From the desk of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

What's Going On (at Gun Shows)

Last week, Dr. Garen Wintemute, the Director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis, released a fascinating study that takes an inside look at America’s gun shows. Entitled “Inside Gun Shows: What Goes On When Everybody Thinks Nobody’s Watching,” it catalogues Wintemute’s observations at 78 gun shows that he attended in 19 states between 2005 and 2008. More importantly, it contains hundreds of color photographs that he took surreptitiously at these events. These photos document illegal straw purchases; anonymous, undocumented private party gun sales; the widespread availability of assault weapons; and the links between gun shows and the Neo-Nazi movement.

In the study, Wintemute describes the two systems of commerce that operate side-by-side at gun shows. On the one hand, you have dealers licensed by the federal government who are required to conduct background checks on gun purchasers. At the shows he attended, Wintemute found that those prohibited under federal law from purchasing firearms (i.e., convicted felons, domestic abusers, drug users, the mentally ill, etc.) would often evade this requirement by engaging in straw purchases. In a straw purchase, a prohibited purchaser recruits an individual(s) with a clean criminal record to pass a background check and purchase firearms for him/her (a straw purchase is a federal felony offense for both the straw purchaser and the ultimate possessor of the firearms). “The openness and sense of impunity with which straw purchases were sometimes conducted was striking,” Wintemute reports. Licensed dealers account for two-thirds of trafficked firearms that come from gun shows.

Private party sellers are also present at gun shows. These sellers are not licensed by the government and are not required to conduct background checks. A 1986 law exempted anyone who is “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms from the background check requirement. Theoretically, these are individuals who make “occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who [sell] all or part of [their] collection of firearms.” The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), however, has noted that the effect of this law “has often been to frustrate the prosecution of unlicensed dealers masquerading as collectors or hobbyists but who are really trafficking firearms to felons or other prohibited persons.” More than 85% of crime guns recovered by ATF have gone through at least one private party transaction following their initial sale by a licensed gun dealer.

Private gun sales don’t occur only at gun shows, Wintemute emphasizes. They can occur virtually anywhere—at flea markets, through classified ads in newspapers, over the Internet, in private homes, on the street, etc. Because they are anonymous and involve no paperwork, they are particularly attractive to prohibited purchasers.

At gun shows, the ATF estimates that 25 to 50% of all gun sellers who rent table space are unlicensed. Private sellers can also walk around freely at gun shows, selling firearms they’ve brought with them to other attendees. Private sales were common at the gun shows Wintemute attended. He even observed such sales occurring in states where they are illegal.

In terms of the wares that were available at gun shows, Wintemute observed that, “All types of guns are available at gun shows, but assault weapons, particularly civilian versions of AR and AK rifles, seem to figure more prominently at gun shows than in gun commerce generally.”

Little enforcement action was evident at these events. ATF has stated that “too often [gun] shows provide a ready supply of firearms to prohibited persons, gangs, violent criminals, and illegal firearms traffickers.” Yet, as Wintemute notes, the understaffed ATF has no proactive program of gun show enforcement and conducts investigations at only 3.3% of the approximately 2,300 gun shows that occur each year.

In terms of the social environment at gun shows, Wintemute observed three phenomena that have “significant potential to contribute to firearm violence. These concern: 1) promoting objectification and violence in relationships between men and women, 2) facilitating children’s access to firearms, and 3) endorsing violence as a tool for problem-solving.” Neo-Nazi and Neo-Confederate paraphernalia was common. The Turner Diaries is everywhere,” Wintemute notes, “and Mein Kaumpf can be found next to [John Lott’s] More Guns, Less Crime.”

At present, 17 states regulate gun shows in some manner. Six regulate all private party gun sales and nine more regulate private party sales of handguns only. Two states regulate private party sales at gun shows only.

In his study, Wintemute makes three key recommendations to improve existing regulation of firearm commerce. First, he says that law enforcement operations at gun shows must be expanded. “Ideally,” he says, “there would be an enforcement operation at every major event.” He cites California as an example of where such a program has worked, and well. Second, he calls for all private gun sales (not just those at gun shows) to be regulated to prevent prohibited persons from buying guns. “It appears that denial of gun purchases [through background checks] significantly lowers the risk of committing violent and gun-related crimes among the persons who are directly affected,” Wintemute notes. Finally, he calls for voluntary action by promoters and licensed dealers at gun shows to police potentially illegal sales. “Little goes on at a gun show that is not observed by those nearby,” he states.

You can view the full study along with photographs and videos here.

Thomas Jefferson and "The Blood of Tyrants"

Josh Horwitz

Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

New Hampshire resident William Kostric caused a national stir on August 11 when he appeared outside President Obama's town hall meeting in Portsmouth with a loaded semiautomatic handgun strapped to his leg. Kostric held a sign that read, "IT IS TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY!" This was a reference to the following quote by Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Asked to explain the message he was trying to send, Kostric stated, "I wanted people to remember the rights that we have and how quickly we're losing them in this country ... It doesn't take a genius to see we're traveling down a road at breakneck speed that's towards tyranny." While Kostric claimed he was not calling for violence, many viewed his actions as threatening and assumed that the "tyrant" he had in mind was the president.

It was certainly not the first time a gun rights activist had referred to Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote. On the day he bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, Timothy McVeigh wore a t-shirt that bore Jefferson's words with an image of a tree with blood dripping from its branches. A Google search will reveal that the quote is cited on a myriad of pro-gun websites today, almost always with no context or source provided. But what was the context of Jefferson's remarks, and what exactly did he mean?

"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure," Jefferson wrote in a letter to William S. Smith, a diplomatic official in London, on November 13, 1787. Jefferson was commenting on Shays' Rebellion, an armed uprising in Massachusetts that had been put down earlier that year by organized state militia forces. "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion," Jefferson remarked. "Let them take arms."

In the same letter, however, Jefferson stated that the rebellion was "founded in ignorance ... The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive." Jefferson also referred to the delegates who had finalized a draft of the U.S. Constitution in September 1787, stating, "Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order."

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention had indeed taken Shays' Rebellion very seriously, viewing the lack of a strong institutional response to the incident as symptomatic of a weak central government that was struggling to preserve the liberties they had fought so hard for. The country could not be governed in a state of perpetual revolution, the delegates realized, and despite the fears of Anti-Federalists, the Constitution authorized Congress to raise a standing Army. Furthermore, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution stated that one of the purposes of the Militia was to "suppress Insurrections"--not to foment them.

One of the delegates at the convention was James Madison, the man who would draft the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1789. Jefferson exchanged letters frequently with Madison, sharing his view that Shays' Rebellion was "absolutely unjustifiable," but "did not appear to threaten serious consequences." We need "a little rebellion now and then," he told Madison. Madison disagreed, and supported Congressional enlistment of troops during the rebellion until "the spirit of insurrection was subdued." In a speech before Congress on February 19, 1787, he argued that Shays' rebels were "internal enemies" and constituted a threat to the "tranquility of the Union." To Madison, the rebellion was treason.

With the drafting of the Constitution, Jefferson became more tempered in his own views, and acknowledged that well ordered republican democratic political processes could make armed violence unnecessary. In a letter to Dutch diplomat Charles William Frederick Dumas, Jefferson observed, "Happy for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions."

Upon becoming President of the United States in 1801, Jefferson's views about executive power and private rebellion were further transformed. In contrast to his previous advocacy for a ban on standing armies, Jefferson proposed the creation of a national military academy, which was built in West Point, New York. In 1807, after Aaron Burr conspired with military officers to create an independent republic in the American Southwest, Jefferson declared him a traitor and had him arrested and prosecuted for treason. In 1808, Jefferson deployed U.S. Army troops inside the country to enforce a trade embargo against Great Britain and France. Historian Henry Adams observed about Jefferson's embargo policies: "Personal liberties and rights of property were more directly curtailed in the United States by embargo than in Great Britain by centuries of almost continuous foreign war." Jefferson's use of military personnel to enforce domestic laws remains unprecedented.

Those who hold the belief that the Second Amendment gives them an individual right to take violent action against our government should it lapse into "tyranny" have isolated Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote in order to justify a radical ideology. The truth is that Jefferson's views on private rebellion were far more thoughtful and nuanced. While scholars like Saul Cornell have acknowledged that Jefferson affirmed an individual right to keep arms for private purposes, he never described disorganized or spontaneous insurrection as a right. Jefferson instead envisioned "a universally armed citizenry organized into well-regulated militia units based on a system of 'ward republics'" as a deterrent against "usurpers" and a key guarantor of a healthy republic.

The anti-government protesters carrying semiautomatic handguns and assault weapons outside of contemporary town hall meetings would undoubtedly consider such detailed regulation of the Militia to be--for lack of a better word--"tyrannical."

Follow Josh Horwitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CSGV

Support Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Urge Your Senators to Confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court

Contact Your Senators to Ask Them to Vote "Yes" for Judge Sotomayor
Dear Todd,
The National Rifle Association has trained its sights on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's first nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.
The gun lobby is coming out hard and fast, doing everything it can to defeat Judge Sotomayor's nomination with intimidation and bullying.
NRA bosses Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox are distorting her distinguished judicial record and are threatening Senators with retribution if they vote to confirm her.
You can help defeat the NRA by contacting your Senators today.
Please call Sen. Claire McCaskill (202) 224-6154 and Sen. Kit S. Bond (202) 224-5721 today.

Urge Them to Confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor!
Calling is one of the best ways to get your voice heard quickly. You can also e-mail your U.S. Senators today by clicking here.
Tell your Senators that Judge Sotomayor:
Has an invaluable understanding of the devastating impact of gun violence on families and communities because of her experience as a prosecutor.
Will respect the Constitution, judicial precedent, and the judgments of elected officials in protecting communities.
Will be a fair-minded justice, who will not pre-judge any issues that come before her on the Court.
Even if you believe your Senators plan to vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor, please contact them today. I guarantee they are hearing from the gun lobby's supporters every day.
Tell your Senators to reject the gun lobby's fear-mongering. Thank you for all you do to help protect our families and communities from gun violence.

Sincerely,

Paul Helmke, President
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

For Democrats, Gun Control Fades From Agenda

• Font size 
• Print
 
• Share
 
• 6 comments

Posted by Brian Montopoli

(IStockPhoto)

A decade ago, the calculus was simple: Those who wanted greater gun control aligned with the Democrats. And those who wanted fewer restrictions on guns turned to the Republicans. 

No longer. 

Though an amendment to mandate that states recognize concealed weapons permits issued by other states, effectively allowing people to carry concealed weapons across state lines, narrowly failed on Wednesday, it garnered 58 votes in the Democrat-dominated Senate. (It needed 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.) 

On Tuesday, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg called the amendment, sponsored by South Dakota Republican John Thune, "about as anti-police, pro-gun trafficker piece of legislation that has ever come before the United States Senate." 

Among those who backed the amendment was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who was joined by Southern and Midwestern Democrats in voting yes. Other Democrats who backed the amendment included Virginia Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner, Montana Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh. The New York Times has a full breakdown here. 

In fact, it fell to two Republicans, George Voinovich of Ohio and Dick Lugar of Indiana, to effectively prevent the amendment from passing. 

Despite the fact that Democrats control both the executive branch and Congress, supporters of gun control have had few opportunities to celebrate this year. The Senate moved to weaken the District of Columbia's strong gun laws (though the House stalled the legislation, which was attached to the D.C. Voting Rights bill) and Congress voted to allow individuals to carry guns in national parks. 

"It's been a very difficult period," Peter Hamm, of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, told Hotsheet. "It's been frustrating that in the first six months of a Democratic administration with a Democratic Congress, that Congress hasn't seen fit to go in the right direction on the gun issue." 

Hamm said there was "an awful lot of political gamesmanship" going on around Wednesday's vote. He said the amendment was put forth in part "to force Democrats from certain states to register what they consider a difficult vote" and called its defeat the first major victory of the year from the perspective of gun control advocates. 

Indeed, for many Democrats a vote for gun control is a losing proposition. Reid, who is facing a potentially difficult 2010 reelection campaign in Nevada, knew his decision to vote for the amendment would help insulate him from charges that he is insufficiently committed to the second amendment. As Glenn Thrush notes, Arkansas Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor initially voted no on the amendment but changed that vote to yes when it became clear that it would be defeated, presumably to protect himself against similar charges. 

Voters have generally moved away from pro-gun control positions in recent years, despite high-profile shootings at Columbine, Virginia Tech and elsewhere. In April, a NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll found that just 53 percent of Americans favored a law to ban the sale of assault weapons and semiautomatic rifles. In 1991, that figure was 75 percent. 

An ABC News/Washington Post Poll found that same month that 51 percent of Americans favor tougher gun control laws, down from 61 percent in 2007 and 67 percent in 1999. 

Shortly after the vote on the amendment, the National Rifle Association sent out a celebratory statement stating that, despite the loss, the vote "shows that a bipartisan majority agrees with the NRA." Among the senators the NRA thanked for their efforts to pass the amendment was Democrat Jim Webb, who the group hailed along with "all senators who voted in favor of this amendment on both sides of the aisle."

An Uphill Fight for the Right to Carry Guns on Campus

By ALEX ROTH and ANSLEY HAMAN

Gun-rights advocates have won victories in several states in recent months allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public parks, taverns and their work places.

So it came as a surprise to Tennessee state Rep. Stacey Campfield that he couldn't persuade his colleagues to pass a law allowing students at public colleges to carry concealed firearms on campus. The bill died this spring in the Republican-controlled legislature -- one of 34 straight defeats nationwide for people who believe a gun wouldn't be out of place in a college student's knapsack.

View Full Image

Associated Press
The shooting at Virginia Tech, where students observed its April 16 anniversary, mobilized supporters and opponents of campus-carry laws.
Raucous debates over the parameters of the Second Amendment have become a staple of the culture wars. But even on an issue as divisive as gun control, states may be nearing something resembling a national consensus: Guns don't belong in a college classroom.

In the two years since a Virginia Tech student shot and killed 32 students and professors, gun-rights advocates have failed to pass laws even in states strongly supportive of gun owners' rights, including Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Mississippi and Kentucky. In June, a bill died in the Texas legislature in the face of criticism from college administrators and student groups, who invoked the specter of students toting loaded weapons to booze-soaked campus parties.

Gun-control advocates tout what they label an unprecedented winning streak, noting that it comes at a time when even many Democrats are wary of alienating U.S. gun owners.

Proponents of the bills are pressing on, arguing that passing such laws could help prevent the next Virginia Tech-style massacre. Mr. Campfield said he intends to reintroduce his bill in the next Tennessee legislative session. His state, which had 6.21 million residents in 2008, has approved the sale of more than 2.6 million firearms and issued more than 231,000 handgun carry permits, according to state records. The bill is "coming back stronger next year," Mr. Campfield said.

Some gun-rights advocates predict Texas will eventually provide their first victory, saying the legislature had the votes to pass the bill but simply ran out of time. "If Texas were to pass it, we predict that it would catch on in other states," said Katie Kasprzak, director of public relations for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

Only Utah expressly allows students at public universities to carry guns to class. The state passed such a law in 2004, before the Virginia Tech killings. Several states leave the decision up to schools. But only two schools in those states -- Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia and Colorado State University -- allow students to carry guns to class.

The push for legislation began in the immediate aftermath of the Virginia Tech killings. Ken Stanton, an engineering student there, helped found the first local chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, arguing it would allow students to defend themselves and prevent massacres from taking place. Within a year of the shooting, bills to expand the firearms-carrying rights of college students had been introduced in more than a dozen states.

But if the Virginia Tech shootings helped mobilize supporters of guns on campus, it also helped mobilize opponents. And some of the most vocal have been either victims of the shootings or people who lost loved ones.

Colin Goddard, a 21-year-old junior at the time, was shot four times in a classroom where his teacher and 11 fellow students were killed. Not long afterward, Mr. Goddard began speaking out against guns on campus, and he is now an intern at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington.

Like other critics of these proposed bills, including many police departments, Mr. Goddard argues that a proliferation of firearms would simply add to the chaos during a shooting spree, making it impossible for police to distinguish between good guys and bad. He also says events unfolded at such a lighting pace during the shootings that even an armed student would have been powerless to prevent them.

"There were students dead in their chairs -- it happened that quick," he said. "I was shot before I really even knew what was going on."

Another former Virginia Tech student, John Woods, whose girlfriend was killed in the shootings, helped lead the fight this spring against the bill in Texas, where he is now a graduate student at the University of Texas.

In some states, legislators with strong gun-rights voting records have found themselves opposing these bills. This spring, Louisiana state Rep. Hollis Downs was one of 86 members of the Louisiana House to vote against allowing students with concealed-weapons permits to bring their guns onto the state's public campuses. The bill was defeated 86-18.

"I thought that the last thing that law enforcement needed was the fraternity militia to charge the building [in a shooting] with all guns blazing," said Mr. Downs, a Republican whose district includes Louisiana Tech University.

Write to Alex Roth at alex.roth@wsj.com and Ansley Haman at ansley.haman@wsj.com

New Bill to "Pack Heat" -- urge senators to say no

Dear Todd,

Urge your U.S. Senators to oppose S. 845

We need you to call your U.S. Senators immediately. There is a real possibility that dangerous legislation may move in the Senate soon. And we must stop it!

This legislation would force states, your state, to allow dangerous individuals to pack heat in public.

The bill number is now S. 845, but it could be offered as an amendment to another bill very soon. In any form, it must be opposed.

The legislative proposal would dramatically increase the number of individuals who could carry loaded hidden guns in public in your state.

The so-called "Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act" is hypocrisy at its finest. It would actually trample on your state's ability to make its own rules, and worse, endanger our public safety.

Please call Sen. Kit S. Bond (202) 224-5721 and Sen. Claire McCaskill (202) 224-6154 today to urge them to OPPOSE S. 845 in any form. Vote "NO" on the gun lobby's concealed carry legislation.

This legislation would allow the carrying of loaded, concealed firearms outside a person's home state, even by persons legally barred from possessing guns in the state where the carrying occurs.

It would allow out-of-state visitors to carry concealed firearms even if those visitors have not met the standards for carrying concealed weapons in the state they are visiting. It would reduce the gun laws in all states to the "lowest common denominator" of the states with the weakest laws on carrying concealed weapons.

This is madness. Congress needs to say "NO" to the gun lobby and refuse to put our families and communities at more risk.

That's why we need just a moment of your time. Please call your Senators immediately. Even if you know they support sensible gun laws, they need to hear from you!

Please call today. Please tell your family and friends to call. The Senate needs to hear from all of us!

Sincerely, Paul Helmke, President Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Representative Denny Hoskins (r) - Town Halls: campus conceal carry

by: Michael Bersin Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 11:28:05 AM CDT

On Friday, June 19th, Representative Denny Hoskins (r - noun, verb, CPA) held town halls in Holden, Warrensburg, and Knob Noster. The events, in the middle of the day, were sparsely attended. The liveliest exchanges were in Warrensburg and came from one individual who pressed representative Hoskins on two issues. We've previously covered the first exchange, on regressive taxes in: Representative Denny Hoskins (r) - Town Halls: was for the "fair" tax before he was against it The second question, concerning conceal carry on university campuses, came at the end of the Warrensburg town hall, with the exchanges including a third person in the audience who had been using a small video camera to tape the town hall. This statement by representative Hoskins early in the exchange "...And I, I received a lot of positive feedback from people who were for that as well, um, through e-mails..." was striking because we don't have any way of confirming the content or quantity of those e-mails on the subject, since Representative Hoskins has asserted through the Clerk of the House that a request for that specific information [addressed to] from Representative Hoskins cannot be honored because the Missouri Sunshine Law does not apply: Denny Hoskins (r): not a big fan of governmental transparency "...1. All written and electronic correspondence with administrators, faculty, and students at the University of Central Missouri concerning legislation pertaining to the issue of concealed and carry of firearms in Missouri...." The transcript of the conceal carry discussion at the Warrensburg town hall: ...Representative Denny Hoskins:...Other questions? Yes. Question: Can you give me your philosophy as a representative I, and I ask this question within the context of the concealed carry bill? Representative Hoskins: Yes. Question: Because on our conversation, we had a private conversation over the phone about this, you told, you did not vote initially for the amendment when it came up, you, you were doing something else. Representative Hoskins: All right. Question: The, the [garbled]. And you were going to investigate it and you were going to talk to those people who were directly involved in the conceal and carry. [crosstalk] Representative Hoskins: Right. Question: And I know you received then, communication from the Faculty Senate which voted overwhelmingly against [garbled] conceal carry permit holders. The Students, who voted overwhelmingly against conceal and carry. I know you had communications with the head of Public Security, um, the university that said he was against it and moreover, his statewide organization had a resolution in February against it. Representative Hoskins: Right...

Michael Bersin :: Representative Denny Hoskins (r) - Town Halls: campus conceal carry

...Question: The Board of Trustees voted against it. Given all of this information from your constituents you still voted for it. Can you explain your philosophy as our representative, explaining that? Representative Hoskins: [garbled] And I, I received a lot of positive feedback from people who were for that as well, um, through e-mails and, and conversations that I had with...[crosstalk] Question: As I pointed out, the Student Government Association, the Board of Trustees, the faculty, and the administration in overwhelming numbers voted against it. That's all. Or, urged you to, to vote against it. Representative Hoskins: Right, right. What it, what it came down to, and I did a lot of research on this. Um.... there has not been one incident, not only in Missouri, but the United States, with a conceal and carry permit holder committing a crime. And...[crosstalk] Question: What? Representative Hoskins: With their concealed firearm. Question: What? Not a single one? Representative Hoskins: I know, I know, it's, it's ...[crosstalk] Question: No, that's not true, of course. That's not true, of course. [crosstalk] But, thank you. Representative Hoskins: We'll disagree to, we'll disagree to disagree. Uh, you know, there are other colleges and universities that allowed it, including Virginia's community colleges, um, I believe Utah, Colorado, Colorado State has not had one incident. There's not been one incident on, by any college or university on col..., on campus where a conceal and carry permit holder has committed a crime with a concealed firearm, committed suicide, had their firearm stolen, uh, there, there's just none. When Missouri first originally passed their conceal and carry law, you know, opponents to it said, "Oh, there's gonna be shoot outs in the streets. It's gonna be quick draw style." That's simply not happened. Ever. Not only in Missouri, but in the United States. And, I could not find one, uh, you know, I support the Second Amendment, and I could not find one incident that that ever happened. And based on that and multitude of other things, including the Appalachian Law School, where they had a, a armed assailant come in, uh, to actually, I don't know if they were reserve police officers or off duty police officers, went out and, uh, got their firearms out of their vehicles. And, you know, currently at the university...[crosstalk] Question: Can I ask a question about that? [crosstalk] Representative Hoskins: ...conceal carry...[crosstalk] Question: 'Cause that's really interesting. Representative Hoskins: Um, hm. Question: They were reserve police officers. Is their right to have a gun, the training they go through, the same as what the training or the licensing for conceal and carry permit holders in the State of Missouri? Representative Hoskins: Well, my understanding is that [garbled][inaudible].[crosstalk] Question: Right, right, right. But, but, but, did their ability to have conceal and carry, their right to have one, as police officers, the equivalent of how you get a conceal and per..., per..., conceal and carry permit in the State of Missouri? Or was it perhaps just that test? Their test was slightly higher than what it takes to be a conceal and carry permit holder [crosstalk] in Missouri. Representative Hoskins: I, I know that in, in the State of Missouri there's lots of things you have [garbled]. You can name the requirements for conceal and carry? Question: You bet. And it has, right. And, and, you know what the accurate, you know what the training is and what you have to demonstrate, proficiency you have to demonstrate? Representative Hoskins: I've heard the...[crosstalk] Third person in audience: Twenty out of twenty-five. [crosstalk] Representative Hoskins: I know that you...[crosstalk] Third person in audience: Twenty out of twenty-five. Question: Twenty out of twenty-five. How far away? Third person in audience: Seven yards. Question: Seven yards. So if you hit twenty out of twenty-five at seven yards you [garbled] have a conceal carry permit. And, and how often are you retrained? [fourth voice in background, inaudible] Third person in audience: You don't have to retrain. Question: Oh, so once you do it...[crosstalk] Third person in audience: you're responsible...[crosstalk] Question: ...that's it. In, is that how...[crosstalk] Third person in audience: You're responsible for bringing yourself...[crosstalk] Representative Hoskins: You have to take a background check. [crosstalk] Question: What? [crosstalk] No, no, no.[crosstalk] [in reaction to the interruption] Third person in audience:Yes, yes you're fingerprinted at the sheriff's office. You have to do, pass a background check...[crosstalk] Question: Right. Third person in audience: ...both federal and state. As well as, if you have an unpaid parking ticket, you cannot get your conceal carry license. So, it's not like you're getting, if, if someone's going to commit a crime...they're not going to be concerned with whether or not they're supposed to have that gun. If I was gonna go kill a teacher, God forbid, I wouldn't care, care if that, the least of my concerns would be whether or not I was supposed to have that gun in the first place. That would be the least of my concerns. Question: So, no, no, no. I want to get this right though. But, once you pass it, you're never retested. Third person in audience: Right. Question: Police officers, once they become a police officer, they're never tested on a gun again? Representative Hoskins: Once I get my hunter safety permit I don't have to get my hunter...[crosstalk] Question: No, no, no, we're talking about, you're talking about the Appalachian State case. I mean, I talked to Bob Ahring [Director of Public Safety, University of Central Missouri], they are tested quarterly...[crosstalk] Representative Hoskins: Right. Question:...on guns. Representative Hoskins: Right. Question: Okay, if you want to allow...[crosstalk] Representative Hoskins: Would you be okay...[crosstalk] Question:...If you want to allow people to have guns where I work to make me safe, then have them meet the requirements of a regular police officer, if the Appalachian State is your example of why conceal and carry will make me safe. Representative Hoskins: I think education...[crosstalk] Question: Why don't you do that? [crosstalk] Representative Hoskins: ...is an important part of it. Question: Why, why don't you introduce that bill? Representative Hoskins: That's a, that's an interesting concept. I'll look into that. So, you'd be for having conceal and carry...[crosstalk] on campus if they had to take additional training... Question: Yeah, if a conceal and carry permit holder equals what a police officer has to go through. You bet. Representative Hoskins: All right. Question: And they regularly are retested quarterly the way the people charge of keeping me safe do now. Will you do that? Third person in audience: You think the likelihood that police officer will be in a shootout versus the likelihood that a normal citizen would be in a shootout may have something to do with the training requirements? Question: Um, by the way, did you follow what happened at Holocaust, the Holocaust Museum? Third person in audience: Yes. Question: Who, who got Roeder? [von Brunn has been charged with the Holocaust Museum murder, Roeder has been charged with the Tiller murder in Wichita] Third person in audience: The what? Question: Who, who got Roeder? Third person in audience: I can't understand what you're saying. Question: Who got the guy who went in...[crosstalk]? Third person in audience: The security guards did. [crosstalk] Question: Thank you. Representative Hoskins: You know, there, there's other examples that, you know, we had an unfortunate incident in Kirkwood City Hall. And, you know, the guy went in there, the assailant, the murderer, and he knew that there was two police officers in that building. One outside and one inside. So what did he do? He went, and he knew that conceal and carry was not allowed in the city council, uh, meeting, so, he went and killed the police officer in the parking lot. He went inside and killed the police officer inside. And then he had free rein inside the, uh, city council and killed two city council members, unfortunately. So, you know, there's, there's examples both ways. Question: So, are you going to allow people in the gallery in the House have con... guns? 'Cause they can't now. I've looked at the legislation, sir. They cannot now. Representative Hoskins: I, I wouldn't be against that. Question: Why don't you introduce that as your legislation then? So that your colleagues could, people in the gallery can have guns in case somebody enters. Representative Hoskins: Well, and, and they currently, uh, they can have them out in the hallways. It's just that they can't have them in any, uh, I think...[crosstalk] Question: Well you're worried about the Kirkwood case, though? Representative Hoskins: Right. Question: Don't you think you ought to have armed citizens sitting above you as you debate, uh, legislation on the floor of [crosstalk] the General Assembly? Representative Hoskins: If they're, uh, properly trained and law abiding [crosstalk] citizens. Question: Then intro..., why don't you introduce that, too? The next time you want to make me safe, why don't you make yourself safe and introduce the same thing? End the, the restriction in the House for conceal and carry? Representative Hoskins: ...but...[crosstalk] Question: If Kirkwood is, is your, if...[crosstalk] Representative Hoskins: I, I didn't introduce the legislation, so...[crosstalk] Question: Yeah, but you're my representative. Representative Hoskins: I know. Question: You voted to, to have guns where I work. You understand why I'm concerned about this? Third person in audience: Are you concerned when you go to Wal-mart? Because people go to Wal-mart. Are you concerned when you walk down the street? Because people walk down the street with guns all the time. [crosstalk] Question: Sir, I drove a taxicab in the City of Chicago for five years. Third person in audience: Profess...[crosstalk] Question: You bet. And no gun was gonna keep me safe. And when I finally had one pointed at the back of my head, had I pulled one out, he'd of got me before I got him...[crosstalk] Third person in audience: [garbled]...they don't have that in Illinois...[crosstalk] Question: What? He'd of killed me before. Third person in audience: Illinois doesn't have a conceal carry permit. Representative Hoskins: Sir, where, where do you think that, uh, guns should be allowed? Question: Ooh, I, lord knows, having hit a deer, we gotta have, we gotta kill deer in this state. Oh, I love hunters. Please kill deer. Please kill the deer. But I don't, you think I need a gun in here in this library right now? You think I, I, I feel unsafe? Do you feel unsafe? Because nobody has a gun? Representative Hoskins: [inaudible] All right. Thank you....

Support gun show loophole bill

"Despite the NRA's whipping gun owners into a buying frenzy over the notion that President Obama and the Democrats are coming after their guns — a hysteria that has led to a surge of sales at gun shows nationwide — Senator Lautenberg's gun show loophole bill does no such thing. It simply insists — in the interest of public safety — that you clear a criminal background check before buying a gun." – The Nation, June 3, 2009
Dear Todd,
The NRA's leaders are masters of "spin." Their rhetoric about confiscating guns is feeding an extremist agenda that leads to senseless deaths.
They've cowed our lawmakers and the public into thinking that any effort to strengthen gun laws — like closing the gun show loophole — is a threat to individual rights and to our nation's freedom.
In April, a Pittsburgh man, fed by the gun lobby's fear-mongering, shot 3 police officers with an assault rifle because he was afraid that an "Obama gun ban" would lead to his "rights being infringed upon."
The recent shooting of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas, is another horrific example of where gun lobby rhetoric can lead, and how easy it is for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons. We need to act now to strengthen gun laws.
The man who shot Dr. Tiller had been arrested for the criminal use of explosives. According to his siblings, he also had a history of mental illness. And a colleague with the anti-government Freemen group called him a "fanatic" on the issue of abortion.
Please support the Brady Campaign's fight for sane gun laws —
including closing the gun show loophole.
The Brady Campaign is pushing back — pushing for sensible gun laws — on Capitol Hill, in the media, and on the ground with our activists. That's why we need your help right now.
Please make a contribution to the Brady Campaign to counter the gun lobby's crusade of fear. We need your voice for common sense gun laws.
In the interest of public safety — of saving 80 lives a day — we have to make our country's gun laws stronger. Please donate to the Brady Campaign today.

Sincerely,

Paul Helmke, President
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Despite Recent Violence, Gun Laws Are Softening | Parade.com

Despite Recent Violence, Gun Laws Are Softening | Parade.com

Shared via AddThis

NRA gun case appeal heads to high court

By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — One year after the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep handguns, the justices have before them a new test of that right.
The National Rifle Association has appealed a ruling from a U.S. appeals court in Chicago that said the right to bear arms cannot be invoked by gun owners challenging state and local firearm regulations. It said the high court's groundbreaking decision last term in a case from Washington, D.C., allows the Second Amendment to cover only regulations by the federal government — at least until the high court weighs in again.

If the justices decide to take up the appeal, it would probably be heard next fall by a bench that could include Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who is now on a federal appeals court in New York. She was part of a court panel in January that similarly held that the 2008 gun decision did not apply to state regulations.

A U.S. appeals court in San Francisco, however, ruled this year that the Second Amendment indeed covers state gun restrictions.

"Because of the split in opinions (on the breadth of the 2008 ruling), it seems likely that the court would take it," says Daniel Vice, a lawyer with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He says a ruling could affect gun laws nationwide.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Ronald Reagan | National Rifle Association | Antonin Scalia | Sonia Sotomayor | Gun Owners of America | Frank H. Easterbrook
The June 2008 decision, decided by a 5-4 vote, said for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep handguns at home for self-protection. A 1939 high court decision had led lower courts and many legal analysts to believe the Second Amendment covered firearm rights only for state militias such as National Guard units.

The new decision in National Rifle Association v. Chicago by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago, written by conservative Ronald Reagan appointee Frank Easterbrook, echoes the closely scrutinized decision from a three-judge panel of the U.S. appeals court for the 2nd Circuit that included Sotomayor.

She joined an opinion that rejected a challenge to a New York ban on certain weapons used in martial arts and emphasized that the high court has never specifically ruled that the Second Amendment can be applied to state regulations. That 2nd Circuit decision, Maloney v. Cuomo, provoked some gun rights groups to protest Sotomayor's nomination. The Virginia-based Gun Owners of America called her "an anti-gun radical."

Last Tuesday's decision by the 7th Circuit undercuts criticism that the Sotomayor panel decision was extreme. As Easterbrook wrote, specifically agreeing with the 2nd Circuit, the Supreme Court said in the 2008 case involving a District of Columbia handgun ban that it was not deciding whether the Second Amendment covered state or local regulations.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who authored the high court decision, noted that the case arose from the federal enclave of Washington, D.C., and that past cases said the Second Amendment covers only the federal government. With a new case from a state or municipality, the court could extend the reach of the Second Amendment.

Until then, Easterbrook wrote in the case involving handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, an appeals court may not "strike off on its own." He said that would undermine the uniformity of the nation's laws.

The NRA's Stephen Halbrook, representing Chicago and Oak Park residents who want to keep handguns at home, urged the justices to take up the 7th Circuit case to resolve the reach of last term's ruling.

Halbrook said the right to guns "allows one to protect life itself."

Tell Rep. Carnahan to cosponsor HR 2324 to the Gun Show Loophole

am asking you to urge Rep. Carnahan to cosponsor legislation to close the gun show loophole.

In most states, anyone can walk into a gun show and buy guns — like AK-47s — from unlicensed sellers without a Brady criminal background check. That makes no sense.

Representatives Mike Castle (R-DE) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) recently introduced a bill, H.R. 2324, to close the gun show loophole. Now they need your help to add cosponsors to the bill.

Click here to e-mail Rep. Carnahan and ask them to cosponsor H.R.2324.

Gun shows provide the venue, advertising, and audience for many unregulated gun sellers. Therefore, closing the loophole that allows them to sell guns without Brady background checks makes sense for the safety of our families and communities.

Click here to e-mail Rep. Russ Carnahan today to urge them to cosponsor H.R. 2324 to close the gun show loophole.

Know that the gun lobby will be fighting us every step of the way with its mantra "any gun, anywhere, for anybody." So we can't do this without you.

Your Representative needs to hear from you today. And you can help even more — please click here to forward this e-mail to your friends. Everyone's help is needed to make our communities safer.

Thank you for all your ongoing support!

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady, Chair

P.S. U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has introduced legislation in the Senate to close the gun show loophole. If you haven't already, please click here to urge your U.S. Senators to cosponsor S. 843.

If this e-mail was forwarded to you, click here to sign up for your own Brady Campaign alerts.

Donate to Support the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

You can also mail a check to:
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005

Reporter reacts to the shooting

Here is a video of me speaking about the shooting on Feb. 9, 2008.

Click here for the video.

My Story

 

My Story

“I still see the faces of the people…that died that day…” Here at Bullet Counter Points we like to highlight the exceptional work that everyday Ameri Today we focus on the victim of a horrible shooting tragedy that has turned his grief and trauma into a determination to help others.

On the evening of February 7, 2008, Todd Smith, a reporter for the Kirkwood-Webster Journal, was covering a city council meeting at Kirkwood City Hall in Missouri. Just after the meeting began, Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton—a local resident who had been embroiled in a long running property dispute with the City of Kirkwood—entered the chambers and opened fire with two handguns, a .44 Magnum revolver and a .40 caliber handgun (the latter of which had been taken from a police officer Thornton killed in the parking lot outside the meeting). Before he was stopped by police, Thornton killed a total of five people (two police officers, two city council members, and Kirkwood’s public works director) and wounded two others. One of the wounded was Kirkwood Mayor Mike Swoboda, who would finally succumb to his head injuries and pass away seven months later. Also wounded was Todd, who was seated in the front row at the meeting and shot in the hand. He told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “[Thornton] was completely possessed … He looked at me directly and I felt complete rage.”

Like most of those present at the meeting that night, Todd was familiar with Thornton and his grievances. “I had seen him before at other city council meetings, and on one occasion he decided to speak at a council meeting and I decided to ask him what his issues were,” he recalls. “I had trouble understanding him and what he was wanting—he seemed angry and I had just started on Kirkwood beat and did not know his whole history. Even at this particular meeting he was somewhat incoherent and erratic and wearing a sign on his body in protest of the Kirkwood City Council.”

Sadly, this was not the first time Todd had been a victim of gun violence. He describes another traumatic incident that occurred more than a decade earlier:

“I had moved to New Castle, Delaware. A few days after July 4, 1997, I went to a nearby 7-Eleven around 9:00 p.m. I purchased a soda and was walking through a shopping center when two teenagers came up behind me with guns in their hands. They asked for money. I ran, and one of them shot at me. They ran away. I kept walking, but noticed there was blood coming from the back of my leg. I made it to a gas station that was across the street. I told the clerk to call 911. A guy getting gas noticed me sitting down in front of the gas station and took off his shirt and it was used as a tourniquet to stop my bleeding. I never saw this man again, and wish I had the chance to thank him. About 30 minutes after the shooting, an ambulance arrived on the scene and took me to a nearby hospital. A doctor came to see me and studied the wound and decided to pull the bullet out. He did numb the area, but I remember it being a painful process. I was in the hospital for three days before being released. The African-American teenagers that committed the act were never found. A police officer did come by once, I looked at pictures, but it was hard to tell who it was. I only saw them briefly, it was dark out, and their faces were partially covered.”

Todd’s recovery from these violent episodes has been difficult. The injuries he sustained in the Kirkwood shooting required two surgeries, the second of which involved a joint replacement. “I will never fully recover from this incident,” he says. “Emotionally, I have come a long way, but have a ways to go. I still have a fear of being alone at night and have fears of being in a setting with a large group of people.”

Despite the trauma he has been through, however, Todd wants to create something positive from his experience. “I feel the need to be a spokesperson on gun control,” he says. “The victims in Kirkwood were expecting to leave the meeting to go home and be with their families, like any other night. Instead, they never had a chance to say goodbye to their loved ones. I think there is something to be said about stronger gun control measures so people can go on living with the people they care about.”

Todd notes, “I am not against guns. I grew up around guns. I lived in a rural area, where people hunted and worked at a gun club. I would not like to see people’s right to have a gun taken away. I just believe in properly screening those who want to purchase guns, and developing ways to identify guns so that we know where they came from and where they were originally purchased.”

He has contacted the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and become involved in their Program for Victims and Survivors. Todd will take part in legislative advocacy efforts at the federal and state level, and reach out to other journalists to educate them about gun violence prevention. Still, some memories do not go away easily. “I still see the faces of the people that were friends of mine that died that day in Kirkwood,” Todd says. “One did her best to help people like Thornton. She worked to make sure that the council considered the views of constituents so their concerns were always heard and represented. I also will never forget Kirkwood Police Officer Tom Ballman. He stood up when Thornton pulled out his guns and in that instant he was killed. This image will haunt me for the rest of my life. “The instantaneous ending of a human life—which guns allow for—should not be allowed.”

For more information go to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence at

http://www.csgv.org/site/pp.aspx?c=pmL5JnO7KzE&b=3509205.

Concealed-carry bill stalls in Missouri Senate committee

First published in The Columbia Missourian
Tuesday, May 12, 2009 | 12:01 a.m. CDT

BY Chris Dunn

JEFFERSON CITY — With four days remaining in the state legislative session, further progress was stalled Monday on the House bill that would expand the Castle Doctrine and allow concealed carry on college campuses.

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Kenny Jones, R-Clarksburg, would allow lessees to shoot to kill aggressive intruders of rented property and would lower the minimum age for acquiring a concealed-carry license from 23 to 21 years of age. An amendment to the bill would void provisions that prohibit concealed-carry policies on college campuses.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held public testimony on the bill Monday evening but did not vote on it because the committee chairman was not present, said state Sen. Jack Goodman, R-Mt. Vernon, who served as chairman for the committee hearing.

Four days are left for lawmakers to pass bills in the House and Senate and send them to Gov. Jay Nixon's desk. Despite no committee vote on Monday and legislative procedural rules that require specific waiting periods, the bill still has time to pass the two legislative chambers before time runs out. Timing in this final week of session is critical; if committee chairman Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Jackson County, does not hold an executive session by Tuesday afternoon for the committee to vote on the bill, the bill could die.

When asked if he thinks the bill will make it through both chambers given the tight timing, Jones said, "I think there's a slight chance that it might get through the process but very slight."

Jones also said he does not think Nixon would sign the bill into law if the legislation does make it to his desk.

"It probably goes farther than he would want to support as far as carrying concealed and self-protection," said Jones, a former Moniteau County sheriff. "I carried the bill forward because it is a castle-doctrine extension. We don't have enough policemen in this state or in this country to defend us all at all times. Sometimes, you just have to take things upon yourself to defend yourself. This is not an aggression bill — this is a defense bill."

The committee's public hearing on Monday featured five witnesses speaking in favor of the legislation, including a doctoral student at the Missouri University of Science and Technology in Rolla. No one spoke in opposition of the bill.

Isaiah Kellogg, who has spent 10 years at Missouri S&T and intends to teach at a university after earning his degree, said he supports the bill because it would increase campus safety.

"I am going to be in academia for the foreseeable future — that will be my career — so I will be on university campuses for most of my life until I retire," Kellogg said in his public testimony. "So this is very important to me, to have the ability to protect myself."

Kellogg has held a concealed-carry license since March 2005 and usually carries a snub-nosed revolver, which he must keep in the trunk of his car when he is on campus. Kellogg said Missouri S&T's code of conduct does not allow concealed weapons on campus, and if the legislation passes, the university is not obligated to change its code of conduct. But if the bill passes, Kellogg said students can argue for concealed carry with the university board.

"We've taken down the legal barrier," Kellogg said, speaking hypothetically. "Now, we have to take down the code-of-conduct barrier."

President Obama Allows Loaded Guns in National Parks

On Friday, President Barack Obama signed the "Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009" and gave final approval to a dangerous amendment to the bill that was drafted by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and introduced by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). The Coburn Amendment would overturn a Reagan-era regulation and—for the first time—allow individuals to carry loaded semiautomatic assault rifles, handguns and shotguns in National Parks as long as the firearm is in compliance with state law.

Please call the White House today at (202) 456-1111 and tell President Obama that it is long past time for him to live up to his record and campaign promises and stand up to the NRA. The NRA has no business imposing its dangerous agenda on the overwhelming majority of Americans who want no part of it. Let's make it clear to President Obama that the safety of our families is not a political commodity to be sacrificed.

You can also check the following links to see how your Senators and Representative voted on the Coburn Amendment. Please call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to speak to your Members of Congress and send them the same message you sent President Obama!

It's time for all advocates of gun violence prevention to stand together and demand principled action from our elected officials. Capitol Hill needs to receive a clear message—they cannot continue to ignore a majority of Americans in order to do the gun lobby's bidding without paying a price at the ballot box.

Sincerely,

Josh Horwitz
Executive Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Community Gun Laws Under Siege, Help Us Fight Back

Brady staff at a Pittsburgh press conference announcing our legal help.
Support our defense of local gun laws now.

Dear Todd,

We're heading into another court battle — and it's against the NRA.

Whenever a community calls on us for help, I see an opportunity to help save lives — and have a victory for common sense gun laws.

That's why when the City of Pittsburgh called on the Brady Center to help defend its gun law against the NRA, we had to say, "Yes, we will help." The law helps to stop illegal gun trafficking.

Click here to make a tax-deductible contribution.
Help the Brady Center fight the gun lobby in court.

Ever since the Second Amendment decision last summer, the gun lobby and the NRA have waged a reckless campaign to attack local gun laws . . . to push more guns, in more places, like national parks, airports, and college campuses.

Our legal team is fighting the gun lobby on all fronts. And thanks to your past support, we've won. Just last month, a judge agreed with us in a case — brought by the gun lobby — to uphold Alameda County, California's ordinance banning gun sales and possession on public property.

The NRA has threatened other cities in Pennsylvania, and state and local gun laws in California, New Jersey and elsewhere are under attack. And once again, Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the Heller case, is suing the District of Columbia over its registration and other strong gun laws. In all these cases Brady lawyers are assisting with our legal expertise — pro bono.

I hope you will support our fight against new challenges with a tax-deductible contribution as soon as possible. We will prevail — wherever the next battlefield might be.

Thanks to your support, the Brady Center will be ready to defend gun laws that protect you, your family — and your community.

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady, Chair

P.S. Please let your friends and family know about the gun lobby's campaign against community gun laws, and ask them to help.

You can also mail a check to:
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005