Ordinary People: Road Rage

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—subject to the same issues of stress, depression, substance abuse and mental illness; which can sometimes lead to criminal behavior and tragedy.

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

On August 5 in Pembroke Pines, Florida, a quiet morning erupted in tragedy when Special Agent Donald Pettit was shot and killed in the parking lot of a post office by James Patrick Wonder. Pettit, who was employed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, was traveling along a Florida highway with his 12-year-old daughter when an incident of road rage led to a needless death.

For miles, Pettit and Wonder participated in an aggressive game of “chicken,” cutting off each other’s cars, slamming on brakes, and cursing heavily. When Wonder pulled over into the parking lot of a local post office, Pettit followed him.

The two men exited their cars and an argument ensued. Wonder, a concealed carry permit holder in the state of Florida, then drew his handgun and shot Pettit, who was unarmed, in the back of the head. While Pettit’s daughter looked on in horror, Wonder went back to his vehicle and fled the scene, leaving the federal agent to die.

Wonder attempted to elude police by dying his hair and driving in a rental car, but after a massive 24-hour manhunt, he was apprehended by authorities at a dialysis clinic thanks to an anonymous tip. “We told you we would get you,” said Pembroke Pines Deputy Chief Mike Segarra to a cheering crowd of law enforcement officers at a press conference later that evening. Police recovered several handguns from Wonder’s home, including the weapon they believe was used to shoot Pettit.

While Wonder was initially charged with premeditated murder and held without bond, on August 28, a Broward County grand jury indicted him on a lesser charge, manslaughter. Wonder then posted $10,000 bond and was released from jail. He now faces a maximum of 15 years imprisonment. Had he been charged with premeditated murder, Wonder could have received life in prison or the death penalty.

Frank Maister, an attorney for Wonder, expressed disappointment that the grand jury chose to indict his client. He also indicated he will argue his client acted in self-defense. He might have a strong case due to a Florida law that lowered the standard for using deadly force in public places. Previously, Florida law required citizens to retreat from a situation in which they felt threatened if they could do so safely. Florida’s 2005 “Shoot First” statute, however, changed the law so that, “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any…place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

Clearly, both Wonder and Pettit were at fault that day for allowing their road rage to escalate into dangerous behavior, and Pettit was wrong for following Wonder into a parking lot and confronting him. Beyond that, however, we are left with several important questions… Why didn’t Wonder call the police or drive to a police station if he was being followed by Pettit? If he was being actively attacked by Pettit, then why was Wonder uninjured, and why was the fatal bullet wound in the back of Pettit’s head? Most importantly, why would a man who acted legitimately in self-defense flee a crime scene (leaving a child to deal with her dead father) and attempt to evade police capture by ditching his car and disguising his appearance?

No matter what answers we eventually find, the sad fact is that no one had to die that day. The presence of a handgun during a moment of passion turned what should have been a shouting match or at worst a scuffle into a fatality that has left a family “destroyed.”

"More Guns, Less Crime" - International Style

Can the United States enhance international stability by dramatically increasing its arms exports to outside nations? The Bush Administration certainly seems to think so. Recent reports indicate that in this fiscal year alone, the Department of Defense has agreed to transfer more than $32 billion in weapons and other military equipment to foreign governments, compared with $12 billion just three years ago. These are heady numbers, even for the number one exporter of arms in the world.

Even more notable than the sheer quantity of weapons being transferred is the roster of arms recipients. There are some usual suspects on the list; traditional U.S. allies like Egypt, Israel, and our NATO partners. Other recipients are better acquainted with ethnic strife and conflict than stability and democracy, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, India, and Pakistan. Bruce S. Lemkin, the Air Force Deputy Undersecretary, has stated that, “This is not about being gunrunners. This is about building a more secure world.” But some Members of Congress are fearful of a “spiraling arms race that in the end could decrease stability.”

One of the concerns is that the U.S. does not have a very good track record in accounting for inventories of transferred arms. Recently, the American military lost track of approximately 190,000 pistols and automatic rifles that were transferred to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005. A recent report by Amnesty International notes that these small arms transfers were marked by a “poorly managed and unaccountable process” that led “to diversions of supplies to armed groups and illicit markets.”

Travis Sharp, a Military Policy Analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, also worries that in a world of tremulous alliances, the U.S. could end up looking down the barrel of its own weapons—as we have in the past in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In Sharp’s words: “Once you sell arms to another country, you lose control over how they are used, and the weapons, unfortunately, don’t have an expiration date.” Lemkin, however, seemed dismissive of such fears, stating, “Would you rather they bought the weapons and aircraft from other countries? Because they will.”

That rhetoric will sound familiar to gun violence prevention advocates—similar language is often employed by the gun lobby to justify weak regulations that allow criminals easy access to firearms. The “logic” is that there are already too many guns in circulation in America anyway, and criminals will get their hands on them no matter what you do, so why bother putting any obstacles in their path that could interfere with the shopping habits of law-abiding gun owners?

Sadly, this philosophy has been embraced by the Bush administration. The U.S. has been a non-participant in recent negotiations aimed at curbing the illegal international trade in small arms. After intense lobbying by pro-gun groups, including the National Rifle Association, the U.S. government virtually boycotted a recent United Nations meeting that sought to address this issue through work on a Global Arms Trade Treaty.

Is the United States shirking its responsibilities as a model of democracy and the world’s number one exporter of arms to ensure that its weapons do not end up in the hands of human rights violators? According to researcher Helen Hughes, “Governments can either carry on ignoring the horrific consequences of irresponsible international arms transfers or they can meet their obligations in an arms trade treaty with a ‘golden rule’ on human rights that will actually help save people’s lives.”

We certainly hope the next administration will choose the latter course, for the betterment of all mankind.

Homeland Absurdity

In June, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, ruling that the District’s longstanding ban on handguns and safety & storage laws concerning firearms in the home violated the Second Amendment. D.C. lawmakers responded quickly by enacting emergency legislation to comply with the ruling. These temporary measures created a registration procedure for privately owned handguns and revised the city’s trigger-lock requirements to allow for self-defense in the home. Simultaneously, the D.C. Council announced they would enact permanent and comprehensive gun laws when they returned to work in the fall.

This good faith effort, however, was not good enough for the National Rifle Association (NRA), which saw an opportunity to turn the matter into a campaign issue. The NRA authored new legislation, H.R. 6691, which would go far beyond the stipulations of the Heller decision and eviscerate what’s left of the District’s gun laws. Their bill would repeal D.C.’s registration requirement for handguns, legalize semiautomatic assault weapons, allow individuals who have been voluntarily committed to psychiatric institutions within the last five years to own firearms, and prohibit the D.C. Council from enacting any gun-related legislation in the future. Most disturbingly, however, H.R. 6691 would allow individuals to carry loaded rifles and assault weapons in public.

During a September 8 hearing, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform called three law enforcement officials to testify about the potential impacts of H.R. 6691 on public safety and homeland security: D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier, Capitol Police Chief Phillip Morse and Deputy Chief of the Park Police Kevin Hay. All three voiced serious concerns about the bill. The Secret Service and the U.S. Marshals Service were also invited to testify, but were blocked by the Bush administration from doing so.

Chief Lanier stated that she had “grave concerns” about H.R. 6691 and opined that it would make her officers’ job to protect the public, government officials and visiting dignitaries “far more difficult.” She noted that over 4,000 special events occur in D.C. annually, including high-profile events such as the 4^th of July celebration on the National Mall and the Presidential Inauguration. In her words: “Imagine how difficult it will be for law enforcement to safeguard the public, not to mention the new president at the inaugural parade, if carrying semiautomatic rifles were to suddenly become legal in Washington.” Chief Morse echoed this sentiment, saying such a situation “becomes an officer safety issue, as well as a public safety issue.”

Even with D.C.’s current gun laws, there are innumerable dangers for law enforcement to manage in the nation’s capital. Members of Congress were reminded of this just last week when an individual armed with an AK-47, a homemade grenade, and three magazines of ammunition was apprehended one block from the U.S. Capitol. His explanation to officers on the scene was that he “wanted to provide more ‘manpower’ in case of a conflict with a secret society.”

Do we really want to put law enforcement in situations where they can’t arrest individuals who are carrying loaded rifles near federal buildings? Apparently, in their zeal to appease the gun lobby during election season, Members of Congress are ready to put even their own lives at risk (in addition to the lives of D.C. residents and visitors to the nation’s capital). Sadly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced that she will let H.R. 6691 come to the floor for a vote.

The NRA, feeling haughty and attempting to redefine the standard for hypocrisy, has even chastised the members of the D.C. Council for “demonstrating their arrogant disregard for the Supreme Court’s decision and the safety and liberty of their own law-abiding constituents.” Given the current lunatic provisions of H.R. 6691, however, it is clear that the D.C. Council—working through a democratic process—would do a far better job of protecting Washingtonians than Wayne LaPierre and the extremist leadership of the gun lobby.

Ordinary People: "I had fun."

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—subject to the same issues of stress, depression, substance abuse and mental illness; which can sometimes lead to criminal behavior and tragedy.

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

On July 17, Randal Rushing, 25, turned a quiet family home in Scranton, Pennsylvania into a slaughterhouse. At approximately 4:30 AM that morning, Rushing—who rented basement room in the house—went on a killing spree, using a handgun to order his victims into submission and then bludgeoning and stabbing them to death with carpentry hammers and knives. When all was said and done, three people lay dead: Justin Berrios, 21; Dustin Hintz, 22; and Leslie Collier, 16. Collier’s body was so badly beaten that police could not tell exactly how he was killed. Authorities believe that Rushing’s rampage was triggered by jealousy regarding a girl he was dating who also lived in the house.

Police apprehended Rushing at a friend’s apartment the next morning, where he was found playing Playstation in blood-soaked boots. As police led Rushing out of the house, he blew reporters a kiss and told them, “I had fun.” The office of the Lackawanna County District Attorney is currently deciding whether to pursue the death penalty against him.

Rushing had a permit to carry a concealed handgun in Pennsylvania. His permit application had been approved in less than 24 hours in February 2007, despite the fact that he listed the address of a homeless shelter as his home address and provided two references whose names were illegible. The sheriff who issued the permit, Barry Stankus, claimed that he “followed all the guidelines established by the Pennsylvania Crimes Code and utilized the [Pennsylvania Instant Check System] established by the Pennsylvania State Police.”

Stankus’ successor as sheriff, Michael Savokinas, was of a different opinion. He described Stankus’ office as a “one-stop shop” for permits and, stating the obvious, noted, “we should have called the [references].”

Rushing had no criminal record, but even outside the problems with his written application for the permit, there were obvious red flags in his background. His attorney, Paul Ackourey, has stated that Rushing “has some serious emotional and mental health problems that will be explored.” State Police also indicated that Rushing had “made overt threats” at T.J. Maxx, where he worked. Despite the fact that Pennsylvania is a “shall-issue state, pursuant to statute local law enforcement can deny a concealed carry permit to an individual who is “not of sound mind” or who “has a character and reputation indicating the applicant would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety” (among other reasons). Law enforcement is allowed 45 days to carry out an investigation on an applicant.

When claiming that concealed carry permit holders are the most law-abiding citizens in the country, the gun lobby will frequently point to the “rigorous” vetting they go through in order to obtain their permits. This case, however—and others detailed in our “Ordinary People” series—reveal that the screening process in many instances is not even cursory, much less rigorous. For example, Pennsylvania does not even require permit holders to undergo firearm safety training before carrying a handgun in public.

Several other important questions are raised by the Rushing case… Did Sheriff Stankus issue permits to other individuals who posed a threat to public safety during his tenure? Has the state of Pennsylvania implemented any monitoring or oversight procedures to determine if there are similar permitting problems in other counties?

An independent audit of the permitting process is also certainly justified. That is impossible, however, because Pennsylvania has enacted a National Rifle Association-drafted law that prohibits the public from accessing information on concealed carry permit holders.

One thing is clear—when it comes to individuals carrying handguns in public, it is time for Pennsylvania to start putting the safety of its citizens ahead of the interests of the gun lobby.

Looking a Gift Loophole in the Mouth

In July, Bullet Counter Points reported on the “Fire Sales Loophole,” which allows corrupt gun dealers who have had their licenses revoked by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to sell off their remaining inventory without conducting background checks or keeping records. That blog focused on a Chicago dealer who had his license revoked after committing 500 violations of federal law, and yet who was still permitted to transfer 200 guns from his "business inventory" into his "personal collection" of firearms. Those guns ended up on crime scenes in Canada after the dealer illegally trafficked them across the border and sold them off the books to gang members and others.

Now, an equally disturbing story comes to us from Michigan. On August 14, ATF agents and Michigan State Police troopers descended on the Gun Barn in Highland Township and confiscated more than 612 firearms from the store. The owners of the store, Gabriel Kish III and Deborah Summers, were arrested for dealing in firearms without a federal license.

The ATF had revoked Kish and Summers’ Federal Firearms License (FFL) in 2004 for violations of the 1968 Gun Control Act. Despite the threat they posed to public safety, the couple was then allowed to exploit the Fire Sales Loophole and sell off their remaining inventory without conducting background checks on purchasers or maintaining records of those sales.

Kish and Summers didn’t stop there, however. ATF soon received a tip that the couple was continuing to sell guns off the books even after depleting their remaining inventory. An investigation was launched, during which undercover agents were able to purchase firearms from Gun Barn—cash and carry, no questions asked. Now, after several years of dealing guns illegally, the couple has—finally—been put out of business for good.

ATF resident agent in charge Robin Shoemaker admitted that tracing the guns that were sold by Gun Barn after the store’s license was revoked will be difficult, if not impossible—because there is no paper trail whatsoever for the agency to follow in determining who bought them. Commented Special Agent Thomas Brandon from ATF’s Detroit Field Division: “The unlawful sale of firearms, especially dealing firearms without a license, can put guns into the hands of criminals, and put our communities at risk.”

That would seem so obvious that you’d think Congress would have taken action years ago to close the Fire Sales Loophole. Ever eager to please the gun lobby, however, they have yet to even consider legislation to do so. This has the 320 members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns up in arms (pardon the bad pun).

The tragedy is that the simple effort it would take to close the Fire Sales Loophole would do an enormous amount of good. The ATF has reported that just 1.2 percent of licensed dealers are the source of over 57 percent of guns found on crime scenes. Putting this small but dangerous group of bad apples out of business—immediately and permanently—would go far in drying up the gun pool that criminals swim in.