The Inconsistent Insurrectionist

Though Stephen Colbert and his political satire show The Colbert Report are found on Comedy Central, they occasionally provide serious and noteworthy news missed by the major media networks. Such was the case on June 7 when Colbert aired a segment focusing on comments made by U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) on Sean Hannity’s radio show on May 27.
In that conversation with Hannity, Paul stated:

I would say the reason we failed in Ft. Hood is people who were mentioning that this man was either unstable or was radicalized to a radical form of Islam. People knew that and that’s what we need to target our resources towards—people who would attack us—and not spend time searching and patting down 6 year olds ... I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders but it wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after. They should be deported or put in prison.

Sen. Paul then doubled down on his comments at a press conference in Bowling Green, Kentucky, on June 3:

I think we’ve taken too much of the approach that everyone is a possible terrorist … We are not spending enough specific time on those who are coming from certain countries … I want targeted action towards terrorism … We’re…searching millions of innocent Americans and wasting time on that, and not doing a thorough job on those who are coming from these Middle Eastern countries who I think need to be thoroughly vetted before they enter our country.

But if Paul truly believes that anyone who attends speeches “promoting the violent overthrow of our government…should be deported or put in prison,” then he, too, should begin packing his bags. Colbert pointed to Paul’s attendance at the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot in Westpoint, Kentucky in April of this year, where the lead singer of the band Pokerface gave the following speech:

[Obama] is basically the exclamation point on the globalist takeover of the United States ... Too many of us are waking up and too many are heavily armed. They are going to push and we are going to shove back. The second American Revolution will commence.

Violence against government was certainly the fad at Knob Creek, with vendors selling a wide range of “Militia literature,” including the U.S. Militiaman's Handbook, “a step-by-step guide for ‘R-2,’ the second American Revolution.” Here’s one excerpt from the handbook: "When municipal, township, county, or local area law enforcement agents attack or seek to confine or control the U.S. Militia or its individual members, those agencies should be totally eliminated in the initial attack ... Do not allow any law enforcement agents to escape. Kill them all."

Then there was March 27, 2010, when Sen. Paul attended and spoke at a Second Amendment Rally in Frankfort, Kentucky where a Congressional candidate named Matt Locket made a speech openly embracing insurrectionist ideology. Citing Federalist Alexander Hamilton (who would have found his ideas treasonous at best), Locket said:

We cannot stand by and let our rights to firearms be taken away ... Alexander Hamilton...states clearly that there exists the right of self-defense against a tyrannical government and it includes people with their arms ... Are we there or are we close to a tyrannical government? ... We need to tell the government...to fear us because it’s we the people that are in charge—not them!

And Rand Paul has made his own share of not-so-subtle threats toward our government. In June 2010, he attended a gun show in Louisville and said, “We must be ever vigilant of our Second Amendment rights. We must continually remind Washington that a majority cannot vote to take away our Second Amendment rights.” At the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot in August 2009, Paul made bizarre, paranoid comments about “Big Brother” and the enforcement of U.S. gun laws:

They can come into your house. They can plant listening devices in your house ... And let’s say they happen to be in your house snooping about something they thought you said something bad about the government and they find you’ve disabled your trigger locks or you’ve maybe done something to your guns that they say is illegal ... This is not to say we’re all criminals and afraid of the government, but we want our privacy.

Later in the same speech, he hypothesized that Americans could elect the next Adolf Hitler if they fail to remain “vigilant”:

If we get economic calamity even worse than we have now, you will lose your rights if you’re not vigilant and watch. What happened in Germany when the Weimar Republic printed up so much money you could carry it around in wheelbarrows? There was a collapse and they actually voted in a Hitler. You could get something like that in our country if we’re not careful and vigilant.

It seems clear from Sen. Paul’s statements that he’s particularly concerned about potential violence against our government by Muslims. And he has no problem with our government going after them aggressively—civil rights be damned. When it comes to the Senator’s white, gun-toting, government-hating friends who are ready to launch a bloody revolution, however, all bets are off. Any U.S. government that would address that threat is akin to a mass murdering dictator who butchered six million people.

Unfortunately for Paul, you can’t embrace a double standard and say that the threat of political violence is justified depending on one’s citizenship status or religion. You either believe that political violence is legitimate in our democracy or you don’t. Our Founding Fathers certainly stood in the latter camp.

A Greater Priority

The recent murder of a young woman in Kentucky has given legislators cause for concern about current laws regarding domestic violence and firearms. Despite the fact that approximately 1,800 women are murdered each year by men in single victim/single offender incidents, it remains surprisingly easy for known domestic abusers to obtain guns and hold onto them—even after engaging in violent acts.

On September 11, Amanda Ross, 29, was found shot and lying in the back corner of a parking lot outside her Lexington home. She was taken to the University of Kentucky Medical Center, where she died. Hours later, police found Ross’ ex- fiancée, former state Rep. Steve Nunn, in a cemetery near his parents’ graves with what appeared to be self-inflicted wrist wounds and a .38 revolver—the same caliber weapon used to kill Ross. Nunn fired the gun at police and was immediately arrested. After telling investigators that he was “at the end of his rope and wanted revenge,” he was charged with the murder of Ross and violation of a protective order.

Nunn had become the subject of the restraining order after he was accused of attacking Ross in February. In the complaint, Ross claimed that Nunn become violent during an argument at her home, hit her in the face four times, pushed her against a wall, broke a lamp, and threw a cup of bourbon at her. Nunn was put on administrative leave from his job as the Deputy Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services and officially resigned from his position in March.

It is not known at this time where Nunn obtained the .38 revolver found in his possession. As the subject of an active restraining order, Nunn was prohibited under federal law from possessing firearms. Unfortunately, there are few state laws in this area (24 states have restrictions on access to firearms by persons under active restraining orders, 13 have restrictions on access to firearms by domestic violence misdemeanants, and 18 allow confiscation of firearms at a domestic violence scene) and state and local law enforcement authorities rarely confiscate firearms from domestic abusers. Typically, local law enforcement would rely on federal agents to confiscate these firearms, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) lacks the manpower to handle such requests. As Greg Vincent, the president of the Kentucky County Attorney Association, has noted, “For the average Joe who doesn't make it onto the front page or onto every TV station, the ATF doesn't come down.”

Only one county in Kentucky, Jefferson County, is currently removing guns from the homes of domestic violence offenders. The county’s Sheriff’s Department now holds 4,700 firearms in a vault that were confiscated from such individuals. The Operations Commander for the department, Chris Hancock, has said, “I most certainly think it saves lives.” Still, there are challenges in getting others to follow suit. Jefferson Family Court Judge Jerry Bowles, a national domestic violence expert who served on a statewide domestic violence task force with Steve Nunn in 1991, has stated that the effort to uphold the law on a state level is “a struggle because a lot of judges work to circumvent the laws because of their own personal views.”

Kentucky legislators, to their credit, have stepped up to address the problem. Reps. Joni Jenkins and Mary Lou Marzian of Louisville are drafting a state law to prevent those under protective orders from retaining their firearms. Jenkins has also proposed a measure that would extend Domestic Violence Orders (DVOs) to dating couples (currently, DVOs are available only to those who are married or living together). Finally, Kentucky House Speaker Greg Stumbo plans to offer legislation named for Ross that would allow judges to require those with protection orders against them to wear ankle bracelets that track their whereabouts.

In commenting on the murder of Amanda Ross, Brian Namey of the National Network to End Domestic Violence pointed out that “more than three times as many women are murdered with guns by their partners than are murdered by a stranger’s weapon.” Thankfully, even those who typically pay homage to the gun lobby are now taking note of that fact. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the federal law that bars those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from owning guns. And Kentucky Judge Bowles recently set the stage for action in his own state by declaring that “the priority to protect women’s lives is greater than the constitutional right to bear arms.”

Those will be welcome words to women across America who are suffering in abusive relationships.

Guns and the Workplace

Dixon, Kentucky residents were in a state of shock last month when they learned that a member of their community had opened fire at a local plastics plant in their small Ohio River town. Around midnight on June 24, Wesley N. Higdon, a worker at Atlantis Plastics, shot and killed five of his fellow employees before turning his handgun on himself and committing suicide.

Higdon had become upset earlier that day when his supervisor reprimanded him for using his cell phone and not wearing safety goggles. Higdon called his girlfriend, Teresa Solano Ventura, two hours before the shooting and told her he wanted to kill himself. Ventura did not take the warning seriously due to similar previous threats from Higdon and failed to contact the police.

In his shooting spree, Higdon used a .45 caliber pistol which he legally kept in his car. In 2006, Kentucky enacted a law at the behest of the National Rifle Association (NRA) that forces businesses to allow employees to keep firearms in their vehicles on company property. Kentucky is not alone—seven other states have adopted such Guns in the Workplace laws, Florida being the latest. These laws have passed despite the determined and nearly unanimous opposition of business groups, who view them as a historic attack on private property rights. In the Sunshine State, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation have launched a lawsuit to overturn the law. A federal court in Oklahoma has already declared that state’s law unconstitutional.

The gun lobby also seems to be fighting the statistical evidence about the dangers of guns in the workplace. One study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that workplaces where guns were permitted were five times more likely to be the site of a workplace homicide compared to workplaces where guns are prohibited. Higdon’s threats were also not uncommon—in a 2005 survey, nearly 60% of major employers indicated that a disgruntled employee had threatened a manager or co-worker at their firm in the last 12 months.

Higdon was no hardened career criminal. He legally purchased his handgun and was precisely the type of “law-abiding gun owner” that the NRA claims will make our communities safer by being armed and ready. Why Higden suddenly became a killer we might never know ... It was likely the result of stresses in his life, stresses in the home and workplace, the likes of which millions of American experience every day. Higden’s easy access to a handgun after an argument with his supervisor, however, turned what should have been a verbal spat (or, at worst, a fistfight) into a tragic incident that has left six dead and traumatized a community. Hopefully, future legislators will keep that in mind when the NRA comes calling.