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.

Law Enforcement in the Crosshairs: Shooting Spree in Tucson

In May, we discussed the tragic murder of Sergeant Stephen Liczbinski in Philadelphia. Sgt. Liczbinski was a victim of loose gun laws—felled by an assault rifle that had been illegally trafficked from a North Carolina gun show. Now, less than two months later, another police officer has been murdered with an assault weapon, again by an assailant that never should have been granted access to a firearm.

Officer Erik Hite, described as “the perfect father and the perfect man,” was gunned down on June 1 in Tucson, Arizona, during a cross-town shooting spree. The incident began when Hite responded to a call about a man, Nick Delich, who was arguing with his neighbors and had fired a gun at several houses. When police arrived on the scene, Delich took off in his car. During an ensuing chase, Delich fired several rounds from an assault rifle at the police, killing Hite and wounding two other deputies. Delich was eventually cornered at a campground, where he surrendered. In his car, police found three AK-47-type assault rifles, a Sig Sauer P226 pistol, a .45-caliber Colt Commander and more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition. Delich has been indicted for first-degree murder and a long list of additional charges.

Delich had a long history of mental illness. In 2004, police responded when Delich threatened to assault his father. In a report, a deputy wrote that Delich “may have a mental illness.” Two weeks later, a justice of the peace issued a protection order temporarily barring Delich from possessing firearms, and requiring him to submit to a mental health evaluation. As a result, he was evaluated at Palo Verde Behavioral Health Hospital and then discharged (whether or not he received treatment for any condition remains a mystery). Up until the time of the shootings, Delich also maintained a MySpace page where he announced, “Soon I plan to kill many police officers.”

Federal law prohibits the possession or purchase of firearms by those who have been adjudicated as a “mental defective” or who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Because Delich’s hospital records remain sealed, it is unclear whether his commitment was voluntary or not. Even if he had been prohibited under federal law, Delich still might have been able to buy guns from a licensed dealer. Disturbingly, nine out of ten disqualifying mental health records that should be in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) have yet to be submitted to this federal database by the states.

The assault weapons used in the shootings were semiautomatic weapons that Delich had illegally converted to automatic fire. This was not difficult—Delich was able to acquire the conversion kit he needed through the mail. Manuals that explain the conversion process are also easily purchased at gun shows across America.

Assault weapons pose a serious threat to our police. 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. With the federal Assault Weapons Ban having expired in September 2004, police departments across the country are arming up to keep pace with the overwhelming firepower now in criminal hands.

Sadly, America’s law enforcement officers will continue to be put at risk because of loose laws that allow citizens who are not mentally stable to gain access to powerful firearms. While the gun lobby complains about infringements on their Second Amendment freedoms, freedoms enjoyed by the rest of Americans are increasingly under threat as our public servants find themselves outgunned and in harm’s way.

The Light through the Loophole

It’s official—the next president of the United States will support closing the Gun Show Loophole, which allows unlicensed gun show vendors to sell firearms without conducting background checks.

Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) have publicly reiterated their support for closing the loophole during the current presidential campaign. On May 16, Republican nominee for president Senator John McCain (R-AZ) removed all doubt about his own position, stating, “I believe an accurate, fair and instant background check at gun shows is a reasonable requirement.”

To his credit, this was consistent with McCain’s previous actions and statements on the issue. The senator has co-sponsored two bills to close the Gun Show Loophole in the past: one with Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) in 2001 and another with Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) in 2003. He also supported efforts to close the loophole at the state level in Oregon and Colorado in 2000, appearing in television ads on behalf of Americans for Gun Safety.

McCain’s advocacy drew strong criticism from the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA has opposed all regulation of private sales at gun shows despite the fact that background checks typically take only a few minutes to complete. In response to McCain’s legislative efforts with Senator Lieberman in 2001, the NRA described him as “one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment.”

Despite these past grievances, McCain is typically a friend of the gun lobby. He holds a C+ rating from the NRA, has supported many of their key initiatives, and was invited to address 6,000 members of the organization at their recent 2008 annual convention in Louisville, Kentucky.

During that speech, the senator demonstrated that he agrees with the NRA on a number of issues and is eager to court the votes of gun owners in the 2008 presidential election. McCain indicated he opposes renewing the federal ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, supports legal protection for gun dealers who channel firearms to criminals and traffickers, embraces the NRA’s interpretation of the Second Amendment in the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, and subscribes to the idea that the proliferation of guns in American society makes us safer.

But not necessarily McCain himself safer...

A few hours before Senator McCain gave his speech to the NRA, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee took the stage. When Huckabee’s speech was interrupted by a loud noise, he said, "That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He's getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.

Huckabee’s audience responded with laughter, but the Secret Service officers in the building seemed to take his comment more seriously. When Senator McCain spoke that afternoon, those attending his speech were forced to pass through metal detectors and hand over any weapons they were carrying. This included not just firearms, but any potentially harmful implements. As one convention attendee stated, “It’s kind of ironic, isn’t it? We preach the right to carry [handguns] everywhere, and we got to start by turning in a pocketknife.”

Senator McCain is well acquainted with this no-firearms-on-the-premises policy from his work at the U.S. Capitol, where all visitors are prohibited from bringing firearms.

Despite his electioneering at the NRA convention, McCain should be credited for demonstrating some common sense. His reiteration of support for closing the Gun Show Loophole in front of the “Guns Anytime, Anywhere, Anyhow” crowd is a good sign—and bad news for criminals and dangerous individuals who have grown accustomed to easy access to firearms. We hope the senator will now practice what he preaches and co-sponsor the “Gun Show Background Check Act of 2008,” which has been introduced in his chamber on Capitol Hill.

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.

Another Dangerous Individual, Another Preventable Tragedy

A murderous rampage that occurred last week on May 19, 2007, provides additional evidence that dangerous individuals can easily get their hands on guns in America, no matter what warning signs they've exhibited in the past. And while Jason Hamilton did not garner the national media attention of Seung-Hui Cho after killing three people and himself in Moscow, Idaho, the two cases are eerily similar and make one wonder how many of these shootings the American public is not hearing about.

Hamilton left a Moscow bar last Saturday night and returned home, where he fatally shot his wife in the head. He then drove to the Latah County Courthouse armed with two semiautomatic rifles and fired approximately 125 bullets into the sheriff's dispatch center and vehicles in the parking lot, killing one law enforcement officer and wounding two other officers and a University of Idaho student. Hamilton wasn't done yet. He then moved across the street to the First Presbyterian Church and shot and killed a 62 year-old church sexton. After firing off an additional 60 to 80 rounds from inside the church, Hamilton then turned the gun on himself, taking his life at approximately 1:00 a.m. An M-1 rifle was found in the courthouse parking lot. An AK-47-style rifle was found next to Hamilton's body. A search of Hamilton's house turned up an Aryan Nations flag and other written materials from the white supremacist group.

As in the case of Seung-Hui Cho, local law enforcement were well acquainted with Hamilton.

In December 1992, Hamilton was accused of aggravated assault in Arizona. The charge was dropped to a misdemeanor and he spent two days in jail.

In 1995, Hamilton was accused of cruelty to animals. The charge was dropped to a misdemeanor and Hamilton was given a one-year suspended sentence.

In 1999, Hamilton was charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm at a vehicle or a building. There was no sentence handed down.

On September 10, 2005, Hamilton was arrested for felony strangulation in a case involving a woman with whom he was having an extramarital affair. He was convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery and sentenced to 180 days in jail. 90 days were suspended from the sentence after Hamilton agreed to two years probation and mandatory counseling. Another condition was that Hamilton could possess no firearms during this time.

On January 16, 2006, Hamilton was cited for misdemeanor battery for an incident at a local tavern.

On February 16, 2007, Hamilton attempted suicide by overdosing on anti-anxiety medication and was evaluated for involuntary mental health commitment. At this time he told a mental health professional that if he were to really commit suicide, he would take others with him in a mass shooting or bombing. Hamilton was judged not to need involuntary commitment and was released.

On May 15, 2007, just days before the shooting, he was in court again for allegedly violating his probation by failing to continue with his mental health counseling. A follow-up hearing in the case was planned for mid-June.

Despite this extensive and troubling history, law enforcement authorities have indicated that, as far as they're aware, Hamilton legally purchased his guns. Yet Hamilton's misdemeanor domestic violence conviction would have prohibited him from purchasing firearms under federal law. Additionally, the terms of his sentence for that conviction called on him to surrender any firearms he owned to law enforcement authorities. Apparently, however, no effort was ever made to confiscate his guns.

What additional red flags were needed in this case? How can an individual with this type of criminal and mental health history so easily acquire the firepower needed to attack a police station? And why has the national press totally ignored a story that reinforces the lessons of the Virginia Tech tragedy?

Have we already forgotten those lessons? Or has gun "rights" again trumped what should be the most basic freedom for all Americans: public safety.

"We Have No Freedom"

The Washington Post ran an interesting article on Friday about the absence of law and order in Mogadishu, Somalia's capital. "Men draped with AK-47s" now walk the avenues of the capital, doing the bidding of local militias and warlords. These militias are a constant threat to the local populace, freely stealing and plundering from their countrymen. They also tightly restrict movement, manning an extensive series of roadblocks in the city that few are brave enough to navigate. The fledgling secular government of Somalia has been unable to establish control and guarantee the safety of their citizens.

In the meantime, frightened Somalis have taken to arming themselves for protection. It has, however, bought them little sense of security. "We are hostages right now," said Somali Mohamed Dere. "We have no freedom."

As we thought about this situation, we realized that in many ways it is the logical extension of the NRA dream for America. A gun in every home, citizens freely carrying these weapons on the streets for self defense, and a central government that is unable to regulate these firearms in any way, shape or form.

The problem, however, is that because everyone is armed and there is no system of justice or law enforcement in place, there is freedom only for those with the biggest (or most) guns at any given moment. And that sounds a lot like anarchy (or mobocracy, perhaps) to us.

We feel this story brings to light "America's First Freedom," the real one without which no others can exist: Public Safety. For a society lacking a functional government that can guarantee the safety and security of its people can guarantee no other individual rights, and is destined only for chaos and violence.