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....