On Tuesday, a federal appeals court issued an injunction on a statute that would have severely limited gun rights in the District of Columbia. The 2-1 ruling represents a victory for Second Amendment advocates, and another setback in the effort to curb gun rights in the nation’s capital.

The D.C. measure in question is commonly referred to as a “good reason” clause. It directs the police chief to set guidelines to limit gun possession in the city, making an exception for those who could justify carrying a weapon. But a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the Supreme Court’s guidance made clear that such a law would violate the Second Amendment.

Writing for the majority, Judge Thomas Griffith cited a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down D.C.’s 32-year ban on handguns.

The District of Columbia v. Heller ruling proved that “the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach,” wrote Griffith.

He added, “At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions.”

Gun rights in D.C. have followed a pattern over the last decade: the city passes an ordinance to curb gun rights; the ordinance is blocked in court. From 1976 to 2008, handguns were banned in D.C.

With the Heller ruling, D.C. repealed its ban, and issued a new ordinance that made it impossible to obtain a permit to carry outside the home. In 2014, that measure was ruled unconstitutional. In response, D.C. amended the ordinance, making permits available to those who could show “good cause” to carry a handgun.

Unsurprisingly, gun advocates cheered the court’s decision. Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in a statement that “the opinion makes it clear that the Second Amendment’s core generally covers carrying in public for self-defense.”

He added: “To read the majority opinion and not come away convinced that such ‘good reason’ or ‘good cause’ requirements are just clever ways to prevent honest citizens from exercising their rights is not possible.” 

But Judge Karen Henderson argued in her dissent that, “the sole Second Amendment ‘core’ right is the right to possess arms for self-defense in the home.”

She added: “By characterizing the Second Amendment right as most notable and most acute in the home, the Supreme Court necessarily implied that that right is less notable and less acute outside the home.”

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 Federal Appeals Court Blocks D.C. Effort to Curb Gun Rights appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve ever been at a college football game and thought, “Man this football game is fun, but it would be even more fun if some people in this stadium were packing heat!” then you probably were not very happy with the Arkansas Senate yesterday.

After a good dose of public outrage and some lawmakers speaking out about its dangers, a new Arkansas concealed carry expansion measure has now been watered down by an exemption passed by a 22-10 vote in the Senate. The exemption removes college sports events from the expansion.

Signed into law by Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson on Wednesday, the new measure would have allowed anyone with a concealed handgun license and eight hours of active shooter training to conceal carry in a publicly-owned building like a state college campus or the state capitol. Private establishments like bars and places of worship would also be included, although those establishments still have the right to prohibit guns from their premises. News of this measure expanding gun rights to college sports venues angered and alarmed many, leading the Senate to pass the exemption for college sports venues less than a day after the law was passed.

Among those who were confused by the very logic of the law was University of Arkansas defensive back Kevin Richardson II:

I’m curious as to why… https://t.co/Ynpo3lGUeL

— Kevin Richardson II (@K_Rich30) March 23, 2017

Speaking to USA Today Sports, Democratic Rep. Greg Leading, who represents the district that includes one of the University of Arkansas campuses, said “Most concealed-carry permit holders are responsible people. That said, accidents happen. People like to have a good time before, during and after football games in the South. People drink. People get emotional. If you’re not allowed to bring an umbrella into a stadium, why should you be allowed to introduce guns into the equation?” To add to Rep. Leading’s point, outside food is prohibited from most stadiums, and, on the very same day the new measure was approved, the SEC implemented a league-wide “clear bag policy” that encourages fans to bring only clear and smaller bags to SEC football games.

As the AP points out, the state of Arkansas is no stranger to supporting and expanding gun rights. In 2013, the state passed a law that allowed faculty and staff to carry concealed weapons on college campuses, given that those schools agreed to allow guns on campus, which none of them ended up doing. Governor Hutchinson is also, as the AP points out, a former chair of a National Rifle Association task force whose mission was to push for armed faculty at Arkansas public schools in response to the Newtown shooting. That shooting happened, of course, in Connecticut–over a thousand miles away from Arkansas.

This exemption is expected to pass in the Arkansas House floor sometime within the next week.

This Arkansas law comes at a time where multiple states with Republican governors are moving to pass some version of concealed carry expansion. This week, North Dakota Republican Gov. Doug Burgum signed into law a bill that institutes Constitutional Carry throughout the state and Ohio’s new gun laws that allow for people to carry a concealed weapon into places like day care facilities and non-secure areas of airports went into effect.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Arkansas Senate Backtracks on Allowing Concealed Guns in College Sports Stadiums appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled Tuesday that part of D.C.’s new gun law, which requires that individuals must show “good reason” to get a concealed-carry permit for firearms, is unconstitutional.

In his ruling, District Judge Richard J. Leon called the requirement “inconsistent” with the Second Amendment and put in place a preliminary injunction to stop its enforcement in the District. In order to hold a concealed-carry firearm in the District, residents need to go through a multi-step application process to obtain a concealed-carry license (open carry is out of the question in the city). A part of this process requires applicants to demonstrate a “good reason” for why they would need to carry. For example, a resident could demonstrate a “good reason to fear injury to a person or property,” such as threats or attacks, or the need to carry a gun for employment purposes.

Judge Leon called the law “overly zealous,” and stated that it “likely places an unconstitutional burden”on the constitutional right to bear arms.

The ruling stems from a case filed late last year by Matthew Grace, a D.C. resident and a member the Pink Pistols, a guns rights group that describes itself as “an international organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for the self-defense of the sexual-minority community.” The group claims that the “good reason” clause is a “travesty of justice” and filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia claiming that the law was unconstitutional.

So what does this mean for D.C. residents? The injunction puts a hold on the “good reason” requirement for the time being, which will make it easier for applicants to receive concealed-carry permits. The law has only granted 74 permits since the law was put into place in 2014, so D.C. will likely have more concealed weapons on its streets.

If and how this ruling has an impact on gun violence in the city remains to be seen, but this is a major development for guns rights activists.

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 Judge Says D.C. Residents Don’t Need “Good Reason” for Concealed-Carry Permits 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.

Hold on to your holsters, folks–there’s a new gun law in Texas. As of January 1, 2016, licensed owners of firearms will be able to carry them in plain view in most places. People will actually be able to flaunt and parade their firearms in belt and shoulder holsters in public…at restaurants, bars, parks, and stores–for every person to witness. It begs the question, is it necessary to expose one’s weapon in public spaces in light of laws allowing for weapons to be carried so long as they are concealed? And if it is necessary, why?

Earlier this year, on June 13, 2015, Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed the open carry bill into law. It passed in the Texas House by a margin of 102-43 votes and in the Senate by 20-11, divided by party lines with Democrats opposing the bill. Visible handguns have been banned in Texas since just after the Civil War, but that will change with the new law taking effect by the start of the New Year.

Despite its Wild West history of cowboys, bandits, John Wayne, and fairly lax gun laws, Texas is pretty late to flex the open carry facet of its Second Amendment arm. Surprisingly, it is the 45th state to enact such legislation, but only after a provision barring law enforcement from asking Texas residents whether they were licensed or had a proper license to carry firearms visibly was removed from the bill. Texas is by far the most populous state with the open carry laws, with nearly 850,000 concealed license holders, thereby making it a notable change regarding the nation’s gun laws as a whole.

Thankfully, the law allows for private businesses and establishments to ban open carry and many have been on the fence about the direction in which they will go. A number of family-based restaurants have geared up to ban visible weapons within their establishments. They fear that families with children and other customers would be “a little uncomfortable” coming to a restaurant that has firearms in plain view. Additionally, H-E-B, a grocery store chain with 316 stores in 150 Texas communities, has also decided to ban open carry within its store. Largely staying out of the debate, H-E-B noted that it sells alcoholic beverages and are acting in accordance to state regulations on that basis. The store, for years, has maintained the policy that long guns and unlicensed guns are prohibited on its property. But it allows concealed weapons and will continue to do so. Whole Foods and Randall’s have followed H-E-B’s suit in banning open carry within their stores.

Other organizations have taken a different stance. Kroger, another grocery chain, will allow open carry within its stores, as will the First Baptist Church of Arlington, near Dallas, Texas. Senior Pastor Dennis Wiles, who sees approximately 2,500 worshipers on Sundays, noted that he came to the decision after meeting with the church’s legal team, congregants, and police officers. Wiles further recognized that the church will re-assess the situation in a couple of months to see if there are any issues to be address, however, he is confident that there won’t be much of a noticeable difference. Executive Director Charley Wilkison of the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas does not agree. Wilkison stated that, “[p]eople will drive without a license…[a]nd we can sure count on them to carry a weapon without training or license.”

But we still don’t know why. Why is this necessary? Intimidation? Self defense? Fashion? What good will come of this? Furthermore, if individuals are entitled to carry concealed weapons, why the additional need to flaunt those weapons, particularly at a time when citizens have been plagued by mass shootings, police brutality, racial discrimination, and religious intolerance? Placing firearm intimidation on the forefront of unstable societal, racial, and economic tensions does not sound like positive and commendable progression toward stability in such a gun weary and gun polarized nation.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Wild Wild West: “Open Carry” Law in Texas Rings in the New Year 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.

Iconic restaurant chain Whataburger just announced it will not allow the open carrying of guns on its properties. The company has locations in 10 states, including Texas, which recently passed legislation stating that licensed Texans can openly tote their handguns in a hip or shoulder holster.

Whataburger President and CEO Preston Atkinson wrote an open letter than can be viewed on the company’s website. Atkinson writes that the company must think about how the open carry policy affects its employees and customers. He stated:

From a business standpoint…we have to think about how open carry impacts our 34,000+ employees and millions of customers.

The open-carry law will be put into effect starting January 1, 2016, but Texas Restaurant Association CEO Richie Jackson said he was not surprised by Whataburger’s early announcement. Under the new law, “gun rights do not trump property rights.”

Other Texas area restaurants are expected to follow Whataburger’s lead.

Residents of the Lone Star state will likely react both positively and negatively to Whataburger’s announcement. Naysayers like Open Carry Texas founder C.J. Grisham will probably boycott the restaurant (let’s hope he can resist the siren call of the famous Patty Melt) while supporters like the members of Moms Demand Action will undoubtedly express their gratitude and continue to visit Whataburger locations.

But what if Whataburger had remained silent on this issue—or, heaven forbid, openly praised the open-carry bill?

For starters, it probably would have lost a lot of business from customers who brought their families or sports teams onto Whataburger properties. (Nothing says “good sportsmanship” like grabbing a seat next to a man with a gun-holster after the big game).

Secondly, this would have meant a huge change in the training of employees. How would you feel if you had to constantly survey customers and be on the lookout regarding who was visibly armed?

Before Whataburger released its open letter, moms like “Moms Demand Action” spokeswoman Stephanie Lundy reflected on what would happen to their teenaged sons and daughters who worked the late shift at fast-food restaurants. Since when does the job description of a minimum-wage occupation include assessing if someone was going to use a firearm to rob their place of business?

To quote Mary Jones, a woman who was featured in the Associated Press coverage of the Whataburger situation: we are not in the Wild, Wild West. Leave your firearms at home if you want to eat some French fries.

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 Iconic Restaurant Chain Will Not Follow Texas Open Carry Law appeared first on Law Street.

Hey folks! How many of you are big video game players?

Probably a decent number of you. I, personally, don’t really get the whole video game thing, mainly because I didn’t grow up with them. My parents had really strong opinions about what kinds of activities made children’s “brains melt out of their ears.” Melodramatic, Mom.

But! I’m in the minority here. You guys totally like to relax with a cold beer and a few hours of Madden, am I right?

Yeah I am.

So! If you know anything about video games, you probably — hopefully — know about how insanely sexist the industry is. Really, it’s depressing.

Only about 21 percent of video game developers are women. Giant Bomb, the largest online video game database, exclusively employs white, straight men. And the characters in video games? They’re rarely, if ever, women — and when they are, they tend to be hypersexualized sidekicks with insane amounts of T&A.

On every level, from who designs the video games, to who distributes them, to who’s featured in them, the video game world sends one message loud and clear.

This is a place for men.

But the thing is, it’s not. Forty-eight percent of video game players are women. That’s nearly half. The world of video games is absolutely a place where women are hanging out, passing time, and spending money. Yet they’re almost unilaterally shut out of every aspect of the gaming world that reaches beyond their personal playing console.

Enter women like Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu. A feminist cultural critic and a video game developer, respectively, these women are two among a community of feminist gaming critics. They speak out against the sexism and misogyny that runs rampant in the video game industry, and on Wu’s part, she develops games that feature corporeally realistic and empowered female characters.

As a result, they both receive violent, sexualized death threats almost constantly. Because obviously, advocating for the video game industry not to be a weird club of circle-jerking white dudes is something that merits murder, right?

Apparently so. This week, those depressingly routine threats of violence reached such a fever pitch that Sarkeesian was forced to cancel a speaking engagement at Utah State University, and Wu was driven from her personal home.

What happened, exactly? We’ll start with Sarkeesian. She was scheduled to give a speech at Utah State University on Tuesday, but the day before, university administrators received an email threatening that a gun massacre would happen if they allowed the event to go on.

Now, keep in mind that bomb threats are par for the course when it comes to Sarkeesian’s speaking engagements. So she’s used to fearing for her life every time she steps out in public, as are the folks who choose to book her to speak at their establishments.

But this time was different. The dude who made this threat sent it out under a pseudonym referencing Marc Lépine, the Montréal shooter who killed 14 women and himself back in 1989. His email reads like something straight out of Elliot Rodger’s diary. And, most importantly, because of the concealed-carry laws in Utah, the folks at USU refused to prevent anyone from bringing a firearm into the event.

So, faced with the prospect of giving a speech to a crowded room full of concealed guns — one of which might be attached to the deranged misogynist who threatened to make sure that all the life-ruining feminists on campus were killed (he literally said that) — Sarkeesian made the obvious decision.

She canceled the event. The lack of security USU was offering left her with no other real choices.

She did.

And this Marc Lépine character isn’t alone. He’s part of a vast community called #GamerGate, which is essentially an online club of gamer boys who haven’t learned yet that girls don’t have cooties. But they aren’t little boys; they’re grown-ass men. And that means that they aren’t just taunting the girls on the playground; they’re threatening to rape and murder all the women in the gaming community who dare open their mouths.

This week, #GamerGate didn’t stop with Sarkeesian. They also attacked feminist game developer Brianna Wu. Frustrated by the boys’ club’s temper tantrums, Wu tweeted a meme poking fun at them.

This was just sent to me, a new meme called Oppressed Gamergater. Love it. http://t.co/Sp9sQPgLxQ pic.twitter.com/6UEWRgPGcn

— Imperator Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) October 9, 2014

The response?

The police just came by. Husband and I are going somewhere safe. Remember, #gamergate isn't about attacking women. pic.twitter.com/ZU6oEVxMGL

— Imperator Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) October 11, 2014

#GamerGate started battering Wu with crazy-train subtweets, threatening to anally rape her until she bled, castrate her husband and choke her to death with his severed penis, and murder all of her future children. Because they were going to grow up to be feminists anyway, so clearly that means they should die, right?

After the threatening Twitter creeps revealed her personal address, Wu was forced to leave her home.

Folks, this shit is batshit insane. The gaming world isn’t the only place where women — and feminist women, specifically — are targeted with a violence and vitriol that’s truly disturbing. Sexism is rampant in the tech industry in general. Just take a look at the wildly sexist (albeit nonviolent) comment Microsoft’s CEO made last week about closing the income gap.

But this week’s events have put the gaming community’s particular brand of misogyny in the spotlight. It’s seriously time this crap stopped.

The men of #GamerGate are threatening to kill women like Sarkeesian and Wu simply because they dare to speak and to work within their universe. They play video games. They make video games. They ask that video game companies hire more female developers and design games with more realistic and empowered female characters.

These are reasonable, nonviolent, nonthreatening requests. They’re only asking for women to be more positively represented in the gaming world.

And yet, somehow, that’s a goal that merits a sexually violent, vengeful death.

This shit’s unacceptable. People of the world — especially you, men of #GamerGate — stop treating the women in your worlds with violence and aggression. We have every right to be here and to demand respect. And if you can’t handle that, we’re kindly asking you to GTFO.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #GamerGate Takes Misogyny to a Whole New Level appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, a new Georgia gun law went into effect, despite 70 percent of Georgians disagreeing with the law. The law is officially called the Safe Carry Protection Act, but is better known as the “Guns Everywhere” law. Sadly, its nickname is only a slight exaggeration.

So what exactly is this new law, and what’s in it that’s so controversial? Well here are the highlights:

1)   Those who have a license to carry a concealed weapon can take guns into places of business including, restaurants and bars, although these businesses can technically opt out.

2)   School officials and appointed staff members can carry guns in schools and religious leaders can allow guns in their places’ of worship.

3)   Guns can be carried up until the security checkpoint in the airport.

4)   Guns can be carried into government buildings that do not have metal detectors, with the exception of the Georgia Capitol Building.

5)   No individual, including a police officer, can ask to see a person’s permit to carry unless they have cause.

Let’s walk through this incredibly far-reaching law’s many problems. First of all, restaurant and bar owners are very concerned about how this law will affect business. Many bar owners have come to the very logical conclusion that providing alcohol to someone who is carrying a gun is not a bright idea. But in order to opt out of this law, bar owners must place an official sign outside the restaurant saying guns are not allowed. This makes owners concerned that gun rights groups may protest their business if they ban guns. Alice Johnson, the director of Georgians for Gun Safety, says, “bar owners will be targeted for boycotts and all kinds of public relations problems.” She also believes that bars will face lawsuits for not allowing guns. Georgia’s bars are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can either serve people with guns alcohol, or risk losing business.

But my favorite logical fallacy of this law is the fact that you cannot ask to see a person’s permit to carry a concealed weapon without cause. This means a person must be doing something suspicious for even the police to demand to see a permit. I could go buy a gun and carry it around with me in Georgia and as long as I don’t do anything ridiculously stupid, like wave my gun in someone’s face, the police would not be able to ask for my permit to carry. This is effectively an “anyone can carry a concealed weapon if you aren’t a moron” law. Of course, if you are a moron or an actual dangerous person, by the time you commit said suspicious activity that will allow cause, the damage will most likely already be done. A man has already drawn his weapon in a shop after a fellow customer asked to see his permit.

There is so much more stupidity in this law that I could discuss, but I think you get the picture. So, I am going to move on the political aspects of this law. There is speculation that this bill was put to a vote to get Jason Carter, the Democratic challenger for governor, to vote against a gun rights bill. Carter did not take the bait, and voted with the overwhelming majority of the legislature to pass the bill. This meant that current Republican Governor Nathan Deal had to sign it, or appear to be less pro-gun than his Democratic challenger. The bill was voted down three times before it got passed, lending some credence to this theory. So there you have it, this new gun law may exist just because of a political game of chicken.

Seventy percent of Georgians being against a law that expands gun rights is almost unfathomable, unless of course, the law goes way too far. Let’s face it, that’s exactly what’s happening in Georgia right now.

—

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 [Boris van Hoytema 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 Guns Everywhere: New Law Takes Effect in Georgia 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.

What do churches, schools, and bars all have in common? Once a new law is signed in Georgia, you have the potential to legally carry guns in all of them. It’s known as the “Safe Carry Protection Act,” and a lot of people are talking about what it allows.

Among other things, it allows people to bring guns into government buildings, churches (if the congregation wants them), airports (not past security), and bars (should the owner allow it). Governor Nathan Deal hasn’t signed the bill yet, but most people expect him to do so without issue.

It also allows for officials to designate teachers or administrators at public and private schools to have weapons within school safety zones. According to the bill, local school boards would be responsible for deciding who within their districts are allowed to carry guns. Not law enforcement, not the state legislature but the school boards. How does that make sense?

The debate between whether or not expanding where people can carry guns has gone on for years, and will continue after this bill. But will this vast expansion help encourage dialogue about the topic, or polarize people against each other further?

Americans for Responsible Solutions, founded by Gabrielle Giffords, put out a video condemning the bill for allowing “guns everywhere.”

And the sentiments of Giffords and other pro-gun control groups seem to be reflective of the people in the state. One poll by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found 70% of voters disagreed with allowing guns on college campuses and in churches- two provisions some lawmakers hoped to include in this bill (lawmakers ultimately decided to not include guns on college campuses in the bill).

But politicians in Georgia obviously supported it. Governor Deal is up for re-election and has been endorsed by the NRA since 2010. As a Republican, maybe that isn’t so surprising. But consider the fact Deal’s Democratic opponent, Jason Carter (grandson of Jimmy), also voted for the bill. If the people of Georgia don’t agree with the ideas behind the bill, what’s the motivation?

Without being too cynical, the NRA, which lobbied for this specific bill to pass, and other pro-gun lobbies probably have a lot to do with it. There are also a lot of well-intentioned people who say that in the wakes of tragedies like Sandy Hook, we need more people with guns, not less. A consistent narrative relayed by pro-gun groups is that people who will register their guns and follow these laws aren’t the same people who shoot up schools.

But there is language in the bill that would restrict law enforcement for stopping people to check their gun permits: “A person carrying a weapon shall not be subject to detention for the sole purpose of investigating whether such person has a weapons carry license.”

So even if a police officer suspects someone has a weapon illegally, there’s no way to check in accordance with the law. Police will either have to pin an additional charge on the person they want to check, or just ignore the situation altogether. This seems to discount the argument that citizens shouldn’t worry since only law-abiding gun owners will carry them. If there isn’t a provision to discern between the two, how will anyone know the difference? What would stop someone from carrying a gun without a license  if they’re aware the police can’t check it anyone?

Creating legislation this broad in one fell swoop doesn’t seem like the best idea for pro-gun advocates. Often faced with criticisms of being too reactive and far-reaching, a bill like this doesn’t do much, if anything to change public sentiment on the issue. Just because the Georgia legislature had the votes to change all of these laws doesn’t mean that they should have. Instead, it could have started small, showing a dedication to ensuring the safest pro-gun options for the state rather than the broadest. Compromises and “baby steps” like this could have helped decrease the backlash the bill is now facing across the country.

[Bill Text] [NYT] [NRA] [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Wikimedia]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oh, Georgia: Potential Law Allows Guns [Almost] Everywhere 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.

Three-dimensional printing has become a new hot tech trend in recent years. 3-D printers build things through an additive process—building layer after layer of an item to make it solid. While commercial use is becoming more of a possibility, for the most part, engineers and designers usually use 3-D printing to create prototypes for significantly larger designs.

You can make pretty much anything with 3-D printers, including gun parts. There are groups are quite active in their attempt to print guns. A company based out of Texas called Defense Distributed, makes AR-15 lower receivers, which house most of the mechanics. At its most basic, the receiver is what makes a gun operate, and it is the part that can be illegal to sell. Other gun parts, such as barrels or handles, are not controlled, and be can be easily bought online. A lesser focus of the group is printing magazines and magazine clips for their manufactured guns. Defense Distributed’s mission statement is:

To defend the civil liberty of popular access to arms as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, through facilitating global access to, and the collaborative production of, information and knowledge related to the 3D printing of arms; and to publish and distribute, at no cost to the public, such information and knowledge in promotion of the public interest.

 3-D guns, or at least, gun parts, are most likely going to part of the future. Private citizens aren’t the only ones playing around with this kind of technology. The ATF has made and built a functioning 3-D gun nicknamed, “The Liberator.” This gun does not contain any metal parts or serial numbers.

In reality, the technology is still too new, and still too expensive for the everyday consumer. But last week, one city took action to try to limit potential future impact. Philadelphia’s city council passed a law last week banning anyone without a gun license from making or using a 3-D printed gun. The law passed unanimously, and has since been slammed as reactionary and preemptive. But one of the reasons for Philadelphia’s quick move is that a federal law that bans firearms that cannot be detected by a metal detector expires next month.

Technically this law will not be official until Philadelphia’s mayor, Mayor Michael Nutter, signs it. Other cities and states are considering similar legislation, such as New York, California, and Washington DC. The problem is that if these 3-D guns actually become popular and useful, this legislation will probably have fairly little effect. If 3-D printers become regular facets in consumer homes, which some advocates predict they will because of their ability to create many needed household items, producing your own gun could become incredibly easy. The plans for these guns or gun parts, once perfected, could be shared over the Internet as easily as pirating music.

This is another tricky intersection between law and technology. For once, it seems like the law may have overtaken the technology—critics are right in saying this law might be a bit preemptive. But this technology can still be incredibly dangerous once it is perfected, and a larger discussion on how to control the spread will be warranted.

—

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 [Keith Kissel 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 Need a Gun? Just Print One Out 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.

On Monday, September 16, 2013, I woke up to news that a mass shooting was taking place at the Washington Navy Yard, ten miles from my house.  It had been nine months since the last devastating mass shooting had taken place, in December 2012, and I came to the realization that I literally was unable to delve into the minutiae of this attack.  My heart couldn’t take the stress.  And for the first time in a long time, I stayed away from the news.  For three days, I neither watched nor read the papers, and knew nothing of the Navy Yard Shooting (because these events always get whittled down to two or three word titles: Columbine. Virginia Tech.  Tucson.  Aurora.  Sandy Hook.  Navy Yard. ________.  (This last example is for the inevitable next shooting that I end up writing about, since our members of Congress respect the NRA’s dollars more than they do our lives).

Today, Thursday September 19, 2013, I felt ignorant for not knowing the facts around this tragedy.  Here is an event that happened in the city where I was born and raised, in an area where many of my friends live, and I did not know the facts.  So today, I sat down and I read them.  Now I’m angry.

Today I learned that the shooter visited two Veterans Affairs Hospitals in two cities seeking help for mental distress.  Each time he sought assistance, he was told that there was not a problem that warranted official concern. For the record, this is absolutely not a condemnation of the mental health professionals who treated the shooter.  They likely followed the protocols to the letter, and were under constraints due to the restrictions Veterans Affairs’ Hospitals typically encounter.  I also learned that the shooter was given a clearance and entered the building using a properly-issued badge.  I learned that the same vetting company cleared both this shooter and the Fort Good gunman.  I learned that he entered the building with a backpack, went into a restroom, came out with a shotgun, and began firing.

I have a suggestion: a uniform procedure for entering government buildings.  There are some government buildings where a the presentation of a badge is the sole security measure.  In others, though, employees and visitors alike go through the same screening precautions.  Indeed, in the summer of 2011, I interned for the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan.  To get into the building, employees had to pass through the metal detector, even with our badges.  Similarly, when entering the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, my bag passed through a security machine every time I entered the building, whether for the first time that day or for lunch. Finally, when I interned for the White House, the security was as tight as one could imagine, no matter what type of badge you possessed.

Was it annoying? Sure.  Realistically, though, it always took less than five minutes.  I don’t know about you, but five minutes is worth my time.  Five minutes is certainly worth my life. If enhanced security is necessary for some government buildings, shouldn’t it be necessary for all?

I also watched a video from the Washington Post where a former Marine told viewers how to react in the event of a mass shooting.  At first I thought, “I will never need to watch this,” but then I realized that it’s probably more beneficial than not.  As a society, we have seen various former safe havens lose their place in our hearts, and come to the realization that we’re not safe anywhere: not in high school, not in college, not in super markets, not in parking lots, not in movie theaters, not in kindergarten, and now not at work.

So I took seven minutes out of my day (less than the time it would take to properly secure all government buildings) and I watched this video.  I felt like I owed it to myself, because every few months we have our sense of safety eroded.  I wanted to learn how to protect myself in the event of danger.

Our workplaces are dangerous.  Our schools are dangerous.  Supermarkets are dangerous and movie theaters are dangers.  What’s left?

Don’t worry, though: the minute news broke that there was a shooter at the Navy Yard, security was increased at the Capitol, and all House and Senate buildings were locked down.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Tim Evanson 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 Now It’s the Navy Yard – What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.