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

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

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

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

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

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

With the Heller ruling, D.C. repealed its ban, and issued a new ordinance that made it impossible to obtain a permit to carry outside the home.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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Austin Elias-De Jesus

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

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

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.

As marijuana is slowly legalized both for recreational and medicinal purposes in a variety of states across the United States, those states’ laws sometimes come head-to-head with already-existing federal legislation. These clashes are problematic, and they can create legal gray areas that courts then need to weigh in on. That’s exactly what happened recently in a federal appeals court in San Francisco, when the court ruled that the federal government’s prohibition on medical marijuana users obtaining a firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.

The case was sparked by a Nevada woman named S. Rowan Wilson, who in 2011 tried to purchase a gun. She had a medical marijuana card, which was legal given that Nevada had legalized medicinal weed over a decade before.  The store refused to sell her the gun, because in 1968 Congress passed a law prohibiting anyone who used illegal drugs from obtaining a firearm. While Wilson wasn’t exactly using an illegal drug–at least under Nevada law–marijuana is still illegal under federal law. That’s what makes this case a perfect example of the confusing interplay between state and federal law when it comes to marijuana, yet Wilson was upset by what she saw as a violation of her Second Amendment rights.

So, Wilson sued the government. According to Consumerist, she:

Filed a federal lawsuit alleging that this refusal to sell her a firearm violated her First and Second Amendment rights, along with the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment. She subsequently claimed that the ATF notice that clarified the legality of selling firearms to medical marijuana users violated the Administrative Procedure Act by effectively making new rules without going through the necessary processes.

But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed 3-0 that “Congress reasonably concluded that marijuana and other drug use ‘raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.'”

Wilson now has the option to continue forward with the suit–it could hypothetically make its way to SCOTUS–but it’s unclear if she will do so. Yet as more states legalize marijuana, particularly for medical purposes, these are questions that courts are going to become increasingly familiar with.

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 Federal Appeals Court: Medical Marijuana Users Can’t Buy Firearms 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:

If The Teenage Ninja Turtles Made Meth…

A meth lab was uncovered in Amherst, New York, but this wasn’t just any meth lab, it was an underground operation, built underneath a Walmart parking lot (enter meth-head stereotypes) surrounded by a busy intersection. A state police hazmat team descended into a manhole and found tons of incriminating evidence, “including pop bottles, suspected methamphetamine, spray paint cans, and other meth-making materials.” Police think the mad scientists in question entered the lab through a sewer.

All that’s left now is to find them.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 10, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

— p-daddle (@payalayap) June 14, 2016

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

— Jeremy Jordan (@j_mich23) June 14, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexandra Simone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mariam Jaffery

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

The post Judge Says D.C. Residents Don’t Need “Good Reason” for Concealed-Carry Permits appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ajla Glavasevic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is unacceptable.

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

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

— Pete Thompson (@earningamotorcy) August 15, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morgan McMurray

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

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

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.

Happy December, folks!

Have you all awakened from your turkey coma? Good. Because the situation in Ferguson has taken an interesting turn, and you’re going to want to be alert for this one.

The Oath Keepers have descended upon Ferguson in response to the riots, taking up armed positions on the rooftops of local businesses to guard against looters. Working as a sort of vigilante militia, these rooftop patrollers are veterans, ex-cops, and paramedics. They work at night and, apparently, they’re prepared to shoot down anyone who crosses their path.

So, here’s the thing about the Oath Keepers. On the one hand, some folks are happy they’re there. Local business owners who are receiving their protection have reported feeling safer, and that’s pretty great.

However, the Oath Keepers are a super problematic—and frankly, pretty scary—organization, and their presence in Ferguson is anything but benign.

The Oath Keepers are a radical, militant, right-wing non-profit that was founded in 2009. Not coincidentally, their appearance aligns perfectly with the election of President Obama and the rise of the Tea Party. The Oath Keepers are—shockingly—mostly white men, and their stated mission is to protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights and to prevent a dictatorship from ever taking hold in the U.S.

But really, that’s a lot of coded language for racist, paranoid, gun fanatics who decided to form a vigilante militia in response to a black president being elected to office.

Here’s what the Oath Keepers are really about—they’re a particularly militaristic arm of the Tea Party, a group that sprang up with Obama’s election because conservatives were scared as fuck. The economy was (and, let’s be real, still is) in the shitter, thanks to Republican tax policies that caused the housing crisis of 2008. Their beloved straight, white, Christian, family-man conservative president, George Dubya, was leaving office and being replaced by someone new and relatively unknown. The face of the United States was changing drastically.

So, naturally, conservatives freaked the fuck out. Enter the Tea Party and its bevy of reactionaries—folks dressing up in colonial garb, romanticizing the Founding Fathers and their Constitution, ignoring the existence of slavery, and holding up signs of President Obama fashioned as Hitler, the Devil, and a monkey, all demanding to see his birth certificate.

Yeah, so, the Oath Keepers are those people. Except they carry guns and act as unlicensed, armed security guards whenever things start to happen that they don’t like.

What’s high on their list of things they don’t like? Black people rioting in the streets after a grand jury decided that their lives don’t matter, and that we should all just collectively shrug our shoulders as another young black man’s life gets cut short—like Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner before him—and hold no one accountable for his death.

This the type of shit that gets the Oath Keepers riled up to restore order. God forbid people of color should rise up and demand that their lives be valued by the American justice system.

This is the third time in three years that we’ve had to collectively mourn the untimely death of a young black man, shot down because his blackness made him threatening to the shooter. And those are just the cases that have made national headlines. How many more people of color have been cut down in the last three years by a justice system that’s stacked against them?

More than any of us would like to admit.

And so, as the Oath Keepers descend upon the city of Ferguson, it’s no coincidence that the men standing on shop rooftops with guns are mostly white, and the assailants they’re taking aim at are mostly black.

These radical right-wingers are feeling all kinds of sympathy for the store owners whose businesses have been looted. And that sympathy isn’t entirely misplaced. It’s not a situation that any of us would wish on another person—to have their life’s work plundered or burned to the ground.

But if we all take a step back from the riot-shaming that is implicit to the Oath Keepers’ presence in Ferguson, it’s clear what side of this issue the radical right is on.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said that a “riot is the language of the unheard.” And conservatives, like the Oath Keepers, want to keep the unheard quiet. They’ll shoot them down to preserve the silence if they have to.

Instead of patrolling rooftops, threatening to gun down people who are fighting for their lives, the Oath Keepers should be listening to this latest outcry from the unheard.

They’re telling us that black lives matter. Michael Brown matters. Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner matter. And, contrary to what the American justice system might have us believe, these losses aren’t to be taken lightly.

So please, Oath Keepers, get the hell off the rooftops. Stop trying to intimidate the unheard people of Ferguson into silence.

Try listening to them instead.

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 Dear Oath Keepers: GTFO of Ferguson appeared first on Law Street.

Here’s some gross and weird racism to start off your Wednesday: a gun range in Arkansas has declared that it is a “Muslim-Free Business.” Jan Morgan runs the Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range, and is an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment (although apparently not the rest of our Bill of Rights). She also subscribes to a particularly paranoid form of logic.

According to Morgan, the decision to ban Muslims from her business was based on an encounter in which:

Two Muslims walked in to my range last week with Allah Akbar ring tone and message alert tones on their smart phones. They spoke very little English, one did not have proof of U.S. citizenship, yet they wanted to rent and shoot guns. Their behavior was so strange, it was unnerving to my patrons. No one would enter the range to shoot while they were there. Some of my customers left.

First of all, what in the world is an “Allah Akbar” ring tone? Allah Akbar is a phrase that means, essentially, “God is the Greatest.” It’s used in prayer or in times of distress. The name of the Libyan national anthem is similar — “Allahu Akbar” — but I highly doubt that’s what this woman was referring to. Was it just the phrase “Allah Akbar” over and over again?

On a more serious note, Morgan very well may have been concerned by the behavior of these two men. My guess is that the encounter she’s describing has been a little over exaggerated, but let’s pretend that it’s not. She and her customers may well have been concerned, and if they broke a reasonable rule that she’d created at her business — for example, having a valid ID — she had every right to refuse them service. Gun range owners do have the discretion to turn away people who seem, for example, drunk, or mentally ill. But that’s an individual decision based on the customer in question, not a blanket one.

Where the huge disconnect comes in, is that this apparently prompted her to ban anyone who is Muslim from her gun range, which makes about as much sense as banning all men because those two she encountered happened to be male. Or banning all young white men, because they are the most common to partake in mass shootings.

Morgan goes on to justify her paranoia and splendid racism with a list of nine reasons. Some are your garden variety xenophobia, but there are some standout examples of logical fallacies as well. Here’s a fun one:

In the 14 hundred year history, muslims have murdered over 270 million people. Not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists in the world right now are muslim. Since you can’t determine by visual assessment, which ones will kill you and which ones will not, I am going to go with the line of thought that ANY HUMAN BEING who would either knowingly or unknowingly support a “religion” that commands the murder of all people who refuse to submit or convert to that religion, is not someone I want to know or do business with. I hold adults accountable for the religion they align themselves with.

I enjoy how she starts this statement off with how not all Muslims are terrorists, but concludes that that doesn’t really matter. And she’s right, you can’t tell someone’s religion just by looking at them, so I’m assuming this leaves Morgan a couple choices: either ask her customers’ religion before they enter her business, or profile anyone who fits her definition of what someone who is Muslim looks like. Either is offensive, degrading, and inappropriate.

Also included in Morgan’s manifesto are random comments about Sharia Law coming to the United States, which no one can really prove, and lots about the violence of the “Koran.”

Morgan will have a suit brought against her by the ACLU. The executive director of the Arkansas ACLU, Rita Sklar, explained, “It’s unconstitutional, it’s illegal under the Civil Rights Act. It’s a violation of the right to religious liberty.”

Morgan, though, seems to have some support. If you want to really depress yourself, check out the comments on any article about this issue, or the Twitter mentions. That bothers me more than one crazy wingnut banning Muslims from her business, because it reminds me that so much of the country thinks this way.

Finally, Ms. Morgan claims she is a supporter of the Second  Amendment, but I think she needs a reminder of what the Second Amendment actually says:

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.

And let’s put all arguments about the Second Amendment aside for a minute here, because although I have conflicted feelings about what it actually means, there’s one thing in there that’s crystal clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” There are no caveats in there. This is in an Amendment to our Constitution, a document that tells us that all men are created equal. Not all Christians are created equal, or all white people are created equal, or all Americans. Everyone. While Morgan does own a private business, her love of the Second Amendment doesn’t mean that it’s right to ignore the rest of the document. The Bill of Rights isn’t multiple choice.

—

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 [John Biehler 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 Arkansas Woman Bans “Muslims” From Her Gun Range 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Inventorchris via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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