Bullet Counter Points

McNair Shooting Puts Spotlight on Unregulated Gun Sales

2009-07-13T06:37:00.000-07:00

On July 4, former National Football League quarterback Steve McNair was asleep on a couch in his condominium in Nashville, Tennessee, when his life was abruptly taken. 20 year-old Sahel Kazemi—a woman that McNair was having an extramarital affair with—shot him four times at close range with a semiautomatic handgun, killing him. She then sat next to him on the couch and fired one shot into her temple, taking her own life.

Nashville Police report that Kazemi’s life was “spinning out of control” in the days before the shooting. Kazemi’s family has said she believed McNair was in the process of leaving his wife and four sons when they met at her job at Dave & Buster’s several months ago. No divorce papers were ever filed by the McNairs, however. Additionally, Kazemi saw McNair with another woman days before the shooting and became convinced he was seeing her. Kazemi was also concerned about making rent and car payments and had told friends and associates she “was going to end it all.”

Another warning sign came in the early morning hours of July 2, when Kazemi was arrested on a driving under the influence (DUI) charge while driving 54 miles per hour in a 30-mph zone. McNair, who was in the car with her at the time, was not arrested or charged. He bailed Kazemi out of jail the same day.

Hours later, Kazemi purchased the handgun she would use to kill McNair and herself. She did not purchase the handgun at a gun store. Under federal law, the minimum age to purchase a handgun from a federally licensed gun dealer (FFL) is 21. Being 20 years of age, Kazemi would have failed the required background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Instead, she purchased the handgun through a private sale. Because of a loophole in federal law created by the gun lobby, private individuals are permitted to sell guns without conducting background checks on purchasers or maintaining records of sale. Furthermore, private sellers, unlike FFLs, can sell handguns to persons between the ages of 18-20. Police are reporting that Kazemi bought the handgun from an unidentified individual in the parking lot of Dave & Buster’s on the evening of July 2—the same day she was bailed out of jail.

The death of Steve McNair is the latest in a series of gun-related incidents involving National Football League players. McNair’s involvement with guns and alcohol predated the July 4 tragedy. In 2003, he was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and carrying an illegal handgun. In 2007, he was charged with drunken driving again for letting his intoxicated brother-in-law drive his pickup truck. All the charges were later dropped, and McNair at some point obtained a permit to carry a concealed handgun in Tennessee (law enforcement authorities in Tennessee have no discretion and must issue a permit to anyone who passes a computerized background check).

The McNair shooting is the latest example of how unfettered access to firearms is prioritized over public safety in the United States. Multiple red flags indicated that Sahel Kazemi was a threat to herself and possibly to others. And yet weak federal laws allowed a private individual to sell her a firearm without knowing anything about her; a firearm that she could not have legally purchased at a licensed gun store; and without any type of waiting or “cooling off” period. Sadly, the Nashville community—and McNair admirers across the nation—are now grieving over a tragedy that was entirely preventable.

“Gun violence is…causing America to fall apart.”

2009-07-06T10:13:00.000-07:00

Here at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), we are fortunate to be able to work with talented and passionate interns from across the country. This summer, Marcellas Williams, a student at the César Chávez Public Charter School for Public Policy in Washington, D.C., spent three weeks interning at the Coalition. Marcellas was a great asset to CSGV during his time here and contributed the following blog about his views on gun violence:

Gun violence is slowly but surely causing America to fall apart.

I am an 11^th grader living in Ward 8 in Washington, D.C., where there is a high rate of death due to gun violence. I feel as though young people who try to be something in life are often those who die for no apparent reason. Some teenagers in my community try to take the “Fast Money” route and get attention for having flashy accessories. They want the “Lavish Life.” That is where their downfall begins. Many teens believe that selling drugs or being a thug is the easiest way in life, but we refuse to look beyond that and realize that there is a better road to take. It’s sad to say, but I believe that in a way I’m contributing to violence, because I’m the type of person who believes that certain people deserve what they have in store for them.

There are young people who set goals and become experts in their career fields, but we sometimes don’t see that education leads to bigger and better chances in life. That means that even when you’re doing right, you aren’t always going to be rewarded by the outside world. You need to feel a sense of pride and satisfaction for yourself. If you think you deserve recognition, you might go back to your old ways (and figure you’ll get more recognition on the streets).

Statistics show that 97% of the District of Columbia’s crime guns come from outside states. 25% come from Virginia, 25% come from Maryland, and the rest come mainly from states in the Southeast. Traffickers buy the guns in these states and then drive them across the border into D.C. and re-sell them to criminals and youths. Federal gun laws, and the laws in these outside states, are just not strong enough to protect D.C. from gun trafficking. For example, more than 40 states allow individuals to sell guns to others without putting them through a background check! Meanwhile, the District of Columbia still doesn’t have a vote in Congress, which means that our elected officials don’t have any ability to change federal gun laws to make our city safer.

All told, 1,000 people across the world die every day due to gun violence, and until people sit down and take the time to realize that, things will never change. Here in America, we need to put aside our differences and come to an understanding that guns are not the way to solve problems. Living in Southeast Washington, I’ve seen people die for senseless reasons, such as the neighborhood they’re from. I wish the people who are involved in gun violence would realize they are only showing others their ignorance. They need to realize what they've put people’s families through. It’s time to choose education over guns and the “Lavish Life.”

I’ve heard many complaints about gun violence, but when are people going to actually come together and confront those who can change America and our urban communities? The good news is that there are many things we can do to take action collectively. Build a coalition of groups and individuals against violence; organize protests to impact our laws; draft proposals and send them out to D.C. Council Members, Mayor Adrian Fenty, and President Barack Obama; create petitions; get more young people involved, etc. We need to ask legislators the following question: “If you were in my shoes, how would you feel?”

A problem won’t solve itself—it takes people who are willing to help make change in America. We can start to make that change this very second; all we need is involvement from people who are concerned and willing to make a difference.

Ordinary People: Siege Mentality

2009-06-29T08:13:00.000-07:00

The Myth of the "Black Market"

2009-06-22T07:17:00.000-07:00

The cities of Washington, D.C. and Chicago have been under siege in recent months by the National Rifle Association (NRA), which is attempting to overturn gun laws in both jurisdictions.

The NRA’s battle with Chicago has been in the courts, where the gun lobby is seeking to have the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment ruling in the case of D.C. V. Heller incorporated at the state level. This would have the practical effort of repealing Chicago’s handgun ban. After the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the NRA’s lawsuit, it appears headed to the Supreme Court on appeal.

D.C. v. Heller, of course, already repealed the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, but the Supreme Court’s ruling did not go far enough for the NRA. They are now seeking to have the city’s new, constitutional gun laws repealed through an amendment that was initially attached to the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” by Senator John Ensign (R-NV). That bill has yet to be considered by the House of Representatives, and the amendment’s next likely target is the D.C. appropriations bill, which Congress will likely take up this summer.

Time and time again, the NRA has blamed violence in the two cities on their tough laws, despite evidence that shows that criminals are totally unable to acquire firearms inside Chicago and Washington. So why is it so easy for criminals and gun traffickers to get firearms outside the borders of cities? A fascinating new essay by David Kairys, a professor of Law at Temple University, provides some answers.

The essay, entitled “Why are Handguns So Accessible on Urban Streets?” is a chapter in the new book Against the Wall: Poor, Young, Black and Male. Kairys argues that we need to avoid a “pervasive acceptance and strange sense that the extraordinary level of death and killing is a normal or inevitable aspect of life in urban America,” and that only after understanding why guns are so readily available in cities can we begin to correct the problem.

Kairys explains that “the market makes new handguns so easily available—often for less than one hundred dollars new, right out of the box—that it makes no sense to steal one.” In fact, “anyone who does not have a record can go to a licensed gun store in most states, legally buy as many handguns as he or she wants, and walk out the door with them.” Kairys also points out that there are no “meaningful limits on the resale of handguns,” because private individuals, unlike federally licensed gun dealers, are not required to run Brady background checks on purchasers.

In Kairys’ words: “The bottom line is this. Under federal law and the law of most states, any person so inclined can buy huge quantities of cheap, easily concealed handguns and sell them to others indiscriminately, often without violating any law and usually without having to worry about getting arrested, prosecuted or convicted. Nor are the identities of owners of handguns, or the persons to whom they transfer ownership, registered or maintained by government, unless state law so provides—and most do not.” Capitalizing on this weak regulation, gun manufacturers produce “more guns than could be sold to law-abiding people,” knowing full well their product will be distributed to criminals and other prohibited purchasers downstream.

So what can we do to address this problem? Kairys advocates for registering handguns and licensing handgun owners; adopting strong, clear and specific “straw purchase” laws that make all of the parties to a straw purpose criminally and civilly responsible; limiting multiple purchases of handguns in a given period; and providing large urban areas with the authority to regulate handguns within their borders. All of these measures would help to reduce the flow of handguns to criminals on America’s streets.

But most importantly, we must learn to overcome our own misconceptions of the problem. As Kairys writes, “the common image of an underground, illegal market is largely fictional.” The ability of dangerous people to easily obtain guns is the result of our weak gun laws, which do little to regulate the firearms industry. The good news? Significant progress can be made in reducing gun violence as soon as our elected officials are made to realize that “the loss of life, the economic and social costs, and the undermining of the safety and the quality of life in America are unacceptable.”

“Those types of weapons ... They’re pretty powerful.”

2009-06-15T07:27:00.000-07:00

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has long claimed that assault weapons are no more dangerous than any other type of rifle, stating: “In the mid-1980s, gun control groups invented the slang term ‘assault weapon’ and applied it to certain semi-automatic firearms which, though designed for civilian use, look like modern fully-automatic assault rifles used by the military.” That view contrasts sharply with that of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which apparently speaks in slang: “Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem.”

The expiration of the federal Assault Weapons Ban in September 2004 has led to real violence in our country, as we have seen in a series of disturbing shootings this year. Sadly, it is our nation’s law enforcement officers who are often caught in the crosshairs of these weapons. Just ask Officer Sean Fleming of the Chesapeake Police Department.

On June 1, Fleming was on his way home from the Department’s third precinct when he responded to a call of shots fired near Interstate 64. He arrived at the scene in his green Jeep Wrangler and immediately met an onslaught of bullets fired by Christopher White, who hours earlier had assisted in the abduction of Tione Vincent, 30, off of East Liberty Street in Norfolk, Virginia.

White jumped out a van and opened fire on Fleming with a semiautomatic AK-47 assault rifle. In the resulting firefight, Fleming was shot four times. The gunfire also blew out two of the Jeep’s tires, shattered its front headlights and left 12 bullets holes in the front windshield. Police believe that two rounds went through the metal of Fleming’s car before piercing his bullet-proof vest—a demonstration of the power of the AK-47. All told, White fired approximately 30 rounds at the Jeep in a matter of seconds.

As Chesapeake Police Major T.D. Branch noted, “Those types of weapons, depending on what kind of rounds, typically penetrate metal. They’re pretty powerful.”

Additional officers arrived on the scene quickly and gave chase to White and his fellow captors, who fled the scene. In a firefight that ensued, White was killed and two other suspects were arrested. Sadly, Tione Vincent was found dead in the back of the van, apparently killed before police arrived.

Thankfully, Officer Fleming survived his injuries after being airlifted to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital and is now recovering. It is also a credit to law enforcement that no civilians were injured given that the shootout occurred in a busy intersection near rush hour.

As of June 11, the Chesapeake Police Department was still attempting to determine how White acquired the AK-47 used in the shooting. Before this incident, White was wanted in Norfolk on a series of charges including robbery, conspiracy and failure to appear in court—and as a fugitive from justice would have been banned under federal law from purchasing or owning firearms. It is possible that he acquired the weapon through an unregulated private sale in Virginia. Such sales do not require sellers to conduct background checks or maintain records of sale.

The NRA justifies its support for the legalization of assault weapons by stating that “self-defense is the primary purpose of the right to keep and bear arms.” After a series of assault weapon shootings this year targeting police, perhaps the best response to this question is: Defense against whom?

Anarchy and Vigilantism

2009-06-08T06:36:00.000-07:00

On May 31, Americans across the country were shocked to learn that Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider, had been shot and killed in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas. Just three hours after the shooting, authorities apprehended a suspect—Scott P. Roeder of Merriam, Kansas—on Interstate 35.

Initial reporting on the case linked the murder to Roeder’s extensive history as a pro-life activist. One Kansas City pro-life protestor, Regina Dinwiddie, commented that Roeder, “believed in justifiable homicide. I know he very strongly believed that abortion was murder and that you ought to defend the little ones, both born and unborn.” A September 3, 2007, post from a “Scott Roeder” on the website www.chargetiller.com reads as follows: “It seems as though what is happening in Kansas could be compared to the ‘lawlessness’ which is spoken of in the Bible. Tiller is the concentration camp ‘Mengele’ of our day and needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgment upon our nation.”

Subsequent investigation, however, revealed that Roeder’s ties to right wing extremist groups were far more extensive. In the words of Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman, Roeder’s “extremism cross-pollinated between anti-government extremism and anti-abortion activism.”

In April 1996, Roeder was pulled over in Topeka, Kansas, for driving with a homemade license plate. Police found a military-style rifle, ammunition, a blasting cap, a fuse cord, a one-pound can of gunpowder, and two 9-volt batteries in his car. He was subsequently convicted on one count of criminal use of explosives and several driving-related misdemeanors, and ordered to stop associating with violent anti-government groups. The convictions were overturned on appeal a year later, however, after a court determined that the evidence was illegally gathered.

At the time, the FBI listed Roeder as a member of the Montana Freemen, a radical anti-government group. From March-June 1996, the group engaged in an armed standoff with FBI agents who were attempting to serve warrants at their compound. Federal prosecutors had alleged that Freemen members wrote worthless checks and money orders to pay taxes and to defraud banks and credit card companies. Though no shots were fired, the heavily-armed Freemen remained in their Jordan, Montana, compound for 81 days before allowing the FBI to enter. Several of the group’s members were subsequently convicted on a range of charges.

This information suggests that Roeder’s killing of Dr. Tiller could be the latest manifestation of the Department of Homeland Security’s warning that, “the combination of environmental factors that echo the 1990s, including heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms restrictions and returning military veterans, as well as several new trends, including an uncertain economy and a perceived rising influence of other countries, may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.” One cannot ignore the parallels between Roeder and right-wing extremists like Neo-Nazi Richard Poplawski, who killed three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in April; Joshua Cartwright, who killed two police officers in the Florida panhandle in April; and Jim Adkisson, who killed two parishioners at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in July 2008.

It is unclear at this point what type of gun Roeder used in the shooting or how he acquired it. Because Roeder’s felony conviction for criminal use of explosives was thrown out in the late 1990s, that would not have stopped him from passing a criminal background check. During a custody battle over a girl Roeder claimed was his daughter, a 2005 court ruling noted that Roeder had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and did not take medication, "which may pose a clear and present danger to the minor child." Had Roeder been adjudicated “mentally defective” or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, he would have been prohibited under federal law from purchasing or owning firearms.

Though the shooting of Dr. Tiller has obvious religious overtones due to Roeder’s pro-life activism, it is also clear that Roeder felt that violence was an appropriate way to oppose what he viewed as an illegitimate government that refused to ban abortion. Such insurrectionist beliefs pose a direct threat to any constitutional democracy, a fact recently noted by conservative FOX commentator Bill O’Reilly, who said, “Anarchy and vigilantism will assure the collapse of any society. Once the rule of law breaks down, a country is finished. Thus, clear-thinking Americans should condemn the murder of late-term abortionist Tiller. Even though the man terminated thousands of pregnancies, what he did is within Kansas law.”

Ordinary People: Attack of the Black Dwarves

2009-06-01T07:14:00.000-07:00

Bullet Counter Points’ “Ordinary People” series examines the gun lobby’s frequent claim that gun owners—and concealed carry permit holders—are the most law-abiding citizens in our country. We grant that this is probably true in many cases, but argue that gun owners are human beings—subject to the same issues of stress, depression, substance abuse and mental illness; which can sometimes lead to criminal behavior and tragedy. Furthermore, it has become apparent that the screening process for concealed carry applicants in most states does little or nothing to stop dangerous individuals from obtaining permits.

Today we relate the story of another “ordinary person.”

On May 24, a 56 year-old male resident of Elyria, Ohio, went to a nearby house armed with a shotgun and asked his neighbor to call 911. When police arrived, they ordered the man to put the shotgun down, but he refused, stating, “I can’t, I’m protecting myself, I have a concealed carry permit.” After police promised to protect him, he put the gun down, and said that two armed black men were in his home. He also told officers that the night before the same black men had broken into his home, but he had chased them down the street, firing a full magazine of 9mm rounds at them.

Officers entered the man’s home and found no intruders or signs of forced entry. They did, however, find “pans, bowls and other containers throughout the house containing moldy food.” They also found 11 guns along with knives, swords and ammunition. The man told the officers that he had the weapons “so he could be prepared for the next war to begin.” As they searched the home, he told officers outside that “even more black men were inside the home then he first reported and described them as three-legged dwarves with one of their legs being a roller skate they used to escape from places.”

Police confiscated 23 weapons from the man’s home and took him to EMH Regional Medical Center for evaluation. They also contacted the Nord Center, a provider of mental health services.

The Lorain County Sheriff’s Office has confirmed that it issued the man a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Ohio is a “shall-issue” state, meaning that authorities have to issue a concealed carry permit to any applicant who passes a basic computerized background check. Federal law prohibits anyone who has been adjudicated as a “mental defective” or involuntarily committed to a mental institution from owning or purchasing firearms. At last count, however, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was missing 90% of the mental health records that would disqualify Americans who fall under these two categories. The Virginia Tech Review Panel dealt directly with these issues and recommended that the states forward all necessary mental health records to NICS as promptly as possible, and that new legislation be enacted to prohibit those who have been voluntarily committed to mental institutions from owning or purchasing firearms.

“If they have not been adjudicated incompetent by the court system, we have no choice but to issue a license,” said Lorain County Sheriff’s Captain Richard Resendez. “The law does not give us the ability to act on our instincts.” Capt. Resendez has indicated the man’s permit will be suspended, but said, “it would likely take a court finding him mentally incompetent to permanently revoke it.”

There is no guarantee that will happen. A 2003 presidential commission on mental health concluded that: “For too many Americans with mental illnesses, the mental health services and supports they need remain fragmented, disconnected and often inadequate, frustrating the opportunity for recovery. Today’s mental health care system is a patchwork relic—the result of disjointed reforms and policies. Instead of ready access to quality care, the system presents barriers that all too often add to the burden of mental illnesses for individuals, their families, and our communities.”

Given the imperfect nature of background checks and the mental health system, legislators in “shall-issue” states would do far better to prioritize public safety over the wishes of a vocal minority who seek to carry guns in public. Tying the hands of law enforcement officers who are well-placed to determine potential threats to their communities makes little sense.

“One should ask, what do guns have to do with credit cards?”

2009-05-26T06:36:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives gave final approval to a dangerous, non-germane amendment that was attached to the "Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009" by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). The amendment, drafted by the National Rifle Association (NRA), would allow individuals to carry loaded semiautomatic handguns, assault rifles and shotguns into America’s National Parks as long as the firearm is in compliance with state law. The House approved the amendment by a vote of 279-147 (with 105 Democrats voting for it). The amendment had previously passed in the Senate by a vote of 67-29 (with 27 Democrats voting for it).

The Coburn Amendment would override a regulation that was enacted by the Reagan Administration that requires visitors to keep guns stored and unloaded when traveling through National Park lands. It has been opposed by every living and former director of the National Park Service, ranger organizations, retired superintendents, and environmental groups. In a joint statement issued by the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, the Association of National Park Rangers, and the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, NPCA Executive Vice President Theresa Pierno said of Congress and President Barack Obama: “By not taking a stand to prevent this change, they have sacrificed public safety and national park resources in favor of the political agenda of the National Rifle Association.” The amendment would create an enforcement nightmare for park rangers attempting to enforce gun laws in National Parks that straddle several different states.

Senator Coburn’s amendment is even more extreme than a last-minute rule issued by the Bush Administration that would have allowed individuals to carry concealed handguns in National Parks. The Bush administration moved forward with the rule despite the fact that 73% of the 140,000 people who voiced their opinions during a public comment period opposed it. In March of this year, the United States District Court issued an injunction against the implementation of the Bush rule. Judge Colleen Kollar-Ketally found that the Bush administration’s rulemaking process was “astoundingly flawed” because they “abdicated their [National Environmental Policy Act] obligations” and “ignored substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts.” Senator Coburn has also purposely avoided the environmental review process set up to protect the Parks.

Senator Coburn says his amendment “is about protecting every American’s Second Amendment rights” and he claims, “Whether it is meth labs hidden amid lush forests or car prowls at trailheads, park rangers and forest officers are seeing an increasing amount of criminal behavior.”

The senator is apparently not familiar with the Supreme Court’s June 2008 decision in the controversial Second Amendment case of District of Columbia v. Heller. Writing for the five conservative justices in the majority in the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia stated:

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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Senator Coburn also wildly exaggerated the threat of violence in our National Parks. The truth is—like other gun free zones—they are some of the safest places in the United States. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 1.65 violent crimes per 100,000 National Park visitors in 2006. That can be contrasted with an overall national violent crime rate of 469.2 victims per 100,000 citizens in 2005.

The legislation has now moved to President Barack Obama’s desk. Concerned citizens can contact the White House at (202) 456-1111 to urge President Obama to veto H.R. 627 and demand a clean bill from Congress minus the Coburn Amendment. It was just last year that the president publicly stated, "I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations." Americans should hold him to his word and indicate that the safety of their families is not a political commodity to be sacrificed.

For additional information, read this statement from CSGV Executive Director Josh Horwitz and see NPCA’s “Keep Parks Safe” webpage.

Ordinary People: “It was almost like looking in the devil’s eyes.”

2009-05-18T06:58:00.000-07:00

Bullet Counter Points’ “Ordinary People” series examines the gun lobby’s frequent claim that gun owners—and concealed carry permit holders—are the most law-abiding citizens in our country. We grant that this is probably true in many cases, but argue that gun owners are human beings—subject to the same issues of stress, depression, substance abuse and mental illness; which can sometimes lead to criminal behavior and tragedy. Furthermore, it has become apparent that the screening process for concealed carry applicants in most states does little or nothing to stop dangerous individuals from obtaining permits.

Today we relate the story of another “ordinary person.”

On March 10, 28 year-old Michael McLendon began a shooting rampage at the ranch-style home in Coffee County, Alabama, where he lived with his mother. First, he shot and killed her and her four dogs, then laid them on and around the living room couch, which he soaked with paint thinner and lit on fire.

McLendon then got into his Mitsubishi Eclipse wearing a vest loaded with ammunition and armed with a .38 caliber handgun, a shotgun, and two assault rifles (an SKS and a Bushmaster). He drove south to the town of Samson to a white frame house where he had lived for years with his uncle, James White, 55, and aunt, Phyllis White. The two were sitting on the porch with their daughter, Tracy M. Wise, 34, her son, Dean, 15, and a family that lived across the street: Andrea Myers, 31 (the wife of a local sheriff’s deputy), and her two children, 4-month old Ella and 18-month old Corrine. McLendon’s great aunt, Virginia White, 74, was in a trailer parked in the White’s yard. McLendon exited his vehicle and opened fire on them all, killing everyone but Phyllis White and Ella Myers. Phyllis White ran to a neighbor’s house and was saved when McLendon’s gun jammed. Ella was rescued by a neighbor, but had to be taken to a hospital later for surgery for a gunshot/shrapnel injury. A neighbor who saw McLendon as he pulled away from the house in his Eclipse said of him: “It was almost like looking in the devil’s eyes.”

But McLendon was not done yet. He killed another man, James Starling, 24, on a nearby street, shooting him in the back as he tried to run away. Starling was the father of two children and had another on the way. McLendon then rounded the corner and killed Sonya Smith, 43, outside a convenience store. Two men, Jeffrey Nelson, 50, and Greg McCullough, 49, were injured at the store.

McLendon then continued on to the town of Geneva. At this point, police were in pursuit of him. McLendon was still spraying fire, and killed motorist Bruce Malloy, 51. When an officer tried to ram McLendon’s Eclipse, he fired into the officer’s vehicle, narrowly missing him. McLendon then evaded a roadblock and drove to Reliable Products, a metals plant where he once worked. There he engaged in a shootout with law enforcement officers before finally entering the business, turning a gun on himself, and taking his own life.

During the entire rampage, which lasted approximately 50 minutes, McLendon fired more than 200 rounds, killed 10 innocent people, and wounded six.

Subsequent investigation revealed that McLendon held a permit to carry a concealed handgun which had been issued by the Coffee County Sheriff’s Department. A friend of his, Cecil Knowles, told reporters that McLendon had a lifelong fascination with guns. Officials have yet to indicate where McLendon purchased the firearms used in the shootings, but have indicated they were all bought legally.

After the rampage, authorities who investigated the home McLendon lived in with his mother found notes he had left on a dresser and kitchen table. “The notes had lists of co-employees and employers who apparently had done him wrong,” said 12^th Judicial Circuit District Attorney Gary McAliley. “Along side of the names, he wrote notes on who had done what, for example, ‘turned me in for not wearing earplugs.’ The note also listed three different locations of employers.” Investigators also found 20 to 30 boxes of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and “dozens of soot-covered DVDs on how to commit acts of violence, including how to shoot into a moving car and building a homemade gun silencer.” McLendon stopped showing up to his job shortly before the rampage, spent his free time shooting guns at the local firing range and behind his home, and talked “about being depressed about his failure to become a Marine or a police officer.” He had also been involved in an argument with family members over custody of a family Bible, and had recently received a letter from a lawyer representing another family member telling him to back off. “He was excessively upset about that,” said McAliley.

“He had obviously planned to go out in grand style,” observed Colonel Chris Murphy of the Alabama Department of Public Safety.

Disturbingly, McLendon is not the only mass shooter in recent months who held a concealed carry permit:

CCW permit holder and Neo-Nazi Richard Poplawski killed three police officers and wounded one in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on April 4.

CCW permit holder Frank Garcia killed four and wounded one in a shooting rampage in upstate New York on February 14.

CCW permit holder Randal Rushing killed three people in Scranton, Pennsylvania, on July 17, 2008, telling reporters, “I had fun.”

These incidents and others provide powerful evidence that screening procedures for concealed carry permit holders are as minimal and ineffective as those for gun purchasers in the United States. Hopefully, state legislators across the country will begin putting the safety of their citizens ahead of the interests of the gun lobby, which has consistently defended existing standards for permit holders—and even acted to weaken them further.

“The academic environment is sacred…and students need to feel safe.”

2009-05-11T07:56:00.000-07:00

Here at Bullet Counter Points we like to highlight the exceptional work that everyday Americans are doing to prevent gun violence in their communities. Today we focus on a young man who is determined to keep America’s college campuses safe.

On April 16—the second anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting tragedy—approximately 300 students staged a “walk-out” of their classes at the University of Texas to protest a bill in the state legislature that would allow students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus. The students made their way to the Texas Capitol building, where they chanted in protest and rang a bell 32 times for the victims lost at Virginia Tech.

At the head of the marching students was John Woods, a Campus Leader with the group Students for Gun Free Schools (SGFS) who organized the demonstration. John is currently a graduate student at the University of Texas, but was directly affected by the shootings at Virginia Tech. He was an undergraduate at the college on April 16, 2007, and lost his girlfriend and a number of other close friends that day.

“I didn't have a choice about becoming involved,” John says. “When the shootings happened at Virginia Tech, there was no purpose to them. The people I cared about—they didn't die defending their country or their beliefs. They died for nothing.”

“I needed for there to be a purpose,” he recalls, “so I started looking at prevention. Texas lawmakers, however, started using the Virginia Tech tragedy to market concealed carry on campus. ‘The death toll could have been reduced,’ they said. From talking to survivors, though, I knew this was extremely unlikely. I knew that what the authors of the concealed carry legislation were claiming was a Hollywood fantasy.”

John resolved to organize on campus to fight HB 1893, a bill sponsored by state Rep. Joe Driver (R-Garland), who claims that allowing students to carry concealed weapons on campus would help to prevent another Virginia Tech. John was already active in Student Government at the University of Texas and found out about the organization Students for Gun Free Schools. He quickly signed up as an SGFS Campus Leader.

“I organized the walk-out because I had been to a number of offices in the Capitol where they seemed completely shocked that students were against the bill,” says John. “We hoped the walk-out and rally would show them, in a very visible way, that students did not want guns on campus.” He is now organizing students to come back to the Capitol on May 11 when the Texas House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on HB 1893.

When John talks about “prevention,” he has something specific in mind: “I think gun laws in this country utterly lack common sense. Specifically, I think background checks [on gun purchasers] need to be universal.”

John also stresses that our nation’s college campuses are some of the safest places in the country, far safer than the communities that surround them. “When someone says guns on campus make faculty and students safer,” he says, “I tell them campuses are already about as safe as they can be. I tell them to talk to the survivors of the Virginia Tech shooting, who are experts on the issue. I also point out that the lack of guns on campus enables police to respond extraordinarily quickly to a crime, particularly in an active shooter situation.”

“I think it's important to note that guns are dangerous in certain circumstances. They're not allowed in football games or athletic events or in the gallery of the Texas Capitol. Why not? They can’t be carried by private citizens onto airplanes, even though the gun lobby would have us believe someone could stop a hijacking with one in the right place at the right time. Why not? And why is campus different?”

With the gun lobby pushing to force universities to allow guns on campus, John says now is the time for others to get involved. “To other students, I would say this: Get existing leaders on campus involved. Student government organizations are always looking for ways to get things done so they can say to students, ‘Look, we accomplish things for you.’ Hold them to it—show them that this issue is important. Recruit volunteers from among them. Or run for a position yourself if you have to.”

John also emphasizes public education about loopholes in our current gun laws. “Most people don't think about it,” he says. “When they do, they end up wanting common sense gun laws.” John makes reference to another bill in the Texas state legislature that would make Texas (for the first time) forward mental health information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to prevent deranged individuals from acquiring guns through licensed firearms dealers.

Ultimately, John sees irony in his current activism. “My precise stance on guns on campus is much like [National Rifle Association CEO] Wayne LaPierre's ten years ago,” he notes. “Schools should have absolutely zero tolerance for weapons of any kind, except in the hands of law enforcement. The academic environment is sacred, and more importantly, it's safe, and students need to feel safe.”

"The WAR wWIL start on the stepes of the Oklahoma State Capitol."

2009-05-04T07:31:00.000-07:00

Last month, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Executive Director Josh Horwitz examined the background of Pittsburgh cop killer Richard Poplawski in a blog at the Huffington Post. That piece, entitled “Insurrectionism Goes ‘Mainstream,’” noted that Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that’s on its way" and a tyrannical federal government. In the words of Poplawski’s best friend, “if anyone tried to take his firearms, he was gonna' stand by what his forefathers told him to do." Most disturbing was the revelation that Poplawski’s insurrectionist views were nurtured by several “mainstream” media commentators, political figures, and even jurists.

Now comes the news that another insurrectionist attack might have been narrowly averted on the day that blog was posted. On April 15, Daniel Knight Hayden, 52, was arrested by FBI agents after he stated on Twitter that he was going to turn the Oklahoma City “Tea Party” into a bloodbath. Four days earlier, he had tweeted a string of violent, threatening messages:

7:59 pm
The WAR wWIL start on the stepes of the Oklahoma State Capitol. I will cast the first stone. In the meantime, I await the police.

8:01 pm
START THE KILLING NOW! I am wiling to be the FIRST DEATH! I Await the police. They will kill me in my home.

8:06 pm
After I am killed on the Capitol Steps like a REAL man, the rest of you will REMEMBER ME!!!

8:17 pm
I really don’ give a shit anymore. Send the cops around. I will cut their heads off the heads and throw the on the State Capitol steps.

On the day of the Tea Party, he encouraged people to attend the event (“BE THERE! We need warm bodies.”) and issued this final tweet:

12:49 am
Locked AND loaded for the Oklahoma State Capitol. Let's see what happens.

Hayden even openly referred to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, writing “THE KILILNG HAS ALREADRDY STARTED BEGINIING WITH 168 Oklahoma on 4/1995! KILL THEM BACK!!!” Like McVeigh, Hayden believes that the U.S. Constitution (and the Second Amendment specifically) gives him the right to shoot and kill federal, state and local officials if/when our government becomes “tyrannical.” In a February 19 post on the “Jack Blood—Uncovering the News Behind the News” Forum, Hayden wrote the following:

The only thing that is keeping the New World Order from destroying this nation is the presence of over 100,000,000 guns in civilian hands. When guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns.Since we are already criminals in the eyes of the New World Order, and they intend to enslave us all, and to kill those of us who will NOT submit to their slavery, I say to IGNORE gun "laws" and keep your guns (AND ammo) handy. You only have three options:

1) Submit to total spectrum domination i.e. total enslavement.
2) Be rounded up and sent to a FEMA camp where you will be killed.
3) Die at the hands of the New World Order oppressors by taking as many of them with you as you can.

I recommend option number three and to keep your powder dry.

Hayden talked openly about the “tyranny of the New World Order” and posted an image on his MySpace Page that depicts Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung with the caption, “MASS-MURDERERS AGREE: GUN CONTROL WORKS.” He was obsessed with delusions about being persecuted by the police and the courts, regularly photographed Oklahoma City police cars, and had “begun to think of killing people” as early as June 2003.

Like Richard Poplawski, Hayden was a big fan of conspiracy theorist/online talk show host Alex Jones, who openly supports—and even markets—insurrection. On Twitter, Hayden urged followers, in the wake of his attack, “no matter WHAT happens, to post it on the internet IMMEDIATELY, AND send it to Alex Jones!!!!!!!!!!!!” He was also a supporter of Oath Keepers, a “new patriotic organization” composed of “mostly current, and former military, police and emergency-service personnel” whose “Orders We Will Not Obey” blog includes the following statement:

We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people ... We affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Hayden was arraigned on April 16 and has been released to a halfway house pending trial. There is no word yet on what firearms (or other armaments) were found in his home when he was arrested, or on the extent to which he had planned his attack. Whatever the case, the people of Oklahoma City were well served by law enforcement officials in their state, who acted quickly and decisively in response to this threat.

In light of this latest incident, we hope the nation’s attention will now turn to the threat of insurrectionism and the fact that this dangerous philosophy has been endorsed not only by the National Rifle Association, but also by the Conservative Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Threat from Within

2009-04-27T07:10:00.000-07:00

On April 7, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis released a disturbing assessment of right wing extremism in the United States. The Department noted that “the economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.” Recalling the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, the Department speculated, “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

Of particular concern to the Department was the recent spike in gun sales nationally. The assessment stated that “the high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.”

Richard Poplawski, a Neo-Nazi gun enthusiast who recently murdered three police officers responding to a 911 call from his house, was also mentioned in the assessment. DHS cited Poplawski’s cold-blooded murders as an example of violent right wing extremism and noted, “The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories relating to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled ‘one world government.’”

The Department also voiced concerns about disgruntled military veterans who possess combat skills and experience that right wing extremist groups find attractive. “These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists,” said DHS. The assessment noted that Timothy McVeigh was an Iraq War veteran and referred to a 2008 FBI report that found that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had joined extremist groups.

Unlike insurrectionist activity during the Clinton Administration, DHS was concerned that “the advent of the Internet and other information-age technologies since the 1990s has given domestic extremists greater access to information related to bomb-making, weapons training, and tactics, as well as targeting of individuals, organizations, and facilities, potentially making extremist individuals and groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe.”

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence recently addressed the increased threat of right wing extremism—and the promotion of anti-government violence through mainstream media news sources—in a Huffington Post blog entitled “Insurrectionism Goes ‘Mainstream.’”

Many other commentators are expressing their unease regarding current right wing paranoia and rhetoric. Eric Boehlert, in an article for Alternet entitled “Fox News' Unhinged, Irrational Obama Attacks Stir up Violent Right-Wing Militants,” states that “What Fox News is doing today is embracing the same kind of hate rhetoric and doomsday conspiratorial talk that flourished during the ‘90s, and Fox News is now dumping all that rancid stuff into the mainstream. It’s legitimizing accusatory hate speech in a way no other television outlet in America ever has before.” Boehlert writes that “the Oklahoma City bombing story broke 18 months before Fox News made its cable-news debut. But if [Fox owner Rupert] Murdoch’s team maintains its current course—if Beck and company insist on irresponsibly fanning the militia-type flames of distrust—there’s the danger Fox News might soon have to cover other episodic gestures of anti-government payback.”

In another article, “Glenn Beck and the Rise of Fox News’ Militia Media,” Boehlert correctly notes that Richard Paplowski is not the first American to be inspired to murder by extreme right wing rhetoric. On July 28 of last year, Jim Adkisson brought a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee and opened fire on parishioners, killing two and wounding several others. He specifically targeted those on the Liberal end of the political spectrum, and made that painstakingly clear in a suicide note: “Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn't get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people.” Investigators who searched Adkisson’s house discovered copies of Michael Savage’s Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Sean Hannity’s Let Freedom Ring, and The O’Reilly Factor, by Bill O’Reilly.

In a post 9/11-era, where terrorist threats from abroad are taken very seriously by the public and law enforcement officials, the threat from within is quickly becoming equally—if not more—grave.

Ordinary People: "This Kid's Nothing But Trouble"

2009-04-20T07:09:00.000-07:00

Bullet Counter Points’ “Ordinary People” series examines the gun lobby’s frequent claim that gun owners—and concealed carry permit holders—are the most law-abiding citizens in our country. We grant that this is probably true in many cases, but argue that gun owners are human beings—subject to the same struggles with issues of stress, addiction, depression, and mental illness; which can sometimes lead to criminal behavior and tragedy.

Today we relate the story of another “ordinary person.”

On April 4, 23 year-old Richard Poplawski shot and killed three police officers who were responding to a 911 call at his home in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Poplawski, wearing a bulletproof vest and armed with a shotgun and an AK-47-style assault rifle, ambushed two officers who entered his house. He then managed to hold off police and SWAT team members who responded to the scene for four hours, firing approximately 100 rounds in the process. Poplawski has been charged with three counts of criminal homicide and nine counts of attempted homicide, including the wounding of a policeman who was trying to assist a fallen officer.

It was quickly learned that Poplawski is a White Supremacist with a long and disturbing history of violent behavior. He frequently visited, and posted messages at, the Neo-Nazi website Stormfront.org. Poplawski’s best friend, Edward Perkovic, stated that he “didn't like the Zionists controlling the media and controlling, you know, our freedom of speech.” On November 1, 2008, Poplawski wrote on Stormfront: “A revolutionary is always regarded as a nutcase at first, their ideas dismissed as fantasy ... If a total collapse is what it takes to wake our brethren and guarantee future generations of white children walk this continent, if that is what it takes to restore our freedoms and recapture our land: let it begin this very second and not a moment later.”

Poplawski’s problems date further back, however. He was expelled from North Catholic High School in his junior year for reasons that have not been fully disclosed. In 2004, Poplawski enlisted in the Marines and entered boot camp at Parris Island, South Carolina. He was discharged from the service just 23 days later, apparently for assaulting a drill sergeant. A year later, Poplawski’s former girlfriend, Melissa Gladish, received a protection from abuse order against him. “He was a violent, abusive man,” she said. “He dragged me by the hair, pulling me across the floor. I saw him choke his own mother. He was controlling.”

Despite this history, subsequent investigation has revealed that Poplawski passed the required background checks and bought his shotgun and two handguns at Braverman Arms Company in Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania. Poplawski’s best friend, Edward Perkovic, has also reported that Poplawski possessed a permit to carry a concealed handgun in the state of Pennsylvania. "I've seen it. He showed it to me. He said, 'Eddie, get one of these,'" remembers Perkovic. Poplawski also posted on the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners website under the username “RWhiteman” and in one thread complained that the state of Maryland did not recognize his concealed carry permit when he traveled there.

If Poplawski was dishonorably discharged from the military (citing privacy laws, the Marines have refused to divulge this information), then he would have been barred under federal law from owning or purchasing firearms. He also would have been barred under federal law from purchasing or owning firearms while he was the subject of Melissa Gladish’s protection order. It is unclear at this time exactly when Poplawski purchased his guns. It is also not known where he obtained his AK-47 assault rifle, although he frequently bought and sold guns online through unregulated private sales.

What is more baffling is how Pennsylvania authorities could have issued Poplawski a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Pennsylvania is a "shall issue" state, meaning that local law enforcement must issue a concealed weapons license if the applicant passes a computerized background check and meets certain basic qualifications. Nonetheless, these guidelines state clearly that an applicant should be denied a permit if he/she “has a character and reputation indicating the applicant would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.”

Poplawski not a threat to public safety? Even a cursory investigation into his background would have revealed that he was a violent individual with racist, anti-government views. In the words of one of Poplawski’s neighbors (whose stepdaughter was threatened by him), “this kid's nothing but trouble.” Why that wasn’t patently obvious to Pennsylvania authorities is worth examining.

Insurrectionism Goes "Mainstream"

2009-04-13T07:29:00.000-07:00

For years, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) has warned Americans about the dangers of insurrectionist ideology: the idea that individuals have the “right,” in the words of National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre, “to take whatever measures necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government.” CSGV has argued that not only does insurrectionism degrade the democratic values and institutions that protect the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans; it also poses a direct threat to the very existence of our constitutional democracy.

13 years after the Oklahoma City bombing, insurrectionism was in the national headlines again this month. On April 4, 23 year-old Neo-Nazi gun enthusiast Richard Poplawski shot and killed three police officers who were responding to a 911 call at his home in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Poplawski was equipped with an AK-47-style assault rifle and a bulletproof vest and ambushed the officers as they entered the house.

Details about Poplawski’s extreme political beliefs emerged quickly. His self-professed “best friend” Edward Perkovic told reporters that Poplawski feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on its way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon.” Perkovic also commented that Poplawski carried out the shooting because “if anyone tried to take his firearms, he was gonna’ stand by what his forefathers told him to do.” Like the central character in The Turner Diaries, Poplawski blended overt racism with his gun rights activism. In posts on the Neo-Nazi website Stormfront, he stated his belief that “Evil Zionists” controlled the U.S. government and described African Americans as “vile.” Poplawski felt those of like mind were running out of time to “[take] back the nation” and noted that “a revolutionary is always regarded as a nutcase at first.”

It might be tempting to see Poplawski’s views as simply the ravings of a lone madman, but the truth is far more disturbing. Poplawski’s insurrectionist ideology—once the sole province of militia and hate groups in the United States—has now found its way into the highest levels of government and media, creating serious concerns about the violence that could result.

For starters, the philosophy has been embraced by the Supreme Court. In the recent case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the NRA argued in an amicus brief that “the Second Amendment refers to the utility of an armed population in preventing government tyranny.” The 5-4 majority opinion by the Court not only endorsed the NRA’s “individual right” interpretation of the amendment; it also affirmed “the existence of a ‘citizens’ militia’ as a safeguard against tyranny.

The politics of violence soon spread to the legislative branch. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) recently stated that she wants residents of her state to be “armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people—we the people—are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.” Apparently, voting against President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce global warming isn’t sufficient.

Insurrectionism has also reared its head on major Conservative media outlets like Fox News. Not long before the Pittsburgh shooting, Richard Poplawski posted a clip of Glenn Beck talking about “FEMA concentration camps” on the Stormfront website. Undoubtedly, other content on “The Glenn Beck Program” would have appealed to Poplawski. In February, Beck hosted an hour-long special on Fox called “We Surround Them” and a program that gamed a 2014 civil war scenario that Beck called “The Bubba Effect.” On March 3, Beck interviewed NRA celebrity spokesman Chuck Norris. During the interview, Beck stated that, “Somebody asked me this morning, they said, ‘you really believe that there's going to be trouble in the future?’ And I said, ‘if this country starts to spiral out of control and, you know, and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country … Americans will, they just, they won't stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up.’ And they said, ‘where's that going to come from?’ And I said, ‘Texas, it's going to come from Texas.’” Six days later, Norris wrote in an editorial: “How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?”

Beck also sponsors a website called www.the912project.com that has been overrun with insurrectionist commentators.

The Supreme Court made it clear last June that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the home. The notion that our Constitution empowers individuals to start shooting and killing local, state and federal officials when they personally believe our government has become “tyrannical,” however, is one that was rejected entirely by our Founding Fathers—as witnessed during incidents like Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. The NRA seems to think that Timothy McVeigh had a point. Only violent anti-government extremists are likely to agree...

Far from protecting liberty, insurrectionism deprives American citizens of their freedom. While grieving for officers Paul Sciullo III, Stephen J. Mayhle and Eric Kelly, who were lost in the recent Pittsburgh shooting, the local Post-Gazette said it best:

On Fairfield Street, no rights of gun ownership or free speech were vindicated. The police were just doing their thankless duty, answering a domestic disturbance call, for which they were caught in a coward's ambush and murdered. It was their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that were lost.

CSGV Mailbag

2009-04-06T06:35:00.000-07:00

Recently, after a tragic assault weapon shooting spree in Alabama that cost 11 Americans their lives, the National Rifle Association informed the country that it was an inappropriate time to debate policies to prevent gun violence as the afflicted community was in mourning. Given that 82 Americans die from gun violence every day, it leads one to wonder if the gun lobby’s “right time” will ever come.

Thankfully, though, not all opponents of gun control heed the NRA’s gag order, and we are blessed to receive some wonderful missives that advance the national dialogue on this critical issue. Over the past six months...

We heard from fans of CSGV President Mike Beard’s “Mondays with Mike” blog...

From: lawrence mattera [lawrence.mattera@sbcglobal.net]
Subject: Mondays with the “Porky little bastard”
Date: March 31, 2009

Call mike what he is .

We heard from those seeking gainful employment...

From: Karl Hadley [kaveman1@centurytel.net]
Subject: job opportunity
Date: March 28, 2009

I'd like to apply for the job of lying to dumb-ass people on your behalf. I have absolutely no problem telling and constantly repeating blatant lies in order to make cash. Hire me you stupid bitch.

We heard from those that believe that nonprofit employees can afford “personnel bodyguards” and who we’re eager to make a bet with...

From: Michael Beairsto [mbeairsto@cfl.rr.com]
Subject: Stop sending me your propaganda
Date: March 11, 2009

...Most of America knows that once you get a law passed to outlawing assault weapons your group will go after hand guns than hunting rifles, than bows and arrows, than knives, than forks, steak knives and spoons. Get my drift.

If my family and I lived in a well protected community and could afford personnel body guards just like you folks, I probably would side with your organization on this issue. But, I don't live in guarded communities so if you please I would like to maintain the option to buy a gun if I ever feel like I needed to in order that I may protect my family. Or would you tell me, oh well, so sorry, it’s not your fault if I can’t live in a gated community and my your family dies by the hand of some criminal who can and will get a gun no matter what laws you get on the books. But, that’s right we poor common people are just what, a commodity that can be replaced at the drop of a hat. Does that sound about right for all you goody-to-shoes in the world

By the way I do not own any guns. Just wanted to clear that up for you. But I’ll bet a buck you do.

... The way I see it, if you don’t own a gun take of the rose colored glasses and look at the real world around you, it will scare the crap out of you ...

God help us if your side wins. Oh yeah, you probably don't believe in God either. I just hope my family and I are gone from this world before your side wins.

Mike Beairsto
Palm Bay, Fl

We heard from loquacious and heavily-armed insurrectionists...

From: Christopher J. Jones
Subject: Thanks for your support
Date: February 16, 2009

I just wanted to say thank you for all the work you do. Thanks to your organization and others incompetence regarding guns, I am now able to purchase just about any gun I want. I am the proud owner of 3 “ASSUALT RIFLES” and 5 “HAND GUNS”. I feel it’s only a matter of time before the 2^nd Amendment is realized and the infringements currently placed on weapons are completely removed from the books and I may be able to purchase an “AUTOMATIC RIFLE” ... You have to understand, the 2^nd Amendment protects the individual right to purchase, store, and bear arms and that “right” will not be “INFRINGED”. That includes bans on evil magazines and pistol grips too. It was not meant to protect hunters or target shooters…but rather enable people like you and me to have a defense against a tyrannical government, should one ever come to power ...

We heard from the next Monty Hall/Howie Mandel...

From: MOOSE1620@aol.com
Subject: gun violence
Date: February 15, 2009

i'll make you a deal. you take EVERY gun away from EVERY criminal in the country, and i'll give you my guns, but so long as even one criminal has a gun... leave me, my guns AND my right to carry that gun alone. deal?

... law abiding citizens such as myself ( i live just outside the city of Detroit, MI.) do not carry a gun because we are afraid, we carry them so we don't ever have to be afraid. I would dare any one of you people to walk down the city streets of detroit after dark, alone and unarmed..... i dare ya. those of us that live here don't have a choice ...

if you have anything intelligent to say, please respond. if all you can say is the normal anti-gun bullshit, don't bother.

thank you

john ayrton
eastpointe, michigan

We heard from insurrectionists who understand the definition of “criminal”...

From: Joel Jensen [thejensenhero@hotmail.com]
Date: January 30, 2009

Criminals dont obey gun laws. THATS WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS. only honest people will follow gun laws.

How can you be so damn one sided?
How can a society protect itself from its government without weapons?
Do you really trust the government?

We even heard from a New Age Gun-Toting Poet...

From: Anonymous
Subject: RE: Gun Control
Date: January 25, 2009

Statistics be damned.
Statistics lie when applied to an ideology.
Violent criminals are a total drain on our society, in equally destructive ways other than homicide.
An armed citizenry has as much right to combat these parasites as the police, which we pay an inordinate amount of money to do so-not to mention the court system, jails, parole, etc.
A dead perp is a very economical solution to this problem.
If we had as many chalk lines as unsolved violent crimes, what would we do with the multi-billion dollar surplus?
What would the wrongfully incarcerated do with their freedom?
What would the victims do with their closure?
How would we handle the peace of mind in knowing that these animals have been thinned to the point of near extinction?
An armed society is a polite society when lethal self defense is respected.
It is our duty to protect our families, not surrender to some creep.
To me it is as clear and clean as a mountain stream, and I am at total peace with this obligation.

And finally, we heard from someone who’s never been to a gun show...

From: Allan Sentineri [mediattack@lycos.com]
Subject: [RE]Stop the NRA's Anti-Democratic Legislation in Senate
Date: September 29, 2008

people who carry around guns tend to be black democrats and liberals
___________________________________________________

Until we open our mailbag again, we are fortunate to be the beneficiaries of this insight into how to save the 30,000+ lives lost to gun violence each year in America.

Ordinary People: The Fake Cop

2009-03-30T07:00:00.000-07:00

“I want to look in the eyes of our children and promise them that they will be safe.”

2009-03-23T06:50:00.000-07:00

A new article from the April 2009 edition of the National Rifle Association’s flagship magazine, America’s First Freedom, demonstrates the gun lobby group’s unerring capacity to smear anyone who stands in their way, no matter how sensible and well-intentioned their views. The piece, entitled “Arne Duncan: Education at the Extremez,” is a scathing attack on the new Secretary of Education, whom author David Kopel describes as “the most extreme anti-gun member of President Barack Obama’s Cabinet.”

What did Arne Duncan do to make the NRA so steamed? For starters, he was selected to receive a 2008 “Abraham Lincoln Award” from the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV), a group that “advocates for policies designed to minimize the impact gun violence has on Illinois residents.” The award honors “individuals who have shown great political and personal courage in the fight to reduce gun violence …. [The award is] named for an Illinoisan who had the courage and conviction to work for change in our society. Abraham Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents, but tragically was a victim of gun violence.” Past ICHV Lincoln Award honorees have included mayors, members of the Illinois legislature, members of the U.S. Congress, and a U.S. President.

ICHV was recognizing Duncan, then the Superintendent of Chicago Public Schools, as “a longstanding proponent of reducing gun violence,” and as a public servant who “work[ed] within the Chicago school system to help make schools and communities safer for students and their families.”

Duncan’s second sin, in the NRA’s eyes, was to state that it is an “undeniable fact that guns and kids don’t mix” at the ICHV Awards Ceremony that year. One would think that is simple common sense, but the NRA quickly portrayed the statement as “an attack on the Scholastic Clays Target Program, gun clubs with small-bore shooting teams for teenagers, and parents who take their children hunting.”

Duncan likely had a different type of hunting on his mind—during the 2007-08 school year, a record 34 Chicago Public School students were killed, the overwhelming majority with firearms. It was for this reason that Duncan refused to accept ICAHV’s Lincoln Award that evening, saying:

"I wish we could stand here today and declare victory over gun violence ... I want to look in the eyes of our children and promise them that they will be safe—and that their only concern is whether they did their homework, not whether they can walk to school. I wish we could preserve their innocence long enough to foster a love of learning instead of a fear of death. I wish that our society valued children more than it values violent rituals and traditions that might have been at home in a frontier society two centuries ago but make absolutely no sense today. I wish for all of these things—but none of them are yet true ... And so, while I am deeply honored to be here...I cannot accept your award. I don’t feel I have earned it. I don’t feel any of us have earned it. Instead I would ask us all to remember the horror and tragedy of children who live with death every day. I would ask us all to renew our commitment to reducing gun violence.”

While Duncan spoke that night about youth who had recently been killed in Chicago, the problem is certainly not limited to the state of Illinois. The NRA is apparently unaware of—or simply doesn’t care about—a series of gruesome shootings involving children that have occurred in the five months since Duncan attended the ICHV awards ceremony, including the following incidents:

“11-Year-Old Boy Kills Future Stepmother, Brother”
“Ohio Teen Convicted of Killing Mom Over Video Game”
“Angry Ohio Boy, 4, Shoots Baby Sitter”
“Brother Shot Girl in the Chest”
“12-year-old Arizona Boy Guilty in Mom’s Shooting”
“Boy, 8, Shot to Death in Massachusetts Gun Show Accident”
“Boy, 8, Admits Shooting Dad, Neighbor in Video”
“Father's Gunshot Kills Boy, 12”
“10 Year Old Killed, Brother and Father Charged”
“Real Gun Mistaken for a Toy; Girl Shoots Brother”

In the America’s First Freedom article, author Kopel also expresses outrage that Duncan spoke at a protest outside Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, Illinois, on May 26, 2007. For those not familiar with Chuck’s Gun Shop, it is the leading supplier of firearms to criminals among all federally licensed gun dealers in America. From 1996-2000, 2,370 guns were traced from crime scenes to the store (to put that in perspective, only five other dealers in the entire country had more than 1,000 guns traced to crime during this period). Chuck’s sits in a suburb directly outside Chicago. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has confirmed that most of Chicago’s crime guns come from dealers in-state (“We are our own worst enemies as a dealer state,” said ATF agent Thomas Ahern of the Chicago Field Division). Criminals go outside Chicago to make purchases because the city’s gun laws have made it virtually impossible for them to get firearms there.

Interestingly, Kopel spends almost half the article commenting on an inappropriate and ill-advised remark that Chicago Pastor Michael Pfleger made at the protest, in a weak attempt to guilt Duncan by association. He curiously fails to identify others who spoke that day, like Annette Holt, the mother of a 16-year-old who was shot and killed on a Chicago Transit Authority bus days before the event as he heroically tried to save another patron. Perhaps a grieving mother like Holt, whose organization Purpose Over Pain supports a wide range of state and federal gun control measures, simply isn’t as convenient a target.

And the NRA might have another motive in defending Chuck’s Gun Shop. In 2006, the store won the NRA’s Dealer Recruiter of the Year Award for getting the most patrons to join the organization.

Americans like Arne Duncan who care deeply about the disproportionate toll that gun violence is taking on children in this country and want to do something about it? The only place they’re “extreme” is in the eyes of the National Rifle Association.

Ordinary People: If at First You Don't Succeed...

2009-03-16T07:21:00.000-07:00

Bullet Counter Points’ “Ordinary People” series examines the gun lobby’s frequent claim that gun owners—and concealed carry permit holders—are the most law-abiding citizens in our country. We grant that this is probably true in many cases, but argue that gun owners are human beings—subject to the same issues of stress, depression, substance abuse, mental illness, and lapses in judgment; which can sometimes lead to criminal behavior and tragedy.

Today we relate the story of another “ordinary person.”

On Valentine’s Day, 35 year-old Frank Garcia drove into the parking lot of the Lakeside Memorial Hospital parking lot in Brockport, New York, at approximately 5:00 AM. Just four days earlier, Garcia had been fired from his nursing position at the hospital, and he wasted little time before exiting his vehicle and physically attacking Mary Silliman, 23, a former co-worker who was on a break. Two individuals who were driving by the hospital at that moment, Randal Norman and Audra Dillion, saw Garcia beating Silliman and stopped to help. When they got out of their car, Garcia opened fire with a .40-caliber Glock pistol, killing Norman and Silliman. Audra Dillion was also shot, but she managed to drive herself to Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, where she recovered from her injuries.

Garcia was not done yet. He then drove 50 miles to Canandaigua, New York, where he went door-to door looking for the home of another former co-worker. Garcia eventually found Kimberly Glatz and her husband Christopher and shot the couple execution-style after terrorizing the entire family, including Glatz’s 14 year-old daughter and 13 year-old son. Kimberly Glatz worked with Garcia while he was a part-time nursing supervisor at Wesley Gardens nursing home in Rochester. Garcia was fired from this position in October 2008.

The rampage finally ended when Garcia was arrested after negotiating his surrender by cell phone. He has been charged with a total of four counts of first-degree murder, two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of second-degree kidnapping, and one count of attempted murder.

After the shootings, it was revealed that Garcia possessed a permit to carry a concealed handgun in New York. Officials reportedly denied Garcia’s request for a permit three times before granting him one in 2007. He was first denied a permit in 1994 after omitting information about his criminal record on his application, including arrests for criminal possession of a weapon, assault, and harassment. He then filed two more permit requests in 2001 and 2006 that were denied because of “omission[s] of fact” and because it was determined that Garcia “lack[ed] moral character.”

In a letter written prior to the 2001 denial, Garcia told a local judge about his enjoyment of the “works of Jefferson, J. locke, madison, and Hamilton” and “the organic Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” Garcia also discusses his need to protect himself with a gun in light of his view that “executive atthoraties/police officers are not bond to protect me. 95% of the time there are in pursut of the perpetrator and 5% arrive late when needed. So you see. I have no-one but myself for my own protection, especially in the city of Rochester.” At the end of the letter, Garcia offers to produce “Public-law 89-297” at an upcoming hearing, which, he claims, “calls for the total disarmament of our sovereign nation, from citizens to the military. This is all part of the New world order agenda.”

Garcia’s successful 2007 request for a permit was initially denied. However, judicial hearing officer and longtime Judge Charles Maloy reversed the denial and granted Garcia the right to carry a concealed weapon. The county court judge who initially denied the permit had the right to review the case but instead signed the permit in April 2007.

Judge Maloy has yet to explain why he issued Garcia a concealed carry permit, but it is clear that this permit offered no “protection” to Garcia or anyone else. Instead, it endangered an entire community that has now paid a terrible and unimaginable price.

Sensible Second Thoughts

2009-03-09T07:09:00.000-07:00

Last week, Bullet Counter Points commented on a controversial amendment to the Senate version of the D.C. voting rights bill (“A Dangerous Gambit”). Now, the legislation has been put on temporary hold as D.C. officials contemplate the price they are willing to pay for a vote in the House of Representatives.

On February 26, the Senate approved a version of the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” with an amendment drafted by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The Ensign Amendment, sponsored by Senator John Ensign (R-NV), would repeal the District of Columbia’s new gun laws entirely and prohibit the D.C. Council from enacting any law in the future that would “unduly burden the ability of persons” to obtain and possess firearms. None of these changes to District’s gun laws were called for in the recent District of Columbia v. Heller ruling by the Supreme Court. Commenting on the Senate’s passage of the amendment, Dennis Hennigan, Legal Director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said, “It was a craven political decision to put at risk…this community in order to curry favor with the gun lobby. That’s all that was.”

After the Senate vote, there was a tremendous outcry in the District over the Ensign Amendment. One D.C. resident who published a letter in the Washington Post summed up the fears of many of her fellow Washingtonians: “If this amendment becomes law, it would make me frightened to work and live in a city that has been my home for thirteen years.” Meanwhile, there was a great deal of uncertainty as to how the Democratic Leadership in the House would produce a clean version of the bill free of any gun amendments.

Concerned that there was no clear strategy to overcome the gun lobby’s anti-democratic campaign, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence sprang into action. We alerted D.C. residents to the danger posed to public safety by the Ensign Amendment and urged them to contact D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. On March 3, we conducted a press conference along with the D.C. Council and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence on the steps of the District Government Building. At the event, D.C. Council Chairman Vincent Gray announced a unanimously-approved council resolution that reads: "The United States Congress must not adopt any amendment to the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act that restricts the District Government’s ability to legislate the regulation of firearms." The Chairman of the Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, Phil Mendelson, spoke and said, “To deny us a vote on an issue as fundamental as guns is wrong and it is reckless. It is reckless because not only would we not be able to respond to incidents of gun violence or suggestions on how to deal with gun violence, but what the Senate has done would significantly—significantly—weaken the laws regarding guns in the District.” Council Member Mary Cheh questioned whether D.C. officials should continue to support the voting rights bill if it meant the city would have to loosen its firearms regulations, saying, "To make us swallow this without objection…we're just lying down, just like always. What have we won?"

Within an hour of the press conference’s conclusion, the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” was pulled from consideration in the House. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) explained that he did not have enough votes to bring the bill to the floor without the possibility of amendments. The rumor had spread on Capitol Hill that the NRA would be grading procedural votes on the legislation and House Democrats from conservative and rural districts took notice. Delegate Norton accused them of “reacting in a knee-jerk fashion to the NRA,” and stated that they were “doing something to kill a basic civil rights bill.”

D.C. voting rights advocates are now scrambling to lobby a group of 60+ “Blue Dog” Democrats in the House to “size up who [is] genuinely at risk” of repercussions from the NRA and to find out why these Representatives object to the District’s current gun laws. House Democratic Leaders believe they can pass a clean bill in that chamber if they secure 28 more votes in favor of blocking all amendments.

“This is hard, man,” said Delegate Norton, commenting on the lobbying effort. Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Executive Director Josh Horwitz put it a different way: "There are no easy answers here ... I don't think it's...done in the House yet, but it will take a lot of creative thinking." Even if a voting rights bill does clear the House free of gun amendments, a final version of the legislation would have to be approved in a House-Senate Conference, and there is no guarantee the Ensign Amendment would be stripped out during such negotiations.

There’s no doubt that legislation to grant voting representation to the District is long overdue. Washingtonians should not be forced to choose democracy over their own safety, however. As D.C. Council Chairman Gray recently noted, the Ensign Amendment is “extremely offensive” to the very principle upon which the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” rests: self-determination. Hopefully, Democrats at both the federal and local level will take Gray’s assertion to heart in the crucial days ahead.

A Dangerous Gambit

2009-03-02T06:05:00.000-08:00

District of Columbia residents have been rightfully excited this year about the prospects of finally gaining voting representation in the U.S. Congress. After the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” passed the House in 2007 and came tantalizing close in the Senate, the stage seemed set for victory with the election of President Barack Obama, who has stated openly he will sign the legislation if it comes to his desk. Bipartisan and vote-neutral, the Act pairs a seat for the traditionally Democratic District with an additional seat for Republican-leaning Utah (the next state eligible for a seat based on U.S. Census numbers).

What should have been a day of celebration last Thursday turned into a nightmare for the District, however, when the Senate approved its version of the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” S. 160, with an amendment drafted by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

The Ensign Amendment, sponsored by Senator John Ensign (R-NV), would gut the District of Columbia’s new gun laws entirely. D.C.’s firearm registration system would be eliminated, assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would be legalized, federal anti-trafficking laws would be rolled back so that District residents could buy guns across state lines in MD and VA (without any oversight by D.C. authorities), and the D.C. Council would be prohibited from enacting any law in the future that might “unduly burden the ability of persons” to obtain and possess firearms. None of these changes to D.C.’s gun laws were called for in the recent District of Columbia v. Heller ruling by the Supreme Court.

Speaking of the amendment, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said, "It's reckless; it's irresponsible; it will lead to more violence." The D.C. Council was equally blunt in its assessment. "The Senate action is of huge concern," said Phil Mendelson, Chairman of the council's Public Safety and Judiciary Committee. "It strips our authority. The irony here is that on one hand they vote to give us voting representation, but on the other hand they strip any local representation in regards to our gun laws."

The amendment passed the Senate on a vote of 62-36 with the support of 22 Democrats. Asked to explain the vote count, Senator Ensign (who appears to be the NRA’s new point man in the Senate with the retirement of Idaho Senator Larry Craig) said, “People are afraid.” Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, concurred with this assessment, noting, "people don't want to vote against the National Rifle Association."

Democrats who voted for the Ensign Amendment noted that they were not pressured by their leadership in the Senate to vote NO (Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid himself was a YES vote). It also appears that D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, through their deafening silence on Thursday, signaled to Democrats that they could vote as they wished on the amendment as long as voted YES on S. 160. Delegate Norton failed to even mention the passage of the Ensign Amendment in her press release after the Senate votes, referring only obliquely to “tough anti-home rule battles.” This was in direct contrast to the action of D.C. Council members, who sent a sharply-worded letter to Senators on Thursday describing the amendment as a poison pill.

It would seem that Mayor Fenty and Delegate Norton are banking on the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” gaining approval from the House of Representatives this week without any gun amendments attached. But even though House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has branded the Ensign Amendment "inappropriate and wrong," saying, "I hope it won't be in the final product," that outcome is far from certain. In fact, just this past September, 266 House Members voted to pass H.R. 6842, a bill that was nearly identical to the Ensign Amendment.

And even if the "D.C. House Voting Rights Act" is approved by the House without a gun amendment attached, it still has to go to a House-Senate Conference. The conference could elect to include, or not include, the Ensign Amendment. As one unnamed aide on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee noted, "There's a lot of behind-the-scenes things that could happen."

Finally, it should be stated that the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” is certain to draw a constitutional challenge in the courts. What would happen if the bill was signed into law with the Ensign Amendment language attached only to have its congressional representation provisions struck down shortly thereafter? At that point, D.C. residents would see their democratic aspirations vanish along with their gun laws.

A single voting representative in the House is not worth the price of increased gun violence in the District. D.C. residents have a basic right to self-determination, and that is what the "D.C. House Voting Rights Act" is supposed to stand for. Should the bill, burdened with the Ensign Amendment, come up for final passage in the House, Mayor Fenty, Delegate Norton and the Democratic leadership must end their risky venture and kill the bill.

Ordinary People: Parking Violation

2009-02-23T06:33:00.000-08:00

Bullet Counter Points’ “Ordinary People” series examines the gun lobby’s frequent claim that gun owners—and concealed carry permit holders—are the most law-abiding citizens in our country. We grant that this is probably true in many cases, but argue that gun owners are human beings—subject to the same issues of stress, depression, substance abuse, mental illness, and lapses in judgment; which can sometimes lead to criminal behavior and tragedy.

Today we relate the story of another “ordinary person.”

On February 6 in Memphis, Tennessee, Robert “Dutch” Scherwin was leaving Villa Castrioti, a restaurant where he and his three children were celebrating the birthdays of his father and father-in-law. In the restaurant’s parking lot, Scherwin began arguing with Harry Coleman and his wife about how close Coleman’s Hummer was parked next to his car, a GMC Yukon Denali. According to Scherwin’s son, the argument boiled over, leading Coleman to reach into the Hummer for his handgun. Coleman then shot Scherwin, who was unarmed, in the torso. Scherwin died in the parking lot in front of his three children.

One witness at the scene, Joseph Sneed, tried to intervene during the argument but backed off when Coleman drove his handgun into his chest. "From seeing the look in his eyes, without him saying it, I felt he was telling me, 'I'm going to kill this man. If you decide to get in the way, you're going to get hurt, too,’” said Sneed.

Police found the handgun used in the shooting in Coleman’s back pocket when he was taken into custody. Coleman, 59, was granted permit to carry a concealed handgun by the state of Tennessee in 2006. That permit has now been suspended. In addition, Coleman faces second-degree murder charges for the slaying of Scherwin. He has been released from jail after posting $50,000 bond and has indicated he will plead innocent to the charges and argue that he acted in self-defense.

Scherwin’s death has made orphans out of his three children: Dallas, 21, Colt, 19, and Savannah, 15. Their mother passed away in 2004 due to complications from rheumatoid arthritis.

Four days after the shooting, Shelby County Mayor A.C. Wharton publicly called for a statewide gun offender registry and felony penalties for first-time offenders who illegally carry guns. Though not without merit, it is unclear how either measure would have prevented Robert Scherwin’s death. Furthermore, Mayor Wharton curiously failed to mention the extensive problems experienced by Tennessee’s concealed carry permitting system. An investigation by the Memphis Commercial Appeal revealed that the Tennessee Department of Safety sent out 99 permit-revocation letters in 2008 to individuals who had successfully renewed permits despite being disqualified from owning firearms due to felony convictions, DUI charges, orders of protection, etc. Mayor Wharton might have also drawn attention to the minimal training requirements for Tennessee concealed carry permit holders—a one-day, one-time class that typically lasts 10 hours.

Shortly after his brother was shot and killed, Butch Schwerin wondered, "Why did it have to escalate? This was a parking space. All you had to do was go out and move your car. That would have been the end of it, not my brother being murdered." Clearly, had a gun not been present, the result of the argument between Robert Scherwin and Harry Coleman would have been, at worst, a fistfight. Nonetheless, there has been no indication from Tennessee’s elected or appointed officials that they are ready—or willing—to address Butch Schwerin’s important question.

Deranged Shooters, Legal Handguns

2009-02-16T07:21:00.000-08:00

A horrific tragedy occurred last month when a 24 year-old man opened fire with a handgun outside a popular under-21 nightclub in Portland, Oregon. On January 24, Erik S. Ayala drove downtown to The Zone, got out of his car, and began shooting into the crowd gathered outside. He fired 8-10 times before fatally shooting himself. Ayala had taken a tranquilizer prior to the shooting, but otherwise had no alcohol or drugs in his system.

The shooting took the lives of two bright young women: Marta “Tika” Paz de Noboa, 17, a Peruvian exchange student, and Ashley Wilks, a 16-year old high school sophomore. Seven other individuals were injured, including the manager of a nearby restaurant and other foreign exchange students.

Like the shooters in the tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, Erik Ayala had an established and well-known history of mental illness and violent tendencies. In high school, Ayala was identified as a “student of concern.” School officials received an anonymous tip in September 2000 that Ayala had made threats against others and talked about bringing a gun to school. In December of that year, he was hospitalized for attempting suicide by overdosing on over-the-counter pills.

As a result, Ayala was diagnosed with “numerous mental disorders,” including schizophrenia, and received intensive counseling from a team composed of school officials, psychologists, police, county mental health experts, and Oregon Youth Authority officials (which was formed in response to the 1998 Thurston High School shooting in Springfield, Oregon). This treatment was administered during a month-long stay at a Portland mental health facility and continued when Ayala returned to school.

Once Ayala graduated high school in 2002, his treatment ended (in part because he was unable to obtain health care insurance). He worked as a data entry operator for the Oregon Department of Health and Human Services until July 2007, and then part-timed with a temp agency. At the time of the shootings, police say that Ayala was unemployed and battling depression.

Ayala purchased the weapon used in the shooting, an Italian-manufactured EAA Witness 9mm pistol, for about $350 from 99 Pawn & Guns in Milwaukie, Oregon. He visited the pawn shop on January 6 to browse and returned the next day to purchase the handgun, but was told he did not have appropriate identification. Two days later, he returned with an alien resident card and proof of three months residency in the United States in the form of utility bills. Ayala then passed the required instant background check and left the store with his gun later that day.

Despite his history of mental illness and threatening behavior, Ayala appears never to have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution or declared “mentally defective” by a court of law. He was therefore not prohibited under federal law from purchasing firearms.

That’s not to say that Ayala’s handgun purchase couldn’t have been prevented, however. States such as New York and New Jersey require would-be purchasers to obtain a license/permit before they are allowed to buy handguns. The permitting process involves an actual background investigation where law enforcement officials interview significant figures in the applicant’s life (such as a spouse or relatives) about issues ranging from substance abuse to the applicant’s mental health. Under this process, Ayala would certainly have been denied a permit once authorities spoke with members of his family or local officials.

Commenting on the Portland shooting, Dr. Joseph D. Bloom, professor emeritus at the Oregon Health & Science University Department of Psychiatry, said, "It's all becoming very familiar. A person with recent losses and some history of past difficulties who is depressed and becomes suicidal, and then deliberately purchases a gun with a clear plan in mind to end his life and take out his anger on society by a random shooting event and ends it by taking his own life."

Such tragedies don’t have to be familiar, however, and won’t be for long if our elected officials take the necessary steps to assure that gun purchasers are not a threat to themselves or others.

“We believe in absolutely gun-free, zero tolerance, totally safe schools”

2009-02-09T06:46:00.000-08:00

In the wake of recent shooting tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, there has been a push by the gun lobby to allow concealed carry permit holders to bring handguns onto college campuses. To date, lawmakers in 17 states have considered bills that would prohibit university officials from regulating the possession of firearms on school property. Fortunately, all of these measures have gone down in defeat due to the strong opposition of students, university administrators, and campus law enforcement officials.

During the past six months, two respected organizations, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), have released well-researched policy briefs that argue clearly and convincingly against allowing concealed handguns on college campuses.

IACLEA was founded in1958 and is affiliated with the National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officers (NASSLEO) and campus law enforcement organizations in 29 states. In their position paper, “Concealed Carrying of Firearms Proposals on College Campuses,” IACLEA’s Board of Directors states unequivocally that such initiatives will not make campuses safer, pointing out that, “There is no credible statistical evidence demonstrating that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms reduce crime. In fact, the evidence suggests that permissive concealed carry laws generally will increase crime.”

The paper also states that, “IACLEA is concerned that concealed carry laws have the potential to dramatically increase violence on college and university campuses that our Members are empowered to protect. Among the concerns with concealed carry laws or policies are: the potential for accidental discharge or misuse of firearms at on-campus or off-campus parties where large numbers of students are gathered or at student gatherings where alcohol or drugs are being consumed, as well as the potential for guns to be used as a means to settle disputes between or among students. There is also a real concern that campus police officers responding to a situation involving an active shooter may not be able to distinguish between the shooter and others with firearms.”

The American Association of State Colleges and Universities—a group devoted to helping to advance public education, economic development and the quality of life at our nation’s universities—has issued a policy brief entitled “Concealed Weapons on State College Campuses: In Pursuit of Individual Liberty and Collective Security.” The brief states that “the vast majority of college administrators, law enforcement personnel and students maintain that allowing concealed weapons on campus will pose increased risks for students and faculty, will not deter future attacks, and will lead to confusion during emergency situations.”

The brief further notes that, “While police are extensively trained to deal with crises, students or university staff with concealed weapons are not trained or integrated into campus security plans. Even with the best of intentions, armed students or employees could escalate an already explosive situation further, accidentally cause harm or use a gun in a situation that is not warranted.”

Once upon a time, even the National Rifle Association recognized the wisdom in keeping schools gun-free. In the aftermath of the Columbine High School shootings, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the issue in a speech at the 1999 NRA National Convention, stating: “First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period, with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel. We believe America's schools should be as safe as America's airports. You can't talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes. Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted.”

Great irony can also be found in recent comments by Ken Stanton, the Virginia Tech Campus Leader for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC). SCCC believes “there is no pragmatic basis for declaring college campuses off-limits to concealed carry.”

Speaking about Haiyang Zhu, who tragically murdered a fellow Hokie on campus last month, Stanton said, “He wasn’t like [Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho] at all. He’s a very social, outgoing guy. He was just a normal outgoing kind of person like the rest of us. We couldn’t have seen this coming.” Stanton did not make it clear why the behavior of students with concealed carry permits—which now can be obtained through a one-hour online “training” course in Virginia—would be any more predictable.

New York's New Senator

2009-02-02T07:00:00.000-08:00

Controversy erupted last week when New York Governor David A. Paterson announced U.S. Representative Kirsten Gillibrand as his appointee to fill the Senate seat vacated by now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Senator Gillibrand, an upstate Democrat from New York’s 20^th District, has drawn strong criticism from politicians and advocacy groups in her home state regarding her positions on gun issues. While in the House of Representatives, Senator Gillibrand continually supported legislation to weaken gun regulations and received an ‘A’ grade and 100% rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA). Jackie Hilly, Executive Director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, stated that, “It is clear that the public at both the national and state level want reasonable regulations of guns and Kirsten Gillibrand stands outside that mainstream.”

Gillibrand has stated that she is “very pro-Second Amendment” and supports the rights of hunters and sportsmen, but also believes that “gun safety, keeping guns out of the hands of children [and] making sure our guns are the safest in the world” should be goals of lawmakers of both sides of the aisle. Her voting record, however, suggests that she has shown little inclination towards compromise.

Last year, Gillibrand co-sponsored H.R. 4900, the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act,” in the House. This NRA-drafted legislation would have made the “Tiahrt Amendment” restrictions on crime gun trace data permanent, allowed law-breaking gun dealers to claim ignorance of the law as a full defense, blocked ATF from modernizing and updating its recordkeeping procedures, and codified the “Fire Sale Loophole” which allows crooked dealers to sell off their inventory without conducting background checks after their federal licenses have been revoked. H.R. 4900 would have effectively gutted law enforcement’s ability to curb the illegal trafficking of firearms across state lines, which occurs on a daily basis in the United States. As a New York representative, you would think Gillibrand would have been familiar with the scope of the problem—in 2007, 70% of New York’s crime guns were trafficked in illegally from outside states.

In 2008, Gillibrand also co-sponsored H.R. 6691, the “Second Amendment Enforcement Act.” This NRA-drafted bill would have repealed the District of Columbia’s registration requirement for handguns, legalized semiautomatic assault weapons, allowed individuals who have been voluntarily committed to psychiatric institutions within the last five years to own firearms, and prohibited the D.C. Council from enacting any gun-related legislation in the future. Most disturbingly, H.R. 6691 would have allowed individuals to openly carry loaded rifles and assault weapons on D.C.’s streets. Gillibrand has frequently stated that “hunting rights” are very important to her. After two years of living in the District of Columbia, you would think she would be aware that the only thing hunted in the city is human beings.

Due to Gillibrand’s strong pro-NRA stance, New York Representative Carolyn McCarthy has promised to challenge the new Senator in the 2010 Democratic Senate Primary. Rep. McCarthy has long advocated for stronger gun laws, having lost her husband in the 1993 Long Island Rail Road shooting massacre. To her credit, Senator Gillibrand has been gracious to her colleague, and even offered to work on Rep. McCarthy’s “signature bill,” the “NICS Improvement Act.” This bill was initially drafted to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to prevent individuals disqualified under federal law from purchasing firearms. However, the NRA was allowed to rewrite the bill during the 11^th hour to include provisions that would restore gun-purchasing rights to veterans who have been deemed mentally incompetent by the VA. Time will tell if this was a serious offer by Senator Gillibrand to work to improve our background check system (which lacks millions of mental health records that would disqualify purchasers), or yet another attempt to appease the gun lobby.

Senator Gillibrand replaces a legislator with a strong history of support for gun control measures. Hillary Clinton made repeated efforts during her days as First Lady and Senator to reduce gun violence. While running for president, Senator Clinton advocated reinstating the federal Assault Weapons Ban, repealing the Tiahrt Amendment and closing the Gun Show Loophole that allows individuals to buy guns from private sellers without a background check. Senator Gillibrand’s views on gun control appear to stand diametrically opposed to those of her predecessor.

Despite her past record, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is eager to work with Senator Gillibrand and educate her about the problem of gun violence in New York and the country as a whole. Like Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), we hope that Senator Gillibrand’s views will “evolve” and that she will represent all of her constituents—statewide—during her time on Capitol Hill.

Ordinary People: Bottoms Up

2009-01-26T14:15:00.000-08:00