Preventing Gun Violence More Important Than Gun Rights

These charts are from the recent NPR / PBS NewsHour / Marist Poll -- done between May 31st and June 6th of a nationwide sample of 1,063 adults, with a 4.3 point margin of error.

Another Mass Shooting While Congress Does Nothing

(This photo of the Pittsburg mass shooting is from USA Today.)

America suffered another mass shooting on Saturday. This time it was in Pittsburg, where 46 year-old anti-semite Robert Bowers (armed with an AR-15 assault rifle and several handguns) shot 17 people (four police officers and 13 civilians) -- killing 11 of them.

Sadly, this is not an unusual occurrence in the United States. While most mass shootings (where at least 4 people are shot) do not make the national news, they happen on an almost daily basis. In the first 300 days of this year, there have been at least 294 mass shootings. That's 0.98 mass shootings per day -- or about 29.4 every month. This doesn't happen nearly as often in any other developed nation, and there is no rational reason why it should be happening here.

What is our government doing to stop (or at least reduce) these mass shootings? NOTHING!

Donald Trump is useless. He said after the shooting that we must stop the hate in this country -- completely ignoring the fact that he has increased that hate by his own actions and rhetoric. He has demonized groups that don't fit his white patriarchal mold, and encouraged racists, bigots, and white supremacists -- and doesn't seem to be interested in curbing his own hate speech.

Trump also suggested that the answer is more guns -- inferring that less people would have been killed if there had been guns inside the affected synagogue. That shows he doesn't understand the problem. There are too many guns already in this country (more than one in circulation for every person in the country). More guns is not the answer.

What is the reaction from the Republican-controlled Congress. Just useless "thoughts and prayers", and more nonsense about this not being the time to discuss doing something. They will do nothing because they have been bought and paid for by the gun manufacturers and their lobbying group (the NRA).

Our politicians whine about Second Amendment rights. But they ignore the things that could be done without violating the Second Amendment -- things like making gun laws stricter, banning assault-style weapons and huge ammo magazines, and closing the loopholes in our background check law. A majority of Americans support the first two, and an overwhelming majority supports the third (between 80% and 90%).

Action could be taken by Congress that, while it couldn't prevent all gun deaths, could significantly reduce those deaths.They won't act though, and that's why they should be voted out of power.

Gap Between Dems And GOP On Guns Has Widened

The chart above is from Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com. It shows that th gap between Republicans and Democrats on guns has widened in recent years. Much of that widening happened during the Obama administration, when NRA propaganda convinced Republicans that Obama was coming for their guns. It was not true, but it was effective.

Before Obama took office, only about half of Republicans thought protecting gun rights was more important than controlling gun ownership, but that percentage is now over 75%. This shows just how hard it's going to be to get the Republican-controlled Congress to do anything at all about our plague of gun deaths. They will be afraid their base would punish them (and the NRA would cut off their funding).

Appeals Court - Assault Weapon Ban Is Constitutional

On Tuesday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck a blow to protect Americans. In a majority decision, they ruled that the ban of military-style assault weapons (and large capacity magazines) did NOT violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Maryland passed the law banning those weapons in 2013, and it was upheld by a U.S. District judge. Gun advocates appealed that decision, and it was overturned by a small panel of the 4th Circuit Court. Maryland appealed to the entire 4th Circuit Court, and they issued their decision supporting Maryland's right to pass the law.

The court ruled that Maryland's law was in line with the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller decision -- which said that a complete ban on handguns was unconstitutional. Gun advocates hailed that decision, but ignored another part of the decision, which said that it did not extend to all types of weapons (like military-style weapons).

This decision is good news, and hopefully it will encourage other states to follow suit.

There was a concurring opinion written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III (a Reagan appointee) that I found very interesting. While voting with the majority to uphold the Maryland law, the judge wrote his own opinion, saying in part:

As Heller recognized, there is a balance to be struck here. While courts exist to protect individual rights, we are not the instruments of anyone’s political agenda, we are not empowered to court mass consequences we cannot predict, and we are not impaneled to add indefinitely to the growing list of subjects on which the states of our Union and the citizens of our country no longer have any meaningful say. . . .

Disenfranchising the American people on this life and death subject would be the gravest and most serious of steps. It is their community, not ours. It is their safety, not ours. It is their lives, not ours. To say in the wake of so many mass shootings in so many localities across this country that the people themselves are now to be rendered newly powerless, that all they can do is stand by and watch as federal courts design their destiny—this would deliver a body blow to democracy as we have known it since the very founding of this nation.

In urging us to strike this legislation, appellants would impair the ability of government to act prophylactically. More and more under appellants’ view, preventive statutory action is to be judicially forbidden and we must bide our time until another tragedy is inflicted or irretrievable human damage has once more been done. Leaving the question of assault weapons bans to legislative competence preserves the latitude that representative governments enjoy in responding to changes in facts on the ground. Constitutionalizing this critical issue will place it in a freeze frame which only the Supreme Court itself could alter. The choice is ultimately one of flexibility versus rigidity, and beyond that, of whether conduct that has visited such communal bereavement across America will be left to the communal processes of democracy for resolution.

He is absolutely right. While the Constitution does guarantee the right to own a firearm, that right is not an absolute one. It should be the decision of the people (through their elected officials) as to what kinds of weapons can be bought or owned, and who can legally buy or own them. The citizens of each state and the nation must have the right to make the decisions that affect their own safety.

A Huge % Of The Public Still Wants Background Checks

Donald Trump has said he wants to make it easier for Americans to buy and carry a firearm. And the Republicans in Congress have repeatedly blocked all efforts to further restrict the access to guns. Both even oppose the most reasonable of proposals -- background checks on all gun buyers, which would keep terrorists, convicted criminals, and those with a dangerous mental illness from legally buying a gun.

They cite the Second Amendment as the reason they oppose the background checks. That is a disingenuous argument. The Supreme Court has already ruled that making gun buyers go through a background check does NOT violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Also making their position nonsensical is the fact that the American public overwhelmingly supports closing the loopholes in the background check law (that allows about 40% of gun purchases to be made without a background check each year). Poll after poll has shown this, and now a new poll shows that is still true.

The new survey is from Public Policy Polling, and was done on December 6th and 7th of a random national sample of 1,224 registered voters (with a margin of error of 2.8 points).

That survey shows that 89% of the general public favors closing the loopholes in the federal background check law, while only a minuscule 8% opposes it. And that support crosses all gender, age, racial, and political lines (with the lowest support be among Republicans at still a healthy 79%).

This means there would be no political cost to voting for a better background check law. It would require no political courage -- only a bit of political decency. But don't expect to see it happen soon. The Republicans have sold out to the NRA leadership and the gun manufacturers, and they will continue to block common sense efforts to save American lives.

"Open Carry" Is A Stupid And Dangerous Idea (And Law)

We now have a new tragedy. This one happened in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. When police responded to a call about a person openly carrying an assault weapon, they walked into a trap -- and several of them were killed.

The crazy part of this is that Louisiana (like many other states) is an "open carry" state -- where anyone can walk down the street carrying any kind of weapon. In other words, what was reported to the police was NOT a violation of Louisiana law. But police have to check out all of these calls anyway, because there is no way for a citizen (or police officer) to know just by looking whether the person is a "good guy with a gun" or a "bad guy with a gun".

This has created more work for police officers, and it has made their job more dangerous. It also makes our society more dangerous for its citizens. If you are in a store or restaurant, and a person enters openly carrying an assault rifle (or any firearm), you have only seconds to figure out whether they are just being a jerk or they are there to kill people -- and making that decision is almost impossible until the shooting starts (and then its too late).

Gun nuts will tell us that it's their Second Amendment right to openly carry a firearm. That is NOT true. It is their right to own a firearm (unless they are a convicted felon), but the Supreme Court has never ruled they have the right to openly carry that firearm. In fact, just the opposite is true. The court has ruled that reasonable restrictions on the ownership and carrying of firearms is NOT a violation of the Second Amendment -- and banning the open carry of firearms is imminently reasonable.

Allowing citizens to openly carry firearms was a stupid and dangerous idea, and the laws permitting it should immediately be overturned. Protecting the safety of people (and police officers) is far more important than protecting the mythical "right" to openly carry a weapon.

More Guns Is Not The Solution - It is The Problem

The graphic above may be shocking, but it is true. In 2015, which is now 8 months old, the United States has averaged one mass shooting every single day. That's with the definition of a mass shooting being that four people or more are shot.

The latest shooting being covered by the mainstream media concerns the shooting of two news personalities in Virginia (both of whom were killed) and the person they were interviewing (who thankfully is still alive). Using the above definition, this doesn't even qualify as a "mass shooting" -- but it does once again point out that we have a serious problem with gun violence in the United States.

I know the gun-lovers will whine that this was a mental illness problem, and not a gun problem. They are half-right. The shooter was mentally ill. And we (Republican legislators mostly) have cut far too much funding from care for the mentally ill. That funding badly needs to be restored and people like this shooter, who exhibited many instances of rage in the past, need to be forced to get treatment.

But like it or not, we do have a gun problem in this country. Although only about a third of households have a gun, there are more than 300 million guns floating around in this country -- nearly enough for every man, woman, and child to have one. That is simply ridiculous.

But even more ridiculous is the fact that any terrorist, criminal, or dangerously mentally ill person in this country can easily and legally buy any kind of gun they want. We have a gun sales background check law, but that law has gaping holes in it. In fact, about 40% of all the guns sold each year in the U.S. are sold legally without a background check being done. That should not be allowed.

By buying at a gun show, through the internet or by mail, or from an individual, anyone (regardless of their background) can legally buy any kind of gun they want -- from a handgun to an assault rifle. It is time to fix that. No gun should be allowed to be sold (or given) to any individual with a background check first being done.

I know many right-wingers and gun-lovers will whine that this violates their Second Amendment right -- but that is not true. The Supreme Court is very clear on this. They have ruled that background checks do not violate the Constitution, and not everyone has the right to own a gun -- only honest and law-abiding citizens have that right. And most Americans agree, with about 80% wanting the holes in the background check law closed.

Sadly though, that is not likely to happen. Too many politicians have sold out to the wishes of the NRA, and the NRA has sold out to the wishes of the gun manufacturers. In this nation, the deaths of U.S. citizens is just not as important as the economic well-being of the gun manufacturers. That was not the intent of the Second Amendment, and it should not be used to accomplish that.

Closing the holes in the background check law won't prevent all gun killings, but it would prevent many -- and that's why it should be done. Lives are more important than profits.

It's Time To Outlaw "Open Carry" Of Firearms

The picture above is from the Facebook page of Jared or Amanda Miller, and is their wedding picture. They are the couple who murdered two police officers and another innocent civilian in Las Vegas. I'm sure many on the right will assure us they were mentally ill, but what we know now for sure is that they supported right-wing causes, believed in Second Amendment rights, joined the right-wing militia members defending Clive Bundy and threatening government officers, and looked like normal people.

This second picture shows "good guys" defending their Second Amendment rights by openly carrying rifles into a discount store. The question, of course, is how is a person to know which kind of gun-nut it is that they are encountering in a store or on the street -- a murderous couple like the in the top picture, or "good guys" like in the bottom?

The answer (whether right-wing gun-nuts want to admit it or not) is that you can't tell until the shooting starts -- and then it is too late. If you encounter such people, you only have seconds to decide -- and deciding wrong could be your death sentence.

The "open carry" proponents will tell you they are just exercising their Second Amendment rights. That's nonsense. I agree that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to own a gun. But that right has limits. For instance, those who have been convicted of a crime or declared dangerously mentally ill by a health professional do not have the right to own or possess a firearm. And the Second Amendment does not give anyone the right to openly carry a firearm anywhere they want.

Another excuse is that these people are openly carrying a firearm for self-defense. That's pure bullshit. Those who truly carry a firearm for self-defense are happy to carry that weapon concealed (and possess a concealed weapon permit). Those who sling a long gun over their shoulder (or strap a handgun to their hip) openly aren't doing so to defend themselves. They are trying to cover for their own inadequacies by intimidating other people (their fellow citizens) -- and that alone should tell us they have some psychological problems that are worrying.

There is no legitimate reason for openly carrying any kind of firearm in public. And personally, I believe it is time to outlaw the practice. It wasn't allowed in the cities of the "Old West", and it should not be allowed in our modern urban (and suburban) environments.

Gun Ownership Is NOT Increasing In The United States

(Cartoon image above is by Jen Sorensen at jensorensen.com.)

As all of us have seen, there has recently been a spate of individuals carrying guns openly into restaurants and other establishments. Put that together with the fact that there is nearly one gun in circulation for every American, and since the election of President Obama there has been an increase in gun sales, and one might think that most Americans own a firearm (and the number of people owning firearms is growing).

But that would not be true. Those carrying guns into business establishments are just a tiny fringe element of a minority of Americans who want to see "open carry" become legal and/or commonplace. They are not even smart enough to know they are hurting their own cause -- by terrifying other customers (who have no way to know if they are there to shoot people or just demonstrate). These actions are already creating a backlash among the general public.

The large number of guns in circulation and the increase in gun sales are also misleading. It turns out that that large number of guns are owned by a minority of Americans, and the increase in gun sales is going mainly to that minority that already own guns (and who are now just stockpiling guns). As a New York Times article tells us (see chart below), gun ownership in the United States is actually decreasing -- and the number of households with at least one gun has dropped by 18 points in the last 40 years (from 50% in 1970 to only 32% in 2010).

That means that two out of every three American households do not own or keep a gun in their home. These people know that a gun in the home is far more likely to be used against a member of their family than a criminal -- an unpleasant fact that the NRA doesn't want people to know. Frankly, this restores my faith in the commonsense of most Americans.

NOTE -- My remarks above should not be interpreted to say I believe guns should be confiscated from law-abiding Americans (or even registered). Unlike some of my progressive brothers/sisters, I read the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right of individual Americans to own a firearm (regardless of what our Forefathers might or might not have intended).

But the Supreme Court has found repeatedly that the right to own a firearm (like many other rights) is not absolute -- and cities and states can make reasonable restrictions on that right (like denying criminals and other dangerous individuals the right to possess a gun). I do believe closing the loopholes in our background check law would be a reasonable and constitutional action that should be done. It simply makes no sense that criminals (and other dangerous individuals) can buy a firearm without any background check.

Mass Murders In 2013

I can understand the feelings of Gabby Giffords. Not only was she seriously wounded in a mass murder, but the Newtown massacre of tiny school children and their teachers at the end of 2012 gave this country the perfect opportunity to do something about the out of control gun violence in the United States. The American people wanted action -- at the very least the closing of the loopholes in the background check law for gun purchases (where at least 40% of purchasers are able to duck having a background check because they buy from a private individual, at a gun show, or off the internet).

But Congress did absolutely nothing. They knuckled under to the NRA, and their lies that any new gun laws would be a violation of the Second Amendment. They ran scared by the right-wing lies that government wanted to take guns away from Americans -- afraid they wouldn't be re-elected if they passed a reasonable gun law. It was a classic display of political cowardice.

So the killing went on, including a ridiculous number of mass murders (defined by the FBI as a shooting that takes the life of at least four people, not counting the shooter). And even though there were far too many mass murders with firearms, that is only the tip of the iceberg of gun violence in America. When we include murders of less than four people, accidental deaths by firearms, and suicides with a gun, the total climbs up above 30,000 deaths (which is about the yearly average).

Gawker has compiled an eye-opening list of the mass murders in 2013 by firearms (using the stringent FBI definition). Here is their list:

January

7 - Tulsa, Oklahoma: Four women ranging in ages from 23 to 55 were found in their apartment shot dead with their hands tied behind their backs. A pair of brothers was arrested for allegedly robbing and killing them.

19 - Albuquerque, New Mexico: 15-year-old Nehemiah Gringo allegedly used an AR-15 to kill his entire family—his gang-member-turned-preacher father, his mother, a 9-year-old brother, and two sisters, ages 5 and 2. He also reportedly had plans to shoot up a Walmart.

March

13 - Herkimer, New York: A 64-year-old "loner" died in a gun-battle with police after he killed four at a barbershop and oil-lube shop. He also killed a 2-year-old police dog, Ape, before succumbing.

April

18 - Akron, Ohio: Two men and two women ranging in ages from 19 to 23 were lined up in their basement and shot in the head point-blank. Two men have been arrested in connection with the murders.

22 - Federal Way, Washington: A man with a carry license killed his girlfriend, then shot three other neighbors in her apartment complex to death before himself being killed by shots from eight police officers.

24 - Manchester, Illinois: A man angered over a custody dispute killed five of his daughter's mother's family members in their home, then led police on a high-speed chase. He later died in officers' custody.

28 - Ottawa, Kansas: A man allegedly murdered his best friend and a roommate before raping the best friend's girlfriend, then shooting her and her 18-month-old daughter to death. The shooter, who awaits trial, says he "ain't never hurt no man that didn't have it coming."

May

11 - Waynesville, Indiana: Four people were shot in their rural home. After a search of the home turned up meth, police concluded the killings were drug-related. The following month, a suspect who was already in jail was arrested for the murders.

13 - Fernley, Nevada: A man killed two couples in their homes over Mother's Day weekend, burning their houses. He also slew a newspaper deliveryman and stole his truck.

June

7 - Santa Monica, California: An emotionally troubled 23-year-old with 1,300 rounds of ammunition killed his father and brother before going on a rampage that killed three more at Santa Monica College. The gunman was killed on campus by police.

July

26 - Hialeah, Florida: A workout enthusiast under scrutiny for sending abusive emails to an ex-employer killed the husband-and-wife managers of his apartment, then murdered four more neighbors before taking hostages. He was killed by police; the hostages were unharmed.

26 - Clarksburg, West Virginia: A gunman killed two in a suspected drug house, then while fleeing shot and killed a 70-year-old man and his 47-year-old son who were in the neighborhood to deliver the local paper.

August

7 - Dallas, Texas: A former teacher and football coach killed his girlfriend, estranged wife, and two of their children before police arrested him.

14 - Oklahoma City: A "weird" 40-year-old man killed his mother, sister, niece, and a 7-month-old nephew with a .380 pistol. He currently awaits trial.

September

11 - Crab Orchard, Tennessee: A man and a woman were arrested for killing four people, ages 16 to 22, in their car during a robbery that followed a botched marijuana deal.

16 - Washington, D.C.: A military contractor who claimed to hear voices murdered 12 ex-coworkers with a sawed-off shotgun at the federal Navy Yard before he was killed by police.

20 - Rice, Texas: A woman killed her husband, their three sons, and herself in their apartment. The husband had been arrested for a domestic violence charge two weeks before.

October

9 - Paris, Texas: Four people were found dead in a home; it's not yet clear what transpired or who killed them.

26 - Phoenix, Arizona: A man who was allegedly thrown into a rage over the neighbors' two barking dogs killed the animals, then his four neighbors, then himself with a pump-action shotgun.

28 - Terrell, Texas: A man who "appeared to be intoxicated" killed five people, including a convenience store clerk, at four locations before police caught him.

29 - Callison, South Carolina: A man killed his ex-girlfriend, her parents, and two of her children before taking his own life.

November

7 - Jacksonville, Florida: Two men and their girlfriends were killed in what appeared to be a planned drive-by shooting. The suspects are at large.

23 - Tulsa, Oklahoma: Four people were killed in a suspected meth house. No suspects have been arrested.

December

1 - Topeka, Kansas: Four people were killed at a house in the town's southwest section. No suspects have been named.

3 - Alma, Arkansas: After arriving home with them, a man killed his daughter's boyfriend in the car, then killed his 4-month-old grandson while he lay in his car seat. He pursued his daughter and four-year-old granddaughter into the backyard, killing the granddaughter before turning the gun on himself.

3 - Erwin, Tennessee: A man with a record of domestic unrest killed his wife, son, and daughter before committing suicide.

8 - Manchester, Connecticut: A man killed his ex-girlfriend and two friends, then fled with the couple's 13-month-old child. When confronted outside by police, he set the child down on the ground and fatally shot himself.

Isn't it time we did something about the gun violence in the United States? No one, not even liberals like myself, wants to violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution or try to take guns away from law-abiding Americans. But the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the Second Amendment right to own a firearm is not an absolute one -- that there are people the state has a compelling interest in denying the right to own a firearm (like convicted criminals and the dangerously mentally ill). The very least we could do is make sure anyone trying to buy a gun (from  any source) must clear a background check.

People Not Guns

One of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard against gun control (which would more appropriately be called people control) is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Of course, that's true, and it can be said of any tool employed by man. A plow pulled by a tractor doesn't make a furrow, a human does -- but it's a hell of a lot easier for that human to do it if he has a tractor and plow. And it's a hell of a lot easier to kill people (especially a lot of people) if you have a gun.

But while the gun is just a tool, it is a tool that can be very dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. That's why we need background checks (for people, not guns) and training (for people, not guns) and prohibitions on where a weapon can be carried (for people, not guns).

I understand the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to own a firearm, but the Supreme Court has said that right is not without limits. And reasonable people can agree that there are some people who should be restricted from owning and using a gun.

More Guns Just Means More Gun Deaths

I like this graphic, because it exposes one of the most ridiculous myths of the anti-gun regulation crowd -- that more guns means a safer country. If that was true, then the United States would be the safest country in the world. It's not. We have one of the highest murder rates in the civilized world, especially those committed with firearms (and that doesn't even consider all the suicides and accidents with guns that take additional lives). The truth is that the more guns a country has in circulation, the more gun deaths it will have.

The Second Amendment to our Constitution does give individual Americans the right to own a firearm, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that this is not an unlimited right. Government has the constitutional ability to restrict dangerous individuals from owning a firearm, and can restrict the type of firearms an individual can own. For example, those with a criminal record and those deemed dangerously mentally-ill can (and should) be denied the right to purchase or own a gun -- and individuals cannot purchase or own machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, or similar weapons.

Currently, we have a country where anyone can buy a weapon (including criminals and the dangerously mentally-ill). At the very least, we should plug the holes in our background check laws to prevent this. It just makes sense, and it is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans.

Strict Gun Laws Do Prevent Gun Deaths

One of the favorite arguments of gun-lovers is that stricter gun laws don't prevent gun deaths. For instance, they love to point at the high rate of gun deaths in the large city of Chicago -- but usually don't account for the large population of the city and the state of Illinois. The truth is that the state is in the bottom 20 states in terms of gun deaths, mainly due to some fairly strict gun laws. The map above shows the prevalence of gun deaths in the states. The ten states with the highest gun deaths are in red, followed by the next ten in orange, and the middle ten in yellow. The twenty states with the lowest gun deaths are in green, with the dark green states being the ten with the lowest prevalence of gun deaths.

Note that the red and orange states are generally those with the weakest gun laws, while the green states are those with the strictest gun laws. The map was compiled by the Center for American Progress to illustrate the findings of their new study on gun laws and gun violence. What they found was that the ten states with the weakest gun laws had over twice as much gun violence (actually 104% more) than the ten states with the strictest gun laws.

The NRA will hate this study and do their best to demonize it, and the congressional Republicans will ignore it to play to their base, but the results show the real truth -- gun laws do work to lower the number of gun deaths. And that is all President Obama and the Democrats are trying to do with their very reasonable and constitutional proposals to tighten gun laws -- namely, closing the loopholes in background checks so that everyone trying to buy a gun must get one, increasing the penalties for gun trafficking, and banning the sale of military-style assault weapons and large volume ammunition clips (proposals that are all supported by a majority of the American people).

The bottom line is that no one wants to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, or restrict in any way their right to own a firearm. That is unquestionably guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. But restrictions on the type of firearm that can be legally owned, and the ability of the government to require a background check on people trying to buy a gun, have been held as constitutional by the Supreme Court -- and there is no legitimate reason not to pass these laws and save thousands of American lives.

------------------------------

The state of Connecticut has just passed stricter guns laws for that state. Here's what the folks at Think Progress want you to know about the new Connecticut law:

1. It has bipartisan support. Certainly more Democrats than Republicans supported the bill, but the vote in the state House was 105 to 44, with 40 percent of Republicans and 87 percent of Democrats voting for it. Earlier, the Senate voted with only 2 of the 22 Democrats opposing the law. Nearly half of Connecticut Senate Republicans voted for the measure.

2. It expands the state’s assault weapons ban. Connecticut already has an Assault Weapons Ban in place, but the new law will add over 100 new types of guns to the banned list. Among these is the Bushmaster AR-15 gun, which is what the Sandy Hook gunman used in his horrific killing spree. People who already own such weapons will be permitted to keep them, but must comply with new registration standards.

3. Magazine clips will be limited to 10 rounds. Connecticut’s new law will immediately ban the sale of any large-capacity magazine clips that hold more than 10 rounds. Gun owners who’ve already purchased high-capacity clips will be grandfathered in, but they register any extended clips they have, if they plan to keep them. And they can’t bring those bigger clips around with them; the new law requires that any extended magazines still on the market be used only in a private home or at a shooting range.

4. All gun and ammunition sales will require a background check.Effective immediately, every single sale of a gun or of bullets in the state of Connecticut must include a background check. Universal background checks are probably the most widely supported measure in Connecticut’s new gun law; nationally, background checks have 92 percent support.

5. Mental health isn’t left out of the equation. Not every measure in the new law intends to regulate firearms; the bill also includes expanded funding for mental health research, and allows for greater training on mental health issues for Connecticut’s teachers. The bill also creates a council in the state with the express purpose of determining how schools can be more safe, and when mental health records should block someone from being able to purchase a firearm.

Obama Op-Ed On Gun Control

President Obama announced the measures he would like to see enacted regarding gun control in a national speech last Wednesday. On that same day, he wrote an op-ed piece for the Connecticut Post regarding that same I issue. It's an excellent and very thoughtful piece, and I encourage you to read the whole thing. Here are some parts I found particularly interesting:

As a society, our first task must be to care for our children -- to shield them from harm and give them the tools they need not only to pursue their dreams, but to help build this country. That is how we will be judged. And in the wake of the tragedy in Newtown, it's clear we have a long way to go.


That's why, last month, I asked Vice President Biden to lead an effort to come up with concrete steps we can take right now to keep our kids safe, help prevent mass shootings, and reduce the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country. And on Wednesday, I put forward a specific set of proposals based on Joe's recommendations. Because while there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence -- if even one life can be saved -- we have an obligation to try. . .


Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting, or sport; protection, or collection.

But I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from doing harm. I believe most of them agree that if America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one in Connecticut. And that's what these commonsense reforms are designed to do.

None of this will be easy. Already we're seeing pundits, politicians, and special interest lobbyists warning of a tyrannical, all-out assault on liberty -- not because it's true, but because it gins up fear, or higher ratings, or more revenue for themselves.

The truth is, there's only one voice powerful enough to make this happen: yours. If you think we've suffered too much pain to allow this to continue, put down the paper, turn off the computer, and get your Members of Congress on record. Ask them if they support universal background checks or renewing a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. And if they say no, ask them why not. Ask them why getting an A-grade from the gun lobby is more important than giving parents some peace of mind when they drop their child off for first grade. . .

It's time to do the right thing -- for the 26 innocent children and devoted educators who lost their lives in Newtown, for the men and women in big cities and small towns who fall victim to senseless violence each and every day, and for this country we love so much.

Giffords Joins Fight For Sensible Gun Laws

I was hoping this would happen, and now it has. Gabby Giffords, the former congresswoman and miraculous survivor of gun violence, and her husband Mark Kelly have officially joined the fight for sensible gun laws to better protect the American people. Yesterday, they announced they had formed a PAC to help "elected officials to stand up for solutions to prevent gun violence and protect responsible gun ownership". The name of the PAC they have formed is Americans for Responsible Solutions, and it will not only lend support to politicians brave enough to take on the NRA but will also promote a national debate on gun safety issues. They also co-authored an op-ed piece for USA Today to help explain what they want to accomplish, saying:

In response to a horrific series of shootings that has sown terror in our communities, victimized tens of thousands of Americans, and left one of its own bleeding and near death in a Tucson parking lot, Congress has done something quite extraordinary — nothing at all.

I was shot in the head while meeting with constituents two years ago today. Since then, my extensive rehabilitation has brought excitement and gratitude to our family. But time and time again, our joy has been diminished by new, all too familiar images of death on television: the breaking news alert, stunned witnesses blinking away tears over unspeakable carnage, another community in mourning. America has seen an astounding 11 mass shootings since a madman used a semiautomatic pistol with an extended ammunition clip to shoot me and kill six others. Gun violence kills more than 30,000 Americans annually.

This country is known for using its determination and ingenuity to solve problems, big and small. Wise policy has conquered disease, protected us from dangerous products and substances, and made transportation safer. But when it comes to protecting our communities from gun violence, we're not even trying — and for the worst of reasons.

Special interests purporting to represent gun owners but really advancing the interests of an ideological fringe have used big money and influence to cow Congress into submission. Rather than working to find the balance between our rights and the regulation of a dangerous product, these groups have cast simple protections for our communities as existential threats to individual liberties. Rather than conducting a dialogue, they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction.

As a result, we are more vulnerable to gun violence. Weapons designed for the battlefield have a home in our streets. Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase guns by avoiding background checks. Firearm accessories designed for killing at a high rate are legal and widely available. And gun owners are less responsible for the misuse of their weapons than they are for their automobiles.

Forget the boogeyman of big, bad government coming to dispossess you of your firearms. As a Western woman and a Persian Gulf War combat veteran who have exercised our Second Amendment rights, we don't want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home. What we do want is what the majority of NRA members and other Americans want: responsible changes in our laws to require responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence.

We saw from the NRA leadership's defiant and unsympathetic response to the Newtown, Conn., massacre that winning even the most common-sense reforms will require a fight. But whether it has been in campaigns or in Congress, in combat or in space, fighting for what we believe in has always been what we do.

We can't be naive about what it will take to achieve the most common-sense solutions. We can't just hope that the last shooting tragedy will prevent the next. Achieving reforms to reduce gun violence and prevent mass shootings will mean matching gun lobbyists in their reach and resources.

Americans for Responsible Solutions, which we are launching today, will invite people from around the country to join a national conversation about gun violence prevention, will raise the funds necessary to balance the influence of the gun lobby, and will line up squarely behind leaders who will stand up for what's right.

Until now, the gun lobby's political contributions, advertising and lobbying have dwarfed spending from anti-gun violence groups. No longer. With Americans for Responsible Solutions engaging millions of people about ways to reduce gun violence and funding political activity nationwide, legislators will no longer have reason to fear the gun lobby. Other efforts such as improving mental health care and opposing illegal guns are essential, but as gun owners and survivors of gun violence, we have a unique message for Americans.

We have experienced too much death and hurt to remain idle. Our response to the Newtown massacre must consist of more than regret, sorrow and condolence. The children of Sandy Hook Elementary School and all victims of gun violence deserve fellow citizens and leaders who have the will to prevent gun violence in the future.

The Right Questions

The United States is definitely a country that has a love affair with the firearm. As you can see from the chart above, other countries don't even come close to the number of guns available in this country.

But even after the tragedy in Arizona, where one nut with a gun was able to kill six innocent people and seriously wound 13 others, there is still very little debate about restricting the availability of firearms (or the type of firearms available). Both political parties act like they're running scared of the power of the National Rifle Association -- an organization that opposes any kind of restrictions on any kind of guns.

Although the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does grant American citizens the right to own firearms, it does not guarantee unrestricted access for everyone. The Supreme Court has found that the right to firearm ownership can be restricted for public safety -- for instance, convicted felons and those with mental problems don't have the right to own a gun in most places.

One of my favorite young bloggers, Cassie of Cassie @ College, has a few questions that she thinks Americans should be asking themselves (in light of the recent Arizona tragedy). I think she's right, so I'm reposting her questions here. They are:

1. Would you rather live next to a mentally ill person with a gun, or a mentally ill person with an appointment at the community mental health clinic?

2. Think about the "craziest" person in your family.   Do you want them in your house overnight with a gun in their hands?

3. Think about the "stupidist" person in your family.   Do you want them in your house overnight with a gun in their hands?   What about the most violent person in your family?

4. Is there anyone in your family who has ever gone senile?   Do you want them in your house overnight with a gun in their hands?

5. How much money could we save by paying for mental health care instead of building more and more prisons?

6. When is the right time to ask these questions?

Gun Control Is Not A Big Issue Right Now

It has become clear to me that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has the political and rhetorical punch to control much of the talk about firearms and firearms control in the media.   Just listening to that media, one would have the impression that firearms control is a hot-button issue in this country, and that there is a groundswell of support for doing away with the restrictions on firearms.   But that is just not true.

As a recent Gallup poll shows, only 1% of the population think firearms restrictions (gun control) is America's most important issue at this time.   That's not surprising since the economy and the lack of jobs is the issue most people are concerned about right now.   But I was a little surprised to find out that only about 12% of the population would like to see regulations be loosened (become less strict) on guns -- as high a percentage as it's been in the last 20 years.   The campaign being waged by the NRA has made it seem this segment of the population was a lot larger than 12%.

The truth is that most of the population (about 86%) does not want to see gun control restrictions loosened.   About 44% would like to see stricter gun control laws (down from a high of 78% in 1991), and about 42% would like for the gun control laws to stay just like they are right now (up from a low of 17% in 1991).   While there have been a couple of Second Amendment Supreme Court cases recently, it looks like guns are just not a big issue in the country right now, and neither tighter nor looser gun laws would be a political winner.

Here are the numbers on how different sectors of the population think about the issue.   The first number is those who would like to see stricter gun laws, which the number in parentheses is those who would like to see looser gun laws:

Men...............32% (20%)
Women...............55% (5%)

Whites...............39% (12%)
Nonwhites...............58% (12%)

East...............54% (9%)
Midwest...............38% (9%)
South...............41% (14%)
West...............46% (14%)

Postgraduate...............54% (9%)
College grad...............41% (8%)
Some college...............42% (15%)
High school or less...............44% (12%)

Conservatives...............34% (16%)
Moderates...............50% (9%)
Liberals...............62% (9%)

Republicans...............26% (16%)
Independents...............42% (16%)
Democrats...............63% (4%)

Gun in house...............30% (15%)
No gun in house...............55% (10%)

Supreme Court Is "On Target"

The United States Supreme Court has issued three very important decisions in the last few days, and for the first time in a long time, I agree with all three decisions. All of the decisions were reached by a 5-4 vote. I wish the votes had been a little more lop-sided, but I guess you can't have everything.

Last week, the court restored habeas corpus rights to the Guantanamo detainees. This restored the "rule of law" by guaranteeing that anyone in U.S. custody can appeal their detention to a United States court. No one can be detained indefinitely without justification. This was a much-needed step in restoring America's reputation as a nation based on laws, rather than the whim of a ruling dictator.

Two days ago, the court struck down the penalty of capital punishment for child rape. They made it clear that the death penalty would only be tolerated in cases where there was a loss of life. Child rape is a heinous crime, but it can be handled with very long prison sentences.

This decision may actually save the lives of the abused children. If an offender already faced the death penalty, what would stop them from taking the life of the young witness? Now, if they take that young life, they will know their sentence can be upped to the death penalty.

Yesterday's decision cleared up a long-standing argument over whether the second amendment gave individuals the right of gun ownership, or whether that right was reserved to a militia. The court came down on the side of the individual. They said the opening phrase of the amendment (regarding militias) simply gave one of the reasons why individual citizens are guaranteed the right of gun ownership.

As the victim of a gunshot wound during the commission of a crime, I am not crazy about the ease with which criminals can get guns. I would be personally happy if all handguns were to disappear tomorrow. But I can read, and I believe it's pretty obvious the court made the right decision -- the Constitution gives the right to own guns to individuals (so they can form a militia if needed).

Some people were worried that this decision would erase all our nation's gun laws, but the majority on the court did not make their decision that far-reaching. Speaking for the majority, Justice Scalia said, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

This decision leaves in tact such laws as denying guns to convicted felons and the mentally ill, mandating a waiting period for a gun purchase, the registration of guns, requiring a license to carry a gun and the outlawing of guns such as machine guns. I'm sure that some will try to contest these laws, but I don't think they will get far. This decision was about guaranteeing the right of ownership, not about the invalidation of reasonable laws.

The court guaranteed Americans the right to own a gun, but it did not give them permission to be stupid and abuse that right.

Supreme Court Hears "Gun" Case This Week

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.

Those are the words of the second amendment to the United States Constitution. This week the Supreme Court will hear a case that will determine exactly what those words mean.

For years the city of Washington, D.C., had a ban on the possession of handguns. But a few months ago, a court threw out that ban, saying it violated the second amendment right to bear arms. The city has appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case this week.

The crux of the matter is exactly who has the right "to bear arms". Is it the individual, or an organized state militia? Different parts of the country have defined the right in different ways. The city of Washington believes it is a right reserved for a militia. Here in Texas it is generally considered to be a right of the individual.

I am no lover of guns, and in fact, I've never even owned a gun. However, the way I read the amendment, it is an individual right. It lists the militia as a reason the right of "the people" must be protected. The "people" are individuals -- you and me.

It should be interesting to see what the opinion of the Supreme Court is. With the court almost evenly split between liberals and conservatives, it could go either way. In fact, I'm not even sure this is a liberal/conservative issue. There are many liberals, including myself, who believe it is an individual right.