Very long article but timely. This introduction here from ABC
NEWS this pretty startling and it ties into the topic of guns in America and more mass killing it seems now weekly:
“Ex-NRA
insider speaks out saying: Gun owners should be horrified by what I saw”
In an exclusive
interview, Joshua Powell breaks ranks with the NRA.
As the debate around U.S. gun laws intensifies, Americans are rushing to scoop up concealed carry licenses in ever-greater numbers.
Between 2007 and 2015, the number of U.S.
citizens holding the permits nearly tripled from 4.6 million to 12.8 million,
the Washington Post reported in 2015.
Dateline the USSC: Highlights (April 2021) reported on here (USA
TODAY) in part with this headline:
“Supreme Court leaves
major conservative cases waiting in the wings, from abortion to guns”
The court has sidestepped Second Amendment disputes for
years, but several experts predict the justices are primed to pluck a gun rights case for consideration
soon. If they decide the time is right, they'll soon have several cases to
choose from.
When it struck down handgun bans in D.C. and Chicago in 2008 and 2010, the court specifically gave a nod to the right to own a gun for lawful purposes, such as self-defense inside the home.
Now the
justices have before them a case questioning whether states may regulate
the right to carry guns away from home.
Two NYS residents sought a license to carry guns outside
their homes but were denied because they didn't meet the state's
requirement of having a “special need for self-protection beyond what's
required by the general public.” Now at the USSC since December.
Michael Jean, NRA Director of the Litigation counsel says gun
rights advocates are hopeful the court will take up the NY case.
Several Justices have indicated a desire to wade into the
issue in recent dissents and with six potential votes in play, there's a better
chance conservatives can marshal a majority, saying: “You have a very wide
split amongst the lower courts here on a question that seems to be very clear
based on the text of the Second Amendment: …the right to of the people to keep
and bear arms are ‘twin verbs meaning twin purposes’ of that right.”
Other cases question whether those convicted of non-violent
crimes should be banned from owning guns. Potentially working against
taking up those cases: A recent spate of high-profile mass shootings in
Georgia and Colorado that last month snapped Washington's attention back to the
partisan debate over gun rights.
The real good guys with guns – the police
and their view: Conservative
state lawmakers around the country are pressing to weaken an array of gun
regulations, in some cases greatly expanding where owners can carry their
weapons. But the legislators are encountering stiff opposition from what has
been a trusted ally: law enforcement.
In more than a dozen states
with long traditions of robust support for gun ownership rights, and where
legislatures have moved to relax gun laws during the past year, the local
police have become increasingly vocal in denouncing the measures.
They say the new laws
expose officers to greater danger and prevent them from doing their jobs
effectively.
Police Chief Leonard Papania in Gulfport, LA opposes part of
a new state law that creates exceptions to the rules for concealed-carry
permits saying: “We are a gun society and we recognize that, but we should be
writing gun laws that make us safe. Do you want every incident on your street
to escalate to acts of gun violence?”
Despite the current conflicts, police officers and gun
rights advocates have long been largely on the same side of the national debate
over guns.
But police departments have insisted that gun owners be
required to receive training, as their officers do, and that people with
violent histories, who are more likely to clash with the police, be blocked
from obtaining weapons. The recent legislation, including “constitutional carry
laws” — which typically eliminate the police’s role in issuing permits or
questioning people who are openly armed — has frayed the alliance.
Ladd Everitt, spokesman for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence says:
“What is alarming to the police is that they have no power to ascertain the
potential criminal background of an armed individual until a crime is
committed, and by then it is too late.”
MORE BACKGROUND: USSC Update (June 15, 2020):
Gun rights advocates had hoped the court would expand the
constitutional right to “keep and bear arms beyond the home.”
The justices left in place restrictions on the right to carry weapons in public in MD, MA, and NJ.
* They also declined to review Massachusetts' ban on some semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition magazines.
* They declined to review a California handgun control
law.
* They declined the half-century-old federal law banning
interstate handgun sales.
Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh also wrote a dissent
in the court's denial of a NJ resident's appeal seeking the right to
carry a gun in public for self-defense.
Now we see guns in bars, in airports, in daycare centers, in sports arenas, openly carried on city streets, strapped on hips at school board meetings, and on on campus.
What best describes this?
Well, two words do come to mind quickly: “Legal insanity.” So, thank you
Supreme Court. You think you have been responsible and that states would be
responsible too following your asinine decisions vis-à-vis guns? Ha, think
again.
The NRA position and stand remains a joke – more guns mean less
killing or that silly-ass phrase by CEO Wayne LaPierre: “The only way to stop a bad guy
with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”
The NRA supports this rash
of new “open carry and carry w/o a permit” laws for one reason: It increases
their membership (and their salaries) and it helps guns sales and gun
manufacturers – call it “trickle down gun lobbying.”
Gun-control proponents cannot
overcome the power of the NRA and its allies and open nitwits (in mind that is
exactly what they are), but this is changing too with NRA
financial scandals and such lately.
Further, law enforcement officials also argue that creating more exceptions to gun regulations will impede investigations. The discovery of an unpermitted weapon typically gives officers probable cause to conduct searches, but some of the new laws could take that option away.
In some cases,
this has upended longstanding political dynamics, with traditional
law-and-order conservatives, who are championing the new gun laws, questioning
the tactics of police officers as overly aggressive.
Ken Morgan, a MS state GOP representative who backed the state’s new law, which allows people to carry holstered weapons without a permit said: “The police were overstating how much the measures would affect the way they pursued investigations. I believe they’ve got some merit to their concerns. A lot of times they don’t consider their own discretion.”
So, what does all this portend for our future as a civilized people? Probably not much or at least not much of nothing good, except more gun sales followed by more gun deaths.
The
words of President Obama following the Church shooting in Charleston, SC
probably suffice:
“At some point, we, as a country, will have to reckon with the fact that
this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. In this
town — Washington — even what took place at Emanuel African Methodist
Episcopal Church would not be enough to overcome the resistance of gun-rights
advocates in Congress. At some point, it’s going to be important for
Americans to come to grips with it and for us to be able to shift how we think
about the issue of gun violence collectively.”
But Obama’s point came after the December 2012 elementary school massacre in Newtown, CT; the movie theatre mass killing in Aurora, CO; or, in San Bernardino, CA; or, practically daily on the streets of Chicago, or when anther toddler grabs a gun as a toy then shoots him or herself, or shoots and kills his or her brother, or sister, or mother, or grandmother; or, a gun range instructor shoots self of someone else out of ignorance or gross error.
We experience a mass shooting which for a short period of
time leads to a discussion of gun control, then what? More hopes and
prayers?
What happens after these horrible shooting sprees is that we
see gun sales increase – why? NRA sells fear and that sells more
guns.
In simple terms: That's the way our gun politics and
culture work these days, and gun-control laws do not change much, or anything
at all.
Citing the mere possibility of stricter gun control (egged on by the NRA and allies in Congress) gun owners go out and buy another firearm before any restrictions can be imposed (out of misplaced fear of losing their guns that they hear the NRA screech about – that never happens). The usual gun-control proposals probably wouldn't have much to do with the Charleston church shooting anyway.
For example that church killer was a young man, 21-year-old and a known racist who obtained his weapon, a .45 cal pistol as of all things, as a birthday gift from a relative. Reports then showed that he reloaded five times during his spree, suggesting he used the gift pistol and conventional ammunition magazines, as opposed to a military-style semiautomatic rifle with an oversized magazine in other mass shootings.
The more we want and demand change, the less positive change we ever
see. How ironic is that?
Update on all that from the AP here
(September 11, 2019):
GOP Senate “leader” Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said the summer’s mass
shootings (three big ones in August alone) “deserve a response.”
But he’s waiting on the
White House for next steps. He only wants to consider legislation that Trump would
sign. Again, how ironic.
The House and Senate pass
bills; the president approves and signs them, or he vetoes them, then Congress
votes to override the veto, or not – that is constitutional process; not
getting Presidential pre-approval before Congress acts, except by advance
agreement by all three for the law.
McConnell said he was waiting and only wants to consider legislation that Trump would sign into law
is weak and shows no backbone on his part – thus, he is scared of Trump and any
political backlash (and since McConnell was up for reelection).
Trump previously had warned that
he would veto the House background checks bill – okay pass the damn bill and
play out the process and get the public on board, too.
White House spokesman Judd Deere said the meeting with GOP
congressional leaders lasted well over an hour and covered a range of issues,
not just guns. He declined to say whether or when Trump would release a gun plan
or not. Some GOP senators say inaction is not an option and they are anxious
for Trump to take the lead not Congress.
For example: Sen.
Pat Toomey (R-PA), who has championed another bill that would expand background
checks, told reporters: “It’s time to act now.” Toomey has had several
discussions with Trump in recent weeks, but said he still is “not sure” if
Trump is rethinking his past opposition to the bill.
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), a soon to retire conservative,
and one who is often considered a voice of the caucus, says: “Many of us feel
like doing nothing is not a satisfactory answer.”
The bill, approved in back
in February, would expand background checks to cover private sales (a current loophole) such as one that allowed the
El Paso shooter to purchase his weapon before killing seven people in August.
The U.S. Conference of
Mayors is focusing on background checks as a first step to stem gun violence. A
letter signed by 278 mayors from both parties urged Congress to act on the
House bill.
McConnell met with those mayors,
including some from cities where recent mass shootings occurred. The mayors are
urging approval of the House bill.
The House Judiciary Committee approved several gun bills,
including a red-flag law and a ban on large-capacity magazines. It was not
clear if any of them would be voted on by the full House.
Pelosi has privately told House Democrats that the House has
done its job, and for now Democrats need to put pressure on McConnell to act on
the background checks bill.
The Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said:
“The red-flag law doesn’t work, unless we tighten the loopholes — close the
loopholes — on the background check law, Mitch McConnell should quit stalling
and put the background checks bill on the Senate floor. Shame on him. There are
people who died. Shame on him.”
My 2 cents: Not only shame
on McConnell, but shame on any Republican in office anywhere who cannot see
closing that private sales background loophole is needed as one step to erasing
this madness – then they need to be booted out of office – not following the
lead of over 75% of Americans who want that?
Their stubborn stance is totally
un-professional and in fact, a bit crazy on their part. The voters should hold
them to account when possible.
Stay tuned and thanks for
stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment