Ordinary People: Tragedy in Stafford County

Bullet Counter Points’ “Ordinary People” series examines the gun lobby’s frequent claim that gun owners—and concealed carry permit holders—are the most law-abiding citizens in our country. We grant that this is probably true in many cases, but argue that gun owners are human beings like the rest of us—subject to the same struggles with issues of stress, addiction, depression, and mental illness; which can sometimes lead to criminal behavior. Today we relate the story of another “ordinary person.”

To the outside world, the Stafford, Virginia family of Aaron Jackson, LaTasha Thomas and their two children “seemed happy.” In reality, that was anything but the case. On May 5, Jackson used a semiautomatic AK-47 assault rifle to kill Thomas, before using a handgun to kill his children (ages 2 ½ and 1 ½) and himself.

Police responding to the crime scene at the family’s trailer discovered the bodies of the four victims, as well as six handguns, the AK-47 assault rifle, numerous boxes of ammunition, a sword, and a machete. The kitchen counter top in the trailer was crowded with empty liquor bottles. Jackson, 24, was discovered wearing a bulletproof vest .

Jackson and Thomas had been having relationship problems, and in the days before the shooting Thomas told others she wished to move out of the mobile home the couple shared. Jackson had begun a relationship with another woman, Ashley Price, with whom he shared an appetite for both alcohol and cocaine.

Jackson did not have a significant criminal record, however, and had been involved in no reported incidents of domestic violence. According to Jackson’s sister, his primary source of stress was financial in nature: "He was obviously upset—stuff wasn't going to well—everybody was having problems with money." Despite these issues, many who knew the family were baffled by the murder-suicide. One neighbor commented, “I sold them ice cream just the other day. They got SpongeBob ice cream.”

Authorities reported that Jackson possessed a concealed carry permit in the state of Virginia. “He carrie[d] a gun with a holster underneath him,” said Price, who stated that Jackson felt the need to protect himself in case he was ever attacked in public.

Ultimately, Jackson’s guns would provide him no protection. There was nothing extraordinary about his relationship issues, struggles with substance abuse, or financial problems—such stresses are experienced every day in our country by gun owners and non-gun owners alike. Regrettably, though, Jackson’s guns provided a permanent solution to temporary problems—allowing him to quickly and easily take not only his own life, but also the lives of those he loved, before cooler heads could prevail.

Loose Gun Laws Put Law Enforcement in Crosshairs

The murder of Sergeant Stephen Liczbinski in Philadelphia on May 3 demonstrates how weak laws and unfettered access to firearms in America leads to tragic consequences.

Responding to a bank robbery call, Sgt. Liczbinski was shot five times by an assailant who used a Chinese-made SKS assault rifle. Assault weapons are semiautomatic versions of fully automatic military rifles, and are disproportionably used by criminals to kill cops (the Violence Policy Center has released a report that shows that one out of every five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty is killed with an assault weapon). These types of weapons are not ideal for either hunting or for self-defense—they were designed to rapidly fire high-velocity rounds at human targets in combat situations.

Officer Thomas Krajewski Sr., who held Sgt. Liczbinski in his arms as he died, commented: “There is absolutely no reason that anyone should be carrying around military-style assault weapons. I mean, we saw what a weapon like that did to a human body. I mean, I own guns and my sons and I hunt as well, but I don't have assault rifles or anything. There's no need for it.”

Unfortunately, the federal ban on assault weapons expired in September 2004. It was not the only gun law implicated in Sgt. Liczbinski’s murder. The shooter, Howard Cain, was a convicted felon, and therefore prohibited under federal law from purchasing firearms. According to a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“[Tony Robbins, ATF assistant special agent] noted that the ATF was able to trace the SKS rifle used to gun down Liczbinski to a gun show in Fayetteville, NC. He said that because it had been bought at a gun show, the owner did not have to undergo a background check—another proposal that's been blocked by the gun lobby.” The rifle was trafficked illegally and passed through the hands of at least three other convicted felons.

North Carolina is one of many states that allow individuals to sell rifles and shotguns at gun shows without conducting background checks on purchasers. Commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” this loophole actually allows individuals to sell guns in this manner not just at gun shows, but also via the Internet, through classified ads in newspapers, across their kitchen tables, etc., etc. The ATF has found that: "Prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons."

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has successfully thwarted all efforts to close the Gun Show Loophole at the national level since the time of the Columbine tragedy (where gun shows were implicated). Undaunted, Senators Frank Lautenberg and Jack Reed have introduced a bill to close the loophole during the current session of Congress.

In Philadelphia, Mayor Michael Nutter has also taken action, signing five gun control bills into law, including one that bans the sale and possession of assault weapons. Unfortunately, a 1994 law enacted by the Pennsylvania General Assembly at the behest of the NRA blocks municipalities in the state from enacting their own gun control laws. The NRA has also sued Philadelphia over the signing of the five new bills, and pending the outcome of that lawsuit, the assault weapons ban and other measures will go unenforced.

The result is that loose gun laws will continue to provide outlets for criminals and other prohibited purchasers to acquire firearms, and America’s law enforcement officers and citizens will continue to be caught in their crosshairs.

The Game of Monopoly

With the Bush administration casting aside the Constitution to eavesdrop on telephone conversations and hold suspected terrorists for years without access to lawyers, it’s easy to see why civil libertarians on the left are finding a lot to like about the right-wing critique of expansive government power. This distrust and distaste for government authority has even made some liberals receptive to arguments advanced by gun rights groups, who suggest that private ownership of firearms is a healthy check on government run amok.

Before we get carried away with the idea that guns are the ultimate guarantor of our civil liberties, however, we should consider what maintaining the capability to resist the decisions of a democratically accountable government really means. The question of whether armed citizens should be entitled to challenge the government with force is at the heart of the current debate over the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia vs. Heller.

On March 19, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit made national headlines when it struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This marked the first time that a federal court had overturned a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. In its decision, the Court of Appeals asserted a broad range of purposes for the Second Amendment, including hunting, self-defense and, most notably, to defend against the "depredations of a tyrannical government." After the ruling was successfully appealed to the Supreme Court by the District of Columbia, the National Rifle Association made a similar argument in their brief to the Court, affirming that the “very existence of an armed citizenry will tend to discourage would-be tyrants from attempting to use paid troops to ‘pacify’ the populace.”

Such “insurrectionist” philosophy is common among a small but vocal group of gun rights supporters. Insurrectionists assert that unrestricted access to guns of every kind is an essential element of freedom. Government is seen as a likely enemy, and gun regulation is viewed as a plot to monitor gun ownership and, ultimately, to confiscate all private firearms.

If this insurrectionist logic were to be embraced by the Supreme Court, however, our democracy would be severely degraded. Such an interpretation of the Second Amendment would make even the most modest gun control legislation unconstitutional. If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow individuals to stockpile firearms to protect against government “tyranny,” then laws like owner licensing or firearm registration (and maybe even the Brady background check) could be found unconstitutional because they allow the government to monitor and regulate gun ownership. Future Timothy McVeighs could claim constitutional protection for their crimes. If every American armed up to vindicate their private grievances (the Court of Appeals gave absolutely no guidance on how to tell, or who should decide, what constitutes government “tyranny”), the government’s monopoly on force would be infringed and our society would gradually slide toward anarchy.

There was actually a time in our history—when America was governed by the weak and decentralizing Articles of Confederation—when private mobs exercised as much power as legislatures. Incidents like Shay’s Rebellion triggered great fear among America’s leading citizens and led to the framing of a Constitution with enhanced federal power. Since the ratification of that document, our nation has been through much travail, but through some of our biggest challenges (i.e., the Civil War, World War II, and the civil rights movement) it was ultimately America’s ability to mobilize both a federal bureaucracy and military power that kept us free. From General Washington to General Grant to General Patton to President Eisenhower, professionalized peacekeepers have safeguarded liberty and freedom in this country (and, in the case of WWII, on the entire planet). Our strong yet democratic state—which maintains a monopoly on force—has allowed us to walk the fine line between anarchy and totalitarianism.

The concept of a “monopoly on force” might sound foreign or even frightening to Americans that take great pride in our revolutionary beginnings, but it is the fundamental organizing principle of any political entity, including the United States. In 1919, German political economist and sociologist Max Weber defined the conditions required for a political entity to be termed a “state.” Weber said, “A compulsory political association with a continuous organization…will be called a ‘state’ if and in so far as its administrative staff successfully upholds its claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order.”

Nonetheless, most Americans today would associate the idea more closely with the struggle for democracy and stability in Iraq than with our own political system. Indeed, the current situation in Iraq should be a cautionary tale for all democracies: If a state cannot guarantee the political and civil rights of its citizens, if it cannot enforce judicial or administrative rulings because it is outgunned by individuals or factions, then it is not functioning as a democratic state.

In Iraq, the state’s lack of a monopoly on force has produced obvious negative consequences. Let’s face it—isn’t that really what “the surge” is all about? George Will has written that, “A defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence. That attribute is incompatible with the existence of private militias of the sort that maraud in Iraq.” Researcher Herbert Wulf, commenting on the U.S. occupation of Iraq, stated, “[t]he present situation in Iraq illustrates that even the most powerful military nation of the world runs into difficulties in trying to re-establish the monopoly of violence.”

This doesn’t mean that Saddam Hussein’s regime, or other totalitarian states, should be accepted. These regimes lack legitimacy, which is the key to Weber’s definition of the monopoly on force. Nor does it mean that a democratic government must disarm every citizen or prevent armed self-defense. However, it does mean that a democratic state must be able to prevent the accumulation of military arms for insurrectionary purposes, and it must have enough strength to enforce its own laws. Without this monopoly of force, rights are only abstractions, because they cannot be enforced. This is not to say that government is the source of all rights, but rather that the only hope of vindicating individual rights over the long term is through democratic government that has both the will and the means to protect them.

The bottom line is that our Constitution is not a suicide pact. It can be amended and modified, but it does not sanction its own violent demise. As the eminent jurist Roscoe Pound concluded, a “legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted [because it] would defeat the whole Bill of Rights.” If we value our democracy, we should hope the Supreme Court agrees and explicitly quashes the D.C. Circuit’s assertion that there is an insurrectionary purpose to the Second Amendment.

"You don’t have to be a mother..."

Here at Bullet Counter Points we like to highlight the exceptional work that everyday Americans are doing to prevent gun violence in their communities. Today we focus on a Virginia mother whose work has reached beyond her state and had a national impact.

When the tragedy at Virginia Tech occurred on April 16, 2007, Abby Spangler, like so many other Americans, was overcome by grief. Yet another school shooting—this time the deadliest in American history—had extinguished 32 bright lives. Abby knew little about federal and state gun laws at that point, but as reports of Seung-Hui Cho’s mental health problems and handgun purchases appeared in the media, she suddenly realized “just how lax and ineffective our gun laws are in this country.”

Abby knew the typical response to such tragedies was to conduct candlelight vigils in honor of the victims. But she envisioned a day when candlelight vigils would become a thing of the past. With a mind on preventing future tragedies, she thought, “If we want to truly memorialize these victims, we have to fight for change and strengthen our gun laws.” As she noted, “The status quo was simply not working.” Time and time again, the complacency of elected officials had failed to produce meaningful reform.

So Abby stood up for the safety and well being of millions of American families by lying down. She conceived of a new form of protest, the “Lie-In,” to bridge the gap between our increasingly apathetic society and the great protest movements of the civil rights era. A Lie-In involves 32 people (the number of victims at Virginia Tech and the number of Americans who die each day from gun homicide) who lay on the ground for three minutes of silence and reflection (symbolizing the brief amount of time it takes to buy a gun in America). Abby conducted the first Lie-In with other mothers in front of City Hall in Alexandria, Virginia, and then founded the group ProtestEasyGuns.com. By February 2008, she had helped to inspire and organize 37 other Lie-Ins in towns and cities across America.

It was on April 16, 2008, however, that the Lie-In movement would reach a new level. On the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings, more than 70 Lie-Ins were conducted in 29 states and the District of Columbia, where several hundred demonstrators gathered in front of the Supreme Court and U.S. Capitol. Gun violence survivors, their friends, and families were heartened beyond their hopes and dreams by the Lie-Ins as they witnessed the growing collective of Americans determined to prevent future suffering.

Regarding the future of the gun control movement, Abby believes “the framework is there, but we need to mobilize the American people and create a social movement. It’s going to take people to put their feet down and say, “‘we won’t allow our fellow citizens to die.’” She is encouraged to see some movement in the U.S. Congress, with Senators Lautenberg and Reed having recently introduced a bill to close the Gun Show Loophole.

Abby is quick to point out that she is just an ordinary person, and that we all can make a difference in the struggle to save lives lost to gun violence: “You don’t have to be a mother, you just have to love someone enough that you wouldn’t want them to be ripped from you.”

The Latest from the Gunshine State

Permissive Gun Laws Fail to Prevent Dramatic Increase in Violent Gun Crime

Florida has long been known as a state with loose gun laws. A “Shall Issue” state for concealed carry permits (meaning that local law enforcement must issue a concealed weapons license to an applicant if he/she passes a background check and meets modest safety/training requirements), Florida is also notable for being the first state to pass a “Shoot First” law at the behest of the National Rifle Association (NRA). The 2005 law expanded Floridians’ right to use deadly force in self-defense inside and outside the home and eliminated any duty to retreat (if possible) before resorting to the use of such force.

The NRA and other pro-gun groups have praised these laws, arguing that the more than 400,000 Floridians who have obtained concealed carry permits will make their state safer because criminals will be concerned that potential victims could be packing heat. As the gun lobby frequently claims, “an armed society is a polite society.” Skeptics were even told that these laws would deter rapists by arming women and giving them the freedom to fight back.

Recent statistics from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, however, have cast serious doubt on these claims. The figures for 2007 show an 11.5% increase in gun murders, a 25% increase in armed robberies with guns, and a 20% increase in forcible rapes in which a gun was used. Notably, the overall violent crime rate in the state went up by only 1.4 percent in 2007.

These statistics demonstrate a point that Harvard researcher David Hemenway has often made. America is not unique in its overall level of violent crime. What separates us from other industrialized democracies is that American violence tends to end in death; and that is because we own more guns per capita than any other high income country. Looking at Florida’s 2007 statistics again, the overall murder rate went up by 6.5%, but murders in which a knife was used actually decreased by 24%. Easy access to guns in the state is responsible for the discrepancy, as it makes crime more lethal.

Perhaps Florida’s permissive gun laws are arming criminals and violent individuals in addition to law-abiding citizens. It was only a little over a year ago that the Orlando Sun-Sentinel released a bombshell report indicting the failures of Florida’s concealed carry permitting process. In a 2007 article, the Sentinel revealed that Florida’s CCW list included more than 1,400 people who pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies, 216 people with outstanding warrants, 128 people with active domestic violence injunctions against them, and six registered sex offenders. In response, the Florida legislature passed a bill banning the public and press from accessing this information in the future.

Recent action by Florida’s elected officials has been equally puzzling. First, Governor Charlie Crist refused to make any comment on the increase in gun crime. Then, on April 9, the Florida legislature finalized its approval of a bill that will prohibit businesses from preventing those with concealed carry permits from keeping handguns and assault rifles locked in their cars at work. The governor has indicated he will sign the bill, despite the intense opposition of business interests in the state.

Florida’s elected officials are clearly eager to please the gun lobby. Are they up to the task of protecting their citizens, ensuring public safety and protecting individual rights? A serious effort in this area would begin with measures to prevent criminal access to firearms and to respect the interests of private property owners who do not want firearms on their premises.

More guns, less crime? Not in sunny Florida…

More Ordinary People

Recently, we examined the gun lobby’s frequent claim that gun owners (and concealed carry permit holders) are the most law-abiding citizens in the country. We granted that this is probably true in many cases, but argued that gun owners are human beings like the rest of us—subject to the same struggles with issues of stress, addiction, depression, and mental illness; which can sometimes lead to criminal behavior. That blog featured a “law-abiding” gun owner who became involved in illegal gun trafficking to support a crack addiction.

Today we relate the story of another “ordinary person.”

Marc Kidby was a 30 year-old Ohio University employee who was deeply troubled by a pending divorce. A gun owner and concealed carry permit holder, Kidby became the subject of a domestic violence protection order that was filed by his wife on February 11. At that point, Kibdy’s concealed carry permit should have been suspended by the Athen County sheriff’s office in Ohio. Kibdy was also required by law to surrender his guns to authorities.

He did not surrender them, and the sheriff’s office failed to suspend his permit. A deputy with the office stated that he knew of “no case where anyone thought [Kidby] was a threat to others.” Kidby’s wife, however, had said in her petition for the protection order that he had threatened to kill both her and their two year-old daughter.

Moreover, it was abundantly clear Kidby was a threat to himself. He had threatened to jump off tall buildings, was admitted to a mental health hospital at one point, and talked of “suicide by cop.”

Sadly, on April 1, Kidby took his own life with a .38-caliber handgun he owned. An opportunity to avert tragedy had been missed.

Kidby’s struggles with depression and loss were far from unique, and his unfortunate death is a reminder that guns purchased for self-defense can sometimes become a threat to those they are meant to protect. As researcher Dr. Garen Wintemute recently noted, living in a home where there are guns increases the risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.

This case also highlights the tremendous importance of clarifying and enforcing court-ordered removal laws "to actively engage the criminal justice system in the process of removing firearms from individuals who are violent toward their intimate partners.” Regrettably, one recent study that examined state laws in this area reported “an urgent need for progress.” We can and should do better.

Ordinary People

The gun lobby never tires of telling Americans that gun owners are law-abiding citizens who make their communities safer by owning and carrying handguns in public. In fact, we are often told that these individuals are the most law-abiding citizens in our country. In many cases, that is probably true. But a recent story from the state of Pennsylvania calls the gun lobby’s blanket claim into question and reveals that gun owners are no different than the rest of Americans, with their own foibles and flaws, which sometimes lead to criminal behavior.

The story involves the unlikely duo of David Downs, a middle-class home owner from Levittown, Pennsylvania; and Sean Hagins, a crack dealer from Trenton, New Jersey. Downs had a nasty crack habit, and when Hagins saw him roll up for a purchase one day in a pick-up adorned with Pennsylvania tags and an NRA bumper sticker, he had an idea. As an ex-felon prevented from buying firearms, he wanted to know if Downs would be willing to buy guns for him in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, handguns can be bought at a gun store in a matter of minutes. In New Jersey, the process can take weeks, even months. It was a match made in heaven—or hell, depending upon your perspective.

After the deal was struck, Downs, a concealed carry permit holder, bought scores of guns over the counter at established gun stores in Pennsylvania, easily passing the required computerized background checks. He failed to note that he was addicted to a controlled substance on the required sales form (which would have prohibited him under federal law from buying guns), but nothing came up in his criminal record and no one questioned him about it. These guns later ended up on crime scenes across Trenton. The owner of one of the stores that sold Downs the guns, commenting on the instant background check system that screens gun buyers, stated, “Maybe there should be a little more than that.”

At CSGV, we certainly agree. In New Jersey and certain other states, those purchasing handguns must obtain a permit through the police. This process involves fingerprinting and a background investigation by law enforcement. Such a process could have turned up evidence of Downs’ drug addiction. Given the flaws in our background check system (many disqualifying records have yet to be transmitted to the federal database), tighter screening makes a lot of sense and is the best way to catch questionable—and sadly, commonplace—activity that might fall through the cracks of a computer check.