"Like Buying a Candy Bar"

On July 14, U.S. Rep. “Bobby” Scott (D-VA)—the Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security—co-hosted a Congressional Forum with Reps. Mike Castle (R-DE), Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Mike Quigley (D-IL). The forum was designed to explore the merits of H.R. 2324, the “Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009.”

The “Gun Show Loophole” is a serious gap in our nation’s gun laws which allows individuals to buy firearms without undergoing a background check. Federal law mandates that all federally licensed firearms dealers (FFL’s) administer background checks to purchasers. In 37 states, however, the Gun Show Loophole allows “private sellers” who are “not engaged in the business of dealing” firearms to sell guns without processing background checks or keeping records of sale.

The forum began with a series of undercover videos that illustrate how easily the Gun Show Loophole can be exploited. One video from the City of New York showed investigators buying firearms from private sellers at seven gun shows in three states. The city’s investigators conducted “integrity tests” where they told the sellers outright that they “probably couldn’t pass a background check.” Nonetheless, 19 out of 30 private sellers sold them guns anyway in violation of federal law. One private seller from Ohio was caught on tape bragging that he had sold 348 assault weapons in the previous year (no federal agency monitors private individuals’ income to determine if their principal source of livelihood is firearm sales). He then told the investigator not to worry about not being able to pass a background check, stating, “I don’t care ... I wouldn’t pass one either, bud.”

Those present then heard testimony from two panels of law enforcement officials, municipal officials, and gun violence survivors. Some of the most informative testimony came from Gerald Nunziato, a retired Special Agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Nunziato worked for the ATF from 1970 to 1999 in Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Maryland and Washington, D.C. Nunziato’s extensive experience with illegal firearms trafficking investigations showed him that “gun shows are a major outlet for burglars to sell stolen firearms and a place for criminals to shop for the types of firearms they desire.” Nunziato observed that criminals frequently “sought out the known firearms traffickers who would go to gun shows to obtain the type of weapon they needed.” “Buyers at gun shows have a huge selection of firearms and the sellers of stolen firearms and those with criminal intentions have little fear of being detected,” he stated. Perhaps most disturbingly, Nunziato noted that during his time as head of the ATF’s National Tracing Center, 45% of guns used in crime nationally were untraceable, in large part due to unregulated private sales, which leave no paper trail for law enforcement to follow.

Colonel (Retired) W. Gerald Massengill, a former Superintendent of the Virginia State Police, also provided compelling testimony. Following the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech, Massengill chaired the Virginia Tech Review Panel, which recommended requiring background checks for all private sales, including those at gun shows. A firm believer in Second Amendment rights, Massengill stated the problem very simply: “A gun can be legally bought from a private sale at a gun show in Virginia today with no questions as to your identity or background—much like buying a candy bar in a candy store. It seems to me that common sense tells us that such sales are not in the interest of public safety ... We, as a society, need to do all that’s reasonable and prudent to ensure that firearms cannot go, unabated, to felons and the adjudicated mentally ill.” The Virginia Statehouse News has posted two videos of Massengill discussing the Gun Show Loophole outside the forum here.

Virginia Tech survivor Colin Goddard was the final—and perhaps most powerful—speaker at the forum. Goddard was shot four times in 10 minutes at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007; 10 minutes that, he said, changed his life forever. Although Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho acquired his handguns legally through FFLs, Goddard noted that “he could have easily attended any of the dozens of gun shows that take place throughout Virginia each weekend and bought the same weapons from a ‘private seller’ with no background check into his mental history, and no questions asked.” Goddard knows this first-hand, as last summer he travelled to gun shows in Texas, Ohio, Maine, Minnesota, and Virginia and recorded undercover videos of private firearm sales. He and a friend were able to buy semiautomatic handguns and assault weapons without showing any ID or undergoing any background checks. Goddard even purchased the same handgun that was used to shoot him—cash and carry. No transaction took more than five minutes to complete. “Why should sellers at one table be required to run background checks, when the sellers, literally two tables down—with the exact same weapons—are allowed to sell their guns to anyone who just has the cash in hand?” Goddard asked those in attendance. “It’s no mystery why the guns sold by so-called ‘private sellers’ are often more expensive than the exact same model sold by licensed gun dealers. Purchasers who know they can’t pass a background check are willing to pay a premium. One seller told me straight up, and I quote, ‘No paperwork, no tax, that’s gotta’ be worth something.’” As Goddard noted, “For gun traffickers, domestic abusers and felons who can’t pass a background check, that’s worth plenty.” Rep. Castle described Goddard’s testimony as the “most compelling” he has heard during his time in Congress.

The National Rifle Association continues to oppose closing the Gun Show Loophole and claims that gun shows are frequented not by criminals, but by millions of “law-abiding citizens, collectors, hobbyists, hunters, target shooters, law enforcement officers and memorabilia shoppers.” Why then, Gerald Nunziato asked, is the carrying of loaded firearms strictly prohibited inside gun shows? The lawless and dangerous atmosphere inside these events was highlighted this month when the Wyoming Department of Revenue suspended sales tax collections at gun shows because of violent threats that were being received by the state’s field tax agents. Dan Noble, director of the department’s excise tax division, said that “every one” of his state agents has experienced “animosity” from gun show attendees, and “because there are guns there...I don’t want to put my people at risk.”

H.R. 2324, the “Gun Show Loophole Closing Act,” currently has 109 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. Its Senate counterpart, S. 843, the “Gun Show Background Check Act,” has 17 co-sponsors. You can help by calling your Members of Congress today at (202) 224-3121. Ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 2324/S. 843 and encourage their colleagues to do the same!

"That's not a civilized society."

Earlier this year, an interesting study was published in the University of Miami Law Review by Zachary Weaver. Entitled “Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law: The Actual Effects and the Need for Clarification,” it raises some serious questions about the expanding parameters for the use of lethal force in our country.

On April 26, 2005, Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed “Stand Your Ground” (aka “Shoot First”) legislation into law. The law eliminated the state’s common law duty to use every reasonable means available to retreat prior to using deadly force, which the Florida Supreme Court had legitimized by explaining, “human life is precious, and deadly combat should be avoided if at all possible when imminent danger to oneself can be avoided.” The law states that any individual who is in a place where he/she has a legal right to be, and who is “not engaged in an unlawful activity ... 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.” Individuals using lethal force in this manner are immune from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.

In his article, Weaver catalogues the opposition of prosecutors and law enforcement to the law, citing the National District Attorneys Association, the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, multiple State Attorneys, and police chiefs from cities like Miami and St. Petersburg. Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer is quoted as saying, “I dislike the law because it encourages people to stand their ground…when they could just as easily walk away. To me, that’s not a civilized society.” Paul Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association, points out that the law “give[s] citizens more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review.”

Most troubling to Weaver is that the law creates a conclusive presumption that an individual had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm if an he/she can prove that an intruder unlawfully entered (or attempted to unlawfully enter) the individual’s home or vehicle. As Weaver describes it, “If the presumption applies, then there can be no criminal or civil repercussions for the use of deadly force. When found to apply, the presumption’s practical effect is that a jury will no longer be able to decide the factual question of whether the defendant had the reasonable fear necessary to use deadly force ... According to the law, if an intoxicated teenager enters his neighbor’s home by mistaking it for his own, the homeowner can presumably use deadly force. Even if the State could prove that the homeowner knew the intruder was his neighbor’s teenager and that the teen meant no harm, the presumptions entitle him to use deadly force.”

As a result, the law is “causing cases to not be filed at all or to be filed with reduced charges,” according to Russell Smith, President of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Duval County State Attorney Harry Shorstein has observed “a lesser sensitivity to gun violence and death” since the law was passed.

Weaver cites several disturbing incidents from the Sunshine State that highlight these problems, including the following:

On March 28, 2006, decorated Army veteran Michael Frazzini was shot and killed outside his house by neighbor Todd Rasmussen. Rasmussen stated that he shot Frazzini because he was “lunging” at his son Corey, who was armed with a knife (and who has a lengthy criminal record, including violent offenses). Frazzini was “armed” with only a small, souvenir baseball bat. No charges were brought against Todd Rasmussen.

On June 6, 2006, Jason Rosenbloom was shot by his neighbor in a dispute over trash collection. Rosenbloom, who was unarmed, went to Kenneth Allen’s home to talk about the issue and was shot twice outside the house. Bleeding profusely, he had to crawl home next door to his wife and young son to get medical attention. Allen was never arrested or charged with a crime.

On June 11, 2006, prostitute Jacqueline Galas of New Port Richey shot and killed longtime client Frank Labiento after he threatened to kill her. She made no attempt to escape from Labiento, shot him without any warning, and failed to call for medical help as he was dying. Second-degree murder charges against Galas were eventually dropped, despite the fact that she admitted to being involved in “unlawful activity” (prostitution).

Finally, Weaver draws attention to a curious passage in the law that lays out its rationale in part by stating, “WHEREAS, Section 8 of Article I of the State Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves...” Citing the “heavy influence and publicity by the NRA” that preceded the passage of the law, he asks: “What is the real purpose behind including the statement about the right to bear arms under the Florida Constitution? What message is the legislature sending to the citizens of Florida? Is the legislature encouraging the use of firearms when a person acts in self-defense? And if so, should it be?”

Weaver offers several recommendations for the Florida legislature to clarify the intent of the law and provide insight as to how it should function in practice. First, he advises the legislature to create a system to track self-defense claims—whether or not they result in indictments—so that Floridians can see the actual effects of the law. Second, he recommends that the legislature either eliminate the presumptions of reasonable fear and of an intruder’s malicious intent or make these presumptions rebuttable with other evidence. This would discourage a “shoot first mentality” by allowing a jury to determine if an individual’s use of lethal force was justified under the circumstances. Third, the permissible amount of force which can be used in confrontations should be defined; and it should be roughly equivalent to the force of the threat. Finally, the legislature should clearly define “unlawful activity” and “explain the extent to which the provision applies, including the precise time-framing and degree of unlawful activity that will exempt an individual using force from claiming the law’s benefits.”

With 23 other states having adopted versions of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, Weaver’s scholarship could not be more timely. Hopefully, it will help spur a new look at legislation that is at best confusing, and at worst, dangerous.

CSGV Mailbag

Recently, after a tragic assault weapon shooting spree in Alabama that cost 11 Americans their lives, the National Rifle Association informed the country that it was an inappropriate time to debate policies to prevent gun violence as the afflicted community was in mourning. Given that 82 Americans die from gun violence every day, it leads one to wonder if the gun lobby’s “right time” will ever come.

Thankfully, though, not all opponents of gun control heed the NRA’s gag order, and we are blessed to receive some wonderful missives that advance the national dialogue on this critical issue. Over the past six months...

We heard from fans of CSGV President Mike Beard’s “Mondays with Mike” blog...

From: lawrence mattera [lawrence.mattera@sbcglobal.net]
Subject: Mondays with the “Porky little bastard”
Date: March 31, 2009

Call mike what he is .

We heard from those seeking gainful employment...

From: Karl Hadley [kaveman1@centurytel.net]
Subject: job opportunity
Date: March 28, 2009

I'd like to apply for the job of lying to dumb-ass people on your behalf. I have absolutely no problem telling and constantly repeating blatant lies in order to make cash. Hire me you stupid bitch.

We heard from those that believe that nonprofit employees can afford “personnel bodyguards” and who we’re eager to make a bet with...

From: Michael Beairsto [mbeairsto@cfl.rr.com]
Subject: Stop sending me your propaganda
Date: March 11, 2009

...Most of America knows that once you get a law passed to outlawing assault weapons your group will go after hand guns than hunting rifles, than bows and arrows, than knives, than forks, steak knives and spoons. Get my drift.

If my family and I lived in a well protected community and could afford personnel body guards just like you folks, I probably would side with your organization on this issue. But, I don't live in guarded communities so if you please I would like to maintain the option to buy a gun if I ever feel like I needed to in order that I may protect my family. Or would you tell me, oh well, so sorry, it’s not your fault if I can’t live in a gated community and my your family dies by the hand of some criminal who can and will get a gun no matter what laws you get on the books. But, that’s right we poor common people are just what, a commodity that can be replaced at the drop of a hat. Does that sound about right for all you goody-to-shoes in the world

By the way I do not own any guns. Just wanted to clear that up for you. But I’ll bet a buck you do.

... The way I see it, if you don’t own a gun take of the rose colored glasses and look at the real world around you, it will scare the crap out of you ...

God help us if your side wins. Oh yeah, you probably don't believe in God either. I just hope my family and I are gone from this world before your side wins.

Mike Beairsto
Palm Bay, Fl

We heard from loquacious and heavily-armed insurrectionists...

From: Christopher J. Jones
Subject: Thanks for your support
Date: February 16, 2009

I just wanted to say thank you for all the work you do. Thanks to your organization and others incompetence regarding guns, I am now able to purchase just about any gun I want. I am the proud owner of 3 “ASSUALT RIFLES” and 5 “HAND GUNS”. I feel it’s only a matter of time before the 2^nd Amendment is realized and the infringements currently placed on weapons are completely removed from the books and I may be able to purchase an “AUTOMATIC RIFLE” ... You have to understand, the 2^nd Amendment protects the individual right to purchase, store, and bear arms and that “right” will not be “INFRINGED”. That includes bans on evil magazines and pistol grips too. It was not meant to protect hunters or target shooters…but rather enable people like you and me to have a defense against a tyrannical government, should one ever come to power ...

We heard from the next Monty Hall/Howie Mandel...

From: MOOSE1620@aol.com
Subject: gun violence
Date: February 15, 2009

i'll make you a deal. you take EVERY gun away from EVERY criminal in the country, and i'll give you my guns, but so long as even one criminal has a gun... leave me, my guns AND my right to carry that gun alone. deal?

... law abiding citizens such as myself ( i live just outside the city of Detroit, MI.) do not carry a gun because we are afraid, we carry them so we don't ever have to be afraid. I would dare any one of you people to walk down the city streets of detroit after dark, alone and unarmed..... i dare ya. those of us that live here don't have a choice ...

if you have anything intelligent to say, please respond. if all you can say is the normal anti-gun bullshit, don't bother.

thank you

john ayrton
eastpointe, michigan

We heard from insurrectionists who understand the definition of “criminal”...

From: Joel Jensen [thejensenhero@hotmail.com]
Date: January 30, 2009

Criminals dont obey gun laws. THATS WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS. only honest people will follow gun laws.

How can you be so damn one sided?
How can a society protect itself from its government without weapons?
Do you really trust the government?

We even heard from a New Age Gun-Toting Poet...

From: Anonymous
Subject: RE: Gun Control
Date: January 25, 2009

Statistics be damned.
Statistics lie when applied to an ideology.
Violent criminals are a total drain on our society, in equally destructive ways other than homicide.
An armed citizenry has as much right to combat these parasites as the police, which we pay an inordinate amount of money to do so-not to mention the court system, jails, parole, etc.
A dead perp is a very economical solution to this problem.
If we had as many chalk lines as unsolved violent crimes, what would we do with the multi-billion dollar surplus?
What would the wrongfully incarcerated do with their freedom?
What would the victims do with their closure?
How would we handle the peace of mind in knowing that these animals have been thinned to the point of near extinction?
An armed society is a polite society when lethal self defense is respected.
It is our duty to protect our families, not surrender to some creep.
To me it is as clear and clean as a mountain stream, and I am at total peace with this obligation.

And finally, we heard from someone who’s never been to a gun show...

From: Allan Sentineri [mediattack@lycos.com]
Subject: [RE]Stop the NRA's Anti-Democratic Legislation in Senate
Date: September 29, 2008

people who carry around guns tend to be black democrats and liberals
___________________________________________________

Until we open our mailbag again, we are fortunate to be the beneficiaries of this insight into how to save the 30,000+ lives lost to gun violence each year in America.

Guns and the Workplace

Dixon, Kentucky residents were in a state of shock last month when they learned that a member of their community had opened fire at a local plastics plant in their small Ohio River town. Around midnight on June 24, Wesley N. Higdon, a worker at Atlantis Plastics, shot and killed five of his fellow employees before turning his handgun on himself and committing suicide.

Higdon had become upset earlier that day when his supervisor reprimanded him for using his cell phone and not wearing safety goggles. Higdon called his girlfriend, Teresa Solano Ventura, two hours before the shooting and told her he wanted to kill himself. Ventura did not take the warning seriously due to similar previous threats from Higdon and failed to contact the police.

In his shooting spree, Higdon used a .45 caliber pistol which he legally kept in his car. In 2006, Kentucky enacted a law at the behest of the National Rifle Association (NRA) that forces businesses to allow employees to keep firearms in their vehicles on company property. Kentucky is not alone—seven other states have adopted such Guns in the Workplace laws, Florida being the latest. These laws have passed despite the determined and nearly unanimous opposition of business groups, who view them as a historic attack on private property rights. In the Sunshine State, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation have launched a lawsuit to overturn the law. A federal court in Oklahoma has already declared that state’s law unconstitutional.

The gun lobby also seems to be fighting the statistical evidence about the dangers of guns in the workplace. One study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that workplaces where guns were permitted were five times more likely to be the site of a workplace homicide compared to workplaces where guns are prohibited. Higdon’s threats were also not uncommon—in a 2005 survey, nearly 60% of major employers indicated that a disgruntled employee had threatened a manager or co-worker at their firm in the last 12 months.

Higdon was no hardened career criminal. He legally purchased his handgun and was precisely the type of “law-abiding gun owner” that the NRA claims will make our communities safer by being armed and ready. Why Higden suddenly became a killer we might never know ... It was likely the result of stresses in his life, stresses in the home and workplace, the likes of which millions of American experience every day. Higden’s easy access to a handgun after an argument with his supervisor, however, turned what should have been a verbal spat (or, at worst, a fistfight) into a tragic incident that has left six dead and traumatized a community. Hopefully, future legislators will keep that in mind when the NRA comes calling.

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…

Warning Signs Again Go Unheeded

The lax nature of our federal and state firearms laws were again highlighted in a recent tragic shooting at a Wendy’s restaurant in West Palm Beach, Florida. On March 3, 60 year-old Alburn Blake opened fire in the restaurant with a 9mm handgun, killing an off-duty paramedic and wounding four others before taking his own life.

In January of this year, Blake purchased the Glock 17 used in the shootings through a private sale from an unidentified individual. Neither federal nor Florida state regulations require background checks for “private sales” of firearms. A 1986 law passed by the U.S. Congress at the behest of the National Rifle Association created this loophole for those not “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms (a vague standard at best, with no numerical guidelines in terms of the number of firearms one might sell). These private sellers are not even legally required to check someone’s ID to confirm their identity and state of residence.

From what we know, it appears Blake would have passed a computerized background check had he bought his gun through a federally licensed dealer. He had no criminal convictions on his record, and had not been previously adjudicated as “mentally defective.” However, Blake’s former girlfriend Mary Gianninco accused him of domestic abuse in 2006 and called him a “demented” individual who often “resorted to violence at home.”

Certain states, such as New York and New Jersey, require residents to obtain a permit before purchasing a handgun. This permitting process involves a careful screening of applicants, requiring character references, fingerprinting and an extensive background check that goes beyond running someone through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database. An applicant's mental health history is examined, and local law enforcement officers can request consent to examine medical health records and speak to doctors. These states have also taken action to close the private sales loophole which allows individuals to circumvent the background check process.

Given Gianninco’s statements about Blake, and reports from his neighbors that indicated he fought with her frequently outside his home at night, it is doubtful Blake would have been able to legally buy a handgun in Florida if the state had: a) put in place an enhanced background check system to require individuals to apply for a permit to purchase a handgun, and; b) closed the private sales loophole. Unfortunately, gun laws in the “Gunshine State” continue to remain weak and ineffective.

This case again demonstrates our lack of national resolve to craft substantive and effective gun control legislation to save lives and protect public safety. Victims and survivors of gun violence deserve more than heartfelt grief and the hollow words of politicians. They are entitled to a real response—a move towards an enhanced national background check system applicable to all gun sales aimed at denying firearms to those with proclivities towards violence and instability.