ICYMI, Maryland became the first state to pass laws protecting Planned Parenthood. For that story and other trending news, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

How Did We Get Here? A Brief History of Cannabis Legalization in Colorado

Legalized cannabis. From California’s Proposition 215 in 1996 to West Virginia’s SB 386 in 2017, legalized cannabis is becoming the norm. And in Colorado, legalized cannabis is almost old news. But how did we get here? A mix of timing, trailblazers, economics, and politics.

NRA Video Sparks Reactions from Both Supporters and Opponents

The National Rifle Association (NRA) released a video on Thursday imploring its followers to stock up on firearms and “fight back” against liberals. But many Americans were horrified by the inflammatory message, fearing that it could spark violence. The lobbying group’s video claims that liberal Americans are indoctrinating children, “assassinating [the] real news,” and using Hollywood celebrities to further their narrative. Titled “The Violence of Lies,” the video claims that when police stop the demonstrators from protesting they will be accused of police brutality.

Maryland Becomes First State to Pass Law Protecting Planned Parenthood Funding

Maryland is officially the first state with a law in place to protect funding for Planned Parenthood. The Maryland General Assembly passed a law in April ensuring the organization’s continuity; the law went into effect on July 1. SB 1081 establishes the Family Planning Program in the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and provides that Maryland will pay for Planned Parenthood’s health care services in the state if Congress cuts off funding for the organization. The bill, which was backed by a veto-proof majority in Maryland’s House of Delegates and Senate, became law without Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s signature.

Alexis Evans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Montel Williams (@Montel_Williams) June 29, 2017

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

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

Josh Schmidt

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

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

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

Lead on Federal Lands

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

Consumer Protection

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

Clean Water Rule

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

Gun Control

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

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

Emissions Standards

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

In a 10-4 decision on Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, concluding that military-style weapons are not protected under the Second Amendment.

“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” wrote Judge Robert King, who noted that the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller excluded coverage of assault weapons.

The decision overturned a previous ruling that found Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013 unconstitutional because the weapons “are in common use by law-abiding citizens,” and therefore don’t fall under the exception that applies to “unusual” weapons–i.e. machine guns and hand grenades.

The law, which was introduced by Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, prohibits the sale, possession, transfer, or purchase of 45 kinds of assault rifles and places a 10-round limit on detachable gun magazines.

In a scathing dissent, Judge William B. Traxler wrote that his colleagues did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.

“[The majority] has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms,” wrote Traxler.

King, however, pointed out that the same kinds of weapons were used in the shootings in Aurora, San Bernardino, and Orlando, adding that the names of those places “have become synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there.”

The decision is considered to be a major victory for gun safety advocates, but a serious setback for gun proponents who believe their right to bear arms should not be limited.

According to NBC News, the NRA estimates there are somewhere between 5 million to 10 million AR-15s–one of the banned weapons under Maryland’s law–in circulation in the United States for lawful purposes.

“It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected ‘arm’ under the Second Amendment,” said National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker. She added that the majority opinion “clearly ignores the Supreme Court’s guidance from District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects arms that are ‘in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.'”

The plaintiffs could appeal to the Supreme Court, but Frosh says he’s confident that the law will stand.

“It’s a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it’s en-banc and for the strength of its decision,” Frosh said, noting that all of the court’s judges participated.

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 Federal Court Rules Assault Rifles Aren’t Protected by Second Amendment appeared first on Law Street.

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

Meet Henry Lee, the ‘Rosa Parks’ of Charlotte, N.C.

He’s being called the ‘calmest man in Charlotte.’ After a new wave of protests broke out last night over the death of Keith Scott, a picture taken by a Guardian reporter of 51-year-old Henry Lee surfaced online.

The calmest man in Charlotte is protester Henry Lee, 51, who silently refuses to leave his chair. pic.twitter.com/8abgzPwoDZ

— Matthew Teague (@MatthewTeague) September 22, 2016

As rioters raged violently, Lee sat in this chair and refused to move–his own version of dissent. Some Twitter observers are cheering him on, while others question whether this is actually an effective way to protest.

I never put my political imput on social media but this image is so powerful. This is protest, this is peace but not all will sit silent. https://t.co/8aabU17wUF

— Mind of Sol (@Mindofsol) September 22, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 22, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ashlee Smith

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

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

For the second time since 2015, West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) vetoed a proposal to allow people 21 and older to carry hidden guns without permits or training.

The West Virginia House voted 64-33 less than 24 hours after the governor’s decision to override the bill. It then went to the Senate, where in a 23-11 vote Saturday, the Senate voted to override the veto as well.

Permitless concealed carry coming to West Virginia after legislature overrides governor’s veto https://t.co/sJ118RaOgu

— The Washington Times (@wtimesnation) March 7, 2016

The law will go into effect in 90 days.

House Bill 4145 will get rid of the state’s current permit and training program for citizens carrying concealed weapons in West Virginia for anyone 21 and older. However, permits will still be required for those between 18-21.

According to the bill, it “establish[es] that criminal penalties for carrying a concealed deadly weapon without state license or other lawful authorization apply only to persons under twenty-one years of age and prohibited persons.”

Those excluded from the rule include those with diagnosed substance-abuse problems, multiple alcohol-related driving infractions, alcohol addiction, or serious criminal records.

Gov. Tomblin released this statement after his veto:

West Virginia’s law enforcement officers have dedicated their lives to keeping us safe and helping us in times of need, and it’s disheartening that the members of the Legislature have chosen not to stand with these brave men and women – putting their safety and the safety of West Virginians at risk. It’s unfortunate that the concerns of officers from every law enforcement branch in the state, including the West Virginia State Police and university campus police officers, have been ignored by today’s action.

What made this veto different than the previous one in 2015 is that the legislature had more time in order to override the governor’s decision. In West Virginia, it only takes a simple majority to override vetoes, thus making it easier with ample time.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) asked the legislature to reconsider swiftly following the governor’s decision.

It is already legal in West Virginia to carry a gun openly, like in a holster, without a permit. This bill will just make concealed weapon carry legal without a permit for citizens over 21.

Citizens ages 18-20 would need to participate in a training program involving live firing in order to get a permit.

There are a handful of other states that do not require permits.

According to The Washington Post, “Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Wyoming and Vermont don’t require a permit at all for concealed carry in public. Vermont has never had such a requirement; Alaska went permit-free in 2003; Arizona in 2010; Wyoming in 2011 (limited to residents); and Arkansas in 2013.”

Some of these programs do away with background checks, which are highly favored by Americans.

In a Quinnipiac poll released in 2014, it found that 92 percent of Americans surveyed favored background checks for all gun buyers. In 2013 the number was 89 percent.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post West Virginia Legislature Overrides Veto Allowing Permitless Concealed Carry appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

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.

If we don’t do something soon, elephants may be extinct within our lifetime. Both the demand and price for black-market ivory is way up, leading to high poaching activity. With the exception of China, the United States has the highest demand for black-market ivory in the world, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) is fighting to make it easier for black-market ivory to come into the United States.

Let’s start at the beginning: ivory has always been a coveted material. Ivory is popular in China, where it’s often used for ornaments and ground up for use in traditional medicines. When China began implementing legal mechanisms to trade and sell ivory, the black-market prices shot up. In the last few years, the black-market ivory price has ranged from $100-$150 a pound. In some parts of China, good quality ivory can be sold for almost $1,500 a pound. The bigger and older an elephant is, the more ivory it will provide. Elephants in Central Africa are particularly vulnerable, given that they are less protected by the governments in those countries.

Researchers have estimated that if poaching activities are not stopped soon, African elephants will become extinct. According to the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, more than 100,000 African elephants have been killed in the last three years. Between 2010 and 2013, Africa lost roughly seven percent of its elephant population each year. Now, poachers account for 65 percent of elephant deaths, whereas just ten years ago they accounted for only a quarter. All of this means that elephant deaths are happening at a significantly higher rater than new births; experts estimate that if we don’t do something to stem poaching, these elephants could be extinct in about 100 years.

The U.S. has, admirably, taken some steps to try to slow the influx of poached ivory. The Obama Administration came up with a “National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking,” and the Fish and Wildlife Foundation suspended the import of African elephant trophies from countries where poaching is common. The focus was particularly on Zimbabwe and Tanzania; a press release created by the Fish and Wildlife Foundation read: 

Questionable management practices, a lack of effective law enforcement, and weak governance have resulted in uncontrolled poaching and catastrophic population declines of African elephants in Tanzania. In Zimbabwe [there has been] a significant decline in the elephant population. Anecdotal evidence, such as the widely publicized poisoning last year of 300 elephants in Hwange National Park, suggests that Zimbabwe’s elephants are also under siege.

The Fish and Wildlife Foundation has also recently destroyed ivory shipments that it found to break the law.

The NRA has a big, big problem with all of this. It claims that this will restrict the sales of even legally-obtained ivory. Its main concern appears to be that ivory was a main component in the construction of some antique guns. While not many guns were made with ivory, some that have been very popular among collectors were. So, the NRA argues that the stricter ivory laws will criminalize collectors who are just trying to sell and trade those antique guns. There are also sometimes new guns made with antique ivory, to mimic the older styles. The NRA’s argument is that the ban on ivory steps on the Second Amendment rights of those who want to purchase or own such antique guns.

Frankly, it’s a pretty weak argument. The idea of the law is to stop illegal elephant ivory poachers, not hamper Second Amendment rights. There are, however, plenty of NRA members who have been involved with legal elephant killings in Africa. Many African nations allow hunters with permits to shoot elephants. About 1,000 of those permits go to American citizens each year. I bet you a few bucks that at least a few of those thousand permits are given to hunters who have some affiliation with the NRA. And if those hunters were in Tanzania or Zimbabwe, they’d have serious problems bringing their trophies back. While neither argument is particularly good, it’s clear that there are multiple possible motives for the NRA to oppose these kinds of laws. Hopefully that doesn’t hamper the attempts to stop elephant poaching, but the way things are looking, the African elephant population is in real trouble.

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 Elephant Ivory Poachers May Have a New Friend in the NRA appeared first on Law Street.

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

Gun Rights and the Constitution 

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

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

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

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

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

Gun Rights and Crime 

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

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

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

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Sean Savage via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

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

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

Since the shootings at the University of California Santa Barbara carried out by Elliot Rodgers, the internet has been pretty much inundated with opinions on what happened to make a young man go on such a vicious rampage. The hashtag #yesallwomen was born, and I’ve spent a decent amount of time reading the responses, realizing that I can relate to many. News outlets, conservative and liberal alike, have responded to the tragedy, positing their theories for why it happened or what to do next. We’ve even had substantial chatter here at Law Street, including from our new blogger Allison Dawson who talked about it in her excellent post “The Shooter Alone is to Blame for Santa Barbara Slayings.”

I don’t want to discuss this tragic event, because in the past three days I’ve read dozens of different takedowns, analyses, and examinations of the event and I, quite frankly, don’t feel like I have anything else to add. And no matter what we blame it on, and my personal feelings aside, we’ll never be able to figure out exactly why it happened. It’s probably some combination of all the different root causes that analysts have mentioned — but it’s not going to bring back the people that Rodgers murdered.

Now I’ve always been a supporter of substantive online discussion. A few months back I wrote about the power of hashtag discussions, and I stand by the fact that they can add real value to our cultural and societal discourse. But part of me also feels really sad, because as great as the discussion has been, I’ve seen it all before. Every single time something like this happens, we talk about it, we dig into societal concerns and gun laws, and then nothing ends up changing.

I love words, but actions speak louder. And we need to start taking action. I don’t want to politicize the issue because it was a genuine tragedy and those who lost loved ones deserve their time to grieve. But it’s already been politicized over and over and over again because this is all anyone will talk about. For god’s sake the politically irrelevant dusty relic that is “Joe the Plumber” has chimed in, telling parents of the victims that “your dead kids don’t trump my constitutional rights.” Great.

So now that this discussion (and hashtag) has been talked to death and there’s really nothing left to say, I am going to tell you all in a vaguely hypocritical fashion, that I think we need to all shut the hell up unless we’re going to do something about it.

I don’t care what you do about it. Go with whatever theory you have for why you think that tragedies like this happen and do something.

So if you think it’s about misogyny and cultural problems, fine, understandable. Go raise your sons to be better than some of the men of this generation. Open up discussions with the men in your life. Teach women to stand up for themselves.

If you think it’s a mental health issue, encourage more investment into mental health services at your university or at your child’s school. Fight to end the stigma of talking about mental health issues.

Or guns, If you think it’s about guns, lobby for stricter regulations. Encourage the development of technologies that make guns safer. Vote for candidates who attempt to implement legislation restricting gun access.

I don’t care what you do. I don’t care why you think this happened. But I’m begging you, do one of these things or come up with your own. I already did mine. I just donated a few dollars to a candidate whose views on this whole issue I support. And I know politicians aren’t going to solve all problems and probably will barely make a dent. But at least I’m taking an action I can believe in. And I want you to all do it with me, no matter how big or small it is.

I’m tired of being scared that I will someday senselessly be targeted by someone like Elliot Rodgers. It seems like every other week there are mass shootings, or attempted mass shootings. And I don’t care what we do to fix it, I don’t care if my theories about what happened are vindicated or not. I would just like it to stop.

—

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 [Ryosuke Yagi 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 It’s Time to Stop Talking About Gun Violence and Do Something appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

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

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

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.

The NRA Convention happened last weekend, folks! And you know what that means.

LOTS of ridiculousness for us to talk about.

Specifically, the ridiculousness that Sarah Palin was spewing. When she addressed the cheering crowd of gun enthusiasts, she made a wildly offensive comment equating torture with Christian indoctrination.

“They obviously have information on plots to carry out jihad. Oh, but you can’t offend them. You can’t make them feel uncomfortable. Not even a smidgen. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

Oh sure, Sarah, that’s great. Let’s torture people and call it baptism. Because that’s not problematic AT ALL.

A lot of people, conservatives included, are pretty scandalized by this latest sound bite from the Conservative Queen of Ridiculous Sound Bites. She’s talked nonsense about President Obama being a socialist, plotting to plunge the U.S. into a quagmire of evil Communism. She’s said some weird and totally untrue things about death panels being a part of the Affordable Care Act. Not to mention, she’s been unable to pinpoint any specific news publications that she reads, or to be completely in control of the English language — “refudiate” and “misunderestimate” are cases in point.

But! Despite the fact that we should all be totally used to Sarah Palin spewing nonsense, she really outdid herself this time.

Even Lucy is shocked.

Let’s start with the most glaring and obvious issue here — Palin is talking about TORTURE. This isn’t an enhanced interrogation method. This isn’t even fucking legal.

Waterboarding is torture.

And she’s talking about it pretty fucking brazenly. She’s blasé about it, really. Palin talks about torturing people with the same folksy, nonchalant charm that won her a spot on the presidential ticket back in 2008. She could be talking about her kid’s hockey game, for cryin’ out loud.

But she’s not. She’s talking about subjecting human beings to the experience of simulated drowning.

And that’s really disturbing. When a person can talk about torturing other people with such ease, it makes you wonder what they’re really capable of. And I’m not the only one who’s wondering.

The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf brings up an important point—what happens if the wrong Republican gets elected? Will the United States revert back to its Bush Era, barbaric ways? Will torture become the norm once again? What else will become the norm?

Potentially, a lot of scary things. Keep in mind, Palin is a self-professed, devout Christian. She’s a woman who claims to follow the gospel of Jesus Christ — a prophet who preached peace and love above all else. I mean, let’s be real. Dude was the original hippy, am I right?

Yup.

So if she can justify torture — even when she follows a religion that, at its core, preaches peace — what else can she justify?

For starters, she can justify a blatant disrespect for the religion that she claims to cling to so tightly. Her conflation of waterboarding with baptism has been received with a lot of insult and outrage by many in the Christian community. Rod Dreher, the editor of the American Conservative, even termed the comparison “sacrilegious.”

So what are we left with? Sarah Palin has proven herself time and time again to be a lightning rod for controversy. She says crazy things. She does weird shit like deviate from her political career to star on reality shows. She gets a lot of flak.

And some of that flak isn’t well deserved. There’s always been an element of misogyny to the criticism hurled at Palin. The world collectively freaked out when she was announced as John McCain’s running mate back in 2008 — and not because she was wildly unqualified — but because she was a woman, a former beauty queen, a mother of five children. How can she be a heartbeat away from the presidency, the country asked, but not always for the right reasons.

But now? We’re left with a woman who talks about violence with reckless abandon. Who preaches her own religious and political views dogmatically, without actually following them herself. Who panders to crowds of gun-enthusiasts who cheer her on when she talks about torture.

That shit’s dangerous. So what’ll happen if the wrong Republican gets elected?

It’s impossible to say — but one thing’s for sure. Nothing good happens when you give people with a penchant for violence and self-righteousness the keys to the kingdom.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia]

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 Can We Maybe Not Condone Torture, Sarah Palin? 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.

Robots are the future- and they are already here. Although, the average “joe” may not interact with these human replacements, military personnel, across seas, encounter robots on a daily basis.

 Today, there is a powerful shift in robotic technology for domestic use. In fact, just last Monday, Amazon strategically released their drone delivery concept. Robotic machinery is blending into the average citizens’ everyday life. So should we be worried?

Well that depends…

A company, Knightscope, in California has recently developed a robot called K5 Autonomous Data Machine (this machine is quite remarkable).

Within months of its debut, this security robot has already created quite a ruckus — “R2D2’s evil twin,” to be exact according to Marc Rotenberg, the director of the Electronic Privacy and Information Center, in Washington, DC.

What makes this robot truly evil? Well…

 The first point is obvious. This device is the NSA’s fantasy; a harmless looking device that collects images and records sound 24/7.

Now, some may say this is awfully Orwellian. Yes, that may be so, but the intentions are good. William Santana Li,  co-founder of the technology company that created K5 Autonomous Data Machine claims that they created this robot “after what happened at Sandy Hook”, based on their assertion that “[we] are never going to have an armed officer in every school”.

School shootings have become more prevalent in the United States over the past few years. There have been 34 shooting events in 1990’s contrasting with 86 shooting events between 2000-2013, according to the American Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Consequently, K5 Autonomous Data Machine was developed to ensure the safety and security of schools, and possibly an alternative to human guards.

But did you catch that second detriment? No? Human Security will be rendered pointless. Is our world becoming so efficient that it is destroying the working middle class?

Yeah, robots are efficient. Yeah, it’s cheap. Yeah, it’s cool and futuristic, and it feels like you are living on Tatooine.

 But this could drastically hurt our economy, on such a large economic scale proving esteemed economist, David Author, from Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s theory that technology decimates the working class.

In the United States, the Federal minimum wage in $7.25 an hour, while the implementation of K5 would short the American middle class by an entire dollar at a mere $6.25 an hour reported by the Department of Labor.

This also brings up the recurring argument of privacy vs. security. How much is the common citizen going to compromise in order to procure their safety?

However, I am less worried about security than I am more concerned about the dying off of the middle class. At what point do you draw the line? Case and point, robots don’t need to worry about feeding a family.

 At the end of the day, people are going to complain about both sides. Either, there is not enough protection, or it is too invasive. Myself personally? I’m conflicted. As of now, I want to see more of Evil R2D2.

[NY Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [littlelostrobot via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Inventions, Privacy, and Economics Intersect: R2D2’s Evil Twin appeared first on Law Street.