They Definitely Deserve Our Attention

The gun lobby never tires of telling Americans about the fine character of the captains of the firearms industry. Whether it’s National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre lecturing about the “law-abiding firearm manufacturers, retailers and owners in this country” or politicians like former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist painting an idyllic picture worthy of Norman Rockwell (“I’ve toured gun manufacturing facilities. I’ve shaken their hands. I’ve looked them in the eye. They’re hard-working, law abiding citizens who deserve our attention.”), we are continuously assured that the industry has nothing but our best interests in mind.

But firearm manufacturers and dealers don’t always turn out to be so “law-abiding” in practice, as two recent national stories reveal...

On January 18, more than 20 representatives from companies that supply products to law enforcement and the military were arrested for violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a 1977 law that prohibits bribery of foreign government officials. Among those indicted and arrested was Amaro Goncalves, Vice President of Sales at Smith & Wesson, the firearms manufacturer that produces more handguns than any other U.S. company.

The arrests were the culmination of a two-and-a-half year investigation involving the FBI and Department of Justice. The FBI set up a sting operation where an undercover agent impersonated an official of an African country. Goncalves believed he was trying to win a $15 million contract to outfit the country’s presidential guard with pistols. He allegedly offered an illegal bribe—a 20% commission—to the official in order to obtain his business.

According to the Department of Justice, this is the single largest investigation and prosecution against individuals in the 33-year history of the FCPA.

Officials with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), however, have had less luck in bringing a corrupt gun dealer to justice in Wisconsin. ATF agents recommended a revocation of the license of Milwaukee’s Badger Outdoors gun shop after a 2006 audit revealed that numerous firearms in the store’s inventory were missing and unaccounted for. The store regularly ranks among the top five gun shops in the nation in terms of number of guns traced to crime. In 2005 they were first on that disreputable list when 537 guns sold at their shop were recovered from crime scenes nationwide.

Law enforcement officials were surprised when Badger co-owner Milton Beatovic announced he was retiring and voluntarily giving up his Federal Firearms License (FFL) in November 2006. Any hopes of seeing Badger put out of business, however, were dashed when Beatovic and co-owner Walter Allan exploited a loophole in the law and transferred ownership of the store to Allan’s 28 year-old son, Adam Allan, in January 2007. The store’s name was changed to “Badger Guns.” Walter Allan is now technically an employee of the store, working for his son. Beatovic, although “retired,” is still the landlord of the building from which Badger operates.

During his interview for an FFL, Adam Allan was unaware of key details about the gun store he was buying. One federal document states: "[We] asked Allan to estimate the dollar value of the inventory. He said he had no idea and asked [Beatovic] when he came in the room."

17 years of investigation of Badger Outdoors are now effectively down the drain, with the new owner having the equivalent of a clean legal slate. And the store has hardly cleaned up its act under its new “leadership.”

Since “Badger Guns” began operations on September 1, 2007, the ATF has uncovered new violations of federal law. The agency issued Adam Allan a warning letter on May 30, 2008, telling him he may face license revocation if the pattern continues. Additionally, an undercover investigation conducted by the Milwaukee Police Department in June 2009 found that one in five people exiting the store was a convicted felon. That investigation was prompted by the fact that, over the past two years, six Milwaukee police officers have been shot and wounded by individuals using guns purchased from Badger.

In talking about the transfer of Badger to Adam Allan, Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn said, "It looks like a cynical shell game to me." Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm added: “These guys are cagey, sophisticated dealers and they have legally thwarted every attempt ATF has made to regulate their conduct. They have a built-in escape clause. What other industry gets that kind of sweetheart deal?”

The answer is no other industry. For all other businesses, including liquor wholesalers, inspectors have the authority to investigate all the individuals behind a business and deny a license if any one of them is likely to break the law.

Here are Bullet Counter Points, we admit that there is some truth in the statement that gun manufacturers and dealers “deserve our attention,” but it’s probably for a different reason than gun industry lobbyists would have you believe.

“Those types of weapons ... They’re pretty powerful.”

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has long claimed that assault weapons are no more dangerous than any other type of rifle, stating: “In the mid-1980s, gun control groups invented the slang term ‘assault weapon’ and applied it to certain semi-automatic firearms which, though designed for civilian use, look like modern fully-automatic assault rifles used by the military.” That view contrasts sharply with that of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which apparently speaks in slang: “Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem.”

The expiration of the federal Assault Weapons Ban in September 2004 has led to real violence in our country, as we have seen in a series of disturbing shootings this year. Sadly, it is our nation’s law enforcement officers who are often caught in the crosshairs of these weapons. Just ask Officer Sean Fleming of the Chesapeake Police Department.

On June 1, Fleming was on his way home from the Department’s third precinct when he responded to a call of shots fired near Interstate 64. He arrived at the scene in his green Jeep Wrangler and immediately met an onslaught of bullets fired by Christopher White, who hours earlier had assisted in the abduction of Tione Vincent, 30, off of East Liberty Street in Norfolk, Virginia.

White jumped out a van and opened fire on Fleming with a semiautomatic AK-47 assault rifle. In the resulting firefight, Fleming was shot four times. The gunfire also blew out two of the Jeep’s tires, shattered its front headlights and left 12 bullets holes in the front windshield. Police believe that two rounds went through the metal of Fleming’s car before piercing his bullet-proof vest—a demonstration of the power of the AK-47. All told, White fired approximately 30 rounds at the Jeep in a matter of seconds.

As Chesapeake Police Major T.D. Branch noted, “Those types of weapons, depending on what kind of rounds, typically penetrate metal. They’re pretty powerful.”

Additional officers arrived on the scene quickly and gave chase to White and his fellow captors, who fled the scene. In a firefight that ensued, White was killed and two other suspects were arrested. Sadly, Tione Vincent was found dead in the back of the van, apparently killed before police arrived.

Thankfully, Officer Fleming survived his injuries after being airlifted to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital and is now recovering. It is also a credit to law enforcement that no civilians were injured given that the shootout occurred in a busy intersection near rush hour.

As of June 11, the Chesapeake Police Department was still attempting to determine how White acquired the AK-47 used in the shooting. Before this incident, White was wanted in Norfolk on a series of charges including robbery, conspiracy and failure to appear in court—and as a fugitive from justice would have been banned under federal law from purchasing or owning firearms. It is possible that he acquired the weapon through an unregulated private sale in Virginia. Such sales do not require sellers to conduct background checks or maintain records of sale.

The NRA justifies its support for the legalization of assault weapons by stating that “self-defense is the primary purpose of the right to keep and bear arms.” After a series of assault weapon shootings this year targeting police, perhaps the best response to this question is: Defense against whom?

Insurrectionism Goes "Mainstream"

For years, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) has warned Americans about the dangers of insurrectionist ideology: the idea that individuals have the “right,” in the words of National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre, “to take whatever measures necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government.” CSGV has argued that not only does insurrectionism degrade the democratic values and institutions that protect the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans; it also poses a direct threat to the very existence of our constitutional democracy.

13 years after the Oklahoma City bombing, insurrectionism was in the national headlines again this month. On April 4, 23 year-old Neo-Nazi gun enthusiast Richard Poplawski shot and killed three police officers who were responding to a 911 call at his home in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Poplawski was equipped with an AK-47-style assault rifle and a bulletproof vest and ambushed the officers as they entered the house.

Details about Poplawski’s extreme political beliefs emerged quickly. His self-professed “best friend” Edward Perkovic told reporters that Poplawski feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on its way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon.” Perkovic also commented that Poplawski carried out the shooting because “if anyone tried to take his firearms, he was gonna’ stand by what his forefathers told him to do.” Like the central character in The Turner Diaries, Poplawski blended overt racism with his gun rights activism. In posts on the Neo-Nazi website Stormfront, he stated his belief that “Evil Zionists” controlled the U.S. government and described African Americans as “vile.” Poplawski felt those of like mind were running out of time to “[take] back the nation” and noted that “a revolutionary is always regarded as a nutcase at first.”

It might be tempting to see Poplawski’s views as simply the ravings of a lone madman, but the truth is far more disturbing. Poplawski’s insurrectionist ideology—once the sole province of militia and hate groups in the United States—has now found its way into the highest levels of government and media, creating serious concerns about the violence that could result.

For starters, the philosophy has been embraced by the Supreme Court. In the recent case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the NRA argued in an amicus brief that “the Second Amendment refers to the utility of an armed population in preventing government tyranny.” The 5-4 majority opinion by the Court not only endorsed the NRA’s “individual right” interpretation of the amendment; it also affirmed “the existence of a ‘citizens’ militia’ as a safeguard against tyranny.

The politics of violence soon spread to the legislative branch. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) recently stated that she wants residents of her state to be “armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people—we the people—are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.” Apparently, voting against President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce global warming isn’t sufficient.

Insurrectionism has also reared its head on major Conservative media outlets like Fox News. Not long before the Pittsburgh shooting, Richard Poplawski posted a clip of Glenn Beck talking about “FEMA concentration camps” on the Stormfront website. Undoubtedly, other content on “The Glenn Beck Program” would have appealed to Poplawski. In February, Beck hosted an hour-long special on Fox called “We Surround Them” and a program that gamed a 2014 civil war scenario that Beck called “The Bubba Effect.” On March 3, Beck interviewed NRA celebrity spokesman Chuck Norris. During the interview, Beck stated that, “Somebody asked me this morning, they said, ‘you really believe that there's going to be trouble in the future?’ And I said, ‘if this country starts to spiral out of control and, you know, and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country … Americans will, they just, they won't stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up.’ And they said, ‘where's that going to come from?’ And I said, ‘Texas, it's going to come from Texas.’” Six days later, Norris wrote in an editorial: “How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?”

Beck also sponsors a website called www.the912project.com that has been overrun with insurrectionist commentators.

The Supreme Court made it clear last June that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the home. The notion that our Constitution empowers individuals to start shooting and killing local, state and federal officials when they personally believe our government has become “tyrannical,” however, is one that was rejected entirely by our Founding Fathers—as witnessed during incidents like Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. The NRA seems to think that Timothy McVeigh had a point. Only violent anti-government extremists are likely to agree...

Far from protecting liberty, insurrectionism deprives American citizens of their freedom. While grieving for officers Paul Sciullo III, Stephen J. Mayhle and Eric Kelly, who were lost in the recent Pittsburgh shooting, the local Post-Gazette said it best:

On Fairfield Street, no rights of gun ownership or free speech were vindicated. The police were just doing their thankless duty, answering a domestic disturbance call, for which they were caught in a coward's ambush and murdered. It was their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that were lost.

“We believe in absolutely gun-free, zero tolerance, totally safe schools”

In the wake of recent shooting tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, there has been a push by the gun lobby to allow concealed carry permit holders to bring handguns onto college campuses. To date, lawmakers in 17 states have considered bills that would prohibit university officials from regulating the possession of firearms on school property. Fortunately, all of these measures have gone down in defeat due to the strong opposition of students, university administrators, and campus law enforcement officials.

During the past six months, two respected organizations, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), have released well-researched policy briefs that argue clearly and convincingly against allowing concealed handguns on college campuses.

IACLEA was founded in1958 and is affiliated with the National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officers (NASSLEO) and campus law enforcement organizations in 29 states. In their position paper, “Concealed Carrying of Firearms Proposals on College Campuses,” IACLEA’s Board of Directors states unequivocally that such initiatives will not make campuses safer, pointing out that, “There is no credible statistical evidence demonstrating that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms reduce crime. In fact, the evidence suggests that permissive concealed carry laws generally will increase crime.”

The paper also states that, “IACLEA is concerned that concealed carry laws have the potential to dramatically increase violence on college and university campuses that our Members are empowered to protect. Among the concerns with concealed carry laws or policies are: the potential for accidental discharge or misuse of firearms at on-campus or off-campus parties where large numbers of students are gathered or at student gatherings where alcohol or drugs are being consumed, as well as the potential for guns to be used as a means to settle disputes between or among students. There is also a real concern that campus police officers responding to a situation involving an active shooter may not be able to distinguish between the shooter and others with firearms.”

The American Association of State Colleges and Universities—a group devoted to helping to advance public education, economic development and the quality of life at our nation’s universities—has issued a policy brief entitled “Concealed Weapons on State College Campuses: In Pursuit of Individual Liberty and Collective Security.” The brief states that “the vast majority of college administrators, law enforcement personnel and students maintain that allowing concealed weapons on campus will pose increased risks for students and faculty, will not deter future attacks, and will lead to confusion during emergency situations.”

The brief further notes that, “While police are extensively trained to deal with crises, students or university staff with concealed weapons are not trained or integrated into campus security plans. Even with the best of intentions, armed students or employees could escalate an already explosive situation further, accidentally cause harm or use a gun in a situation that is not warranted.”

Once upon a time, even the National Rifle Association recognized the wisdom in keeping schools gun-free. In the aftermath of the Columbine High School shootings, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the issue in a speech at the 1999 NRA National Convention, stating: “First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period, with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel. We believe America's schools should be as safe as America's airports. You can't talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes. Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted.”

Great irony can also be found in recent comments by Ken Stanton, the Virginia Tech Campus Leader for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC). SCCC believes “there is no pragmatic basis for declaring college campuses off-limits to concealed carry.”

Speaking about Haiyang Zhu, who tragically murdered a fellow Hokie on campus last month, Stanton said, “He wasn’t like [Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho] at all. He’s a very social, outgoing guy. He was just a normal outgoing kind of person like the rest of us. We couldn’t have seen this coming.” Stanton did not make it clear why the behavior of students with concealed carry permits—which now can be obtained through a one-hour online “training” course in Virginia—would be any more predictable.

New York's New Senator

Controversy erupted last week when New York Governor David A. Paterson announced U.S. Representative Kirsten Gillibrand as his appointee to fill the Senate seat vacated by now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Senator Gillibrand, an upstate Democrat from New York’s 20^th District, has drawn strong criticism from politicians and advocacy groups in her home state regarding her positions on gun issues. While in the House of Representatives, Senator Gillibrand continually supported legislation to weaken gun regulations and received an ‘A’ grade and 100% rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA). Jackie Hilly, Executive Director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, stated that, “It is clear that the public at both the national and state level want reasonable regulations of guns and Kirsten Gillibrand stands outside that mainstream.”

Gillibrand has stated that she is “very pro-Second Amendment” and supports the rights of hunters and sportsmen, but also believes that “gun safety, keeping guns out of the hands of children [and] making sure our guns are the safest in the world” should be goals of lawmakers of both sides of the aisle. Her voting record, however, suggests that she has shown little inclination towards compromise.

Last year, Gillibrand co-sponsored H.R. 4900, the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act,” in the House. This NRA-drafted legislation would have made the “Tiahrt Amendment” restrictions on crime gun trace data permanent, allowed law-breaking gun dealers to claim ignorance of the law as a full defense, blocked ATF from modernizing and updating its recordkeeping procedures, and codified the “Fire Sale Loophole” which allows crooked dealers to sell off their inventory without conducting background checks after their federal licenses have been revoked. H.R. 4900 would have effectively gutted law enforcement’s ability to curb the illegal trafficking of firearms across state lines, which occurs on a daily basis in the United States. As a New York representative, you would think Gillibrand would have been familiar with the scope of the problem—in 2007, 70% of New York’s crime guns were trafficked in illegally from outside states.

In 2008, Gillibrand also co-sponsored H.R. 6691, the “Second Amendment Enforcement Act.” This NRA-drafted bill would have repealed the District of Columbia’s registration requirement for handguns, legalized semiautomatic assault weapons, allowed individuals who have been voluntarily committed to psychiatric institutions within the last five years to own firearms, and prohibited the D.C. Council from enacting any gun-related legislation in the future. Most disturbingly, H.R. 6691 would have allowed individuals to openly carry loaded rifles and assault weapons on D.C.’s streets. Gillibrand has frequently stated that “hunting rights” are very important to her. After two years of living in the District of Columbia, you would think she would be aware that the only thing hunted in the city is human beings.

Due to Gillibrand’s strong pro-NRA stance, New York Representative Carolyn McCarthy has promised to challenge the new Senator in the 2010 Democratic Senate Primary. Rep. McCarthy has long advocated for stronger gun laws, having lost her husband in the 1993 Long Island Rail Road shooting massacre. To her credit, Senator Gillibrand has been gracious to her colleague, and even offered to work on Rep. McCarthy’s “signature bill,” the “NICS Improvement Act.” This bill was initially drafted to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to prevent individuals disqualified under federal law from purchasing firearms. However, the NRA was allowed to rewrite the bill during the 11^th hour to include provisions that would restore gun-purchasing rights to veterans who have been deemed mentally incompetent by the VA. Time will tell if this was a serious offer by Senator Gillibrand to work to improve our background check system (which lacks millions of mental health records that would disqualify purchasers), or yet another attempt to appease the gun lobby.

Senator Gillibrand replaces a legislator with a strong history of support for gun control measures. Hillary Clinton made repeated efforts during her days as First Lady and Senator to reduce gun violence. While running for president, Senator Clinton advocated reinstating the federal Assault Weapons Ban, repealing the Tiahrt Amendment and closing the Gun Show Loophole that allows individuals to buy guns from private sellers without a background check. Senator Gillibrand’s views on gun control appear to stand diametrically opposed to those of her predecessor.

Despite her past record, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is eager to work with Senator Gillibrand and educate her about the problem of gun violence in New York and the country as a whole. Like Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), we hope that Senator Gillibrand’s views will “evolve” and that she will represent all of her constituents—statewide—during her time on Capitol Hill.

The Old West Mentality

In the aftermath of recent shooting tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, much attention has been focused on the policies of colleges and universities concerning the carrying of concealed handguns by students and faculty.

The group Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) has insisted that the only way to address future shooting sprees is to eliminate “gun-free zones.” They seek revisions in state laws to force colleges and universities to allow concealed handguns on their campuses. In active shooters situations, SCCC advocates that concealed carry permit holders present on the scene take charge of the situation before trained law enforcement officers arrive. In their view, “the answer to bullets flying is almost always more bullets flying. That’s why the police bring so many guns with them when they respond to a report of ‘shots fired.’”

The problem is that this directly contradicts the actual advice of campus police across the country, such as that of University of Cincinnati Police Chief Gene Ferrara, who said, "I don't think the answer to bullets flying is to send more bullets flying. My belief is we ought to be focusing on what we do to prevent the shooting from starting." University of Georgia Police Chief Jimmy Williamson concurred, stating, “I don’t know if society is quite ready for the Old West mentality to come back. How are police to know who the bad guy or good guy is [after responding to an active shooter situation]?”

SCCC’s “More Bullets” philosophy isn’t even endorsed by the 11 colleges and universities where concealed carry is allowed on campus. The Colorado State University Police Department has created a pamphlet titled “Handguns on Campus: Do You Have the Facts?” with a section on “Active Shooter Response.” Their recommendations for concealed carry permit holders? For those directly involved in an active shooter situation and unable to exit the building, they advise the following:

1. Go to the nearest room or office.
2. Close and lock the door.
3. Turn off the lights.
4. Seek protective cover. This may be under a desk or table or anywhere else that offers some concealment.
5. Keep quiet and act as if no one is in the room.
6. Do not answer the door.
7. Notify 911, if it is safe to do so.
8. Wait for law enforcement officers to assist you out of the building.

They also emphasize that their officers “receive specialized training for active shooter situations,” unlike the day-class of general handgun safety training typically required of concealed carry permit holders (if they are required by their state to have training at all). Louisiana State University Police Department spokesman Major Lawrence Rabalais recently stressed the same point when Guns on Campus legislation was considered in his state, noting that his officers repeat firearm training twice a year and participate in seminars about how to keep control of their gun during a confrontation.

The Virginia Tech Review Panel was equally clear on this matter in their final report, stating, “If numerous people had been rushing around with handguns outside Norris Hall on the morning of April 16, the possibility of accidental or mistaken shootings would have increased significantly.”

SCCC might argue that their lack of training is acceptable because concealed carry permit holders are not meant to “act like amateur, one-man SWAT teams,” but what else would you call it when individual students make unilateral decisions about whether to use lethal force in crisis situations where the potential for collateral damage is enormous?

As Chief Ferrara noted above, as opposed to turning our classrooms into war zones, the logical solution is to enact tougher gun laws to ensure that unstable persons (such as Seung Hui Cho and Steven Kazmierczak) are unable to obtain lethal weapons with which to ravage our schools. For that reason, we are happy that there are students actively opposing SCCC’s agenda, including those in Students for Gun Free Schools (SGFS), an organization founded by victims and survivors of the tragedy at Virginia Tech.

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.

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.

Crisis, Anyone?

A former lobbyist with the National Rifle Association, Richard Feldman, recently published a book (Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist) in which he reveals that the organization has purposely manufactured crises over the years to stoke fear in its membership and generate fundraising dollars. NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, who is bankrolled to the tune of approximately $1 million a year in salary and benefits, long ago realized that a terrified NRA membership is a generous one, and there’s no better Boogeyman than the old myth that the government is preparing to confiscate all private firearms.

A recent story from the Associated Press demonstrates just how hollow the Confiscation Myth really is. The NRA’s latest scheme involves Hurricane Katrina. In the wake of the devastation caused by the storm, most Americans immediately asked “How can I help?” and donations to assist those affected by the storm poured in in record numbers. The NRA, however, saw an opportunity to buffer their own coffers. Pointing a finger at the New Orleans Police Department, they accused law enforcement officials of engaging in widespread confiscation of private firearms in the storm’s aftermath, claiming that New Orleans residents were disarmed and left “at the mercy of roving gangs, home invaders, and other criminals.” The organization got Congress to pass a law prohibiting the confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens during future states of emergency and then filed a federal lawsuit against Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley.

The NRA had found their latest, treasured crisis and the fearmongering was in full swing. Consider this appeal from the organization’s leaked “Freedom in Peril” pamphlet for high-dollar donors:

“In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, for the first time in American history, New Orleans and other government officials ordered law enforcement officers to go door to door to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens at gunpoint … Katrina became the proving ground for what American gun owners have always predicted. The day came when government bureaucrats threw the Bill of Rights out the window and declared freedom to be whatever they say it is.”

The problem with all this? Despite their assertion that more than 1,000 private firearms were seized, the NRA has only been able to locate about 75 individuals who claim their gun(s) were confiscated. Desperate to substantiate their lawsuit, the organization has hired private investigators to find others whose firearms might have been seized by the New Orleans police. They have even asked for a delay in the lawsuit’s trial date because these folks just aren’t turning up.

And maybe that’s the point. New Orleans law enforcement officials have stated all along that they only took guns that had been stolen or found in abandoned homes. Katrina was a natural disaster that displaced thousands of residents in the area. New Orleans police officers were undoubtedly acting in the interest of public safety in collecting abandoned firearms that could have easily been retrieved by looters and criminals. They should be saluted for their heroic work in dangerous conditions, not vilified.

With egg on their face, the NRA recently took down a website devoted to the pending lawsuit, www.givethemback.com. Perhaps it should be relaunched under a new name, www.helpusfindthem.com.

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.