NRA's Push to Weaken Gun Laws

A recent Associated Press story highlighted the push by the NRA to loosen gun laws across the country.

Kowtowing to the pressure of the NRA, legislators in a number of states have passed laws that work against the interests of public safety and well-being.

For example:

Arizona, Florida, Louisiana and Utah have made it illegal for businesses to bar their employees from storing guns in cars parked on company lots.

Perhaps if these legislators had read a study published in the American Journal of Public Health they would have voted differently. The article, “Employer Policies Toward Guns and the Risk of Homicide in the Workplace”(2005) concludes:

In this study, the risk of a worker being killed at work was substantially higher in workplaces where employer policy allowed workers to keep guns: workplaces where guns were specifically permitted were 5 to 7 times more likely to be the site of a worker homicide relative to those where all weapons were prohibited.

And more guns in cars will mean more guns stolen from cars. A murder trail is currently underway in Florida where the defendant is accused of stealing a .25-caliber handgun from a car at his workplace and using it to kill a 23-year-old acquaintance.

The article goes on to report that Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia have made some or all handgun permit information confidential.

Maybe legislators did this because they are embarrassed by whom they are giving concealed weapons permits to and want to hide this information. Consider some of the crimes concealed weapons permit holders have committed in these states in just the past few months:

• An Arkansas concealed weapons permit holder was unhappy when a car tailgated his. In response, he pulled out his loaded 9mm handgun and pointed it at the other driver. He even followed the other car into a Wal-Mart parking lot, went over to the driver and again threatened him with his gun.
• A South Carolina concealed weapons permit holder faces charges of voluntary manslaughter after getting into a fight at a McDonald’s drive-thru. The man felt the car in front of him was taking too long at the drive-thru window and so started yelling. In the fight that ensued he pulled out his gun and shot and killed the 38-year-old father of three.
• And in Alabama, a concealed weapons permit holder armed with a small arsenal that included a handgun, two assault rifles, and a shotgun, shot and killed his mother, his grandparents, his aunt and uncle and then drove around town spraying bullets. In all, 10 people died before he turned a gun on himself.

The article further reports that Tennessee and Montana have passed laws that exempt weapons made and owned in-state from federal restrictions.

These laws say that guns manufactured in-state and sold to people who intend to keep them in-state are exempt from federal gun laws and regulations. Both Tennessee and Montana only have state laws prohibiting felons from possessing guns. This means, under this new law, the other federal categories of persons prohibited from owning guns would not apply. This includes those who have been committed to a mental institution, dishonorably discharged from the military, are a fugitive from justice, an illegal alien, have been convicted of a domestic violence offense, or are currently subject to a restraining order.

In addition to opening up firearm possession to people who should clearly not have a gun, it should be noted that Tennessee is home to Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, the maker of the .50-caliber sniper rifle. .50-caliber guns are designed for battlefield use to attack armored vehicles and are used to destroy targets from long distances. California considers these guns so dangerous they have banned them. Yet Tennessee has just made a move to make these weapons easier to obtain.

Gun violence has real world results that, sadly, are measured in injury and death. Shame on these legislators who have moved to put more guns into our communities and onto our streets. The results will predictably be more gun injuries and more gun deaths.

Say what? How many defensive gun uses?

This month’s cover of the National Rifle Association’s magazine America’s 1^st Freedom shows a young, petite, blue-eyed, blond woman staring coldly ahead, a handgun held tightly in her outstretched arms. The cover story asks “Who is the Armed Citizen?” A side bar in this story is titled “Defensive Gun Uses Per Year”. Here the reader is fed, once again, the lies and distortions of the gun lobby.

The sidebar highlights one of the gun lobby’s favorite pieces of research – a 1995 study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz that reported an astounding 2.5 million defense gun uses each year in the United States. But for some curious reason the author neglected to mention the numerous, peer reviewed, refereed, academic articles that have been published over the last decade that clearly refute Kleck’s astronomical claim.

Read some of them for yourself:

• “The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year?” Journal of Police Analysis and Management, 1997
• “The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun use: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events” Chance - American Statistical Association, 1997
• “Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence from a National Survey” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1998
• “The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey”, Violence and Victims, 2000
• “Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws” Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2000
• "Comparing the Incidence of Self-Defense Gun Use and Criminal Gun Use" Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009
• And the list goes on.......

But perhaps the most egregious part of this article is the reference to the work of researchers Phillip Cook and Jens Judwig. In a 1997 article in the National Institute of Justice Research in Brief titled “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms”, Cook and Ludwig conclude “The NSPOF-based estimate of millions of defensive gun uses each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack.” Yet in the sidebar article the NRA inexplicitly claims “researchers Cook and Ludwig confirmed the results of the Kleck/Gertz study.”

It’s bad enough that the gun lobby continues to put forth this dubious and inflated number on defensive gun use, but to totally misconstrue and pervert the research of distinguished academics is disgraceful. Just how low will the gun lobby go?

Congress Caves to the NRA

Our national parks are our national treasures.  Our system of national parks was the first of its kind in the world and was set up to preserve, protect, and share our natural wonders and cultural heritage.  Every year millions of people seek out the tranquility and beauty of national parks to retreat from the bustle of the world.   There they find places of spectacular scenery and abundant recreational opportunities.  They also find safe places with few serious crimes.  Given the safety and tranquility of our national park system one has to ask why Congress would vote to allow deadly loaded hidden guns into our national parks.  

In a chest thumbing, “gotcha amendment” pushed by the National Rifle Association to prove their power, Senator Coburn of Oklahoma took advantage of the credit card reform bill that was designed to protect Americans from spurious credit card fees and cynically attached an amendment that allows for loaded guns in national parks.  It overturns a policy put in place under President Regan that banned concealed weapons in the parks in order to “ensure public safety and maximum protection of natural resources.”   Current regulation allows park visitors to have guns as long as they are unloaded and stowed away.  

The amendment that Congress blessed will allow loaded guns to be carried both concealed and openly.  This means it will be perfectly legal for visitors to Acadia to ride the park buses, attend ranger-led hikes and sit around campfires with a semi-automatic AK-47 strapped to their backs.  And because Maine law does not require a concealed weapons permit for guns carried openly, it also means that anyone can pick up an Uncle Henry’s, pick out the handgun or assault rifle of their choosing, buy the gun through a private sale where there will be no background check run and no questions asked, strap the gun on and head for a stroll up Cadillac mountain.  

Allowing loaded guns in our parks will raise the risk of opportunistic poaching and expose park visitors to the risk of accidental, negligent and illegal firearm discharges.  A concealed weapons permit does not guarantee safety.  Consider these two incidents in just the past two weeks.  In Michigan, a concealed weapons teacher accidentally shot a student in the face during a demonstration.   And in Texas, a concealed handgun instructor shot and killed his wife and then exchanged gunfire with police during a two hour standoff.  

The gun lobby claimed that the prohibition on concealed weapons in national parks violated their rights.  But last year’s Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment made it absolutely clear that the right to own a gun exists side by side with the right to regulate the purchase, possession, and carrying of guns.  

Senator Coburn stated that “Visitors to national parks should have the right to defend themselves.” But our national parks are some of the safest places in the country. In 2007, over 270 million people visited our national parks and there were only nine criminal deaths across the park system.  Compare this to what happens outside of our parks.   In 2007, in our country of 300 million people there were over 18,000 homicides, of which almost 13,000 were committed with guns.  

The NRA is in the business of selling guns and one of their best marketing tools is fear.  They tell their members to be afraid of the government coming to take their guns, they tell them to be afraid of everything and to arm themselves against this fear, and they tell legislators to be afraid of being targeted if they don’t vote the right way. 

Is Congress afraid to say no to the NRA?   Do they believe that their reelection depends on continuing to kowtow to their extreme agenda?    

The Association of National Park Rangers, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, the Humane Society, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge are just some of the organizations opposing this change in regulations.  Voters, especially those heading off to a national park this summer with their families, should be outraged that Congress didn’t listen to them instead.  

........................

See how your representative voted.  A "yea" vote is a vote to appease the NRA and allow hidden, loaded guns in our national parks.

Senate vote: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-188

House vote: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-277

Two Killed, Seven Others Injured in Weekend Shooting

“Two killed, seven others injured in weekend shooting,” read the headline in papers across the country. 

But the articles were not about the same incident.  “Two killed, seven others injured,” is a story that took place in three separate cities last weekend. 

            Two killed, seven others injured in a shooting outside a neighborhood store in northwest Miami, Florida.  A gunman, using an assault rifle, opened fire on a group of teenagers playing dice.  Two killed, ages 16 and 18, seven others injured.  Police have no suspects in custody.

            Two killed, seven others injured in a shooting during a wake at a home in southeast Wichita, Kansas.   Two killed, ages 22 and 66, seven others injured as someone fired shots from outside the house.  Police have no suspects in custody.

            Two killed, seven others injured in a shooting outside a nightclub in Portland, Oregon.  Two killed, ages 16 and 17, seven others injured.  The 24-year-old gunman took his own life.  According to news accounts the gunman had displayed troublesome behavior in high school and had been hospitalized for depression and attempted suicide.  In a note to his roommate, the gunman gave information about his special PS3 gaming system, describing possible ways to sell it, but gave no motive for the shooting. 

Six of the victims in the Portland shooting were foreign exchange students.  According to Portland Police Chief the incident “echoes most Europeans’ fear about gun violence” in America.  Six people killed and twenty-one others injured in three separate shootings would have sparked national debates in most other countries but here in the United States the stories barely made out of the local papers.

Why do we passively accept such levels of gun violence?  Why do we sit back and watch quietly as gun violence prevention measures are struck down in state houses across the country?  The National Rifle Association is a big part of the answer.

The NRA is a reactionary, fringe organization.  It just ran an unsuccessful campaign against President Obama that FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, called "one of the worst examples of lying" that "distorted Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition."  

Former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman has called the NRA a "cynical, mercenary political cult" and admits that the organization "isn't interested in actually solving problems, only in fueling perpetual crisis and controversy." 

The NRA survives by selling fear.  It profits from polarizing.  Legislators that seek and accept the endorsement of the NRA are, in effect, condoning an organization that is fueled by stoking fear in its membership and bullying and threatening legislators who dare to go against it.   

We need a new kind of politics.  In this new “era of responsibility” we need legislators who want to be cooperative, not those who embrace organizations that incite battle and combat.   We need to work together to find ways to end the needless cycle of gun violence in our country.

We should never have to pick up our local paper and read the headline “two killed, seven others injured in weekend shooting.” 

 

2008 Election Results: NRA is the big loser

The 2008 elections results are in and the National Rifle Association is the big loser. The NRA declared that it intended to spend $40 million on the 2008 elections. Much of this money was specifically targeted toward efforts to defeat Barack Obama. The NRA sent out mailings and ran radio and television ads, warning that Obama would be “the most anti-gun President in American history.” They spent heavily in swing states that, despite their alarms, went decisively for Obama including Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Florida, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

As the New York Times pointed out in their December 1st editorial:

"The gun lobby has long intimidated politicians with its war chest and its trumpeted ability to deliver single-issue voters, especially in tight races. After this year’s election, those politicians should be far less afraid and far more willing to vote for sensible gun-control laws."

The editorial went on to point out:

"In Congressional races, the N.R.A. endorsed candidates in 20 of the 25 races where Democrats picked up seats from Republicans. We will not miss Florida’s Tom Feeney and Ric Keller, Idaho’s Bill Sali, Michigan’s Joe Knollenberg, Ohio’s Steve Chabot, Colorado’s Marilyn Musgrave and Pennsylvania’s Phil English — willing champions of an extreme agenda.
On the Senate side, the N.R.A. spent considerable sums to help Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Bob Schaffer, the Republican Senate candidate in Colorado. Both were defeated."

The NRA also had a very poor showing in New England in both congressional and state house races.

In Massachusetts and Rhode Island every single winning candidate for the U.S. House and Senate received an “F” rating from the NRA. An “F” rating is given to candidates that, according to the NRA, are “true enemies of gun owners’ rights.”

In New Hampshire, “A” rated and NRA endorsed incumbent Republican Senator John Sununu lost to Democratic challenger Jeanne Shaheen. Shaheen is also considered a “true enemy” of the NRA having received an “F” rating. Connecticut appears to be overrun with “true enemies” with 58% of the winning state Senators receiving an “F” rating from the NRA.

In Maine the two seats that the Democrats picked up in the state Senate were both seats where the NRA endorsed the losing Republican incumbent candidate. Five of the seats the Democrats picked up in the state House were also seats where the NRA endorsed the losing incumbent Republican.

The NRA did better in Vermont, endorsing the winning candidates for both Governor and Congress. But even in Vermont, a state where no concealed weapons permit is needed to carry a gun, thirty percent of the winning state house candidates didn’t even bother to return the NRA’s election questionnaire. According to the NRA, failure to answer their questions is “often an indication of indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owner’s rights.” How important can the endorsement of the NRA be when so many candidates didn’t take the trouble to return the questionnaire?

The NRA likes to scare legislators with the myth that they can turn out a significant block of single-issue, pro-gun voters. In the 2008 elections the NRA failed to deliver. And if you look back to the 2006 mid-term elections you will find that the NRA spent 80% of its money on losing candidates. Again, the NRA failed to deliver.

Americans want stronger gun laws. Survey after survey shows this. The majority of Americans believe it is possible to protect an individual’s right to own a gun while at the same time regulating the purchase, possession and carrying of guns. As President-elect Obama has said, “don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.”

The NRA doesn’t want you to look at how poorly their endorsed candidates did in this election. Instead, they want to continue pushing fear and pushing guns. But it is time for our elected officials to understand that Americans want to move beyond the fear tactics of the NRA. It is time for legislators to take a stand, join us, and support meaningful, common sense gun laws.

The Spy Who Came To All Our Dinners

The headline from Mother Jones is quite disturbing: There’s Something About Mary: Unmasking a Gun Lobby Mole. The story details Mary McFate, a prominent member of the gun violence prevention movement who, as it turns out, is also a spy for the NRA.

On an intellectual level I understand these things happen all the time. I even take some pride in thinking the organizations I am involved with are such a threat to the gun lobby they will pay someone to spy on us. And I hope they paid lots, and lots, and lots of money to their mole. I hope this duplicity cost them dearly.

But on an emotional level I am devastated. I have worked with Mary McFate for years. I go back over our encounters with the new knowledge that every interaction I had with her was a lie. I shake my head thinking of some of our conversations, remembering her probing questions, and wonder what really happened on her lobbying trips to Capital Hill supposedly on behalf of gun violence preventions groups.

This revelation has sent a shiver through many of our groups. Our coalition work requires a basis of trust and openness with each other. We will not let the likes of Mary McFate poison this foundation but we will look at new members with the seasoned eye of someone who has been terribly wronged.

I echo the words from the Mother Jones article: the McFate operation, says Miller, "would confirm for me the way that the gun lobby works, which is no rules, no question of fairness or honesty. Anything that they can do they will do to protect the profits of the gun industry."