Gun policy – Gonv http://gonv.org/ Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:03:41 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://gonv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/icon-3-120x120.png Gun policy – Gonv http://gonv.org/ 32 32 Regents can set gun policy on state campuses – Daily Montanan https://gonv.org/regents-can-set-gun-policy-on-state-campuses-daily-montanan/ Wed, 29 Jun 2022 22:25:43 +0000 https://gonv.org/regents-can-set-gun-policy-on-state-campuses-daily-montanan/ The Montana Board of Regents has full authority to oversee Montana’s university system, and a bill that attempted to strip it of its power to restrict firearms on campus is unconstitutional when applied to regents, according to a unanimous decision Wednesday of the Supreme Court of Montana. . “The council, not the Legislative Assembly, is […]]]>

The Montana Board of Regents has full authority to oversee Montana’s university system, and a bill that attempted to strip it of its power to restrict firearms on campus is unconstitutional when applied to regents, according to a unanimous decision Wednesday of the Supreme Court of Montana. .

“The council, not the Legislative Assembly, is constitutionally vested with full authority to determine MUS priorities,” said the opinion written by Justice Laurie McKinnon. “HB 102 sought to undermine this constitutional authority and therefore cannot be applied to the board and properties of MUS.”

Court clerk Bowen Greenwood said the state of Montana could file a motion for a rehearing with the Montana Supreme Court within 14 days. The state, through the Attorney General’s office, can also file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court.

Approved in the 2021 Montana Legislature, House Bill 102 authorized concealed transport anywhere in Montana except for specific locations defined by the Montana Legislature, the opinion said.

A Board of Regents policy has restricted firearms on campus since at least 2012, the opinion says, but a provision in the bill sought to prohibit the board’s power to do so. He eliminated council policy, which generally only allows law enforcement and security to carry firearms on campus.

He also extended open and concealed carrying of firearms to campuses, and he created “a cause of action” for any government entity denying anyone the right to carry firearms under the bill, according to opinion.

A few other similar bills had died in the past in Montana, at least once by a Democratic governor’s veto. Then in 2020, Republicans won the governorship.

In 2021, a Republican-dominated legislature quickly introduced HB 102 in both houses, arguing that Montanans have a sacred and constitutionally protected right to defend themselves, and that right should not disappear on college campuses. On February 18, halfway through the legislative session, Governor Greg Gianforte hosted a signing ceremony for the bill.

The Board of Regents challenged the law in May 2021.

In late 2021, a Lewis and Clark County Court judge issued a permanent injunction over the parts of the bill that violated the regent’s constitutional authority. On Wednesday, six judges and a judge sitting for a judge upheld the lower court’s decision.

The opinion made it clear that the 1972 Constitutional Convention intended to place responsibility for oversight of campuses in the Board of Regents, and it also stated that the board could not oversee the education of students without also ensuring their safety. .

Additionally, the opinion said that part of the State of Montana’s argument that other laws governing campuses are proof that the legislature can regulate the university were “attempts to misuse the pending issue – whether the legislature can infringe the constitutional authority of the council”.

But the notice says the Board of Regents has broad powers. Citing another ruling, she said they involve “the power to do whatever is necessary and proper for the exercise of its general powers”.

“…Indeed, the Council ‘has not only the power, but also the constitutional authority and the statutory duty to ensure the health and stability of MUS,'” the ruling said.

The intent of Montana’s constitutional drafters controls the court’s interpretation of the constitutional provision, according to the opinion. And he said their intent is clear from the clear language they used and the debate they held at the Constitutional Convention.

On the one hand, they removed language from the 1889 constitution that submitted the council’s powers to legislative control, according to the opinion, although it remained subject to certain legislative powers, such as appropriation and audit. .

“The debate reveals that the framers intended to place the MUS beyond the reach of makeshift political changes and instead in the hands of a board of directors that remained directly responsible and accountable to the Montanese,” the statement said. opinion. “Indeed, the editors recognized the importance of independent and unfettered academic freedom.”

The opinion also quoted a transcript of part of the constitutional convention: “If a council is established for higher education and is given the responsibility for education but not the authority to assume that responsibility, how can be held accountable to the people?

“If the real authority to carry out higher education policies is dispersed among the bureaucratic policy frameworks of other agencies, then who is accountable to the public? A healthy post-secondary education system must be insulated from changing political fortunes, while maintaining its responsibility and accountability to the state.

The opinion noted that the constitution does not mention the regents where it confers the legislative power, as well as the corresponding limitations, and it does not mention the legislature where it entrusts the regents with the governance of the university system.

“The board of directors and the legislature derive their respective power from the same authority – the Constitution of Montana,” the opinion stated. “The Constitution defines the powers of each and imposes limits on these powers. Unless otherwise stated, a direct power conferred on one necessarily excludes the existence of such a power on the other.

The Board of Regents’ policy that governs firearms on campus reflects its judgment on a matter “undoubtedly within its constitutional authority”, according to the opinion. And he said the Council has determined that the presence of firearms on campus compromises a safe educational environment, and that he has the right to do so.

“It is particularly relevant and necessary for the constitutional authority of the regents that it can manage the MUS campuses by implementing policies which it believes will minimize the loss of life and thereby strengthen its educational environment,” said the opinion.

He also noted that Montana has experienced gun homicides on campus, noting the murder of two Montana State University students at Bozeman in 1990, and that the court recognized that a college could “failing in its duty to provide a reasonably safe and secure place to work.”

“We note that council policy 1006 (regulating firearms) recognizes that Montana is not immune to the catastrophic loss that follows the use of firearms on school campuses,” the statement reads. ‘opinion.

The opinion said the position does not elevate the regents to a fourth branch of government, as the state had argued. Rather, she said that when legislative action infringes upon the powers constitutionally vested in the council, the legislative power must yield.

The Attorney General’s office had not responded Wednesday to questions about whether it plans to seek a rehearing with the state or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court as of this story. .

District Judge John Parker replaced Judge Ingrid Gustafson, who recused herself.

The sponsor of the bill criticizes the opinion

Rep. Seth Berglee, R-Joliet, sponsored House Bill 102, and he shared the following statement:

“This is a dangerous and slippery decision by the Supreme Court of Montana. The justices ruled that a group of unelected bureaucrats can use their own judgment to determine the extent of your constitutional rights on college campuses, all without control by the people or their elected representatives.

Our constitution states that the possession or carrying of weapons “shall not be questioned”. If the Board of Regents can restrict this right, what will prevent it from restricting free speech, due process, voting, or the execution of warrantless searches and seizures on university property? That unelected members of the Board of Regents can unilaterally limit constitutional rights should be of concern to all Montananese. This is the most pro-government, anti-freedom decision I’ve seen from the Montana Supreme Court in a long time.

Montana University System Thanks Court

Helen Thigpen, Deputy Commissioner and Government Relations and Public Affairs for MUS, said the following in a statement:

MUS appreciates the clarity provided by the Montana Supreme Court. Early on, the Board of Regents sought judicial review of HB 102 to determine the appropriate entity to set policy for the state’s public colleges and universities. The Board of Regents appreciates its strong partnership with the Legislative Assembly and will continue to work toward common goals and priorities to strengthen the state’s economy and provide world-class educational opportunities for Montananese.

]]>
Reload’s Stephen Gutowski on the biggest day in gun politics in decades https://gonv.org/reloads-stephen-gutowski-on-the-biggest-day-in-gun-politics-in-decades/ Thu, 23 Jun 2022 07:00:00 +0000 https://gonv.org/reloads-stephen-gutowski-on-the-biggest-day-in-gun-politics-in-decades/ When it comes to gun policy, there has never been a day like Thursday. The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision striking down a concealed carry law in New York, its most significant decision on the subject since 2008. Hours later, the Senate passed a bipartisan firearms bill. fire, the first major package of gun […]]]>

When it comes to gun policy, there has never been a day like Thursday. The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision striking down a concealed carry law in New York, its most significant decision on the subject since 2008. Hours later, the Senate passed a bipartisan firearms bill. fire, the first major package of gun reforms since 1994. This bill is expected to pass the House and become law.

To break down the implications, we reached out to Stephen Gutowski, who gives an in-depth account of guns on his site. Reloading and was named Journalist of the Year by the Second Amendment Foundation in 2021.

Below is our conversation, edited for length and clarity. (And in case you missed our earlier conversation on the gun bill, with Everytown President John Feinblatt, read it here.)

Q: The court ruling concerned a specific law in New York, but it is described as a turning point in how the court views gun rights more broadly. What does this mean for the future of gun laws?

Gutowski: The overriding importance of this decision has more to do with the standard the court has now set for Second Amendment cases in the future than it does with the specifics of that New York portage law, although Obviously, this will also have real impacts.

The reason the standard is more important is that it will affect virtually every case of firearms in the federal system from now on and will likely lead to a closer look at modern gun restrictions. fire arms. This would therefore include things like assault weapon bans, gun sales, licensing regimes, magazine restrictions, and gun liability requirements.

Basically, this will impact any regulations that are not rooted in the historic regulations from the founding era, when the Second Amendment was implemented. That doesn’t mean that if you restrict access to carrying a gun in a government-funded school, that kind of restriction wouldn’t hold water because there were no government-funded schools. government at that time. It’s more about whether they have any restrictions that are in the same vein, or the same concept, as what existed at the time.

Q: Ten years after this decision, will it be significantly different to live in a blue or red state when it comes to guns?

Gutowski: That’s a very good question. Everyone thought after Heller and mcdonalds that this would lead to the cancellation of a cascade of gun laws. But it wasn’t, really, and the court never really acted on that. Courts in blue areas, like the Ninth Circuit, continued to uphold most gun laws that many gun rights advocates say violated the Second Amendment. So now we have the court coming back here and saying specifically that those lower courts have done wrong for a decade.

I think it is entirely possible that this new standard of text, history and tradition will lead to disparate conclusions among courts across the country.

The Duke Center for Gun Law has a whole archive of historic gun restrictions, so if a judge wants to come to a different conclusion, he probably can. And in some cases, you’re likely to have people with good judgment coming to different conclusions with the same facts.

Concealed Carry “May Transmit” laws are sure to be removed. Assault weapons bans, magazine bans, firearms licenses, those are going to come under closer scrutiny in the courts. But if the Supreme Court wants to make sure lower courts follow this new standard, as the majority sees it, they’re going to have to take on more cases.

Q: The other big news is the Senate gun deal. Why is this bill passed when so many previous attempts have failed?

Gutowski: It seems that part of the Republican caucus, including members of the leadership, like Mitch McConnell and especially John Cornyn, have made the calculation that following Uvalde, which was a particularly horrific attack, that they had to give ground and show that they were doing something.

Q: Tell me a bit about the reaction of gun rights groups, as they seemed mostly insensitive to this argument. Is there anything different in their response to this bill?

Gutowski: Some of the groups, Gun Owners of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, are very adamant in their opposition to this bill. But the bigger groups with more influence on the Hill, like the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, publicly stated their opposition, but they were a bit more nuanced in their statements. They noted things they like about it, like school safety funding and the mental health intervention program that’s included in the bill, before finally saying they can’t support it. due to new gun restrictions.

But in politics, there are degrees of opposition, and that matters a lot. To what extent does the NRA oppose it? How opposed is the NSSF to this? What are they actually going to do to Republicans who vote for this bill? Will they spend money on campaigns attacking them in their home country? Because it hasn’t happened yet and the bill may be passed tomorrow. Will the NRA downgrade people’s grades on this bill? Probably, but they haven’t made that announcement yet.

So it’s opposition, but it’s certainly not the same kind of opposition that you would get if it was an assault weapons ban, or something that was trying to raise the age of possession of firearms. At the same time, there is literally no gun-friendly provision in any of this.

Q: Is there a specific provision that has raised alarm bells for gun rights advocates in this bill? Or is it more of a slippery slope argument that you think elicits opposition?

I think it’s a combination of both. Certainly, this bill almost prohibits many people from owning, or at least being sold, firearms. Anyone with a juvenile criminal record that includes a felony, domestic violence conviction, or involuntary commitment after the age of 16, no matter your current age, people will now be banned from selling you guns.

Q: Is the dam now breaking on more bills now that Republicans realize they can pass something without the sky falling? Or does it get harder for Democrats because Republicans now have this bipartisan bill they can point their finger at?

Gutowski: I think it’s way too early to tell. The vast majority of those Republicans who sign will not be re-elected any time soon. So how can you judge whether or not this was a political winner for them?

For Cornyn, who has been leading this effort on the Republican side, it’s not just how it’s going politically for him with his upcoming primary, which isn’t for quite a while, but also with his chances of becoming leader. He’s making a big bet that it’s going to help him, because the two other candidates who want to be the Republican leader, John Thune and John Barrasso, did not join.

You could take the example of Donald Trump. He unilaterally instituted a stockpile confiscation after the Las Vegas shooting. And what was the policy of that? That doesn’t seem to have hurt him too much with gun rights voters.

At the same time, it didn’t really seem to help him with gun control voters. I don’t know if there’s anyone on the left who gives Donald Trump credit for doing this. Then I do not know. It’s sometimes hard to tell with these things.

]]>
Researchers suggest policy limitations on guns under certain conditions may be effective https://gonv.org/researchers-suggest-policy-limitations-on-guns-under-certain-conditions-may-be-effective/ Thu, 23 Jun 2022 03:58:35 +0000 https://gonv.org/researchers-suggest-policy-limitations-on-guns-under-certain-conditions-may-be-effective/ Experts from Johns Hopkins University have suggested that laws that impose restrictions or limitations on access to firearms under certain conditions can be effective. “Laws that temporarily bar those convicted of violent crimes or those subject to domestic violence restraining orders [from purchasing or possessing firearms]we found, reduce homicides,” according to a gun policy researcher. […]]]>

Experts from Johns Hopkins University have suggested that laws that impose restrictions or limitations on access to firearms under certain conditions can be effective.

“Laws that temporarily bar those convicted of violent crimes or those subject to domestic violence restraining orders [from purchasing or possessing firearms]we found, reduce homicides,” according to a gun policy researcher.

The report showed that laws requiring identity verification to obtain a law enforcement license to purchase a firearm are supported by more than two-thirds of Americans.

Laws prohibiting gun ownership as part of a temporary domestic violence restraining order are supported by most Americans, including 80% of Republicans.

Laws prohibiting the purchase of handguns by people under 21 are supported by most Americans, according to the report.

“Despite this consistent support for certain gun control measures, the challenge has always been to translate this support into legislation by policymakers,” the report’s authors explained in a press release.

“The narrative in our country is that there’s a big divide between gun owners or political parties on solutions to gun violence, and that’s why there’s nothing we can do about it.”

]]>
Editorial: Gun violence forum misses opportunity as gun policy declared ‘irrelevant’ | Editorials https://gonv.org/editorial-gun-violence-forum-misses-opportunity-as-gun-policy-declared-irrelevant-editorials/ Tue, 21 Jun 2022 05:00:00 +0000 https://gonv.org/editorial-gun-violence-forum-misses-opportunity-as-gun-policy-declared-irrelevant-editorials/ A recent gun violence forum squandered an opportunity when organizers said they would not discuss gun policy. The forum, which included local law enforcement and elected leaders, was designed to discuss how to make people safer from the types of mass shootings that have resulted in multiple deaths, including four people shot on campus from […]]]>

A recent gun violence forum squandered an opportunity when organizers said they would not discuss gun policy.

The forum, which included local law enforcement and elected leaders, was designed to discuss how to make people safer from the types of mass shootings that have resulted in multiple deaths, including four people shot on campus from Saint Francis Hospital on June 1.

But forum moderators declined to discuss topics that might include legislative measures to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

Tulsa Crime Stoppers hosted the event, and its executive director, Karen Gilbert, told members of the public that discussions of gun policy and gun reforms were “out of place.” Instead, she said discussions would focus on responses to active shooter incidents.

People also read…

Panelists discussed how to make public places such as schools harder targets for armed assailants. They urged school officials to have more frequent conversations about how to prevent mass shootings and what to do if an attacker shows up.

A great responsibility seemed to be placed on the potential targets of an attacker.

Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler said schools should consider limiting building access to single entry points, installing bulletproof glass and employing more officers of resources.

We understand that these measures may limit what a shooter can do. But these sentiments leave out important facts about the mass shootings.

While many of the worst mass shootings have occurred in schools, others dating back to the 1980s have occurred in workplaces, shopping malls, grocery stores, places of worship, a movie theatre, a nightclub, a military base and, as seen here, a medical facility.

A mass shooting at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas in 2017 killed 58 people and injured 546 others.

All of these locations had varying levels of security and unique vulnerabilities. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to protecting people from mass shootings, as each murderous incident brings its own variables.

We agree that in the current American climate, preventive measures must be taken by potential targets. But we cannot make every public space a fortress.

A common theme in all of these shootouts is that the gunmen often had quick and easy access to powerful weapons and plenty of ammunition. Law enforcement and elected officials should advocate for comprehensive legislative solutions to gun violence. And as Tulsa Police Chief Wendell Franklin recently said, maybe it’s time to revisit some laws and policies.

Audiences want tough, honest conversations, as Kay Malan of the Oklahoma chapter of Moms Demand Action said, “I feel like even though these agencies are very important and we need them in times of crisis , we need much more proactive work on the front-end to prevent these crises from happening in the first place.

Regarding the prevention of mass shootings, Kunzweiler warned the community: “Let’s start talking about it. We agree. But we have to talk about everything even ideas that might be politically inconvenient.

]]>
We need hard-hitting gun policy reform now – NOT baseless media stunts! https://gonv.org/we-need-hard-hitting-gun-policy-reform-now-not-baseless-media-stunts/ Mon, 20 Jun 2022 10:43:00 +0000 https://gonv.org/we-need-hard-hitting-gun-policy-reform-now-not-baseless-media-stunts/ I joined the Wakefield High School walkout after the shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX. The kids are more than ready for Congress to address the gun violence crisis in the United States! The United States is going through a horrific gun policy crisis. From supermarkets to elementary schools, across our country, the […]]]>
I joined the Wakefield High School walkout after the shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX. The kids are more than ready for Congress to address the gun violence crisis in the United States!

The United States is going through a horrific gun policy crisis. From supermarkets to elementary schools, across our country, the grief of the lives we have lost to gun violence is immense. It is also avoidable. I am a progressive Democrat running to represent Virginia’s 8th congressional district (VA-8). I am a strong supporter of gun safety legislation, including increasing background checks, enforcing red flag laws, and banning the sale of assault weapons and magazines of great capacity. Such laws impact lives and more effective leadership to promote gun safety is disastrous.

Last minute security attempt media coverage for his failing campaign, my opponent recently released a bill to tax the sale of assault weapons by 1,000% – this is clearly not a substantive proposal. Using an impractical, half-baked political proposition to draw attention to a campaign is exactly the kind of political stunt Americans are sick of. It is not leadership. VA-8 deserves a congresswoman who listens to the lived experiences of everyday Americans and solid research to inform policies that will truly make a difference and reduce gun violence.

Speaking of his policy proposal, my opponent said, “He’s trying to hit the middle ground, where it’s not a total ban, but people’s independent buying decisions would be a lot more ‘no’ Yes'”. There is nothing. soft on assault weapons. “Rosanna Smart, a Rand Corp. economist who has studied the impact of excise taxes on firearms,” ​​shared with the media that “empirical evidence is lacking on whether increasing excise taxes on firearms affects gun violence”.

In addition to this proposal lacking in proven effectiveness, it also misses the mark on bipartisan support. Such a policy proposal is not a way to set aside partisan ties to achieve results that matter. Instead, this proposal builds on political divisions that, again, Americans are fed up with. While Karina Lipsman, who won the Republican nomination in Virginia’s 8th congressional district, holds a political platform that contrasts sharply with mine, I wholeheartedly agree with Lipsman’s interpretation of this political proposition. as “political lip service.” He also arrives late. The most significant bipartisan Senate negotiations on gun safety in decades are already underway, making this proposal unlikely to be added to the mix.

I have a plan to bring real leadership to VA-8 to fight gun violence and shape a future that works for everyone. VA-8 needs someone who WILL WORK HARD in Congress to serve the people, not themselves. I am ready to be that leader. Join me in voting on Election Day tomorrow, Tuesday, June 21. To follow and support my campaign, visit victoriaforcongress.com.

]]>
Tulsa County Sheriff Talks Officer Safety and Gun Policy https://gonv.org/tulsa-county-sheriff-talks-officer-safety-and-gun-policy/ Wed, 15 Jun 2022 16:38:00 +0000 https://gonv.org/tulsa-county-sheriff-talks-officer-safety-and-gun-policy/ After a active fire forum held at Tulsa Tech on Tuesday night, Sheriff Vic Regalado weighed in on whether carrying without a license combined with other lax gun regulations in Oklahoma is a safety issue for police. Unlike Tulsa Police Chief Wendell Franklin, who told the world of Tulsa that carrying without a license and […]]]>

After a active fire forum held at Tulsa Tech on Tuesday night, Sheriff Vic Regalado weighed in on whether carrying without a license combined with other lax gun regulations in Oklahoma is a safety issue for police.

Unlike Tulsa Police Chief Wendell Franklin, who told the world of Tulsa that carrying without a license and buying straw put officers at significant risk, Regalado said the ease with which firearms can be acquired in Oklahoma is not as problematic as other factors.

“It’s very easy to point fingers at politicians and that’s the problem we have today. There is no common sense. [There’s no] bipartisan think tanks that can solve this problem, which can be solved. I would tell you that law-abiding citizens don’t cause active shooters. I would say to you that when it comes to active shooter, the long-term solution is to provide mental health and addictions services from now on.

As for background checks or raising the age to buy a gun, Regalado said he might be supportive.

“I think these are discussions that should take place. I’m not going to say “yes, I agree” but I would definitely like to sit down and chat. There’s a lot of things we can do that I think would satisfy your Second Amendment folks, would satisfy your more left-leaning folks, and that can benefit people.

]]>
Gun politics take center stage in race for Texas governor after Uvalde shooting https://gonv.org/gun-politics-take-center-stage-in-race-for-texas-governor-after-uvalde-shooting/ Wed, 15 Jun 2022 10:20:18 +0000 https://gonv.org/gun-politics-take-center-stage-in-race-for-texas-governor-after-uvalde-shooting/ Austin, TX, June 15, 2022 — Gun control is the hot topic of the day and likely the rest of the year after the horrific Uvalde shootings that left 19 children and two adults dead – and this issue has taken on equal prominence in the running for governor of Texas. Challenger Beto O’Rourke, the […]]]>
Gun control is the hot topic of the day and likely the rest of the year after the horrific Uvalde shootings that left 19 children and two adults dead – and this issue has taken on equal prominence in the running for governor of Texas.

Challenger Beto O’Rourke, the only known number on the Texas Democratic candidate slate, has meandered for a long time on this issue throughout its time in the political spotlight. First in 2018, he refused to support AR-15 and AK-47 buybacks. Then, as he ran for president, he leaned completely into the position, telling a debating crowd, “Damn, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

This time around, O’Rourke changed his stance even further.

In February, he told town hall attendees that he was “not interested in taking anything from anyone.” He then quickly abandoned that position, saying that if he could find a consensus, he would push for an AR-15 and AK-47 buyback program.

It now looks like the position is here to stay for the Democrat, who told a McAllen Rally on June 7 that such a program would be on the agenda of his extraordinary session if he were the governor – tempering it slightly by saying that “we may have to compromise on it”.

By a report by FoxNewsO’Rourke’s campaign website was changed after the Uvalde shooting.

Other gun-related items on O’Rourke’s list of special sessions are red flag laws, which allow community members to petition a court for the temporary confiscation of a person’s firearms. seen as a threat to themselves or others; safe storage laws, to enforce regulations on how firearms can be stored; and Universal Background Checks, which require private gun sellers to complete official background checks.

O’Rourke also called for the repeal of unlicensed carrying, also known as constitutional carrying, which the legislature past in the 2021 session – a call that predates the Uvalde shooting but has since received more airtime. This law allowed most Texans over the age of 21 to carry a handgun in public without a license to carry (LTC).

Anyone otherwise legally prohibited from owning a firearm, such as felons, cannot carry under the law. He also preserved transport bans in certain public spaces such as public schools.

Without Texas LTC, individuals may not carry a handgun within 1,000 feet of a school and transportation within a school is strictly prohibited without written permission from the school.

On offense, O’Rourke clarified his position on the matter and laid the blame on his opponent’s feet.

Abbott was less specific than O’Rourke on policy recommendations, opting more for in-depth assessments of the situation and potential policy prescriptions.

“There are thousands of laws on the books across the country that restrict the possession or use of firearms,” Abbott told the National Rifle Association convention in a pre-recorded message delivered the day after the Uvalde shooting.

Abbott was to speak in person but changed plans because of the shooting. “Laws that have failed to prevent madmen from committing evil acts on innocent people and peaceful communities.”

Pointing to already existing prohibitions, Abbott continued, “At Uvalde, the shooter committed a felony under Texas law before he even pulled the trigger.”

But in that speech, Abbott did not suggest a legal response of any kind to the shooting. Since, Abbott demand special commissions in both houses of the legislature to investigate the shooting and recommend policy responses.

The five elements of this request from the governor are school safety, mental health, social media, police training and gun safety.

After the 2018 Santa Fe high school shooting, Abbott asked the legislature to consider red flag laws, which never developed. This time around, Abbott did not push such a policy in the same way. And after the 2019 filming in El Paso, expanded background check requirements for private sales were floated but did not materialize.

In a letter at the Texas Education Agency, Abbott requested a school safety assessment that included the “development[ment of] strategies to encourage school districts to increase the presence of trained law enforcement officers and school trustees on campuses.

Last year, the legislature past a bill allowing school trustees, designated school officials, to carry handguns on their person rather than keeping them locked away in a handy safe.

Other policy proposals regarding the Uvalde shooting will likely appear on Abbott’s emergency items next year when the legislature reconvenes — a list that allows the House and Senate to begin work on those. specific items sooner than they otherwise could due to statutory deadlines.

Much of Abbott’s rhetoric after the shooting has focused on mental health and the state put $5 million for a family resilience center in Uvalde County that will provide a variety of mental health services following the shooting. Although it currently focuses on issues arising from the tragedy, it is also intended to serve the community in the future.

Negotiations at the federal level are ongoing, with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) playing a lead role in the talks. But the state’s response will be on hold until 2023 — unless Abbott decides to call a special session by then — and in the meantime, gun policy will remain a focal point of every race in Texas. this year, especially the one at the top of the ticket. .

]]>
Sanders, Graham debate gun politics in Boston as both signal approval of bipartisan deal – NBC Boston https://gonv.org/sanders-graham-debate-gun-politics-in-boston-as-both-signal-approval-of-bipartisan-deal-nbc-boston/ Tue, 14 Jun 2022 03:32:32 +0000 https://gonv.org/sanders-graham-debate-gun-politics-in-boston-as-both-signal-approval-of-bipartisan-deal-nbc-boston/ Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina met Monday in Boston to discuss various issues, including gun control. The debate, which was produced by FOX News, took place at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute in Dorchester. It came a day after a bipartisan group of senators reached a […]]]>

Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina met Monday in Boston to discuss various issues, including gun control.

The debate, which was produced by FOX News, took place at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute in Dorchester. It came a day after a bipartisan group of senators reached a tentative agreement on gun control legislation.

Measures include financial incentives for ‘red flag’ laws, enhanced background checks for gun buyers under 21, mental health resources and closing the so-called ‘boyfriend loophole’ “.

Gun control campaigners say closing the loophole, which allows those convicted of domestic violence to pass a background check as long as they are not the victim’s spouse, is a marked improvement .

“More than half of mass shootings have a connection to domestic violence,” said Ruth Zakarin, executive director of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence. “In this article in particular, which will protect more victims of domestic violence from guns and abusers who have access to guns, that seems like a very important step forward.”

Graham is one of 10 Republicans supporting the package; Sanders said he was “completely sure” he would vote for the measures.

“I think it’s a modest step forward, but it doesn’t go far enough,” Sanders said. “As a nation, we have to ask ourselves if it’s okay for anyone to walk into a gun store and walk out with an AR-15.”

Graham acknowledged Sanders’ likely decision to make concessions on gun control.

“We made some news here today. Senator Sanders says he’ll be open-minded, the way it’s written, the package we negotiated. That’s a big deal, because it’s not is not what he wants.”

The proposed measures have enough support – at least 60 senators – to avoid a filibuster. This means that any bill would have a clearer path to becoming law.

]]>
Mass shooting in Tulsa reignites debate over gun policy in Oklahoma https://gonv.org/mass-shooting-in-tulsa-reignites-debate-over-gun-policy-in-oklahoma/ Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:08:28 +0000 https://gonv.org/mass-shooting-in-tulsa-reignites-debate-over-gun-policy-in-oklahoma/ On the afternoon of June 1, a man walked into a local gun store and purchased an AR-type rifle. A few hours later, he used this rifle and a handgun he bought two days before to kill four people at a Tulsa medical center before turning the gun on himself. It happened just a week […]]]>


On the afternoon of June 1, a man walked into a local gun store and purchased an AR-type rifle. A few hours later, he used this rifle and a handgun he bought two days before to kill four people at a Tulsa medical center before turning the gun on himself.

It happened just a week after an 18-year-old bought an AR style rifle and a few days later massacred 19 children and 2 teachers in Uvalde, Texas.

And it happened just over a week after an 18-year-old boy, who had previously threatened with murder-suicide at his high school, bought a semi-automatic rifle and killed 10 people in Buffalo.

In Oklahoma, someone is killed with a gun every 12 hoursand the state ranks in from the country High ten for the weakest gun regulations.

As mass shootings continue to make headlines across the country, gun reform advocates in Oklahoma have a long and uncertain road ahead of them.

How did Oklahoma’s gun policies get to where they are today?

The state’s Republican-dominated legislature passed a series of bills over the past decade to deregulate gun restrictions and strengthen ownership and use rights:

  • 2012: SB 1733 allows open transport with a permit.
  • 2014 : SB 1845 allows a person who has been involuntarily committed or tried to ask the court to remove the disability that prevents them from obtaining a firearm.
  • 2015 : HB 2014 allows designated staff members to carry firearms in schools.
  • 2017: SB 397 allows people to carry guns on public buses.
  • 2018: HB 2632 allows people to use the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law in places of worship.
  • 2019: HB 2010 allows concealed carry in parks and zoos.
  • 2020: SB 1081 creates the nation’s first and so far only anti-red flag law, which prevents local governments from passing red flag laws. Red Flag Laws allow household members, family and/or the police to petition the courts to confiscate the firearms of a person deemed to pose a risk to themselves or others.
  • 2021: SB 631 joins other states in making Oklahoma a “Second Amendment sanctuary state.” This means that if any government – ​​federal, state or local – ordered the redemption, confiscation or surrender of its weapons, accessories or ammunition, the state would consider it an “infringement on the rights of citizens to possess and bear weapons “.

One congresswoman who has been involved in gun reform conversations in Oklahoma throughout her 12-year tenure is House Minority Leader Emily Virgin, D-Norman. Virgin said in recent years it has seen a dramatic shift in the legislature towards “a much more extreme stance” on gun access.

“What I saw was that after President Obama was elected, this message from really national Republicans and the NRA became that the Democrats were going to take your guns away from you,” Virgin said. “And of course you’ve seen it in the sale of guns and ammunition, and you’ve seen it, of course, with Capitol Laws.”

Virgin said the consensus on the gun policy of the Norman Republicans she represents is mixed.

“Some of my constituents wouldn’t like me to support anything related to gun safety,” Virgin said. “But I hear, however, from Republicans in my district and other districts who are really fed up with how Republicans in Oklahoma are getting more and more extreme on gun policy. … That’s the most common thing I hear from Republicans is that they support the Second Amendment. They’re gun owners, but that’s gone too far.

An organization that served as driving force behind much of the state’s recent gun deregulation is the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association (OK2A). He describes himself as the state’s “leading defender of Second Amendment rights.” Virgin said the lobby group had a lingering influence on the legislature.

According his websitefrom 2015 to 2021, of the 37 pro-gun bills OK2A has helped pass, the group has requested and written text for 25 of them.

“There’s this rhetoric that any restriction on owning or carrying a firearm is unconstitutional,” Virgin said. “And I think that’s what OK2A believes, and that’s what they’re advocating on Capitol Hill, that any restriction, any regulation, any authorization — that’s against the Second Amendment.”

And OK2A chairman Don Spencer echoed a similar sentiment from Virgin: When a Democrat is in the White House, people buy more guns.

“With the threat of [assault weapons] taken away, when Obama went there in 2008, [sales] just completely skyrocketed,” Spencer said. “So now the number of people who own them – and it’s even increasing even more because Biden claims to be taking them away – and so on [sales are] will continue to rise even higher.

President Joe Biden has recently asked a ban on assault weapons, raising the minimum age to purchase these weapons, strengthening background checks and passing red flag laws.

On the issue of banning assault weapons like AR-15s, Spencer said that this type of weapon is needed for situations like home invasions, but also for much larger adversaries – like the government. American.

“That’s why you need an AR-15. (…) Worst case scenario of a tyrannical government coming to take away this weapon,” Spencer said. “You need this weapon to stop them.”

Spencer said that in the case of the Tulsa shooting — where Michael Louis, 45, used an AR-style handgun and rifle — he thinks greater facility security, rather than regulations on the firearms, could have stopped the attack. He also said one point was omitted from the conversation about the Tulsa shooting:

“People are so quick to blame the gun and not the person, because they don’t give the gun credit for stopping that person, because they ended up killing themselves,” Spencer said.

What do we know about gun ownership and gun violence?

Possession of weapons has greatly increased in the last few years. In 2011, Americans owned guns at a rate of 88 guns for every 100 people. That number is now 120.5 guns per 100 people.

When it comes to gun deaths, in 2020 alone, more than 45,000 people in the United States have died by gunshot – both homicide and suicide – more than any other year on record. This represents a 43% increase in firearm deaths from 2010.

Data collected by Columbia University research professor Louis Klarevas for his 2016 book Rampager Nation, show that compared to the 10-year period before the 1994 federal assault weapons ban took effect, mass shootings (defined as an incident with six or more deaths) fell by 37% . After the ban expired in 2004, mass shootings increased by more than 180%. Deaths jumped nearly 240%.

As for the relationship between firearm ownership and firearm deaths, a 2009 study published in the National Library of Medicine found that people with a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than people without a gun. In assaults where the victim had at least a chance to resist, the likelihood of the victim being shot increased to about 5.5 times.

But overall, the findings of gun violence studies are mixed and complex. For example, in a meta-analysis of the 35 most recent academic studies since 2005 on concealed carry, five studies showed a decrease in crime when concealed carry laws were weakened, while 23 showed an increase in crime.

What about gun reform supporters in a state like Oklahoma?

National opinion on gun policy is divided along party lines. A recent ABC News/Ipsos Poll taken after the Tulsa shooting found that 90% of Democrats want to prioritize gun control laws. That number drops to around 40% of Republicans.

In Oklahoma, Democrats have repeatedly clashed with a pro-gun majority legislature. A day after the Tulsa shooting, the Oklahoma House Democratic Caucus called a press conference at which they unveiled the Anti-Violence and Extremism Act (SAVE).

The measure seeks to repeal several gun laws, including carrying without a license, the anti-red flag law and the law allowing concealed carry in parks and zoos. It would also introduce new laws, such as establishing a waiting period when purchasing firearms, raising the minimum age to purchase an assault weapon, and creating a statewide red flag law.

“What happened in Tulsa is absolutely preventable,” Rep. Monroe Nichols, D-Tulsa, said at the conference. “It is unfortunate that this legislature is now focused on preventing mass shootings in the state of Oklahoma. Three years ago I led [the effort] repeal transport without a license, and we collected over 30,000 signatures in 11 days. I truly believe that the State of Oklahoma believes in it.

Kay Malan, a volunteer with the Oklahoma chapter of the gun reform advocacy group Moms demand actionsaid pushing through gun control measures in the historically pro-gun state of Oklahoma is a difficult task.

“Unfortunately, we really have an uphill battle in Oklahoma because our legislators tend to listen to armed extremists rather than responsible gun owners,” Malan said.

Moms Demand Action is pushing for measures like red flag laws, universal background checks, and raising the minimum age to buy a gun. While gun reform is a tough sell in states like Oklahoma, she said she saw nearly 2,000 locals sign up to volunteer in the wake of the Tulsa shooting.

“There is no single law that will stop gun violence,” Malan said. “So we need a multifaceted approach. We need more responsible people to put politics and opinions aside and work together to save lives as a moral imperative.

The word Malan uses to describe the group’s work is ‘relentless’. And as more and more mass shootings continue to push the conversation about gun politics into the air of the times, Malan said she feels the urgency to keep moving forward, regardless of the setback. .

“Sometimes the work can get daunting,” Malan said. “However… If we remain silent, if we become discouraged and stop talking, stop acting and stop moving our feet, who is going to do the work? Who will speak? (…) We must continue to be loud to attract attention, because at the moment the loudest voices of a minority group come from the extremists. We must be stronger.

Editor’s note: This article was updated June 10 at 9:55 a.m. to correct a statement from “carry without permission” to “carry concealed.”


]]>
Biden’s gun policy prescriptions likely won’t stop mass shootings https://gonv.org/bidens-gun-policy-prescriptions-likely-wont-stop-mass-shootings/ Thu, 09 Jun 2022 04:00:00 +0000 https://gonv.org/bidens-gun-policy-prescriptions-likely-wont-stop-mass-shootings/ The New York Times estimates that four gun control measures being considered by Congress “may have changed the course of at least 35 mass shootings” since 1999 – a third of attacks in which a gunman killed at least four people. While this conclusion is overly optimistic, the paper at least asks the right question: […]]]>

The New York Times estimates that four gun control measures being considered by Congress “may have changed the course of at least 35 mass shootings” since 1999 – a third of attacks in which a gunman killed at least four people. While this conclusion is overly optimistic, the paper at least asks the right question: Are the new gun restrictions likely to work as advertised?

President Joe Biden, on the other hand, simply assumes the wisdom of the policies he favors and the bad faith of anyone who opposes them. “The problem we face is a problem of conscience and common sense,” he insisted last week, suggesting that skeptics are missing one or both.

Among other things, Biden wants Congress to require background checks for private gun transfers, which means those transactions must be made through a federally licensed dealer. The Times found that four of the mass killers in the 105 cases reviewed had purchased firearms through private transactions.

One of these perpetrators had previously failed a background check. One of the other three, reports the Violence Policy Center, “legally purchased” a gun from a gun shop. According to a 2013 review in The Atlantic, it is unclear whether either of the other two killers had a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record.

In at least one in 105 cases, therefore, an expanded federal background check requirement might have been a barrier. But that assumes that private sellers generally comply with that mandate, and data from states that theoretically require “universal background checks” suggests those rules are widely flouted.

The Times found that at least 20 mass murderers used magazines with more than 10 rounds. The 1994 federal “assault weapons” law, which expired in 2004, banned the production and sale of such magazines, and Biden wants Congress to renew that limit.

Although we assume that the need to change magazines after firing 10 rounds can make a significant difference in mass shootings, the effectiveness of a ban is questionable. A 2004 report commissioned by the Department of Justice found that the 1994 ban had no measurable impact on the use of “high capacity magazines” in crimes, likely “due to the immense stock magazines exempt before the ban” – a stock that is even larger now than it was then.

In 10 of 105 mass shootings analyzed by The Times, the perpetrators used stolen weapons. The document suggests that Biden-backed “safe storage” legislation could have made a difference in these cases.

One such bill would establish a $500 fine for gun owners who fail to secure their guns in circumstances where a minor “is likely to have access to them” or in households where a resident It is illegal to own firearms. If a minor or prohibited person uses an unsafe firearm to injure or kill someone, the owner faces up to five years in prison.

The bill would also provide grants to encourage states to establish and enforce similar requirements. The idea that such laws could prevent would-be mass shooters from obtaining firearms assumes broad compliance and a lack of alternative sources, two questionable assumptions.

The Times says that “four of the gunmen could have been blocked” by a law prohibiting federally licensed gun dealers from selling semi-automatic centerfire rifles that accept detachable magazines to anyone under 21. This bill, which Biden also supports, avoids the arbitrary distinctions drawn by “assault weapons” bans, which target firearms based on functionally unimportant characteristics.

Since the bill does not apply to private transfers, adult buyers under the age of 21 can still legally obtain semi-automatic rifles. Additionally, a federal appeals court ruled last month that banning young adults from buying such guns because a tiny fraction of them might commit violent crimes is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

Before deciding whether to support policies like these, lawmakers should rationally weigh their costs and benefits, including their constitutional implications. Biden prefers a different approach, replacing logic and evidence with self-righteous certainty.

Jacob Sullum is editor of Reason magazine.

Send letters toletters@suntimes.com.

]]>