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.

Gunning for our National Treasures

Our National Parks could become dangerous places if a group of 47 pro-gun senators have their way. In a December 2007 letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, Senators Mike Crapo (R-ID), Max Baucus (D-MT) and their colleagues requested the repeal of a Reagan-era regulation that prohibits guns from being transported through National Park lands unless they are unloaded and safety stored. Their proposed changes would allow concealed carry permit holders to carry their handguns on most National Park lands. Long guns, including assault weapons, could in many cases be openly carried.

Not content to wait for a response from the administration, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) will soon seek to attach an amendment to a related bill, S. 2483, to codify these changes in law and override the need for any executive action on the matter.

A broad coalition of conservation and environmental groups have stepped forward to oppose the Coburn amendment, including the National Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal order of Police, the National Parks Conservation Association, the National Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, the Association of National Park Rangers, and The Wilderness Society.

As stewards of our parks, these organizations understand that gun proliferation can only exacerbate the already pervasive effects of poaching and park destruction that threaten to permanently alter our national heritage. Without sensible gun regulations, individuals who would do harm to visitors, wildlife and park property will be able to more easily evade prosecution. Add to this the post-9/11 threat of terrorism, and it becomes even more difficult to understand how Senator Coburn and his colleagues believe that loosening gun regulations will make our national parks safer.

This reminds us of a terrible story that appeared in the national news last year when an Illinois family was terrorized in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (land maintained by the National Forest Service) by a group of handgun and assault-rifle toting young men. In one night of alcohol-soaked and motorboat-aided revelry, these men harassed upwards of 80 people throughout the park, eventually forcing a man, his daughter, and his grandson to hide in the woods for fear of death. The men now face 79 criminal charges for their actions.

The last thing the people who maintain and protect our national parks need is politically-motivated legislative tinkering to make their jobs more difficult and complex. Badlands National Park Superintendent Paige Baker expresses this sentiment succinctly: “The system is working as it is. When people come out here, it's to look at the wildlife and the natural beauty, not to shoot."

Boy Killer Back in the News

Next month will mark the ten-year anniversary of the tragic Jonesboro shootings. On March 24, 1998, two boys, Mitchell Johnson (13 years old) and Andrew Golden (11 years old), pulled a fire alarm in their rural Arkansas school. Using four guns stolen from Golden’s grandfather, the two then opened fire on their classmates and teachers as they filed out of the building. In just over four minutes, Johnson and Golden killed five and wounded 10 others.

At the subsequent trial, Johnson and Golden were each convicted of five counts of murder and sentenced to confinement until age 21. Upon their release, Johnson and Golden’s records were adjudicated. With their convictions expunged, the two acquired the ability to legally purchase and possess firearms.

Soon thereafter, on New Year’s Day 2007, Johnson, now 23, was pulled over and found to be in possession of a loaded 9mm handgun, a 20-gauge shotgun, and ¾ of an ounce of marijuana. In his company was Justin Trammell, age 22, who was convicted six years earlier of murdering his father with a crossbow in Benton County, Arkansas. The silver 9mm Lorein pistol in the car was a gift that Johnson had received to practice “target shooting.” Because his earlier criminal record had been wiped out, authorities decided to charge Johnson with one felony count of possession of a firearm while either a user or addicted to a controlled substance.

U.S. Attorney Bob Balfe, who prosecuted the case, stated: "We strongly believe Mitchell Johnson is a person who shouldn't have a gun, especially when he's using controlled substances." He added, "We wanted the victims in the previous case to understand that we in law enforcement know who he is, we're taking that into account, and we're going to do everything we can to keep our community safe."

Although we applaud the federal government for taking steps to prevent gun violence by aggressively prosecuting a gun-wielding ex-convict, we have some questions regarding Johnson’s case…

Why did Arkansas not have a law on the books in 1998 to charge juveniles as adults in capital murder cases? That law has since been changed, but was there no other legal recourse available at that time to prohibit Johnson and Golden from purchasing and owning firearms in the future?

Why would any family member/friend of Johnson think it would be a good idea to give him a 9mm handgun as a Christmas present?

Why did it take over a year for someone to tip the police off about Johnson’s involvement with drugs and guns?

We sincerely hope that this is the last time these two young men will make national headlines—for their sake, and for the sake of the surviving family members of the Jonesboro victims.

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.

Amish Teach Valuable Lesson of Forgiveness

We are quickly approaching the one-year anniversary of the tragic shooting that claimed the lives of five young Amish girls on October 2, 2006. Charles Carl Roberts barricaded himself inside an Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Shortly thereafter, he shot ten girls, aged seven to 13. The girls were shot "execution style" in the back of the head; five survived. Robert's arsenal included a 9mm handgun, a 12-gauge shotgun, a bolt-action rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

Hidden in the news today was a small story about the aftermath of this tragedy. A charity set up to help families of the victims of the shooting has bequeathed an undisclosed amount of money to Roberts' wife (who has three daughters) at the behest of the Amish community. Even on the day of the shooting, the grandfather of one of the slain girls said, "We must not think evil of this man."

The kind of forgiveness displayed by the Lancaster Amish community is a rarity in our society today. More and more we are taught to seek revenge and to solve our problems with violence. The gun lobby is at the forefront of this "Shoot First" movement, advocating for measures in state legislatures that allow a person to use deadly force as their first line of defense when threatened, rather than as their last. Tied into this campaign is the NRA's support for guns on college campuses and the organization's claim that widespread concealed carry of handguns will lead to less crime. This absurd notion, that more guns make us safer, directly fuels the culture of violence in the United States.

Violence also permeates our entertainment industry. The premise of two recently released movies is solely to glorify revenge-fueled acts of violence as if they were great acts of courage. These movies are "Death Sentence," and "The Brave One," whose taglines read "Protect what's yours," and "How many wrongs to make it right?" respectively. Along with Clive Owens' "Shoot 'Em Up," these revenge stories could easily double as advertisements for Shoot First legislation.

We can all learn a valuable lesson from the Amish community and change our commitment to violence to a commitment to peace. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Forgiveness is not an occasional act: it is an attitude."

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.

Gun Lobby Lawsuit Denies Self-Determination

We were very disappointed on March 9 when the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declared D.C.'s handgun ban and firearm storage laws unconstitutional in its ruling in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia. Not only did this decision counteract the democratic will of DC residents, but the majority opinion of the three-judge panel also endorsed the NRA's insurrectionist view of the Second Amendment, a dangerous precedent.

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and the city's attorney general are currently preparing an appeal and, for the moment, the decision of the court has been stayed. The Ed Fund will stand with DC's residents and elected officials in the coming weeks to affirm their right to determine their own public safety laws. If you are a DC resident, or wish to support DC residents in this effort, please click here to learn more about this issue and see how you can get involved.

Who's Afraid of The 11 Year-Old Girl?!

Are things really this bad at the National Rifle Association? We knew that they were frustrated after watching their legislative priorities go down in flames in the 109th Congress. We witnessed their paroxysms of fury over the results of the November elections. And we knew that their paranoia had reached all-new heights after reading a draft copy of their disturbing "Freedom in Peril" pamphlet.

But Wayne LaPierre, the Chief Executive Officer of the NRA, publicly attacking an 11 year-old girl?!

Yes, even we were left scratching our heads after reading the January 22 entry in his "What They Didn't Tell You Today" blog.

The object of Wayne's anger? That would be one Kailey Leinz, an elementary school student in Burke, Virginia, who spoke at a press conference at the State Capitol on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Kailey was there to express her support for SB 827, a bill introduced by Senator Jeannemarie Devolites Davis (R-Fairfax) to close the state's gun show loophole, which allows criminals to buy guns without undergoing background checks.

In his blog, LaPierre mocks Kailey's concern over the issue, inferring that surely her opinion about criminals' free access to guns at 50+ Virginia gun shows a year must be the result of parental brainwashing. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with public safety and security at her school. LaPierre even misquotes a Department of Justice study in claiming that only 2% of crime guns come from gun shows. Actually, the ATF has stated point blank that gun shows are the second leading source of crime guns in the country, behind only corrupt federally licensed dealers. Furthermore, in the study LaPierre mentions, 80% of the felons interviewed indicated they got their gun from "family, friends, a street buy or an illegal source." No effort was made to trace these guns and find out where they were originally bought and how they were subsequently trafficked. It is likely that gun shows were the source of many of these crime guns, but the NRA won't tell you that.

The NRA is never shy about pointing out its enemies, but LaPierre was so unnerved he wouldn't even put Kailey's name in his blog, referring to her simply as "this 11 year-old girl." He should take a lesson in courage from Kailey herself. At the press conference, members of the pistol-packing Virginia Citizens Defense League crowded into the room to intimidate those calling for sensible gun laws. Kailey stood up, looked them in the eye, and never flinched while delivering her eloquent speech.

Way to go, young lady. Oh, and Wayne - if your idea of protecting children is putting more guns in America's grade schools, well, you probably shouldn't be doling out parental advice to anyone.

"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.