden, the father of one of those victims.

But apparently, crying while remembering the elementary school students who were slaughtered at Sandy Hook is a sign of weakness, psychopathy, and fake sadness.

He never once cried over death of vets, babies murdered abortion Obama cries announcing gun control | Daily Mail https://t.co/8mwsmrkWaj

— dawn goodfallow (@dawngpsalm63) January 6, 2016

When Obama cries, he can’t even do that right. pic.twitter.com/6GzZv62ezs — Bart Bartlett (@BartBuzz) January 6, 2016

BREAKING: Obama talks about gun control. pic.twitter.com/UTey5uiRgo

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) January 5, 2016

Near Obama right now… pic.twitter.com/AUKrSx7S7d — jimgeraghty (@jimgeraghty) January 5, 2016

There is just one word to describe this reaction from gun enthusiasts: childish. The speech Obama gave was over 30 minutes long, and trolls like those above and even people in the public eye like Fox News host Andrea Tantaros are focusing on about five seconds, using those seconds to call into question the President’s sincerity and his ability to “contain his emotions.”

Why is showing emotion on the same plane as showing weakness? And why wouldn’t he get choked up at the thought of those children? Would these people complaining about his tears rather have a callous, robotic president who showed no care for anyone? Apparently.

The problem here is that there is nothing in his initiative that violates the Second Amendment. There is nothing that says he’s taking guns away from everyone, and that’s what right wing gun enthusiasts expected. Without that fodder for their Twitter feeds and Facebook timelines, what are they left to complain about? What could they possibly find wrong with the steps outlined in these executive orders? Nothing.

“I believe in the Second Amendment… it guarantees a right to bear arms,” Obama said in his speech. “No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law… I get it. But I also believe we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.”

So, naturally, in the absence of solid, substantial complaints, Obama haters have reverted to childish bullying. Unfortunately, as all bullies must learn, making fun of people does not get you what you want.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Conservatives Don’t Like Gun Control, So They Mock Obama’s Tears appeared first on Law Street.

Throughout his presidency, President Obama has given several speeches to the American public on gun control. But each speech seemingly echoes the former–another senseless tragedy occurred and we as a nation need to do something about it.

Therefore without immediate action, his calls for stricter background checks and support from Congress often fall on deaf ears, making the need for a new strategy extremely evident. That’s why on Tuesday Obama revealed a new plan to combat continued gun deaths–one that sidesteps Congress by leveraging his executive authority.

In the East Room of the White House and surrounded by gun control advocates and gun violence survivors, Obama unveiled a new list of measures intended to progress his gun safety agenda. Here are the eight thing you need to know:

1.) Gun sellers must have a license

One of the biggest things to come out of Obama’s speech is that any individual in the business of selling guns must register as a licensed gun dealer. This requirement would effectively help close a current “gun show loophole,” which allows private sellers who consider themselves to be “hobbyists” to operate off the books. So regardless of whether you sell one gun, or 100 guns, you will have to register.

2.) Expanded background checks

A big concern for most gun safety advocates is the outdated guidelines for background checks used on prospective gun owners. Obama attempted to rectify this with with his expansion of the “gun dealer” definition. Background checks are already required by federal law for firearm purchases, but by making all gun sellers register as gun dealers, those who avoided previous checks under the loophole will no longer be exempt.

3.) He wants to beef up enforcements

If you were wondering how POTUS plans to compel people to register, the answer is in the form of a couple hundred reinforcements. Obama is asking Congress for funding to hire 200 new investigators and agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to help carry out new and existing gun laws.

4.) $500 million for Health Care

The president is also proposing a $500 million investment to increase access to mental health care and mental health information for overseeing background checks. He plans to work with the Department of Health and Human Services to make it easier to convey to states the people prohibited from possessing a gun for specific mental health reasons. There will also be new guidelines added to the background checks that should catch individuals who have disqualifying mental health issues.

5.) Researching Smarter Gun Technology

During his speech, Obama asked the crowd why is it that we can use fingerprints to unlock our phones, but the same technology isn’t used for guns. With accidental firearm injuries and deaths in the “tens of thousands,” developing better gun technology a priority for the administration. Therefore the president is asking for an increase in research and development efforts into “ideas for improving gun safety and the tracing of lost or stolen guns.”

6.) Call for bipartisan support

As always, the president called for support from both Democrats and Republicans, especially those in Congress, to help reevaluate the nation’s gun laws. Unfortunately Republicans are already threatening a budget showdown over the actions, so bipartisanship doesn’t seem likely.

7.) Hillary and Bernie are in

Both Democratic presidential hopefuls took to Twitter to commend Obama on his actions and lend their support. Hillary even vowed to continue to carry the torch if elected and pursue more gun control initiatives.

Thank you, @POTUS, for taking a crucial step forward on gun violence. Our next president has to build on that progress—not rip it away. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 5, 2016

.@POTUS is right: We can protect the Second Amendment while protecting our families and communities from gun violence. And we have to.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 5, 2016

Republicans are clearly more loyal to gun lobbyists than our children. I support @POTUS‘s executive actions to make our communities safer.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 5, 2016

8.) Obama got emotional

Probably the most impactful part of the speech was a new level of emotion seen from the president as he visibly teared up when talking about the young children shot to death in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

Some Fox News analysts are already calling the tears staged, but for those of us with a heart, the tears certainly signify a turning point for the president.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 8 Things You Need to Know About POTUS’ Gun Control Executive Actions appeared first on Law Street.

It may be the happiest place on earth, but it’s also one that needs serious security. Officials at Disney World just announced that it’s upping both visible and behind-the-scenes security measures, and other theme parks nationwide are taking similar actions.

One of the most visible new measures added to the Disney World parks located in Orlando, Florida will be metal detectors. Guests won’t be allowed to bring toy guns, including squirt guns, inside, and Disney is also stopping the sale of such products. For example, the Pirates of the Caribbean theme shop used to sell plastic guns–those will be removed from the shelves. The parks will also no longer allow anyone over the age of 14 to walk around in costumes or masks (besides, of course, employees.) Disney World has also beefed up security overall–placing additional law enforcement officials within the parks, and using dogs on patrol. Disneyland, located in California, is also upping its security. 

Disney isn’t alone in instituting new security measures. SeaWorld has also begun using metal detectors to screen entering guests, and Universal Studios is testing wand detectors. Officials at Disney and Universal have said that the new security features weren’t sparked by the actions of the San Bernardino shooters, or any other threat of terror. In fact, Universal spokesman Tom Schroder told the Orland Sentinal:

We want our guests to feel safe when they come here. We’ve long used metal detection for special events, such as Halloween Horror Nights. This test is a natural progression for us as we study best practices for security in today’s world.

Disney and Sea World spokespeople echoed similar sentiments.

However, these announcements do come right after a statement from the Department of Homeland Security that instructed Americans to expect more security and police presence at big gathering locations, stating it was: “especially concerned that terrorist-inspired individuals and homegrown violent extremists may be encouraged or inspired to target public events or places.”

It makes sense that Disney World, SeaWorld, and Universal are instituting more robust security features, and it doesn’t look like any of these new features will really affect guests’ experiences. But if anything they’re a sad reminder of the violence–particularly gun violence–that has become increasingly commonplace in the United States.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Disney World Announces an Increase in Security Features appeared first on Law Street.

The Republican field is about to have its fifth (but feels like 275th) debate of the 2016 primary season, hosted by CNN. Given that the field is still depressingly crowded, the last debate of 2015 promises to be a contentious one. Here’s a rundown of what you need to know before tomorrow night’s debate:

Participants:

It’s no secret that the Republican field has been so crowded this time around that we’ve needed two debate stages to hold them all. CNN is following the format of the first four debates, with a “JV” table consisting of Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham ,and former New York Gov. George Pataki.

The main debate will feature nine presidential hopefuls–according to CNN:

Businessman Donald Trump, the front-runner for the nomination, will again be center stage flanked by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson on his right and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on his left, CNN announced Sunday. The six remaining participants in the prime-time contest will be Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

The moderator will be Wolf Blitzer, with CNN’s Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash joining Salem Radio Network talk show host Hugh Hewitt as questioners.

Seating Arrangements

The podium arrangement, which places higher-polling candidates front and center, will look like this:

.@CNNPolitics releases lineup, podium arrangement for final GOP debate of 2015 https://t.co/flm7OnriN0pic.twitter.com/ke1uPuRo2s

— Allison Wisk (@allisonwisk) December 13, 2015

Where’s the debate?

It’s going to be held in Las Vegas, at the Venetian hotel. It’s hosted by CNN, so if you want to stream it from the comfort of your own living room while playing a drinking game (no judgment) check out CNN.com’s live stream.

Will there be any feuds?

Given that we’re getting closer and closer to primary votes–the Iowa caucuses will be held in February–candidates are starting to get a bit nastier with each other. For example, Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz–two of the frontrunners, are almost certain to attack each other, most likely on foreign affairs issues. Cruz is painting Rubio as a centrist who can’t be trusted, while Rubio’s gripe with Cruz is that he’s weak on security-adjacent concepts like surveillance.

We may also see some squabbles between Cruz and Donald Trump. Trump has gone after Cruz hard in recent days. On “Fox News Sunday” Trump called Cruz a “little bit of a maniac” when discussing his career in the Senate. Cruz’s response was surprisingly even-tempered, as he tweeted a reference to “Flashdance” at Donald Trump:

In honor of my friend @realDonaldTrump and good-hearted #Maniacs everywhere: https://t.co/KOPIi4XTVt

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 13, 2015

Whether or not Cruz will take the bait on the stage remains to be seen. 

What will they talk about?

Unlike the last few debates, tomorrow’s doesn’t have a specified theme. So, what the candidates will talk about could encompass a wide range of issues, but there are a few topics that it’s very safe to bet will be discussed. For starters, national security will be a hot topic. A lot has happened since the last debate on November 10, most visibly the horrific terrorist attack in Paris, France, that sparked conversations about the fight against ISIS, Syrian refugees, terrorism, and the status of Muslims in the United States. Additionally, the shooting in San Bernardino, California set many Americans even more on edge, leading to calls from Trump to stop allowing Muslims into the United States. Questions about gun control may also come up, as well as the economy and Planned Parenthood. 

Law Street readers: are there any topics you want to see discussed? Let us know the in the poll below:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Do You Want to Hear About in the Next Republican Debate? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a little while since my last “People Suck” post, so I thought what better way to revive the Law Street pseudo-series than with a story about a two gun rights groups planning to stage a fake mass shooting at the University of Texas this weekend. Because if people blaring gunshot sounds from bullhorns on a hypersensitive college campus days after the horrific attack in San Bernardino doesn’t scream “People Suck,” I don’t know what else does.

Gun rights groups want to hold a fake mass shooting. There’s no way this could go wrong. https://t.co/lqQ4vmlrAO pic.twitter.com/abJshCIfvw

— PB Post NOW (@PBPostNOW) December 9, 2015

But UT students can expect to see and hear much more than gun shots echoing though their campus. The Open Carry Walk and Crisis Performance Event will also include fake blood, cardboard weapons, and a cast of crisis actors playing first responders.

The event was organized by Come and Take it Texas and DontComply.com in order to protest “gun-free zones” on the campus. Matthew Short, a spokesman for the groups, told Statesman.com,

Criminals that want to do evil things and commit murder go places where people are not going to be able to stop them. When seconds count, the cops are minutes away.

After the demonstration, the groups plan to walk through Austin with loaded weapons, which are currently banned from UT’s campus until next August when a new campus carry law goes into effect. Short explained to the Statesman,

We want criminals to fear the public being armed. An armed society is a polite society.

The groups have said outright that they don’t find the timing of the event to be insensitive at all, despite the mass shooting in San Bernardino being labeled the deadliest terror attack on American soil since 9/11.

But how could it not be?

As news of more and more attacks surface each month, mass shootings have gone from a hypothetical situations that you’ll probably never find yourself in to possible realities. Schools have continued to receive threats of more violence, and some community members find themselves in a state of constant vigil.

Therefore, simulating most Americans’ worst nightmare shouldn’t be at the top of these people’s list. Gun rights activists are more than welcome to hold meeting, demonstrations, and even bake sales for their cause if they so choose, but scarring college students with fake gunshots and blood is just weird and cruel.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post People Suck: Gun Rights Groups Plan Fake Mass Shooting on TX Campus appeared first on Law Street.

As mass shootings become the focus of public attention after two high-profile incidents in the span of  a couple of days, more and more people are demanding a response from Congress. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan recently faced a question about how to address mass shootings to which he responded saying that the focus needs to be on mental illness. Ryan then pointed to a bill from Representative Tim Murphy, a Republican from Pennsylvania, which seeks to overhaul the American mental health system. While nearly everyone agrees that the United States needs a better approach to mental health, the connection between mental illness and mass shootings is much more complicated than it may seem.

Before we get into the validity behind associating mental health with mass shootings, it is important to acknowledge the fact that most Americans see it as an important underlying problem. According to an ABC/Washington Post poll from October, Americans are nearly split on whether the government should prioritize passing new gun laws or protecting gun rights, but nearly two-thirds believe that improving mental health treatment is necessary to address mass shootings. When asked whether mass shootings are a reflection of problems with identifying and treating people with mental health issues or inadequate gun control laws, 63 percent believe mental health is the issue. There is a partisan difference in opinions–Republicans overwhelmingly focus on mental health while only 46 percent of Democrats focus on mental health alone. But despite those differences, only 23 percent of respondents said inadequate gun control laws were more concerning than mental health issues.

While Democrats often criticize Republicans’ reluctance to talk about gun control after mass shootings, it’s fair to say that addressing mental health problems is a greater concern for their constituents than stronger gun laws are. So in the wake of the tragic Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, the Republican Party looked to Rep. Tim Murphy, the only psychiatrist in Congress, to come up with a response. Murphy traveled across the country to speak with communities and mental health experts to determine the best way to fix the current system. While Murphy’s bill, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crises Act, marks the most comprehensive approach to overhauling the U.S. mental health system, it’s important to ask how doing so will affect mass gun violence.

In a review of research on mental health and gun violence, Vanderbilt University professors Jonathan M. Metzl and Kenneth T. MacLeish find that there is little evidence to suggest that mental illness causes gun violence. While it is true that in the aftermath of mass shootings reports often indicate that the perpetrator experienced some sort of paranoia, delusion, or depression prior to the attack, suggesting that mental illness caused the shooting is another matter. Metzl and MacLeish cite the finding that less than 3 to 5 percent of crimes in the United States are committed by people with mental illness, and that proportion may be lower in terms of gun crime.

In fact, people with mental illness are far more likely to be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator. For example, one study found that people diagnosed with schizophrenia are victimized at rates 65 to 130 percent higher than the general public. The authors concluded, “In general, the risk associated with being in the community was higher than the risk these individuals posed to the community.” Saying that all people diagnosed with mental illnesses are likely to commit mass shootings is about as useful as saying we should take away the gun rights of white men because most mass shooters also fit that demographic. In reality, the vast majority of white men and people diagnosed with mental illness will not commit mass violence.

Metzl and MacLeish also question the claim that mental health professionals can predict and prevent gun crime. While efforts to prevent the next mass shooting are well intentioned, basing that off of psychiatric diagnosis is remarkably difficult. The authors argue that psychiatric diagnosis is primarily a matter of observation, and they note that for that reason “research dating back to the 1970s suggests that psychiatrists using clinical judgment are not much better than laypersons at predicting which individual patients will commit violent crimes and which will not.”

In some ways, the difficulty in using psychiatric diagnosis to predict mass violence is a matter of math. Public health research can be used to determine a person’s risk of heart attack based on large-scale studies and randomized trials, but when it comes to mass shootings and mental health, the data is limited. As Jeffery Swanson, a professor in Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University School of Medicine, notes in his research on predicting rare acts of violence:

In a U.S. city the size of San Jose, California, (population about 1,000,000), about 4,000 people every year will have a heart attack; perhaps one or two will be killed by someone with mental illness wielding a gun. Treatment evidence for preventing death from myocardial infarction has piled up from hundreds of clinical investigations over several decades, involving more than 50,000 patients in randomized trials by the early 1980s . When it comes to persons with mental disorders who kill strangers, there is nothing remotely resembling such an empirical evidence base.

The Republican mental health bill marks an ambitious effort to address a growing problem in the United States, but saying that it is a plan to prevent future mass shootings is misleading. According to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are 350,000 Americans in state jails and prisons who have been diagnosed with a severe mental illness–that, among other things, is what Rep. Murphy’s bill seeks to address. The bill would restructure the funding for mental health care and change health privacy rules to allow family members to get information about a loved one’s treatment. On the other hand, the bill does not address whether or not someone with a mental illness should have access to guns.

Instead of advertising Murphy’s bill as a means to solve mass shootings, Congress should focus on the need for mental health reform by itself. The Helping Families in Mental Health Crises Act does have controversial provisions, notably whether states should be encouraged to develop Assisted Outpatient Treatment programs, which allows courts to compel treatment for individuals before he or she has a mental health crisis. And whether Murphy’s plan to move funding from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration–which he views as wasteful and ineffective–to a create an Assistant Secretary for Mental Health is the best way to spend money on mental health treatment.

Murphy’s bill is certainly ambitious and he already has some bipartisan support and backing from important mental health groups, but it also has some controversial provisions. For this reason, the debate on its passage should focus on whether or not it will improve and expand treatment for the 10 million Americans who experience severe mental illness in a given year–not whether it will prevent mass shootings.

Read More: Police Brutality and the Mentally Ill in America

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fixing Mental Health Care Will Not Stop Mass Shootings, But That’s Okay appeared first on Law Street.

The gridlock over American gun laws may actually be worse than the arguments over American healthcare. Whenever there is a mass shooting (defined in this post as four or more people killed), there are calls for stricter gun control, but those calls are never answered because an agreement on what to do is never reached. The voices against gun control are so loud and so rooted in paranoia in organizations like the National Rifle Association, that a meaningful solution seems impossible. We hear the same arguments over and over again, and over and over again, yet nothing is done and another act of gun violence occurs.

What people so adamant about the need for guns may not understand is that gun control–in all likelihood–will not take all the guns away. Instead, it will make the ability to obtain firearms much more difficult, and as we can see by looking at other countries who have successfully enforced such laws, the number of gun crimes will go down as a result.

“But we’re not like those countries!” Gun enthusiasts will say. “We’re America!”

Of course, they’re right. We aren’t like those countries. We’re larger, we have more guns per person, and damn it, our right to bear arms is right in our Constitution!

But when it comes to issues like this, when people are consistently losing their lives to gun-related crimes and accidents, the definition of insanity applies: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is ridiculous. It clearly isn’t working, so is it so insane to want to change something?

When faced with such a massively divisive issue, I find it helpful to go straight to the facts. In his speech acknowledging the most recent mass shooting in Oregon, President Obama implored news organizations to focus on the numbers. Many have done just that.

According to the above video, since 1997, the United States of America has had 51 mass killings. 51.

This is unacceptable.

Now is the time that the anti-gun control camp will chime in with this solution: more guns will make us safer.

If more #sane #people were #armed #crazy #people would get off #fewer #shots #LetsGetWordy http://t.co/g5f2HAvQkM pic.twitter.com/Ay1HO0Fd70

— Pete Thompson (@earningamotorcy) August 15, 2014

Well wait a second, didn’t we just learn that there are over 88 guns to every 100 people in the U.S.? Is that not enough guns to, supposedly, be protected? And even if someone with a gun were on the premises of every mass shooting, the one doing the shooting initially has the advantage, and people will probably still die. Instead of encouraging more gun sales, maybe we encourage better gun safety: background checks into those wanting to buy firearms, mandatory registration for every firearm owned by a United States resident, and a more developed process for obtaining concealed-carry licenses in each state.

But the Second Amendment says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Isn’t a firearm registration system and stricter rules for obtaining guns infringement?

Here we find ourselves in a problem that applies to laws other than gun control: are the rules our founding fathers established still relevant in today’s society? In the case of owning a gun, not really.

You have to force yourself to think about society during America’s development: we were in the midst of a revolution, we had a much smaller population, and we were exploring new land to the west, so owning a gun to hunt for food and to protect yourself against enemy soldiers made sense. But what about now–in 2015? Gun control laws won’t take away your hobbies: heading to the gun range for target practice, or going quail hunting during its season. You will still be able to keep a gun locked up in your home for “protection,” so really, is the Second Amendment changing much? And if it did, would it really be a bad thing?

More than any other argument used to dismiss gun control, the one most often cited is “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” That’s right: people wielding guns kill people. We do indeed have a mental health crisis in this country, but it is not necessarily related to the number of mass shootings. If asked to characterize a mass murderer, what would the identifiers be? Crazy? Mentally unbalanced? Maybe, but how can we possibly tell that ahead of time? The obvious answer to this is a mental health evaluation before being allowed to purchase a firearm. Even then, not all mass murderers are obviously unwell.

In fact, as John Oliver points out in the video below, fewer than five percent of gun-related killings are performed by mentally unwell people.

So what do we do about the gun problem we so obviously have in our country? It won’t be a simple solution, but at this point, any solution is better than nothing.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time to Debunk Arguments Against Gun Control appeared first on Law Street.

Saturday was the beginning of August and the last carefree month of summer break for many. This is the month when people make the most of the free time they have with their loved ones and begin to prepare to get back into their normal work or school routine. But unfortunately in Chicago, Illinois, the beginning of August was marred by an influx of shootings in the Windy City.

Beginning Sunday afternoon, at least 15 people were shot across the city. This is consistent with recent trends–July also saw an elevated number of shootings. During the 4th of July holiday weekend about 10 people were killed and 55 injured during various shooting incidents.

The number of victims this weekend in Chicago is extraordinary–this Sunday afternoon a 17-year-old boy was shot at about 4 p.m. on the South Side.. As the day continued, in the Roseland neighborhood on the Far South Side a 16-year-old boy and 23-year-old man were shot during a drive-by around 7:15 pm. At 8:40 pm a five-year-old girl was shot in the leg in the Englewood neighborhood on the South Side. Five minutes later gunshots were heard in the Belmont Central neighborhood on the Northwest Side as a seven-year-old boy and 19-year-old man were shot. Two women, 34 and 39, and a man, 26, were shot at about 7:55 p.m. Sunday on South Brandon Avenue on the South Side, according to police spokesman Officer Thomas Sweeney. At 9:30 p.m. Sunday, a 19-year-old man was shot in the Cabrini Green neighborhood on the Near North Side, police spokesman Ron Gaines said. The largest shooting incident this Sunday occurred in the West Englewood neighborhood on the South Side of the city. According to Gaines, four men were shot on South Winchester Avenue around 9:50pm. The men were between the ages of 19 and 25. The violence continued all the way through the next morning when a 20-year-old man was shot at 1:40 a.m. Monday, in the West Englewood neighborhood. No one has been taken into custody yet for the shootings and police are still investigating each case. The variety of victims and geographical breadth are certainly concerning.

Over the past five years, Chicago has seen more than 12,000 shootings. By June of this year Chicago had reached a total of 1,000 shootings–almost three weeks earlier than when the city reached 1,000 shootings in 2014. Chicago has gun laws that have banned assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, and places to purchase ammo, which makes it one of the toughest places in the country to legally obtain a firing weapon. But even with these bans, gun violence has not decreased. Although the homicide rate has gone down, the number of shootings in the city is on the rise–indicating that the city still has work to do even with its restrictive gun laws.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Number of Shootings In Chicago Continues To Rise: When Will it Stop? appeared first on Law Street.

You’ve probably heard the name Schumer before–but the question is whether politics and taxes on private equity managers or jokes about women’s sexuality and vaginas come to mind. Now, the two Schumers will be increasingly associated. Comedian, writer, and actress Amy Schumer and her cousin, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, publicly announced on Monday that they are teaming up to fight gun violence. The announcement comes just two weeks after a fatal shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana, when a gunman opened fire at a screening of Amy Schumer’s new movie “Trainwreck,” killing two women and injuring nine others before committing suicide.

My heart is broken and all my thoughts and prayers are with everyone in Louisiana.

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) July 24, 2015

The comedian has called this shooting “extremely personal” and stated that she thinks of the two women who were killed during the showing of her movie every day. “This should not have happened,” she said at a news conference alongside her Senator cousin on Monday. “It’s a tragic, senseless and horrifying action from this man who should not have been able to put his hands on a gun in the first place.” The Lafayette shooter bought his gun in Alabama last year after a background check failed to reveal his history of psychiatric problems and that he had been the subject of domestic violence complaints. Senator Schumer, sponsor of the “Brady Act” that was passed 20 years ago and requires background checks for gun buyers, stated, “We should do everything possible to tighten up loop holes,” and that “we can’t sit back and let mass shooting become commonplace.”

Senator Schumer proposed new gun control measures that are meant to prevent violent criminals, abusers, and those with mental illnesses from obtaining guns. The legislation would improve the currently flawed background check system by creating monetary incentives for states that submit thorough reports to the federal database used to block gun sales to people with criminal records or a history of serious mental illness. The bill would also create penalties for states that fail to submit these records to the database. The Senator emphasized that this new plan is about improving the present background check system, not putting new restrictions on buyers.

74% of Americans want stronger background checks. Joining @amyschumer to call on my colleagues in Congress to finally listen. More at 11.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) August 3, 2015

On Saturday, Amy Schumer tweeted in response to an open letter addressed to her from a Georgetown University student who called on Schumer to speak out against gun violence and advocate for stricter gun laws. “Your movie — which was so well-received, so brilliant, so you — will now forever have this shooting attached to it,” the letter begins. The letter, which went viral on social media, raised many points about women’s victimization from gun violence, stating that every day in the United States, five women are murdered with a gun, making American women 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women in other high-income countries. The letter continues with more chilling statistics about gun violence against women, stating:

And from 2001 through 2012, 6,410 women were murdered in the United States by an intimate partner using a gun — more than the total number of U.S. troops killed in action during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

The author of the letter, Sarah Clements, says that she knows the “guilt, the sadness, the hole in your heart” that Schumer must have experienced upon hearing the news of the shooting. Clements writes that her mother was a survivor of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, and she has since dedicated her life’s work to gun violence prevention. After Schumer read the letter, she tweeted in response, saying not to worry because she is “on it.”

@cdickason11 @sfclem Her name was Mayci, not Marci and I think about her and Jillian everyday. Don't worry I'm on it. You'll see.

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) August 1, 2015

And she was on it. Just two days after the tweet, Schumer followed her cousin’s presentation on his plans for gun violence prevention with an emotional speech at the New York press conference. “Unless something is done and done soon, dangerous people will continue to get their hands on guns,” she said. “We never know why people choose to do these things,” Amy Schumer stated, “but sadly we always find out how, how the shooter got their gun.” She said that her cousin’s three-step plan “deserves unanimous support” because it seeks to address the flaws in the “how.”

Amy Schumer fights gun violence: 'Shootings have got to stop' http://t.co/t29GcKiWY3 pic.twitter.com/MH2Uj68iIt

— TODAY (@TODAYshow) August 4, 2015

Mass killings in the United States have occurred with increasing frequency in recent years. From 2000 to 2007, an average of 6.4 active shootings occurred per year; from 2007 to 2013, that number jumped to 16.4 incidents per year. These mass killings will continue to gain momentum unless we pass legislation that creates serious incentives for states to obey the gun restriction laws that are already in place. Not only do we need to buckle down on the current system of gun control that is not being followed, but we also need to eventually introduce new restrictions. In a majority of mass shootings, killers obtained their weapons legally. This fact warrants significant pause; our laws are not protecting us from danger and are allowing individuals to commit mass murders. All in all, serious improvements to America’s gun laws are needed.

Senator Chuck Schumer and Amy Schumer are using their public platforms to advocate for necessary change that will hopefully spark a more robust conversation on gun control that has been fleeting and unfinished in the past. Amy Schumer’s last line during Monday’s press conference has left everyone wondering what is next for the Schumer pair when she stated: “These are my first public comments on the issue of gun violence, but I can promise you they will not be my last.”

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Schumers are On It: Gun Violence Prevention Has a Few New Faces appeared first on Law Street.

Last Sunday, an armed citizen named Patrick Ewing shot and injured a man who had drawn his weapon and fired at civilians. The story did not get a lot of media attention, but the coverage it did receive sensationalized the event, focusing on Ewing’s concealed carry permit. Some gun rights activists and conservative news sources dramatized and championed the what happened as proof of the benefit of concealed carry permits. Unfortunately, this event, like certain other gun-related incidents, was given disproportionate attention and used to defend simplistic approaches to gun laws.

According to police, 62-year-old Thomas McCary was engaged in an argument with a woman when Patrick Ewing, her brother, approached to check on the situation. McCary then pulled out a .38-caliber handgun and fired three shots. Ewing then drew his own weapon and fired three shots back, hitting McCary once in the leg. After retreating into his house and grabbing another gun, McCary returned and began shooting at the woman he was arguing with, as well as her one-year old son and a third man. Ewing fired more rounds at McCary in order to divert his attention while the others retreated into their home.

While Ewing’s actions almost certainly saved lives, arguing that more people should carry guns in public is far too simplistic. Neither shooter proved very effective with their weapon, with Ewing only hitting McCary once in the leg. People often imagine that licensed gun carriers can effectively defend themselves and the people around them, but the reality is that such accuracy is difficult and guns are not often used in self-defense. The use of weapons in dangerous situations, even by well-meaning citizens, is complex and potentially dangerous.

This exaggerated emphasis on a single event is also often true of those who support stronger gun control laws. Events such as the recent theater shooting in Louisiana have prompted politicians to again talk about the issue of gun control–a recurring response to mass shootings. Despite the well-intentioned rhetoric, these calls to action by politicians also rarely result in substantive change. When such events are no longer in the headlines, politicians are content with moving on to other issues. While mass shootings invoke media attention, they account for less than one percent of gun murders, meaning these events may not be the best basis to determine gun policy.

Sadly, most Americans are desensitized to mass shootings and the gun control rhetoric that follows. Instances of heroic gun-toting civilians are not very common, which is why these stories can resonate so strongly, but also why they should not be used as evidence of the norm. For issues like guns and gun violence, it is important to rely on facts instead of anecdotal evidence.

There is evidence on both sides of the debate over the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Some evidence suggests that increased access to guns, especially through concealed carry permits, reduces gun violence. These studies conclude that high gun ownership leads to decreases in crime and that gun laws have been ineffective at stopping criminals from getting access to guns. On the other hand, there is evidence that counters these conclusions. The correlation between gun ownership rates and gun deaths in the United States, as well as large loopholes in current gun laws, point to the need for stricter gun control. Also, one NIH study found that guns being used in self-defense are not very common, with only one instance of self-defense per seven assaults, eleven suicide attempts, and four accidents involving guns.

The fact of the matter is this: the jury is out on the effect of gun ownership on gun violence. It also important to remember that although it is certainly an important factor, the prevalence of gun ownership is not the only issue to consider. Mental health treatment, increased gun training, and community-based violence prevention initiatives are all important avenues to explore. These solutions, which take a more comprehensive approach to the issue of gun violence, are more likely to be effective than gun restrictions alone.

Too often, the activists and biased media–on either side of the issue–can sensationalize certain events. And while blaming media coverage for motivating mass shooters is not supported by data, there is something to be said for the media’s effect on the general public. Despite dramatic decreases in crime over the past few decades, the public’s perception of crime is that it is either increasing or stagnant. This is at least partially due to the sensationalization of crime, as well as new media’s ability to cover more stories. There are, however, responsible sources that try to look at the whole picture when it comes to the debate over gun control and it is crucial for citizens to do their best to remain properly informed. In order to foster a productive conversation about gun control, the discussion must be driven by facts, instead of the sensationalized events that fit into each side’s rhetoric.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post We Need to Stop Sensationalizing Gun Self Defense appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama recently acknowledged that his failure to pass common sense gun control laws in the U.S. has been his greatest frustration in his presidency. In a Thursday interview with BBC, President Obama claimed that it was distressing not to have made progress on the issue, even in the face of repeated mass killings.

His comments came hours before another mass shooting took place in Lafayette, Louisiana Thursday night. John Houser killed two people and wounded nine others at the Lafayette multiplex Thursday night before he turned his gun on himself and took his own life, police said.

However Obama signaled that he would continue to work on gun laws during his remaining time in the White House. He stated: 

It is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws. Even in the face of repeated mass killings.

If you look at the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it’s less than 100. If you look at the number been killed by gun violence, it’s in the tens of thousands. And for us not to be able to resolve that issue has been something that is distressing. But it is not something that I intend to stop working on in the remaining 18 months.

Nationally, guns kill 33,000 Americans and injure 80,000 a year. The total cost of gun violence is $229 billion a year, almost as much as we spend on Medicaid. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center recently found that there’s a substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. But despite the high levels of gun violence, Congress has no plans to investigate a solution.

In regard to gun control laws in the United States, Louisiana has some of the weakest gun laws in the nation. It does not require gun dealers to obtain a state license. The state also has no laws that restrict assault weapons or .50 caliber rifles.

One week after the shooting at Charleston’s Emmanuel AME Church, the House Appropriations Committee voted 32-19 against an amendment that would reverse a 19-year-old ban on funding for the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to research the causes of gun violence in public health. Their reasoning is that gun violence is not a disease, and therefore does not fall under the CDC’s research domain.

The CDC had been conducting research into gun violence as a “public health phenomenon” and began publishing studies that indicated a strong correlation between the presence of guns and firearm-related deaths. Prior this, the CDC’s budget was cut in 1996 by $2.6 million, the exact amount they had spent on researching gun facilities in 1995. As a result of that cut, many scientists stopped doing gun research, and the number of publications on firearm violence decreased dramatically. Reuters has reported that government research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the NRA’s campaign in the 1990s.

Although Obama has claimed that he will work to address gun violence in the United States during his remaining time as president, it is unclear how he will go about endorsing these big changes without the support of Congress. That being said, last week’s events show that some sort of common sense change is clearly necessary.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Rallies Against Lack of Common Sense in American Gun Control Laws appeared first on Law Street.

The recent shooting at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina opened up a number of old wounds for the country and reinvigorated several dormant concerns that seem to linger in the American consciousness. Chief among these concerns is both racism and America’s lack of gun control laws. While many were quick to put the blame in this case on a twisted, racist individual, there were others who said it was just one more in the litany of examples of the side effects of a culture that enthusiastically embraces guns without any real checks. Read on to learn more about gun control in this country, the role of groups such as the National Rifle Association, and what impact this has on the lives of everyday Americans.

History of Gun Control

What does the Second Amendment actually mean?

Any and all issues concerning guns in the United States start with the Second Amendment. While people associate the amendment with protecting their right to own firearms, the exact wording is as follows: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The amendment was originally designed as a check against the federal government, in essence to protect the states from being overwhelmed by its standing army.

According to former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stephens, over the years the law has been misinterpreted and manipulated for political gain. Originally it was designed so that people could bear arms as part of a militia in order to protect against the federal government. In other words, these people would own weapons as a function of their status within a militia. In fact, this was the way the law was interpreted for most of American history. But beginning in 2008, in a controversial Supreme Court decision regarding handguns, the amendment was interpreted to owning guns in general, instead of for a purpose. On top of this, the type of weapons protected also expanded. Specifically, in 1939 in a famous case cited by Stephens, sawed-off shotguns were ruled illegal because they did not fit the requirement of self-protection that was originally interpreted as the law’s modus operandi. However, as recent efforts have shown in which automatic weapons have become allowable these same rules no longer apply.

Failed Efforts at Reform

While gun control advocates are seemingly losing the battle over gun ownership in the U.S., this has not always been the case. On the contrary, the opposite held true for much of America’s history. The first efforts at regulation were in 1934. Following the high number of deaths resulting from the use of automatic weapons by prohibition-era gangsters, the federal government passed the National Firearms Act, which both made automatic weapons too expensive for the average person to afford and prevented the importation of the weapons.

The Gun Control Act was passed in 1968, in the aftermath of the high-profile killings of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy. This legislation created the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). ATF was tasked with regulating the sale of guns and the weapons themselves.

The tide began to turn against gun control advocates, however, with the passage of the 1986 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, which limited the ATF in its crackdown of gun owners and dealers. The gun control side had one last hurrah with the Brady Act in 1994, which outlawed the sale of assault weapons. This law nevertheless had a built-in sunset provision of ten years. When it came up for reauthorization in 2004 it was not renewed.

Along with the recent court decisions supporting gun ownership rights, the country’s representatives also seem to be opposed to regulating the weaponry. This became clear in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre when both new legislation and efforts to expand existing legislation, which called for background checks, failed to gain traction even in the shadow of the massacre of 20 elementary school children. Click here to view a video explainer on the history of gun control in the United States.

Guns in America

An Abundance of Firearms

Despite all the discussion over protecting gun owners’ rights, only a minority of the population actually owns any guns at all. While exact figures do not exist, according to a 2013 survey by the Pew Research Center, only about 37 percent of Americans own firearms. However, while less than half of the U.S. owns a gun, there are an estimated 270 to 310 million in circulation among the civilian population. In other words, one for every man, woman, and child. To put this into context, although the U.S. accounts for only about five percent of the world’s population, it is home to between 35 to 50 percent of its firearms. While the overwhelming majority of these are owned by law-abiding citizens, the sheer volume of available weapons has led to a serious issue with gun violence in the United States.  The following video depicts the level of gun ownership, gun fatalities, and attempts at gun control.

Gun Deaths by the Numbers

While those who favor protecting gun rights over gun control cite protection as a main reason, it has to be asked, are guns making the U.S. any safer? Going strictly by numbers and in comparison to other industrialized nations, the answer is a resounding no. On an average day in the U.S., 88 people die from a gun-related incident. The yearly total extrapolates to roughly 32, 251, the approximate figure in 2011 according to the CDC.

These rates dwarf those of countries in Western Europe to which the United States is often compared in other metrics. The U.S. in 2010 for example had a homicide rate that was 6.6 times higher than that of Portugal, who had the highest rate in Western Europe. To put it another way, that same year the U.S. had a higher homicide rate per capita than Pakistan, a country renowned for terrorism, and was only slightly behind other nefarious locales such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Iraq. Perhaps the most chilling comparison is the 2013 numbers which show major American cities with homicide rates similar to that of notoriously violent countries such as El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico. While it should be made clear that all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are not homicides, the fact that these are also some of the highest figures in the world is telling in itself.

The level of gun violence is so high in the United States that Surgeon General Vivek Murthy argued prior to being appointed to the position in 2014 that it is a public health crisis.

In defense of guns, some proponents compare them to automobile fatalities and suggest that no one ever considers banning cars. This comparison may soon be losing traction, however. Not even taking into account factors such as cars being used for longer time periods and much more frequently than firearms, overall vehicle fatalities are declining. In fact, while gun deaths continue to rise, projections for automobile deaths continue to fall and it is widely speculated that gun-related fatalities will soon eclipse those from automobiles.

Opinions of Guns

With all this in mind, what is the perception of gun control and gun ownership in this country today? According to a recent Pew Research Poll, for the first time since polling began in the early 1990s, more people view protecting gun rights as important than they do controlling gun ownership. The main motivation behind this is a perceived threat and belief in an increased crime rate. However, crime rates have remained consistently low since the beginning of their precipitous fall in the early 1990s.

Nonetheless, the main reason why those polled owned guns was for protection. This is in stark contrast to just 16 years ago when the main reason given by respondents was hunting. These numbers can be broken down further; white people, men, and those who identify as Republican are also more in favor of protecting gun ownership rights and believe guns are a means of protection that makes a home safer.

The fact that support for gun ownership is going up as crime rates remain low presents a paradox. The perception then according to these polls is people are either being misinformed or misinterpreting the issues relating to gun ownership.

The NRA

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has a major impact on the perception of firearms in the United States. In 2014 for example, the NRA donated $984,152 in political contributions, spent $3.36 million on lobbying, and another $28.2 million on outside spending. Nevertheless, while this may seem like a lot, the organization ranked 315 in contributions, 150 in lobbying, and 10 in outside spending among all groups.

Thus, the NRA seemingly has far more clout than is warranted based on how much money it spends. From where then does its power come? The answer is in the rating system the NRA has for candidates. The system provides a letter grade, similar to one from elementary school, based on how a candidate votes on a bill related to guns. An A-grade indicates a candidate’s strong adherence to individual gun ownership and conservative values.

Watch the video below for more information about the NRA.

Conclusion

The United States is a heavily weaponized country, in fact the most heavily weaponized in the world. This extends from its military, which is the best funded by far, to its police forces, which are quickly resembling its military in terms of equipment. This has even pervaded the towns, communities, and neighborhoods as regular Americans are armed like no other people on the globe.

This is the result of years of lobbying by pro-gun groups, namely the NRA, and decisions by the government and courts to protect gun ownership. Subsequently, the widespread availability of these weapons has also led to extremely high numbers of gun-related deaths and homicide rates that on average rival some of the most dangerous countries in the world.

While these facts have caused some to take pause, they have not led to any real change in regulating these weapons, whether this takes the form of outlawing guns in general or requiring more thorough background checks for the mentally ill. The numbers on this issue are unquestionable. The debate, however, on how to handle this issue is still wide open to a variety of corrective actions.

Regardless though, the recent events in Charleston showed that whether it is guns themselves or those wielding the weapons, they have contributed to immense suffering and loss in this country. Whether protecting the right to own these weapons supersedes these individual tragedies is where the debate now begins.

Resources

Atlantic: America’s Top Killing Machines

Economist: Why Gun Control is Doomed

Washington Post: The Five Extra Words That Can Fix the Second Amendment

Breitbart: Gun Control

Pew Research Center: A Minority of Americans Own Guns, But Just How Many is Unclear

Humano Sphere: Visualizing Gun Deaths

National Journal: Senate Confirms Gun Control Advocate as Surgeon General

Pew Research Center: Despite Lower Crime Rates, Support For Gun Rights Increases

Pew Research Center: Why Own a Gun? Protection is Now Top Reason

Open Secrets: National Rifle Association

GQ: How the NRA’s Grading System Keeps Congress on Lockdown

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America’s Focus on Guns by the Numbers appeared first on Law Street.

With the advent of 3-D printers, we will someday soon possibly be able to print almost anything from the convenience of our homes. With that technology in place, it was only a matter of time before some enterprising individuals figured out how to print guns. But now the government is going after the developers of these printable guns, in the form of legal action. It’s not just about the printed guns though, the implications of this legal battle could have a big affect on the interpretation of the First Amendment.

Back when the news of printable guns first came out, the leading force appeared to be a company called  Defense Distributed, led by a man named Cody Wilson. The company was the first to publish printable gun instructions online, in the form of a 3D-printed pistol. At the time, I wrote about how various different areas were outlawing the use of 3D-printed guns.

After Defense Distributed first put the directions up on its website, the State Department sent a letter to the company asking it to take down the website. The State Department claimed that Defense Distributed was violating US Arms Export control laws, particularly the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) The latter threatened that if the directions weren’t taken down, the state would prosecute Wilson  would be prosecuted. It’s now that letter that has sparked the court battle between the State Department and Wilson.

Wilson has filed a lawsuit against the State Department, as well as individuals high up in the department, such as Secretary of State John Kerry. The lawsuit specifically names the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) as the section of the State Department, who sent the letter. Defense Distributed is working in conjunction with the Second Amendment Foundation on the lawsuit.

The argument that Defense Distributed is making is truly fascinating–the company is arguing that by trying to restrict it from posting the instructions online, the State Department is restricting its First Amendment right to free speech. Alan Gura, the lawyer for Defense Distributed stated about the lawsuit:

The internet is available worldwide, so posting something on the internet is deemed an export, and to [the State Department] this justifies imposing a prior restraint on internet speech. That’s a vast, unchecked seizure of power over speech that’s…not authorized by our constitution.

It makes some sense, but whether or not this argument will actually be successful seems to be more doubtful. It appears to come down to whether or not gun blueprints are viewed as speech, or, “technical data,” which the U.S. government can certainly make a strong argument for being able to control.

As technology continues to improve on multiple fronts, these are questions that will continue to come before the courts. Whether or not Defense Distributed is successful could affect the use of printable guns moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are These Weapons Protected by Free Speech? appeared first on Law Street.

What’s the worst thing you’ve ever accidentally left in a bathroom? A cell phone? Purse? Credit card? How about a Glock pistol?

If you were lucky enough to find the missing item, who returned it to you? A co-worker? Boss? Janitor? Perhaps an eight-year-old child?

Here’s the situation: you are a member of House Speaker John Boehner’s police detail. You are protecting your charge when suddenly, nature calls. You answer this call in a lavatory at the Capitol. As you walk back to your post, you do not notice that you left your gun inside the restroom, in plain sight.

The firearm, a loaded Glock, was found by a child who was visiting the Capitol with his parents.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

You might think to yourself, “How could I have done that!? The gun did not even have a safety on it. I hope no one else ever does what I just did. Come to think of it, I wonder how many times something like this has happened before. I’ve heard of instances where housekeepers or janitors have found unattended guns, but never one where a kid found one. Oh dear. Well, at least Capitol Police are not required to disclose any details about this incident.”

^^But of course, these are all just hypothetical thoughts, and no one knows the true identity of the individual who left his gun in the Capitol restroom. The only thing the public knows about the absent-minded individual is that he got suspended for six days without pay, and could potentially be fired.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This is Probably the Worst Way to Forget Your Glock appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a little over two years since the horrifying shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown, Connecticut, but legal battles over the tragedy are still ongoing. Most recently, the families of eight of the Newtown victims have filed a lawsuit against the estate of shooter Adam Lanza’s mother, alleging that she was negligent because she left her guns accessible to her son.

Nancy Lanza owned a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, often classified as an assault weapon. On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza accessed that rifle from his mother’s house and used it to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary. He also killed his mother at their home before going to the school.

Since Nancy Lanza is deceased, the lawsuit is being filed against her estate, and more particularly, its insurance policy. Samuel Starks is named as the defendant, as he’s the administrator of that estate, and he has said that he estimates its worth at $64,000; however, it is estimated that homeowner insurance polices that Lanza had are worth up to $1 million. That’s a normal avenue in cases like this, as according to the Connecticut Post:

Bridgeport lawyer Josh Koskoff, representing eight of the families suing, said homeowner’s insurance applies when a person is injured as a result of an unsecured firearm in a home being accessed by a third party.

Technically, there are two separate lawsuits filed against Lanza. One involves three of the children killed and four of the educators killed. Two of the teachers who were injured have also signed onto that lawsuit. A separate suit, on behalf of one of the deceased children, has also been filed.

The lawsuits both point out that Adam Lanza has access to the gun “despite the fact that she knew, or should have known, that his mental and emotional condition made him a danger to others.”

This isn’t the first lawsuit brought by some of the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy. In December 2014 on the two-year anniversary of the shooting, nine of the families filed a lawsuit against Bushmaster, the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. Camfour, the distributor the gun, and Riverview Sales, the shop that sold it to Nancy Lanza, were also all named in the suit.

Yet another lawsuit has been filed by the parents of two of the deceased students against the town, stating that it didn’t properly protect the school. The crux of that lawsuit was that one of the substitute teachers who was killed in the school that day, Lauren Rousseau, wasn’t given a key to lock her classroom door. As a result, Lanza was able to enter and kill 14 out of the 15 people in that room.

In a lot of ways these lawsuits are mainly symbolic. There’s not going to be much money that comes out of them, most likely, but they send a message to a number of people that what happened that fateful day was wrong. Guns should not be accessible to someone who has exhibited mental or emotional issues. Distributors should not sell guns that have the potential to be used to kill many people. Schools need to take all steps to make sure that even substitute teachers have the ability to secure their classrooms. These are the kinds of messages that the plaintiffs are hoping to send with these lawsuits–whether or not they’ll be successful will be up to the courts.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Families of Sandy Hook Victims File Lawsuit Against Nancy Lanza’s Estate appeared first on Law Street.

I’ve often aimlessly walked through Walmart looking for something and found myself in an aisle surrounded by weapons. There was always something pretty eerie about the retailer selling firearms. Maybe it was the fact that you could run to the store and pick up doughnuts and guns in the same place, or maybe it was the fact that young children were trying out bicycles just two aisles down from my store’s gun depot. Either way, it was always unsettling.

New York’s Trinity Church. Courtesy of Mith Huang via Flickr

Now, it is these very guns that has Walmart heading to court in a battle with company shareholders. New York based Episcopal Trinity Church, which has about $300,000 worth of shares in Walmart as part of their diverse portfolio, is behind the lawsuit. While Trinity’s investment isn’t huge, its moral bargaining power is strong. Trinity’s main concern lies in Walmart selling high-capacity magazines like those used in mass killings. According to Forbes:

Trinity’s proposal would require Walmart’s board to oversee the sale of “products that especially endanger public safety and well-being, risk impairing the company’s reputation, or offend the family and community values integral to the company’s brand,” as the document first filed with the Security and Exchange Commission last year reads.

This lawsuit looks like an effort from the church to protect its investment in the company in light of recent mass shootings in places like Newtown, Connecticut, where 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Shootings like these have  many Americans supporting stricter background checks for those buying firearms. Customers who come into Walmart to buy guns often just have to undergo a quick background check using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and can walk out the same day with a firearm.

If one of Walmart’s guns was to be used in a mass shooting, the potential public blowback could negatively affect the company financially, and as result, Trinity Church. The church’s rector, Rev. Dr. James Cooper, told Forbes:

Somebody is making decisions about what they sell. Trinity doesn’t need to. We would just like them to tell us they have a system in place at the board level to protect the reputation of the company, its values, and protect the citizens who live in that community from extreme harm.

Rev. Cooper and Trinity’s legal counsel Evan Davis were shocked to learn that the company chooses not to sell CDs and games with Parental Advisory warning labels, but will instead sell assault rifles with the capacity for 30 rounds of ammunition. Davis told Forbes:

If it were a video with somebody shooting up a school, or a rap song with somebody talking about shooting up a school, they wouldn’t sell it. So why sell the gun? It doesn’t make sense.

This lawsuit is part of a long battle between the church and Walmart execs for board room oversight. In December 2013, Trinity submitted its shareholder proposal for inclusion in the company’s 2014 proxy materials, but the SEC sided with Walmart, issuing a no-action letter permitting the retailer to exclude the church’s submission from its 2014 annual filings. That’s when Trinity took its case to Delaware’s federal courts.

In November, after months of back-and-forth, U.S. District Judge Leonard Stark decided in Trinity’s favor, ordering Walmart to let its shareholders vote on the church’s proposal. In January, Walmart appealed.

The result of this case could end up affecting how other companies and their shareholders do business, but will more board room oversight be welcomed? In most cases probably not, if Walmart’s resistance is any indication. Regardless, the church still isn’t willing to back down from this gun fight.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Church Challenges Walmart Over Gun Sales appeared first on Law Street.

Mark Sobie, 43, was a convicted felon. In 2010, he turned himself in after robbing a bank in Michigan; he had used a fake gun for this operation. He served 30 months in a federal prison and this charge prevented him from buying or possessing a firearm. However, when it came to renting a gun, Sobie was never subjected to a background check. So, when he visited Silver Bullet Firearms in 2012, he was able to rent a gun, no problem. Sobie then took his own life at the shooting range in Michigan, with a blow to the face from the rental gun.

This was not a unique phenomenon. This was actually the second suicide at that particular range. There’s an interesting loophole in acquiring firearms; no thorough background check is completed for customers who rent guns. Over 12 years, more than 64 people have committed suicide at gun ranges in just three California counties. Reports of other similar incidents occurred in Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Virginia, Utah, Texas, and Oklahoma. If this is something plaguing our nation, why isn’t anyone talking about it? And why is there no federal legislation in place that requires background checks for gun rentals?

Initiating Action

The numbers are admittedly small. But every life is valued, and the family members of those who have taken their lives are speaking up. Sobie’s sister said his life could have been saved if the shooting range had conducted a background check.

There’s also a case where a woman killed her son, then committed suicide in front of other customers. Her name was Marie Moore, she had a history of mental illness, and according to police reports she had already attempted to commit suicide. A background check would have prevented her from access to a rental gun. But for lack of legislation, she was unstoppable and she murdered her son before taking her own life. Some gun ranges are responding to these violent outbursts by no longer renting firearms to their customers. Purchasing a firearm is a much more extensive process than simply walking into a shooting range, flashing an I.D. and signing a sheet of paper.

According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “training and testing requirements in licensing laws are designed to ensure that gun owners understand relevant firearms laws, and know how to safely store and handle firearms.” Anyone who wants to buy a firearm must undergo a background check. Some states also require purchasers to receive a permit for owning a firearm. So why aren’t these same standards upheld for someone who wishes to rent a gun? It doesn’t matter where you are, if you have a gun in your hand, you should have to undergo some sort of screening to gain access to a lethal weapon.

Possible Solutions

This is no attack on the NRA or supporters of gun rights. It’s merely a call to action for some preventative action. The New Hampshire Firearms Safety Coalition has already started making some changes by focusing on suicide prevention rather than limiting gun rights. The first step NHFSC took was to unite people of all different interests including “gun store owners, shooting instructors, gun rights advocates and suicide prevention advocates to develop strategies to keep guns out of the hands of people who might use them to hurt themselves.”

They’ve used an informal and more personal process to take action. The NHFSC mailed suicide prevention posters to gun stores across New Hampshire. According to Politico Magazine, 48 percent of gun shops left the posters up for four to six months after they were mailed out. Some prevention groups in Las Vegas and Maryland have also adopted the practice of posting suicide prevention materials. So, could this informal process gain solid ground?

I have hope that it could. Gun control is a sore subject and many gun rights activists are hesitant to put further limitations on gun access. However, in this case, gun owners wouldn’t have to undergo further screening. People who are not knowledgable about gun control or familiar with responsible gun handling have easy access to guns through the gun rental loophole. Mandating a background check could take a step forward in suicide prevention and it wouldn’t encroach on gun owners’ rights. If more states adopted similar legislation, we could neutralize a bit of the debate surrounding guns.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Kevin Buelher via Flickr] 

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Gun-Rental Loophole: Dangerous and Deadly appeared first on Law Street.

The nation’s capital is not having a good summer.

Just weeks after Congress tried to overturn a few of D.C.’s laws, a U.S. District Court judge has ruled that the city’s ban on carrying handguns in public is unconstitutional.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because this is the second time that a court has overturned a D.C. gun law in the past six years. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the district’s 32-year-old ban on private handgun ownership was unconstitutional in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller. This was the first time that the Supreme Court had ever stated that the Second Amendment guaranteed gun ownership for every American. For D.C., it meant the city had to rewrite their gun laws.

These new laws allowed residents to keep registered handguns in their home and required gun owners to obtain a permit before carrying in public. However, the city had a policy of refusing to issue any of these permits. This amounted to a de facto ban on handguns in public. Authors of the law argued that D.C.’s status as the nation’s capital gave it reason enough to ban handguns, since they would put the many federal buildings, government officials, and memorials at risk. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier put it this way at a hearing in January:

The District of Columbia, as the seat of the Federal government, with its multitude of critical official and symbolic buildings, monuments, and events, and high-profile public officials traversing the streets every day, is a city filled with ‘sensitive’ places. Our laws should reflect that reality.

This reasoning did not fly with Senior District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. Heller and a similar ruling in Chicago gave Scullin enough precedent to strike down the ban. Chicago attempted to ban the sale of firearms within city limits. U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang found this law to be unconstitutional. Chang was not convinced that banning the sale of firearms would reduce gun violence.

What’s next?

D.C. will appeal this ruling, and they have reason to be confident. In 2012, a U.S. District Court struck down a Maryland law which only issued carry permits to individuals who could provide a “good and substantial reason” for carrying a firearm outside of the home. The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this ruling one year later. This provides an important precedent for proponents of the D.C. ban. There are reasonable restrictions that can be placed on an American’s right to carry a firearm in public. Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said as much in his majority opinion in Heller:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

While the court ruled in 2008 that citizens are allowed to own firearms, it added that restrictions on such ownership were not unconstitutional. Specifically, Scalia’s majority opinion argued that “the carrying of firearms in sensitive places” can be forbidden. It might be a stretch to claim that the entire District of Columbia is a “sensitive place,” but at least D.C. has a leg to stand on.

In the meantime, how will this ruling impact D.C. residents?

The D.C. Attorney General has requested a stay, but one has not yet been granted. This means that, for now, it is legal to carry a handgun in the nation’s capital. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier has instructed officers to not arrest anyone holding a registered handgun. Those visiting D.C. who have a carry permit from another state will also be allowed to carry their handgun.

As frustrating and frightening as it is to see a judge allow any Joe Schmo to carry a gun in a city that is home to so many important people and high-profile targets, the city should have seen this coming, especially in the wake of Heller. To respond to a court’s rejection of your strict gun ban with another strict gun ban is foolish, and claiming that an entire city is a “sensitive place” is laughable. Yes, many parts of D.C. are home to federal buildings, but there are large areas of D.C. that look like any other city. There are shopping centers, grocery stores, apartment complexes, and everything else that makes a city a city. There are also threats to the safety of the average citizen, and D.C. residents have the constitutional right to defend themselves from those threats with a gun.

For the safety of D.C. residents, Mayor Vincent Gray and the city council need to approve new and sensible gun laws that balance the need to protect our government officials with the right of all D.C. residents to defend themselves. Banning or allowing guns everywhere in the city are not viable options.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Robert Nelson via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post D.C. Gun Laws Ruled Unconstitutional, Again appeared first on Law Street.

Tucson. Aurora. Newtown. What did these shootings have in common? The weapon and the ammunition. Or the types at least. Semi-automatic firearms allow the shooter to fire as fast as his finger can pull the trigger. Pair one of those with oversized ammunition magazines and he is capable of causing unthinkable damage in a matter of minutes. Rachel Maddow highlighted the correlation between the capacity of the ammunition magazine with the duration of the shooting spree and how many people are shot. But New Jersey Governor Chris Christie doesn’t seem to understand this correlation in the gun debate — that’s why he vetoed a bill that would limit the size of magazines.

For that, I am furious. Personally, I choose not to remember the names of the monsters who committed these acts because they should not be granted notoriety for their crimes — that would only make their twisted dreams come to fruition. We must pay attention to and deal with the issue at hand: mental illness and access to weaponry. I am no cheerleader for the NRA but I do believe in the right to bear arms. For self protection and even *shudder* hunting, we cannot deny our fellow countrymen (the sane ones) these rights.

Can we compromise?

Both sides are extreme, but I think we could come to an agreeable compromise. But not Gov. Christie, he’s definitely not on board with that. In his eyes we either abolish the Second Amendment entirely, or we continue allowing 15-round magazines to be produced and accessible to the armed public. Last week Christie vetoed a bill that would limit the size of gun magazines to ten rounds. This bill was petitioned by two families who lost children at the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. Christie avoided them, even when they personally delivered the petition to the governor’s office. He denied them, point blank, period. And this was his weak defense:

So are we saying then that the ten children on the clip that they advocate for, that their lives are less valuable? If you take the logical conclusion of their argument, you go to zero. Because every life is valuable. And so why ten? Why not six, why not two, why not zero? Why not just ban guns completely?

This is a joke…right? I mean, if we can’t save five people in the next shooting, we should just let all 15 victims get shot because everyone’s life is equally valuable. Yeah, that totally makes sense. What’s the big deal about five bullets?

Size matters

The heroine of the Tucson story is a woman who bravely tackled the shooter in the moments when he ceased fire. He was equipped with a magazine that held more than double the standard amount of rounds (15). When the shooter paused to refill his Glock with another 33-round magazine, Patricia Maisch, then 61, wrestled the ammo from him while a few men threw the shooter to the ground. The number of victims from that shooting could have been fewer if he had had to reload sooner.

The same goes for the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting. That shooter had a drum magazine capable of carrying 100 rounds attached to his AR-15 rifle. Could you imagine how the number of victims from that massacre could have been reduced if he were forced to reload about six times? Christie obviously cannot because that would be favoritism, or something.

Most importantly, I’d like to point out the difference this would have made at the Newtown shooting. The shooter in this case was armed with three different weapons and unfathomable amounts of ammunition, which he carried on his body. This guy came from a family with a long history of love for guns. He grew up with that whole culture and was granted access to guns, despite his Aspergers. The Daily Beast described the frightening amount of weaponry the shooter was armed with that day:

At the school, he emptied three magazines completely, leaving his 26 victims with as many as 11 gunshot wounds. Either because his weapon jammed or because he was overexcited, he ejected three more magazines when they still had 10, 11, and 13 rounds, respectively.

All told, he expended 154 rounds, killing 20 small children and 6 adults. The Bushmaster had one round in the chamber and 14 rounds in the magazine when he took his own life with one of two handguns he carried. A shotgun with two magazines containing 70 rounds was found in the black Honda he parked in the fire lane at the school entrance.

All that gore occurred in about five minutes. He could not have caused that many deaths in so little time with smaller magazines. How can Christie try to defend his veto with such illogical banter, to the parents of the victims of this shooting? Christie says it’s just a fundamental disagreement, though how his argument could be valid in any reality I do not understand. If the decision were up to you and you could choose between the hypothetical death of 15 children or 10 children, what would you do?

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno) 

Featured image courtesy of [Eugene Smith via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thanks to Governor Christie the Gun Debate Just Reached a New Low appeared first on Law Street.

After the Columbine school shooting in 1999, some schools cancelled all classes. Students around the nation observed moments of silence in honor of the 12 students and one teacher who lost their lives in the massacre. Headlines covering the event did not seem to subside for weeks; however, mass shootings have now become commonplace, and most hardly think twice when we hear of yet another attack.

Since these shootings are now regular occurrences, police need to keep updating their response methods. During the Colorado attack, police did not enter Columbine high school and attempt to stop the shooters for at least 30 minutes. The reasons behind the delay can be attributed to their training, which was focused on containing the situation and waiting for SWAT team members to arrive and respond. These tactics; however, are intended to be used in hostage situations, which Columbine was not. Naturally, the delay of the SWAT team caused widespread disapproval and quickly led police departments to realize the need to lower their response time in the event of future attacks. During the shooting at Columbine high school, most of the students were shot while the police waited outside for the SWAT team to arrive.

SWAT is typically too slow. Very few cities in America can field a full SWAT team in less than 30 minutes.
– Mike Dorn, former school police chief and head of Safe Havens International, a nonprofit school-safety organization.

The nation averaged five active-shooter situations annually between 2000 and 2008. Since 2009, that number has tripled, according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defines an active-shooter as “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearm[s] and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.”

Updated Tactics, New Equipment

Officers on the site of an active shooting can no longer wait around for reinforcements as they did unsuccessfully at Columbine in 1999. With the increase in shootings nationwide, cops are taking action to increase the effectiveness of their tactics.

Long Island police departments have changed their tactics to respond faster to mass shootings, and civilians who work at potential targets such as schools and shopping malls are being taught how to help. The new approach to active-shooter incidents, adopted by New York police and law enforcement across the nation, provides responding officers with specialized training. Instead of waiting for SWAT teams, officers are being trained to run toward the shooter(s) and remove the threat in order to save lives. Today the goal is rapid response. Most police departments provide cops with extensive active-shooter training and equip them with high-powered rifles.

If someone in the building is shooting, and you’re the first one there, you’re going in.
– Indiana State Police Trooper Aaron Gaul

Police officers at the scene of an active shooting are instructed to get to the shooter and end the situation. The priority now is doing so as quickly as possible, which leads to some controversial tactics including not stopping to help wounded victims.

If we stop and try to treat and help every person, we’re losing seconds where seconds can cost lives.
– Indiana State Police Sgt. Trent Smith

The Role of the Public

In addition to their extensive and updated training, police departments are reaching out to civilians to seek their help during shootings. On Long Island, the Nassau Police Department is collaborating with employees of public venues that face a greater risk of an attack in order to revise their emergency plans. Police departments across the nation are holding seminars to better educate the public on how to react in the event of a shooting. Individuals inside the building are generally told to evacuate at once and call 9-1-1 once they are at a safe distance. If leaving the building is not possible, they are told to hide in a quiet place until the danger dissipates.

A Joint Effort

Cops are not the only ones receiving specialized training for active-shooter situations. Emergency responders are taking part in new exercises designed to increase their response time to aid victims. Once again referring to the tragedy in Colorado in 1999, EMTs cite as a concern the length of time victims waited to receive necessary medical attention. Just last week, police and firefighters in Kansas City, Missouri demonstrated a new plan to respond to shootings during a practice drill. In the event of a school shooting, police would enter first. During the training exercise, police and firefighters showed how that response plan is evolving. The two departments have planned their response tactics to the last detail. To ensure that officers are prepared for handling school shootings, precincts will hold staged events at schools from time to time for practice.

Are These Changes Making A Difference?

In January of this year, there was a shooting at a grocery store in Indiana that may have ended substantially worse if not for the quick thinking of the officers responsible for dissipating the situation. There is still disagreement, however, among law enforcement professionals as to whether or not cops should confront a shooter or wait for backup.

The string of school shootings in recent years has demonstrated that these incidents really can occur anywhere. As scary as this sounds, the mentality that no school is completely safe is the one that needs to be embraced. With better preparation and modern police tactics, perhaps the upward trend in the number of school shootings will begin to reverse.

Featured image courtesy of [t i g via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Continual Mass Shootings Prompt Tactical Changes Within Law Enforcement Community appeared first on Law Street.

A man armed with a shotgun opened fire in an academic building at Seattle Pacific University on June 6, 2014. He walked up to three students and fired. One died; two were wounded. The following Friday, a man launched an assault against a courthouse in Forsyth County, Georgia. Only one person was wounded, but given the assailant’s stockpile of ammunition and bombs, it’s safe to assume he had much bigger plans. While the nation had a day off from similar violence that Saturday, Sunday was met with another shooting in Las Vegas. A couple killed two cops and a civilian before turning their guns on themselves. Last Tuesday, June 10, there was a school shooting in Oregon. Two are confirmed dead from that incident. That’s four shootings in six days with seven people dead.

Gun Rights and the Constitution 

Americans have long viewed the freedom to own a gun as a point of pride, one that is staunchly protected by the National Rifle Association, possibly the most successful lobbying group in modern American history. The NRA has shaped the way Americans currently view the Second Amendment.

But let’s look at what the Second Amendment really says. It reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

To be fair, the comma placement makes this a difficult sentence to interpret. But the historical purpose of this amendment came from states’ concerns that there would be a federal militia but no state militias. This amendment was created to protect a state’s right to form its own militia. But in recent years, the NRA has expertly convoluted the Second Amendment into the meaning it holds today — the absolute right to own a gun. It claims any gun control endeavor is a staunch violation of individual freedoms.

Now, I am not going to suggest banning individual ownership of guns in America. Not only is that a probable constitutional violation, the public would never allow that to happen. But I do not see any reason why restrictions cannot be placed on gun ownership. The constitution is not absolute. For example, the First Amendment says Congress can make no law abridging a person’s freedom of speech. Reading this as an absolutist, the amendment can be interpreted as allowing any person to say anything he wants. But both individual states and Congress have passed laws limiting speech, such as a law declaring it unlawful to use free speech to incite violence or intimidate. According to that law, the Ku Klux Klan cannot burn a cross to intimidate an individual. If the First Amendment was interpreted as absolute, this law would not have been possible.

There is no reason the Second Amendment should be treated as an absolute when the First is not. The government can restrict speech to protect its citizens, so it should also be able to restrict gun sales to do the same.  But when it comes to the Second Amendment, the NRA and the most vocal gun advocates deal in absolutes. David Metcalf, an avid gun user, former editor of Guns & Ammo and member of the NRA, recently made a similar argument to the one I just made. He was called a traitor and threatened just because he argued that regulating guns isn’t an automatic infringement on gun owners’ rights.

Gun Rights and Crime 

Now, regardless of the constitutionality argument, the NRA claims that regulation of guns will do nothing to stop crime. It argues that people need guns to protect themselves and that anyone can get a gun on the black market, so new restrictions will do nothing. But let’s look at some data. In 2012, Britain, a nation with strict gun laws, had a murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000, while America had a rate of 4.8 per 100,000. The gun murder rate for England and Wales is 0.1 per 100,000, while it is 3.2 per 100,000 in the United States. This isn’t an isolated example — the US has by far the highest per capita gun deaths among developed nations.

Several things could be done about this crisis. We could implement much stricter background checks and require gun licenses be subject to regular renewals. These changes need to be paired with better treatment and recognition of those who are mentally ill. We need to identify those who are at risk, and then prevent their access to guns. Furthermore, assault rifles, such as the AR-15, should not be legal. A variant of this weapon was used in the Sandy Hook shooting. The shooter stole the gun from his mother’s collection. If the gun was banned, even if it was still available on the black market, the Lanzas probably would not have purchased it illegally. Finally, there is a large black market for guns, so any legal restriction of gun use must be paired with money for the FBI and ATF to shut down it down.

I began this article by highlighting four shootings that took place in the span of six days. Many Americans have reacted by saying, “well, it could have been worse.”  This is an attitude of acceptance, because those deaths simply didn’t have to happen. Gun regulation is constitutional and it has worked elsewhere. We owe it to the past and future victims of gun violence to give it a try.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Sean Savage via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post We Need to Stop Accepting Gun Violence appeared first on Law Street.

One out of every five cases of violent victimization in America is domestic violence. You read that correctly — one out of five, according to the latest National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Published in April, this report illustrates a disturbing yet unsurprising state of affairs.

Just over half of all domestic violence cases involving intimate partners or immediate family members during this period were reported to police (56 percent), while just under half of cases of victimization by other family members were reported (49 percent). In addition to the 23 percent of domestic violence victimizations, another 32 percent were perpetrated by “well-known/casual acquaintances.” More than half of all violent victimizations, then, are committed by offenders known by the victim. In general, violence is not random.

Violence Against Women 

When all violent crimes are considered, men are slightly more likely to be victimized than women. However, in terms of domestic violence women are more often the victims, making up 76 percent of all such incidents. This is especially the case in intimate partner violence (IPV), which shows an even larger gap: an 82-18 percent disparity between women and men, respectively. IPV is also the most prevalent and injurious form of domestic violence.

The recent campaign “Bring Back Our Girls” has been powerful in that it created rallying cry, worldwide, against the discrimination of women. While the energy behind it is purely positive, I think that America forgets about its own issues too often. We take pride when scolding other nations for their de jure systems of oppression. As a recent World Bank report illustrates, it is not a crime to restrict women in many countries. Rather, their restriction is a part of the legal system. Active government constraint of the freedoms that women deserve is not (as) prevalent in the United States. But it remains shameful, or criminal, that our government can ignore domestic violence to the extent that it does.

Action For Women

IPV can be associated with poverty. As the World Bank report states, “Intimate partner violence (IPV) is more frequent and severe among poorer groups across such diverse countries as India, Nicaragua, and the United States.” Our lawmakers can do something by restructuring the tax code and revitalizing government programs. Getting rid of loopholes while lowering all brackets’ rates could actually increase revenue and make room for stronger assistance programs. Of course this means that reforming welfare and SNAP will have to be taken seriously.

Undocumented citizen status may also exacerbate IPV. As SafeHouse Denver describes, there are a host of methods used by aggressors against immigrant women to keep them from reporting domestic violence. Our lawmakers can do something by reforming immigration laws, reducing harsh enforcement, and making the path to citizenship more accessible. In turn, that would make it more difficult for abusers to discourage immigrant women from seeking help.

IPV can turn into homicide when firearms are involved. The annual “When Men Murder Women” report by the Violence Policy Center shows the relationship between firearm homicide and domestic violence. Our lawmakers can do something by mandating tougher restrictions on guns, which may reduce the number of domestic violence cases that become fatal. Because fatal domestic violence cases go unrecorded by the NCVS, this issue is even greater than the recent report may suggest.

Ending the Trend

Cultural change has the power to reshape the way we raise our children, it has the power to reshape the way partners treat each other, and it has the power to reshape how students behave on college campuses. However, we cannot rely solely on social movements. The political structure and our government’s actions must reflect, and catalyze, the social shifts on the ground. Yes, we need to advocate for cultural change. Yes, all women. Yes, all men. But it would be remiss to not demand policies that can diminish IPV. If we are to truly champion the end of domestic violence, the end of sexual assault, and the end of a system that leaves so many women battered, it will be necessary to call on our government to make changes. Especially when solutions would be beneficial in so many other policy areas, it is criminal that our politicians are not doing more to combat domestic violence.

___

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [US Military via Wikimedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Domestic Violence: Ending the Trend appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I hope everyone had a great Memorial Day weekend! For me it is always a low-key weekend that usually ends up in quality time with my family, celebrating the holiday honoring the men and women who have died serving in the armed forces protecting our freedom. This weekend also calls for a celebration of my birthday — my actual birthday is today.

Monday was like every other Memorial Day where a small group of my family members get together to have some sort of meal and talk about anything and everything. This time, no surprise, the subject matter of the young man who murdered six people and injured 13 before killing himself near Santa Barbara over the weekend was brought up. A tragedy that is hard to understand but something that has become increasingly normal in our society.

It’s no secret that I have conservative views, as do most of my family members. I was raised with guns around the house, unavoidable when your father is in the military and a gun enthusiast from the South. I was taught early on in life what guns can do, how to handle them but also how to respect them. Shooting a rifle in the backwoods of Mississippi was a summer pastime with my brother under the supervision of our father. I am not a member of the NRA but I certainly support the organization.

As my family and I sat down for lunch, my aunt brought up this news and the press conference where the father of one of the victims, Christopher Martinez, age 20, had made a statement blaming not only politicians but also the NRA for his son’s death.

I cannot imagine the pain that a parent goes through when losing a child to such a heinous act and I understand that with grief comes anger and the need to blame someone for the loss of his child. I have lost friends in the past to guns, either self-inflicted or at the hand of someone else, but never have I once needed to blame anyone except the person who pulled that trigger.

The NRA promotes safety, responsibility, respect, and education toward guns. The NRA did not put that gun into the hands of this obviously disturbed man. Not to mention that in later reports police have discovered that three people were stabbed to death by the same person. Who do we blame then? Victorinox Swiss Army? Spyderco Knives? How about Crate & Barrel for selling cutlery? A knife can be just as deadly as a gun. It is not the method being used but rather the person behind that tool that we should blame.

The scariest part of this whole tragedy is that in some way it could have been avoided. The shooter’s father even contacted police a month ago due to the disturbing YouTube videos his son was posting. Let’s take a step back and think about why the police were unable to do anything about it before all of this occurred. Hindsight is always 20/20 and we can always play the “what if” game, but there were warning signs and nothing was done about them. This is not the fault of the NRA or anyone who supports the Second Amendment. This is the fault of a disturbed young man who felt that he was dealt a bad hand in life and blamed everyone but himself.

With that said, we should all take a minute to pay our respects to those who lost their lives in this tragic event. They are the ones who deserve the attention from the media — not the soulless creature who took them from this earth.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Shooter Alone is to Blame for Santa Barbara Slayings appeared first on Law Street.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014 saw yet another shooting unfold on a college campus. Andrew Boldt, a senior at Purdue University, was shot and killed inside the university’s electrical engineering building. The police responded quickly to the scene and arrested the suspect, Cody Collins, shortly after the shots were fired.  Purdue University responded to the incident by sending text message alerts to students telling them to take shelter in their present locations.  Later, the university cancelled classes for the rest of Tuesday as well as Wednesday and held a candlelight vigil to pay respects to Boldt.

Unfortunately, Tuesday’s shooting is only one of a number of recent events involving gun violence on college campuses and schools.  On the evening of Monday January 20th, a student was shot and injured near the athletic center of Widener University in Eastern Pennsylvania.  On Janurary 9th, a seventeen year old student was shot outside the main office of Liberty Tech High School in Jackson, Tennessee.  On January 14th, a twelve year old boy brought a loaded gun into the gym of Berrendo Middle School in New Mexico, shooting and wounding two students. On January 19th, another shooting occurred inside Delaware Valley Charter High School, where two students were shot and wounded.  And the list continues.

With so many shootings at schools and universities in January alone, the issue of gun control in school again resurfaces.  These recent events and past tragedies such as Sandy Hook Elementary and Virginia Tech begs the question: has there been any progress in preventing gun violence in schools?

The Youth Risk Behavior Survey‘s most recent findings in fact show that only 5.4 percent of high school students brought guns onto school property.  This percentage is half of that in 1993.  However, the recent violence in the news has not gone unnoticed: around 540 bills on school security were introduced in state legislatures in 2013, and 106 were passed into law.  The measures include gun-safety education, emergency drills, and security officers on school grounds.

Some local school boards have also gone as far as providing guns to teachers and other staff in the school to try to provide safety for students. Bills that allow school officials to possess guns passed into law in eight states. This policy corresponds with the National Rifle Association’s claim after Newtown that the way to prevent gun violence is with the use of guns, not without them.  Perhaps, as the NRA argues, armed officers or teachers in schools can deter shooters from committing further violence. After Sandy Hook, Wayne LaPierre, President of the NRA, stated, “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Proponents of this view point to the case of the shooting in Prince Middle School in Georgia: after a student shot another student, an armed officer was able to disarm him and end his streak of violence.

However, there are several problems with this solution. First, even if arming teachers and officers in schools can potentially limit violence, how can it prevent the initial action before it occurs?  Second, who is to say the “good guy with a gun” won’t make a mistake and target an innocent person?  And additionally, seeing teachers and officers respond to emergencies with guns can encourage children to desire to emulate their superiors by acquiring a weapon of their own. Responding to violence with violence is not the answer.  Instead, the focus must be on preventative measures such as education on weapons and counseling.  Schools need to get to the root of the problem and determine why children and young adults resort to using weapons to solve their issues.  The focus of schools must turn to learning about behavioral issues in adolescents and how schools can implement strategies to teach children to turn away from violence.

In the mean time, efforts are still needed to ensure the wrong people can’t acquire a gun.  The issue of gun control is still very much on the President‘s mind.  Earlier in January, President Obama announced two executive actions that will increase the ease for states to provide records of citizens with mental illness to the background check system of the federal government.  After failing to get enough votes in Congress for legislation to make it harder to purchase guns last year, the President announced he would use the power of executive orders to do what he could on his own to create progress on gun control.  While these actions are encouraging, this month shows that children and young adults are still able to get their hands on guns and endanger the lives of their classmates.  Therefore, much that can be done to prevent gun violence in schools and universities depends upon the institutions themselves.

[CNN] [NY Daily News] [NBC] [WBBJTV] [Philly.com] [NY Times] [The Daily Beast] [NPR]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [CT Senate Democrats via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Gun Violence in Schools and Universities Continues appeared first on Law Street.

Until last year, there was only one state without a conceal carry law, and that state was Illinois. A Federal Appeals Court stated last winter that the ban on carrying concealed weapons was unconstitutional. The court required the Illinois legislature to draft a conceal carry law by July 9th, 2013, for implementation by January of 2014.

The law has been written, and is ready to take effect, but it has led to a lot of confusion in Illinois. There are a lot of places where it is still forbidden to carry a concealed weapon, and there were many caveats inserted into the brand new law. For example, one of these complications is that it is illegal to take a concealed gun to a large fair or parade. But you can have a gun on the street normally. So, if you happened to be walking home with your legal concealed gun, and run into the parade, your gun suddenly becomes illegal. This makes things very complicated, because if someone was arrested for having a gun in a public gathering, they could just claim they were walking home.

You can have a concealed gun on a bike path that goes through a park, but not in the park itself. You can’t bring a concealed gun into a post office, alright, but you also can’t bring it into a post office parking lot.

Now I think the fact that restrictions are put on where concealed firearms can be taken is a good thing. I live in the one single, solitary place in the United States where it is still illegal to carry a concealed weapon–Washington DC–and I am completely okay with that. But I have to admit that these laws in Illinois do seem unnecessarily confusing.

Colleen Lawson, who owns a gun training facility stated, “it’s like a Byzantine maze. It’s possible to get through it without breaking any laws, but it’s tricky.”

The confusing law seems to be the result of the short period of time that the Illinois Legislature had to cobble it together, as well as the conflicting lobbies fighting for their say, leading to weird contradictions and Catch-22s.

Charles Lawson, Colleen’s husband, gave an interesting example. He described,

a scenario in which an armed person goes to a restaurant for a meal and decides to take a CTA train home. In that case, the permit holder would have to unload the gun and put it in a purse, backpack or other encasement. But the trick is removing it from the holster and unloading it. That can’t be done in public view. You can’t even go to a restroom inside the station and do it. To do it legally, the carrier would have to find a place nearby that allows firearms and go there to unload and put away the gun.

It seems clear that this juxtaposition arises out of the combination of pro-gun groups lobbying to allow that man to carry a gun into the restaurant, but anti-gun groups lobbying to disallow him from carrying it onto the train.

Like I said, it’s hard for me to say that conceal carry laws should be looser, because personally I’m not a fan of conceal carry on principle. But I really do believe that if you’re going to make a law, it shouldn’t be full of such gaping contradictions and complications the way this new Illinois conceal carry law is. It will make patsies out of innocent people who didn’t realize they were breaking the law, and that’s just not right.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Brent Danley via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Conceal Carry Mess in Illinois appeared first on Law Street.

The newest trend among small town sheriffs is a refusal to follow the laws of the land. What laws have caused such a visceral reaction from our law enforcement? One of the hottest topics in the American political sphere, of course. These sheriffs are refusing to follow newly enacted gun control laws.

The movement is especially popular in Colorado, although there have been issues in Florida, California, New York, and multiple other states as well. After the horrifying Aurora, Colo. and Newtown, Conn. shootings last year, state and federal leaders have attempted to put more gun control measures in place, but success has been varied.

Since the first whispers of proposed new gun laws began, there has been opposition among local sheriffs. One group, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, also known as CSPOA, has already announced that they would not enforce local, state, or federal gun control laws if they believe that the laws are unconstitutional. As of today, the CSPOA website lists 18 state sheriff organizations and many individual sheriffs. The founder, Richard Mack, is the former sheriff of Graham County, AZ. It also contains a section entitled “The Red Coat List,” presumably a Revolutionary War throwback reference to British soldiers who fought the newly formed United States armies. According to CSPOA, Red Coats are any individuals who try to undermine the the power of the sheriffs of CSPOA.

In March of this year, Colorado’s Governor John Hickenlooper signed new gun laws; they went into effect in July. They include universal background checks on gun purchases and a limit on the size of ammunition magazines, among other measures. The laws incited an incredibly reactionary response throughout the state. Two state senators who supported the laws were actually recalled just a few months later, and a third resigned to avoid a third vicious and expensive recall battle. So far, 55 of the 62 sheriffs in Colorado have stated that they will not follow these laws.

Reasons for refusal vary somewhat, but for the most part, these sheriffs claim that the laws are both unconstitutional and vague to the point of being ineffective. The sheriffs are almost all from rural areas–the few urban sheriffs who are following the news laws claim that they are absolutely enforceable. There are also some sheriffs who disagree with the law, but realize that it is part of their job description to comply, regardless of personal beliefs. These two types of officials are part of a minuscule minority in Colorado.

Acts of defiance are not the first steps that these Colorado sheriffs have taken. In May, a group filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of the laws in the State Court. US District Judge Martha Kreiger turned them down, stating that they didn’t have the legal authority or standing to file the case as sheriffs, although they could as a group of private citizens. There are other suits moving forward, and some of the sheriffs have signed on.

The problem with what’s happening in Colorado is that whether or not these laws are actually constitutional is a separate issue from the job for which these sheriffs have been elected. It is not a sheriff’s duty to make laws–that falls on the Legislature. Similarly, it is not a sheriff’s job to interpret a law–that falls on the Judicial system. A sheriff’s job is to enforce the laws that are enacted.

Now, what many sheriffs are doing is not focusing on the enforcement of these provisions and characterizing them as a very low priority, which is fine, and not entirely unexpected. Not all laws are enforced on the same level anywhere. I know for a fact that I have jaywalked dozens of times. Or, for a sillier example, let’s remember that in my home state of Connecticut, it’s technically illegal to dispose of a used razor. I can assure you, I have done so many times, and I’ve never had the police burst into my bathroom to arrest me. And if all these sheriffs were doing was characterizing these laws as a low priority, it would be bothersome, but in the grand scheme of things, alright.

But the sheriffs who have taken their crusade further worry me. They will face very few consequences–in some states, Governors can investigate sheriffs that don’t follow laws, but that provision is rarely enacted. Mostly, any challenge to these sheriffs will come from voters, but given that these sheriffs are almost exclusively in conservative rural areas, that’s unlikely.

Gun laws in this country will continue to be a grand debate, there’s no doubt about it. But when sheriffs, or former sheriffs, such as Mack, make statements such as, “every one of the sheriffs is going to follow the Constitution, not follow the president or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has already ruled twice for the Second Amendment. The federal government has no right to tell me how many magazines I can have, how many guns I can have and how much ammunition I can have,” we have a problem. Sheriffs should be focusing on counteracting the epidemic of gun violence in this country. If they don’t agree with the laws that are passed, that’s a well-deserved personal belief, but it’s still their job to enforce them. In order to make this country a safer place, we need to get on the same page. But right now, we’re not even reading the same book.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Inventorchris via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado Sheriffs Say “No Way” to New Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Joseph Hall’s life to date can be summed up in one word: tragedy. This January, at 13, Hall was  convicted in the 2011 murder of his father, Jeff Hall. This October, Hall received his sentence—approximately 10 years in a juvenile detention facility.

Joseph Hall was born into an abusive household with a neo-Nazi father and a mother who may have done drugs while her son was in utero. The Halls divorced when Joseph was very young, but the custody battle over him and his younger sister waged for years. Court filings during these proceedings indicate the extreme instability in the young boy’s life and a psychologist he saw as a boy determined that he had most likely been sexually abused. As a boy, he had some learning and developmental issues, such as ADD and PTSD. There were also instances in which he exhibited violent and inappropriate behavior towards other students. As a result, he was kicked out of a few different schools. Eventually he was homeschooled by his father, who had only completed 11^th grade himself.

Jeff Hall was a man with extremist beliefs. He was a part of the “National Socialist Movement,” or NSM, a neo-Nazi organization that has been labeled a hate group by institutions such as the Southern Poverty Law Center. They refer to themselves as a “white civil rights union.” They are active in the area in which the Halls lived: Riverside, CA. Riverside is located fairly close to the Mexican-American border, and is about 50% Hispanic. The city also had a very high unemployment rate—about 15%. Racism, desperation, and demographical changes create a fertile ground for a hate group like NSM. Jeff Hall used to take Joseph with him on “patrols” of the border when the boy was as young as 9. He taught his son how to operate a sophisticated gun with night-vision and a scope. He taught his son how to hate.

In addition to his position as a rising leader in the Riverside neo-Nazi movement, Jeff Hall was a neglectful and abusive father and husband. The house in which the family lived was full with empty beer cans, and according to police officers at the scene, multiple rooms smelled like urine. Joseph reported to the police that his father had recently broken a glass on his stepmother Krista, who he referred to as his mother. Evidence from Jeff’s phone shows that he was cheating on Krista and that the two had a rocky relationship probably headed for divorce. Joseph also claimed that his father had threatened to kill the family by setting a fire while they were all asleep.

The story about what exactly happened that night is shaky at best, but one thing is certain. After his father passed out on the couch, Joseph took the family’s loaded .357 and shot his father in the head. At times, Joseph has said that he just had the idea to scare his father the way his father scared Joseph and his siblings. He hoped maybe that would put an end to the abuse. He talked about seeing an episode of Law and Order: SVU in which a boy killed an abusive family member and was let off on the grounds of self-defense. At the same time, he didn’t seem to know exactly what he had done. He asked a police officer, Officer Foster, on the scene, “do people get more than one life?”; Officer Foster also stated, “he was sad about it. He wished he hadn’t done it.” During the trial, other possible stories also came out, such as the defense’s claim that Krista actually encouraged him to kill Jeff.

There’s no way to know exactly what happened that night. Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter. The conditions that put a 10-year-old boy in this position are significantly more important than the child’s motivations. The debate of nature vs. nurture is very important in this case. If Joseph Hall had been born into a more stable environment, would he still have the same kind of violent impulses? We can’t possibly know, we can just try to prevent this from ever happening again.

Joseph was found guilty in January of murder. This October, he was sentenced to juvenile hall for what will amount to the next ten years. (He was sentenced for longer, but you cannot remain in juvenile detention for more than 10 years.) He will be in the system with older, violent, children. He will have limited interaction with his family. Despite his defense team’s fight to place him in a group home or other institution that would be able to provide him with care and help that he needs, he will be in a juvenile institution for the next decade.

The prosecutor on this case, Riverside County Chief Deputy District Attorney Michael Soccio, summarized this case best when he pointed out that it was less about blame and more about finding the right thing to do for Joseph. Soccio did believe that Joseph was dangerous and was guilty, but also recognized that how the next 10 years will determine whether Joseph can rise out of the tragedy into which he was born. After the conviction, he actually went over and apologized to the boy. He told him to be strong, but that, “you’re going to be in some places now that people are going to want you to be tough, and you’ve got to try to resist the worst part of being tough.”

There’s no winning this case. There’s no good side, no silver lining. There’s just a sad young boy who has been mistreated his entire life. The best that Joseph can hope for is that he is placed in a facility that is instructive, that provides structure his family claims he needs, and is filled with people who truly try to help him. But even if juvenile detention does work out for him, he will still leave as a young man who killed his father at 10. He will be a young man who was imprisoned his whole life, albeit it in different ways.  Again, Soccio put it better than I could hope to: “depending on where the courts puts him, he’s either going to be a predator or prey.”

There’s no winning this case, but maybe there’s hope for the future. Maybe this will spark a conversation about the awful juvenile judicial system in this country where a child must decide whether or not to be predator or prey. Maybe we’ll talk about gun control, and the ramifications of having a loaded gun in a house of angry, abused children. Maybe we’ll talk about the abuse inherent in exposing a child to a hate group. And maybe, just maybe, we’ll be able to prevent a tragedy like Joseph Hall from ever happening again.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Brian Stansberry via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Sad Story of Joseph Hall appeared first on Law Street.

Buying a $299 whiteboard that can stop bullets is a startling reality for educational professionals across the country. The LA Times estimates that Hardwire LLC sold around 100 such boards to schools in 5 different states. According to the website “the high-tech tablet — which hangs on a hook, measures 18-by-20 inches and comes in pink, blue, and green — can be used as a personal shield for professors under attack and as a portable writing pad in quieter times”.

Being an alternative to arming teachers, the invention of this multifunctional tablet draws attention to the fears in the American education system.

But does this mean that people are simply waiting for more mass shootings to happen? Does it mean that it’s no longer safe to send your kids to school, or pursue a career in education?

I decided to look at the statistics to find the definitive answer, specifically a Small Arms Survey New Armed Actors Research Note, provides a reliable data on gun ownership in participating countries. According to their report, the United States has 270,000,000 firearms in the possession of its civilian population alone, making the U.S. the world’s leader in civilian gun ownership. Although almost every American agrees that mass shootings, particularly those at schools, are a very important issue, there remains a great deal of disagreement on how to solve the problem. Anti-gun folks will argue that all mass shootings happened just for one reason: the availability of guns. The solution they offer is to prohibit guns, and voilà, the problem is solved! But the reality is – the prohibition of guns will not happened because American society is not ready for that. The latest poll by Gallup showed that 74 percent of Americans are against banning guns for civilians! Thus, it will take many more significant events like school shootings for Americans to change their perceptions on firearms and reform gun laws in the United States. Furthermore, the government can’t even tighten existing gun laws due to the political rivalry, and strong lobbying of pro-gun organizations. In contrast, pro-gun politicians suggest that we arm teachers, and again, voilà, the problem will be solved. The irony of this proposition is all too clear to me, so I have to ask: is it really going to help? Mother Jones analyzed 62 mass shootings in America, finding that not even one of these events was prevented by an armed bystander.  In fact, some of these heroes were actually injured or killed as a result of their attempts to stop the attack.

Live Science indicates that although mass shootings are not a common phenomena, when compared to other violent crimes in America, the amount has been steadily increasing. The same source suggests that most of the shooters had difficulty to connect with other people and wanted to be seen as notorious as possible. The interesting characteristic of almost all mass shooters is their ability to plan and execute their projected shootings despite their mental instability. This reminds me of Edgar Allan Poe’s “Tell-Tale Heart” where murder was meticulously planned and executed by the unknown narrator who is suffering from a mental disease. The Huffington Post suggests that “a history of abuse or ineffective parenting, a tendency to set fires or hurt animals, a sadistic streak, and self-centeredness and a lack of compassion” all can characterize mass shooters. So will arming teachers prevent these people from shooting until their last breath? Probably not.

The problem of mass shootings, especially on campuses, is not only due to the availability of guns, but also to the lack of proper treatment for the mentally-ill. Real Clear Politics encourages us to address the widespread problems of young unstable adolescents and to stop meaningless fight about gun control. The violence exposure through TV and video games combined with alienation, individualistic culture, pressure to succeed, and mental disturbance, can create a lonely mass shooter who might come to your college, school, movie theatre, or grocery store tomorrow.

I decided to look at the statistics again, but now within the American mental health care system. Washington Post provides seven facts about mental health system in the United States, among those are high price tags on mental health services, bias in mental health treatments, and restricted access to mental medical care. Fox News also breaks down for us what is wrong with mental health care in America, and the picture is not all bright. Inadequate training of professionals in the industry and sky-high costs of treatment itself are only two perplexing realities of mental health care system today.

So how do we cure campuses form mass shootings? Changes can happen, but people should not only be aware of the issue realities, they should fiercely advocate for changing the ineffective policies that currently exist. Tightening gun laws to prevent mentally-ill people from accessing firearms, and providing more mobility and resources to mentally-ill people alone can decrease mass shooting incidents. The problem itself should be viewed as multidimensional issue that involves government, local communities, educational system, and healthcare.

There is no time for meaningless fights about gun control and dubious ideas to transform schools and colleges to citadels with armed teachers. A $299 pink board also won’t help tackle the problem.

But what should teachers and students do in the meantime?

Teachers will buy those colorful boards hoping they will never use them as “protection shields”, put guns in their classroom drawers, and start to teach hoping that history will never repeat itself.

In memory of Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting.

—

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [woodleywonderworks via Flickr]

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guns, Whiteboards, and the Mentally Ill: How to Cure Campuses From Mass Shootings appeared first on Law Street.

Disclaimer: I am a very vocal advocate of stricter regulation of gun laws.  That does not mean that I do not respect the 2nd amendment (“right to bear arms”).  I absolutely do, and I respect the original point of view of the framers of the Constitution.  So does Justice Scalia; it’s called being an originalist.  Now can we acknowledge that times have changed since the drafting of the Constitution?  That public safety should override, or at least be more strongly considered, in federal, state, and local legislative actions?  That sometimes there is a limit to how far a law can reach?

The backstory is simple: According to the Des Moines register, Iowa now grants permits to obtain guns to legally blind people.

Their reasoning is simple: it is legal and constitutional, pursuant to both the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 endeavors to regulate, and has for years regulated, who is able to obtain a license to carry a gun and the rules surrounding the ability to obtain a gun license.  The law provides that there are certain classes of people who are ineligible to be licensed gun owner.  These people include, but are not limited to, the following: criminals, a non-citizen of the United states; potentially dangerous people against whom restraining orders have been issued, and abusers of illegal substances or alcohol.  Not listed in this group of people banned from owning a gun license?  Blind people.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 seeks to protect those who for any reason may face unlawful discrimination due to a disability.  These disabilities include physical and mental disabilities like blindness, deafness, those in wheelchairs, and those with developmental issues.

Both of these federal laws serve important and necessary purposes for the protection of public safety and civil liberties.  The difficulty with this particular legal and legislative issue is the cross-section of the laws and their purposes.

In allowing the legally and completely blind to obtain gun licenses, Iowa is taking an important stand in the advancement of the ADA and the protection of the civil liberties of its citizens.

That being said, our nation has, in the last few years had significant problems with gun control, gun access, and disabilities (specifically mental health).  We’ve been down this slippery slope before.  Is anything catastrophically dangerous likely to happen if a legally blind person is carrying a gun they are legally licensed to have?  Probably not.  But what if a blind woman is in her home with her two children one night and an intruder enters?  What if the woman grabs her firearm and shoots in the direction of the perceived intruder, but instead fatally wounds her child?  Why are we not considering the repercussions of this law?  There needs to be more debate on this, and more possible scenarios considered, before the full enactment of the law.

[Des Moines Register, CNN, Fox News]

—

Featured image courtesy of [M Glasgow via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iowa Permits Blind People to Obtain Gun Permits. Seriously. appeared first on Law Street.