On July 23, Washington will become the first state in the country to establish a system that notifies domestic abuse victims when their abuser illegally attempts to buy a gun.

The law orders the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) to establish a grant program to “create and operate a statewide system to automatically notify a registered person when a respondent subject to a court order has been denied the purchase of a firearm based on ineligibility.”

The grant program would also allow local agencies to “conduct criminal investigations of persons who illegally attempted to purchase or transfer a firearm within their jurisdictions.”

The law’s two-pronged approach is meant to close existing legal loopholes, which critics say allow potentially dangerous individuals to attempt to buy guns, lie on background checks, and get away with it.

“This will not just keep guns out of the hands of those who are not eligible to have them, but keep the public and our law enforcement officers safe,” Washington Governor Jay Inslee said when he signed the bill in May.

Tamaso Johnson, the Public Policy Director for the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence told Law Street Media that the group worked closely with legislators and other stakeholders on this bill.

“Giving survivors of domestic violence the option to be notified if an abuser attempts to illegally purchase a gun allows them to more accurately plan for their own safety and the safety of those closest to them,” Johnson said.

How the system works

When an individual who is convicted of a misdemeanor for domestic violence or subject to a restraining order for domestic abuse fails the background check required to purchase a gun, the vendor will have five days to report the incident to the WASPC.

The WASPC will then report the incident to the Washington State Patrol, which will officially record it in a database, allowing for local authorities to investigate. Meanwhile, under the bill, the WASPC will also have to send out an alert to victims and loved ones associated with the individual.

The bill states that a person needs to easily be able “to register or update his or her registration information by calling a toll-free phone number or by accessing a public website.” People who choose to be alerted can elect to receive a notification by email or by phone.

A landmark bill

This bill received a lot of support from both Democrats and Republicans as it seeks to address a wide-spread issue in Washington. According to a local investigation by KING5TV Seattle, 3,000 “lie and try” attempts occurred in 2016 and were never investigated.

“If you’re a criminal and you walk into a firearms store, you knowingly violate the law by illegally trying to purchase a firearm, you should be arrested, you should be prosecuted and in an appropriate case you should spend some time in prison,” said Democrat Drew Hansen, the primary sponsor of the bill.

The National Rifle Association isn’t necessarily opposed to the effort, although it remains wary of the potential for erroneous entries into the database, as can occur when identities are mistaken and a background check is run.

Though it is limited to the state, this bill also represents a big step toward addressing the huge problem of domestic violence in the United States. A study conducted by the Center for American Progress concluded that between 2001 and 2012, 6,410 women were “murdered in the U.S. 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.”

Paula Harwood testified in support of the bill before it was passed. She shared the fear she felt when she learned that her abusive ex-husband had attempted to buy a gun, despite the fact that she had obtained a protection order against him. She said she only found out about the incident through a reporter who had been investigating the background check law.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Washington Will Notify Victims When Domestic Abusers Try to Buy Guns appeared first on Law Street.

Apple may have just picked a side in the country’s gun debate with the help of a new emoji roll out that includes a playful alternative for one “loaded” character. The tech company announced Monday that it will be replacing its popular pistol emoji with a squirt gun in its upcoming iOS 10 update.

The new green water gun, which comes equipped with the real toy’s signature orange cap and plastic trigger, will be introduced along with more than 100 new and revamped emojis that aim to make the company more diverse and inclusionary. Other emojis include more family options, a rainbow flag, more icons depicting people of color, as well as new female athletes and professionals in stereotypically male roles.

Apple’s new emojis show women working and men getting pampered https://t.co/cy7jb7l2S4 pic.twitter.com/gxI8mIBnwM

— Fortune (@FortuneMagazine) August 2, 2016

The decision comes after the advocacy group New Yorkers Against Gun Violence started a campaign last year called #DisarmTheiPhone, in which it asks Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, to remove the gun emoji from all Apple products.

In an open letter to Apple Inc., the group writes:

We realized that many Americans unknowingly carry a gun with them every day. The one that was given to them without a background check: the gun emoji.

We ask that you stand with the American people and remove the gun emoji from all your products as a symbolic gesture to limit gun accessibility. We understand taking the emoji out will not end gun violence, but this act will show Congress that gun-owning and non-owning Americans have come together to demand required background checks for ALL gun sales.

According to CNN, Microsoft has already replaced their pistol emoji with a toy gun, but Google, Samsung, Facebook, and Twitter all still have gun emojis.

In June, Unicode–the governing body in charge of selecting and overseeing emojis–nixed plans to incorporate a rifle emoji with a set of Olympic-themed characters, after Apple spoke out against the proposal.

While Apple did not directly address the squirt gun emoji or the pistol replacement in its press release Monday, it did write that it is “working closely with the Unicode Consortium to ensure that popular emoji characters reflect the diversity of people everywhere.”

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 Did Apple Just Enter the Gun Control Debate With its New Emoji? 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.

It’s the end of the week, which means its time to relax and reflect on all the stupid things people have done this week. Specifically, some fantastically odd arrests. Check out the slideshow below:

An Unexpected Getaway Car

Image courtesy of Eric Eggertson via Flickr

A still-unidentified woman was arrested after shoplifting at a Rochester, New York mall. But it was her transportation to and from the mall that makes the arrest newsworthy. She took a limo to the mall, allegedly stole about $300 in merchandise, then called the limo to come pick her up again. Police picked her up too.

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 Weird Arrests of the Week 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.

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.

Church members of the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina gathered together on Wednesday evening for their weekly prayer meeting. No one would have ever predicted the horrific events that took place later that night when a visitor came into the church and changed many people’s lives forever.

The evening seemed to be going as normal, like every other week. About an hour into the meeting, a man who was sitting in the church the whole time and mingling with others suddenly pulled out a weapon and began to fire, leaving nine people dead. The Pastor of the church and South Carolina state senator Clementa Pinckney, 41, was killed during the shooting. Pinckney was also one of the black community’s spokesmen after the slaying of an unarmed man, Walter Scott, by a North Charleston police officer earlier this year.

The suspect has been identified as Dylann Storm Roof, a 21-year-old white male. He was seen on the church’s surveillance camera and then found on facebook. His Facebook page also carries a photo of him wearing a jacket with patches of the racist-era flags of South Africa and Rhodesia.

Have you seen Dylann Roof? @FBI confirms 21-year-old as #CharlestonShooting suspect. http://t.co/3ijYaNanPM #chsnews pic.twitter.com/6blL5HGMLX

— The Post and Courier (@postandcourier) June 18, 2015

After the shooting Roof escaped onto the streets of the city’s historic downtown, an area normally overflowing with tourists. According to CBS News police have just brought the suspect into custody this afternoon after finding him in Shelby, North Carolina.

There were 13 people inside the church when the shooting happened–the shooter, the nine people who were killed, and three survivors, according to South Carolina state senator Larry Grooms as told to CNN. Two of the survivors were not harmed. A five-year-old girl reportedly survived the attack by following her grandmother’s instructions to play dead.

Charleston NAACP President Dot Scott told CNN that a woman who survived says Roof told her he was letting her live so that she could tell people what happened. Scott said she heard this from the victims’ family members.

I did not hear this verbatim from the almost victim, I heard it from at least half a dozen other folks that were there and family of the victims. There seems to be no question that this is what the shooter said.

After the shooting 50 or more church and community members gathered together at the Embassy Suites hotel near the church to pray. Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen vowed that they were committed to finding the gunman. He also said,

This is a tragedy that no community should have to experience. It is senseless and unfathomable in today’s society that someone would walk into a church during a prayer meeting and take their lives.

“The only reason someone would walk into a church and shoot people that were praying is hate,” Charleston Mayor Joe Riley said. Events such as these terrify and anger people around the world. Community organizer Christopher Cason told the Associated Press that he felt certain the shootings were racially motivated. “I am very tired of people telling me that I don’t have the right to be angry,” Cason said. “I am very angry right now.”

Cason feels just as many other people do. The hashtags #CharlestonShooting and #PrayersForCharleston have begun trending on Twitter, as tweeters express how they feel about this awful incident.

No words. On our knees with you. #PrayersForCharleston

— Jennie Allen (@JennieAllen) June 18, 2015

Make no mistake, this was terrorism, this was mass murder, this was driven by racial hatred. This is American history. #CharlestonShooting

— . (@Bhattousai) June 18, 2015

if it was black, he’d be a thug if it was a muslim, he’d be terrorist but bc he’s a white gunmen, he’s excused w illness #CharlestonShooting

— semi hiatus julianne (@djagonalley) June 18, 2015

It is evident that everyone is disgusted by this tragedy. I am truly saddened that we are living in a time where there are constantly killings or disturbing incidents happening due to someone’s race. Church is a safe haven for many, and now countless people will worry about their safety every time they step into one. President Obama delivered a statement today about the Charleston shooting on CNN stating, “It is in our power to do something about it.” I hope that people will take what he said and truly realize that we have the power to change our community and change our country.

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 Developing: Shooter Arrested in Charleston Church Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

It looks like a toy, resembling a large ping pong ball, but this bright orange device is actually the newest “less lethal” ammunition option for police in pressure situations. Developed by a company out of California called Alternative Ballistics, The Alternative is marketed as an easily accessible attachment for police officers to use that doesn’t actually penetrate its target, only stalls it.

This week, five Ferguson, Missouri police officers will begin to train using the device, with the department planning to introduce it to its entire force of 55 officers.

Ferguson police first in U.S. to test new ‘less-lethal’ bullet called “the Alternative” http://t.co/e27NlZ9mmm

— Kirsten Danis (@kirstendanis) February 4, 2015

This “less lethal” option would allow police in situations where lethal force is already presumably justified to cause their target serious pain with less internal injury. In seconds the device can be mounted on the top of the gun without any obstruction to the sight of its operator. According to the company’s website:

Once the weapon is fired, the bullet embeds itself inside the projectile with no chance of escaping, simultaneously transferring the bullet’s energy, propelling it directly at the target. Once the bullet is fired from the gun into the projectile they permanently become one unit. The docking unit will automatically eject from the weapon and the firearm returns to its normal function before it cycles in a new round.

Since the gun returns to its normal functionality after the one-time round is released, officers can still use their weapons for lethal force if necessary.

You can watch a video of The Alternative in action below.

The main point of The Alternative is that it gives its user a choice. A choice that may have come in handy in the controversial shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager who was fatally shot by a white police officer. Brown is just one of several victims who has thrust American police procedures under a microscope.This is likely the reason why the Ferguson Police Department is the first in the U.S. to test the $45-per-unit device.

According to the Washington Post, Al Eickhoff, assistant chief of the Ferguson police, had begun researching less lethal options about a month after Brown’s fatal shooting by now-former Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson on August 9, 2014.

But is this a viable option? Those seconds it takes for an officer to pull the device out from a side holster and place it on the barrel of a gun could be life threatening. Steve Ijames, a former Springfield, Missouri police major and training expert thinks that may be the case, telling the Post:

I am all about less lethal. What bothers me is we will allow an officer to face immediate deadly jeopardy with a less-lethal round. Deadly force is the most likely thing to repel deadly force.

The Alternative is hardly the only non-lethal option on the market. Officers have an arsenal of weapons such as tasers, bean bag-loaded shotguns, pepper-filled pellets, rubber-coated bullets, and stun grenades from which to choose. But if this ping pong-looking pellet takes off, it could end up being a favorite.

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 Ferguson Police Testing “Less Lethal” Bullet Alternative appeared first on Law Street.

The rate of “active shooter” incidents has been increasing since 2000, according to a new study from the FBI in conjunction with researchers at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center. The study identified 160 incidents occurring between 2000 and 2013, and concluded that there were over twice as many of these shootings in the second half of that period as there were in the first.

In total, these incidents caused over 1,000 casualties — which the FBI classifies as both injury and death — leaving 557 injured and 486 dead, not including the shooters themselves. Among the study’s many important conclusions is the finding that police officers are often not able to respond in time, making civilian response extremely important.

Researchers found an average of six active shooter situations per year between 2000 and 2006. That rate increased to over 16 in the second half of the years studied. The number of casualties – including both injuries and deaths– increased from an average of 35 per year in the first half of the study to 113 in the second.

It is important to note that active shooter situations are not the same as mass shootings. The agreed upon definition of an active shooter is “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area,” though the FBI expanded it slightly for its research. In contrast to this definition, a mass shooting is an incident where a shooter kills three or more people.

Of the 160 total cases identified by researchers, 64 incidents or 40 percent would be classified as mass shootings. The distinction between “mass” and “active” shooter situations is small, but very important, as a person can be an active shooter without directly causing injury. Even the Wall Street Journal conflated the two, as the title of its coverage is “Mass Shootings on the Rise, FBI Says.”

James Alan Fox, a professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University, cautioned against the conclusion that mass shootings are increasing. In an interview with Time he said, “A majority of active shooters are not mass shooters… A majority kill fewer than three.” Fox went on to say that, if the study focused specifically on mass shootings it might not reveal an increase. Instead, he contends that the number of mass shootings have remained relatively steady since the 1970s.

Implications for Law Enforcement

While the findings about the rate of active shooter situations are important, the report’s primary purpose was to take a closer look at these incidents and their trends to see how law enforcement can better respond. The focus on active, rather than mass shooters is based on the underlying implication that the situation is in progress, meaning that law enforcement and bystanders may be able to influence the outcome.

One major finding about these situations is that they often end very quickly. In the 64 incidents where a duration could be determined, 44 ended in five minutes or less and 23 of those finished in just two minutes or less.

Equally important is the specific ways in which these incidents end:

 “At least 107 (66.9%) ended before police arrived and could engage the shooter, either because a citizen intervened, the shooter fled, or the shooter committed suicide or was killed by someone at the scene.”

-FBI’s Active Shooter Study

Additionally, over half of the situations (56%) ended on the shooter’s accord; the shooter either committed suicide, stopped shooting, or ran away. Also important is the fact that 21 incidents (13.1%) ended when unarmed citizens intervened, only two of which involved off duty law enforcement. Armed citizens were only involved in five incidents, four of which ended after armed security guards intervened, and only one ended after an armed civilian bystander engaged the shooter.

Also important is the location of these shootings. The three places with the highest rate of active shooter incidents are commercial areas (45.6%), educational environments (24.4%), and government properties (10%).

The study’s findings indicate that law enforcement may have a limited ability to respond to active shooters, as they typically end very quickly and before officers can arrive. However, they may also emphasize the importance of prevention and response training for citizens. Prevention remains the most important strategy for dealing with this problem, but the FBI’s recent emphasis on training may also help reduce the danger posed by shooters.

Featured image courtesy of [North Carolina National Guard via Flickr]

—-

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured image courtesy of [North Carolina National Guard/TSgt Richard Kerner, NCNG Public Affairs, 145th Airlift Wing via Flickr]

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 New FBI Report: Active Shooter Incidents on the Rise appeared first on Law Street.

The strange, long, and twisted tale that was the death of Reeva Steenkamp, girlfriend of Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius, has started to reach its close. Pistorius was found guilty of culpable homicide in the Steenkamp case.

Oscar Pistorius is a South American athlete who made history by being the first double amputee in the Olympic Games, and has an incredibly impressive Paralympics resume.

But on the morning of February 14, 2013, that all changed. Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp through the locked bathroom door. She was a South African model, and the pair had been dating for three months. Pistorius admitted from the beginning that he had shot her, but claimed that he had thought that she was an intruder.

The facts that came out during the subsequent trial were dark. In addition to the being put on trial for killing Steenkamp, Pistorius also faced two charges for illegal handling of his firearms, and a fourth charge for illegal possession of some of the ammunition that was found in his home after Steenkamp was killed.

During the trial, a break was taken so that Pistorius could be evaluated by doctors and receive a psychiatric evaluation. He has been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder, which was used by the defense to explain his concern about an intruder in his home on the morning of February 14. Merryll Vorster, a forensic psychiatrist who testified during the trial, explained that Pistorious’ anxiety disorder was most likely why he always slept with a firearm under his pillow. Vorster also explained that Pistorius did not have his prosthetics on when he shot at the door, indicating that a fight mechanism may have been ignited in Pistorious — he literally could not flee.

Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa stated on Thursday that Pistorius was not going to be found guilty of murder, but left the other charges for Friday.

The culpable homicide verdict, announced Friday, translated into American justice system terms, essentially means that he was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. He acted negligently when he shot four shots through his closed door without knowing who or what was on the other side. He won’t actually be sentenced until next month, and what his sentence will actually end up being has a huge range. He could serve up to fifteen years in prison, or a sentence that is significantly shorter. Judge Masipa has received significant criticism for her ruling.

Given that no one will really ever know what happened in Pistorius’ house that fated Valentine’s Day morning, the verdict is understandable. Yet there is still a lot of backlash from those who believe it’s not quite enough. And Pistorious’ actions after receiving the verdict don’t do too much to help him. He has said that he’s going to write a book to tell his side of the story, and the South African Olympic Committee has said he is free to run again once he finishes his sentence.

However, the good thing about these much-watched celebrity trials is that occasionally they are high-profile enough to create a national conversation. As Steenkamp’s father put it:

This case in a very strange way has opened a window into people’s lives in South Africa, the way they feel they need to defend themselves with extreme force. People need to think about this.

The story was disturbing, the trial concerning, and the death of Steenkamp incredibly tragic. Yet trials like this do have the opportunity to say something for a nation; hopefully South Africa is listening.

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 Pistorius Verdict Opens Dialogue About Defense, But is South Africa Listening? 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.

There’s something called a smart gun. If you’ve never heard of it, that doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve never actually heard of them either. It’s essentially a gun that corresponds to an owner, and won’t fire unless it is appropriately activated. Right now, that mostly means that the gun needs to be within a few feet of a watch or ring that activates it, or some sort of other sensor. In the future, it may mean guns that are activated by retinal or fingerprint scan. For that reason, they’re sometimes called personalized guns too.

Either way, it provides an option for added security. It mostly keeps a gun from being stolen and used, unless the sensor is stolen, too. When it comes to the guns that involve a scan, those obviously could not be stolen and used, or used by a child or someone else in the home. It would prevent those tragic stories we see so often where a young child gets a hold of his parents’ gun and shoots himself or a family member. It also would be harder to sell those types of gun illegally, because of the transfer of identification required. So to me it seems like this is a pretty awesome idea.

New Jersey legislators thought the same thing. They actually passed a law in 2003 that as soon as a viable personalized/smart gun got onto the market and was sold somewhere in the US, within three years, all guns sold in New Jersey would have to be smart guns. Essentially New Jersey wanted to make this awesome technology mandatory as soon as possible — the three-year buffer would give gun sellers the time to make the switch and make sure that all the kinks have been worked out.

So once a smart gun is sold somewhere, that three-year countdown starts. And the crazy lunatics who don’t like this technology have been trying to put off the clock for a while now. It hasn’t been a problem though, because while these guns do exist in Europe, they hadn’t quite made it to the U.S. yet. And why not? Well because anytime anyone tries, the NRA and other gun groups block it.

But meet Andy Raymond, a gun shop owner in Maryland. He announced a few weeks ago that he was going to start selling the Armatix iP1 smart gun. It doesn’t fire unless it’s within 10 inches of a corresponding watch.

But as soon as Raymond made this announcement, he, his girlfriend, and even his dog started to get death threats. Because that’s super reasonable.

Raymond is just the latest example in a long history of incredibly harsh opposition to smart guns. When the CEO of Colt wrote an op-ed supporting smart guns in the late 90s, he lost his job a short while later, probably in part because of his controversial opinions. Other gun shop owners have reported similar incidences of harassment if they tried to sell smart guns.

The argument against the guns is usually that they are by necessity too clunky — if you need to make sure that it reads your fingerprints, you might have a hard time dealing with an intruder quickly. Some crazies have also posited the conspiracy theory that the added technology in the guns could lead to the government being able to shut them off or track the people who owned them.

The New Jersey law was probably a bit preemptive — three years isn’t a lot of time to change over the entire type of gun bring sold in a state. It seems like the best approach may have been to give people the option with what kind of gun they wanted to buy, at least at first. But still, this rabid hatred for a gun that would most likely make our world safer is ridiculous. Gun advocates and the NRA need a very serious reality check.

—

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 [Michael Saechang 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 Keep Your Hands Off My Smart Gun appeared first on Law Street.