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:

Theresa May Loses Majority in Huge Upset

Prime Minister Theresa May originally called for the snap election in the U.K. to strengthen the position of her Conservative Party, but after yesterday’s votes were counted it was clear that she came out the loser. Her party still holds a plurality, but no one party will hold a majority. This is called a hung parliament, meaning that May will need to form a coalition with other parties. And her party will have a hard time passing legislation, as the main opposition party, Labour, won so many seats. Labour’s leader Jeremy Corbyn said May should resign and that he wants to form a minority government. But May doesn’t seem likely to resign–in a speech, she announced she will form a government with a small Northern Irish Party called DUP. Now a lot of people are expressing worries about what will happen with the impending Brexit talks.

PM Theresa May says Conservatives will ensure much-needed “stability” for Britain as the party reels from a string of losses pic.twitter.com/LBIx3HK1EI

— AFP news agency (@AFP) June 9, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning everyone, hope you have all your Christmas gifts in order and you’re finished shopping! Some of us get really stressed out from those last minute errands, but here are some of today’s rants to help you channel all that energy. Stay calm and have a good day! 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:

After Berlin, Trump Doubles Down on Anti-Muslim Rhetoric

Yesterday, President-elect Donald Trump insinuated that the deadly truck attack in Berlin shows that he was right to want to ban Muslims from entering the United States. When reporters asked him whether the attack would cause him to re-evaluate his stance on Muslims, he replied: “You know my plans, all along, I’ve been proven to be right. One hundred percent correct.” It wasn’t clear exactly what Trump meant.

Donald Trump seemed to suggest that the Berlin attack vindicated his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the U.S. https://t.co/V9Wsrnu0Gd

— The New York Times (@nytimes) December 22, 2016

But later, one of his advisers, Jason Miller, said that Trump was only repeating his previous statements that he would “suspend admission of those from countries with high terrorism rates and apply a strict vetting procedure.” Trump has both said and tweeted confusing comments since appearing on the political scene and seems unable to make up his mind on some things. “We know he’s got some instincts and predilections, but there is no coherent Trump foreign-policy doctrine, and we’re not likely to see one,” said vocal Trump critic Professor Eliot A. Cohen to the New York Times.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

Last week Sandy Hook families produced a spine-chilling PSA, marijuana-infused coffee became a thing, and presidential electors turn on Trump. ICYMI–Check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

1. Sandy Hook Families Release Chilling Anti-Gun Violence PSA

A chilling new public service announcement reveals how devastatingly easy it is to overlook the warning signs of gun violence. The eye-opening two and a half minute video was produced by Sandy Hook Promise, a nonprofit group founded by the families of Sandy Hook victims, as part of its “Know the Signs” campaign. Read the full article here.

2. The Latest Marijuana-Infused Products: Cannabis Coffee and THC Tea

Cannabis and caffeine lovers rejoice: San Diego-based BrewBudz will soon be debuting a coffee, tea, and cocoa pod product, fit for Keurig machines, that are infused with marijuana. According to the company’s tagline, the hybrid product will be “good for you” and “good for the earth.” Its pods will be made of 100 percent compostable material, including the caps, which are made of coffee beans. Read the full article here.

3. Presidential Electors and Lawyers Organize Against Trump

A presidential elector has officially announced that he will not be voting for Donald Trump on December 19. In an op-ed in the New York Times, Republican Christopher Suprun declared his opposition to Trump. He says that the President-elect’s lack of foreign policy experience and his demeanor make him unfit for the presidency: “He does not encourage civil discourse, but chooses to stoke fear and create outrage. This is unacceptable.” Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— DorkPrincess (@Nu_Age_Girl) June 20, 2016

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

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

— imjustsaying Cruz (@tellthetruuuth) June 20, 2016

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

Samantha Reilly

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

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

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

Guess which part conservatives are choosing to focus on.

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

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

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

— dawn goodfallow (@dawngpsalm63) January 6, 2016

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

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

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) January 5, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morgan McMurray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More: Police Brutality and the Mentally Ill in America

Kevin Rizzo

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

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

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

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

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) July 24, 2015

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

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

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

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) August 3, 2015

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

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

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

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

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) August 1, 2015

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

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

— TODAY (@TODAYshow) August 4, 2015

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

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

Emily Dalgo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

On Monday, two years and one day after a shooter took the lives of 20 elementary school students and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, families of nine of the victims filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the weapon that killed their loved ones.

The complaint asserts liability for wrongful deaths, arguing that Bushmaster Firearms Inc., the manufacturer, shouldn’t have been selling civilians the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle used in the massacre. Shooter Adam Lanza’s mother had purchased the rifle legally. Lanza shot and killed his mother with another gun before taking her Bushmaster AR-15 and heading for Sandy Hook.

The suit goes at lengths to argue that the AR-15 has no reason to be sold for civilian use. Although the rifle is useful to the military, it says, it is predictable that selling it to civilians could result in mass shootings:

The AR-15, however, has little utility for legitimate civilian purposes. The rifle’s size and overwhelming firepower, so well adapted to battlefield are in fact liabilities in home defense. … But there is one tragically predictable civilian activity in which the AR-15 reigns supreme: mass shootings.

The families filed the suit in Connecticut Superior Court and listed as additional defendants weapons distributor Camfour and Riverview Sales, the shop that sold the gun used in the attack, as well as its owner, David Laguercia.

The families have a formidable legal hurdle ahead of them called the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when their products are used in crimes. The families are seeking to use an exception of the law for cases when the companies should be able to know that their guns could be used in a way that could injure others, the Associated Press reports.

Bushmaster faced a similar suit a decade ago, when families and victims of the Washington, D.C. area sniper shootings that left 10 dead settled with the manufacturer and a gun shop for $2.5 million. Laguercia also had recent legal trouble when he pleaded guilty last year to federal misdemeanor charges regarding his failure to keep proper records and selling weapons without completing background checks. However, those charges were not related to the Sandy Hook attack.

The suit says that the plaintiffs seek “nothing more and nothing less than accountability for the consequences” of the defendant’s choice to “disregard the unreasonable risks the rifle posed outside of specialized, highly regulated institutions like the armed forces and law enforcement.” Officially, they are seeking unspecified monetary damages.

Historically, government discussion on gun control has lived in legislatures, and not courts. The Sandy Hook case is very particular to the specific incident two years ago, so it may be better-suited in a court. However, it doesn’t come without major obstacles.

The families will have to link Bushmaster, Camfour, Riverview, and Laguercia to Lanza. This could prove especially difficult given that the gun was sold to his mother and not him. That is just the beginning of their problem. Whether or not they can make that connection, they have to successfully prove that any of the defendants could have foreseen the attack at Sandy Hook happen as a result of the sale of the rifle. Practically, this would rule out Bushmaster and Camfour, as they are far up the chain. However, it could be possible for the plaintiffs to hit Riverview and owner Laguercia, and paint him as negligent. Considering what is at stake, though, successfully suing a single gun shop and owner doesn’t seem like a really big win for gun control–although this could be a symbolic victory.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Newtown Families Sue Manufacturer of Gun Used in Sandy Hook Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

In an era when it seems like there’s constantly a story about a shooting on school grounds, we’re always looking for solutions to our school shooting epidemic. One long-discussed argument has been to arm teachers, and people across the country are taking action to do just that.

In many conservative-leaning states, the push to arm teachers is getting pretty serious. As of this year, in 28 different states, adults who own guns will be allowed to carry them into school buildings under certain parameters. Recently, legislation was passed in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas related to arming teachers and staff members in public schools.

There’s also been some expansion of the way in which those who are armed in schools are trained. In some places, free classes are offered for staff members who want to carry guns into schools in an attempt to protect students. The Centennial Gun Club in Colorado is offering free classes to teachers who want to learn how to carry and operate guns. A former Colorado teacher named Tara who is thinking of returning to the classroom named explained her interest in the class, saying:

While I am a teacher, those kids, those students in my class are my kids, and my first responsibility is to protect them at all costs. When all the school shootings happened I realized that I wanted it more for my own personal protection and I thought that that idea of being prepared to protect translates very well to the classroom for teachers.

That’s all well and good, but what they don’t seem to be offering is classes that particularly relate to stopping armed intruders or using a gun under high-pressure circumstances.

In other places, the emphasis is on cutting the response time in case of an armed intruder by training designated staff members who have access to weapons. In some cases, teachers need to disclose information to superiors that they’re bringing a gun into the classroom, in other states the legislation doesn’t require that kind of step. While the laws are varied, one thing is pretty clear — bringing more guns into schools in an attempt to stop horrific tragedies like the Sandy Hook shooting has become a fairly popular mindset, without any whiff of consistency from state to state or even school district to school district.

Now, I’m very split here. On one hand I’m frustrated. Part me of thinks that we literally are so bad at finding solutions to our mass shooting problem that we’re just bringing more guns into schools as an answer. That is where we are. We so fundamentally can’t agree on how to deal with gun violence that we can’t even make the laws or required training consistent. Never mind the fact that arming people more to prevent shootings is a kind of miniature mutually assured destruction. Never mind that while shootings are occasionally stopped by bystanders, it’s relatively rare. Never mind that the ability to stop a shooting takes a blend of training, instinct, and temperament that requires way more than one class to learn. Never mind that in the last year, 100 children died in accidental shooting deaths in the United States. Never mind that by bringing guns into our classrooms, we are teaching our children that school is not a safe place, and that gun violence is a reasonable answer. That’s the obnoxious liberal in me talking.

But on the other hand, I have a side that I like to think is rational, and that side is also kind of frustrated. Now, I want to be clear, because I’ve learned from experience that this kind of disclaimer is needed: this is not an attack on the Second Amendment. This is an attack on the complete lack of common sense that we are now employing. If we sat down, as a nation, and truly determined that the best way to protect children is to arm their teachers, fine. We can do that, if we really think that will work. It’s a plan, at least, and as much as I don’t think it’s a good plan, I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong.

But what we have right now is such a fundamental disagreement on literally everything to do with this debate that we’re half-assing it. We’re passing laws that allow certain people to bring guns into schools under the guise of protection without necessarily creating corresponding legislation to make sure that the plan has the chance to be effective. We’re ignoring the possibly negative ramifications of these laws because it’s just easier that way. We are so far from being able to have a rational debate on this topic that any ability to be able to work together has been thrown out the window.

Every gun death is a tragedy, and the only way we’re going to be able to prevent situations like Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or UC-Santa Barbara from happening again is if we all grow up and talk about this in a rational way.

—

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 [Wendy House 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 Risky Idea Alert: Arming Teachers in School appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

Can we compromise?

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

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

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

Size matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno) 

Featured image courtesy of [Eugene Smith via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

Featured image courtesy of [Tim Evanson via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

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

The post Now It’s the Navy Yard – What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.