"More Guns, Less Crime" - International Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homeland Absurdity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking a Gift Loophole in the Mouth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"No one should have to go through this..."

Here at Bullet Counter Points we like to highlight the exceptional work that everyday Americans are doing to prevent gun violence in their communities. Today we focus on a young lady who faced tragedy at Virginia Tech before channeling her grief into a positive campaign to keep America’s campuses safe.

On the morning of April 16, 2007, Megan Meadows was sitting in her Media Writing class at Virginia Tech when a friend turned to her and said, “Something’s happened.” For the next four hours, her class was in lockdown as word spread about a shooting at West Ambler Johnston Hall. She and her fellow students spent that time watching CNN for developing news and hiding under their desks for protection.

During this time, Megan began calling her close friend Reema Samaha to see if she was okay, but there was no answer. Hours later, she would go to the Inn at Virginia Tech, where many families who could not get in touch with their loved ones had congregated. When she saw Reema’s brother there, she knew immediately—Reema was one of those killed at the shooter’s second stop that day, Norris Hall. In Megan’s own words:

“That was the most awful place I have ever been in my life. Just hoards and hoards of sobbing people, crying out names… I was so fixated on the one person I lost, that I couldn't even fathom the real number of people killed at the hands of one person until later.”

“No one should have to go through this, especially at their own school,” she thought.

Shortly thereafter, Megan saw a letter from a new group called Students for Concealed Carry on Campus in Virginia Tech’s school paper, the Collegiate Times. “I was not aware that allowing guns onto campuses was even being considered,” Megan remembers, “and when I saw this letter in support of allowing guns into schools, I became quite angry. I did not understand how after having such a tragedy happen because of guns at our school, how anyone would want to support more guns on campus. I knew I had to be a part of taking a stand against it. I knew Reema would not want this and I knew her family would not either.”

Megan met with Reema’s family soon thereafter and her suspicions were confirmed. Together with Reema’s siblings, Omar and Randa; VT survivor Lily Habtu (who was shot three times in Norris Hall); and another close friend of Reema’s, Brian Hickey; she would form Students for Gun Free Schools (SGFS).

Why does SGFS object to the presence of concealed handguns on campus? “I don't want to be forced to go to school where someone sitting next to me could possibly be carrying a weapon, and having to worry about it in class,” Megan said. “Unless that person is a police officer, I think they have no right carrying in a campus setting. The college learning environment is such a sacred thing…allowing guns—or any weapon for that matter—in schools is essentially promoting violence in that environment.”

SGFS stresses that America’s campuses remain some of the safest places in the country, with an extremely low rate of homicide. They would prefer to see a focus on tightening gun control and mental health laws to prevent future Seung-Hui Chos from committing horrific acts. “That doesn't mean that I don't think people shouldn't be able to have guns,” Megan says. “I am just saying that guns by nature are lethal weapons and we shouldn't be handing them out like an ice cream truck does popsicles.” Megan also regrets the many warning signs that were missed with Cho. “I don't think he was able to help himself, and I think the people around him at school just didn't know what to do,” she says. “There is nothing shameful about being sick, and I think this is a lesson for everyone—speak out if you know someone who needs help, who might be capable of hurting themselves or others. The SPEAK OUT campaign by PAX is a powerful resource, and I think their anonymous hotline (800-226-7733) where people can report potential threats is a step in the right direction in preventing future tragedies.”

Students for Gun Free Schools is welcoming students across the country to join their group on Facebook and become involved on their campuses. “Students can make a difference by becoming educated,” Megan says. “I think if more students were aware that state legislators could force their schools to allow guns in their classrooms and dorms, they would take action on this issue.” What can students do to make a difference? “The first step could be contacting your Members of Congress or state legislators, writing a letter to your campus newspaper, organizing a discussion on your campus to inform others of what you have learned, or starting a chapter of Students for Gun Free Schools at your school!” Megan says.

In the end, the issue is very simple to Megan: “The overwhelming majority of Americans do not want guns on campus, so why should we let a small contingent control legislation that will greatly affect our lives?”

"Even the smallest action can make a difference..."

Here at Bullet Counter Points we like to highlight the exceptional work that everyday Americans are doing to prevent gun violence in their communities. Today we focus on a nurse/attorney/writer from New York who became involved with this issue after the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

In 1980, Robyn Ringler was employed as a nurse at George Washington University Hospital. In December of that year, she and her fellow staff suffered a tremendous shock when a beloved cardiologist at the hospital, Dr. Michael J. Halberstam, was shot and killed by an escaped convict. That night, Robyn said, “was one of my worst as a nurse.” And questions about Halberstam’s killer began to form in her mind: “How did that guy get a gun?” she thought. “How could we as a society allow this to happen?”

Then, on March 30, 1981, President Reagan was shot and wounded by a deranged individual, John Hinckley, Jr., while leaving the Washington Hilton Hotel. As Robyn describes it:

“The experience was exciting, scary, exhilarating, and eye-opening. When President Reagan was rushed to the emergency room at the hospital with a gunshot wound to the chest, I had no idea I would take care of him. But after surgery and a stint in the intensive care unit, he was brought to the medical/surgical unit where I was an assistant head nurse. The first two evenings, he was in terrible shape—his breathing was labored, he spiked a fever and became disoriented. We administered intravenous antibiotics and chest physical therapy and monitored his vital signs and the blood drainage from his chest tube. When I spoke to the president to offer reassurance, the gray-white color of his face scared me. I thought there was a good chance he would die.”

Each morning, the Washington Post would quote a hospital spokesman who said how well the president was doing. But, as Robyn notes, “It simply wasn’t true. The president was fighting for his life and the country was kept in the dark. I gained a quality I had never had before—skepticism—and learned to always question things.”

And again, the most haunting question of all was:“How could a guy like John Hinckley, with a history of severe mental illness, have gained access to a gun?”

It wasn’t until the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School, however, that Robyn would become actively involved as a volunteer in the gun violence prevention field. As she recalls it: “When Columbine happened, I was a mom. I could see that shootings like this could happen to any child, including my own. It was a devastating realization.” On Mother’s Day 2000, Robyn would join 750,000 other Americans on the National Mall during the Million Mom March. “Marching on Washington with thousands of others who agreed that we needed change—in the form of sensible gun laws—was a life-changing experience,” says Ringler. “I returned home and immediately joined New Yorkers Against Gun Violence (NYAGV), becoming the leader of the capital district chapter and a board member. We lobbied at the New York State Capitol for safe gun laws and had some huge successes under Governor George Pataki.”

One of Robyn’s next experiences, writing a blog about gun violence for the Albany Times Union, was not as positive. In her words, it “was one of the most disheartening experiences I’ve ever had. Most of the comments I received were so mean and lacking in compassion and empathy it was hard to believe people would write such things. Death threats were common. When I wrote about children dying from gun violence, responders wrote that inner city children were not really children, but rather thugs and monsters. Racism and prejudice seemed to motivate a lot of the comments.”

Recently, Robyn opened an independent bookshop in upstate New York, adding bookseller to her long list of professions. But she remains active with NYAGV and the League of Women Voters and continues to write editorials and letters to the editor on the subject on gun violence prevention.

Can Robyn imagine a future free from gun violence? Yes, she says. “If every person, whether they believe in the right to unfettered gun ownership or not, took action to help other human beings, we could go a long way toward ending gun violence. We need to obliterate the poverty, lack of educational opportunities, and hopelessness that feed gun violence and help it grow. And we need to maintain safe gun laws that will keep guns out of the hands of children, the mentally ill, criminals, and others who should not have them.”

Robyn cites the collective power of people of good faith. “Even the smallest action can make a difference if everyone decides to take that action together,” she says. “I believe in that.”

The Same Old Story

In the aftermath of the shooting at Northern Illinois University in February of this year, Americans struggled to understand how Steven Kazmierczak could have perpetrated such a terrible tragedy. National media outlets quoted close friends of Kazmierczak who described him as “probably the nicest, most caring person ever.” His professors said he was “a nice kid” and “extremely respectful.” NIU Police Chief Donald Grady said that law enforcement had "no indications at all this would be the type of person that would engage in such activity … There were no red flags.”

They were wrong.

A recent article in Esquire, published more than five months after the shooting, paints a far different picture. Unlike the sweet, award-winning graduate student that we heard about in February, Esquire writer David Vann tells the story of a troubled, volatile individual who was clearly a threat to himself and those around him.

The warning signs in Kazmierczak’s behavior date back to his childhood. In high school, he idolized serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy, and was fascinated by Hitler and his crimes against humanity. Along with this obsession with violence, Kazmierczak developed severe mental health problems as a teenager. By the time he graduated from high school, Kazmierczak had attempted suicide three times, taken eight different medications for mental illness, and been institutionalized on five different occasions—including a stay at the Mary Hill Residence, a psychiatric hospital, where he spent nine months in in-patient care.

After leaving Mary Hill, Kazmierczak decided to join the Army. When it was found he had lied on an enlistment form, Kazmierczak was sent to the William Beaumont Army Medical Hospital’s psych ward. The Army then determined he was a potential danger to himself and others, and Kazmierczak was given an “uncharacterized” discharge and kicked out of the service.

After 22 troubled years, Kazmierczak arrived at Northern Illinois University, where he tried his best to conceal his past from his new peers, friends and mentors. However, his disturbing behavior continued. At NIU, Kazmierczak engaged in long, detailed conversations about school shootings with a friend on campus. When Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 fellow students at Virginia Tech, Kazmierczak was excited. He studied everything about Cho—his writings, his planning, his timing, and how he obtained his guns.

Not long thereafter, Kazmierczak began stockpiling his own weapons. In December 2006, he applied for a Firearms Owner Identification (FOID) The FOID application contained only one question that pertained to mental health. Kazmierczak was asked if he had been institutionalized in the past five years. He hadn’t been—and no further explanation was needed.

Having obtained his card, Kazmierczak purchased five handguns and two shotguns over the next 13 months from federally licensed firearm dealers. Then, on February 14, 2008, he entered NIU’s Cole Hall and killed six people (including himself) and wounded 18 others. Not long before the shooting, he told a former girlfriend, “If anything happens, don’t tell anyone about me” and “You can write a book about me some day.”

The truth is that Kazmierczak exhibited as many red flags as Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter. Six months earlier, the Virginia Tech Review Panel had published a report detailing Cho’s disturbing and lifelong struggles with mental illness. The report also included a list of recommendations on how to prevent such a tragedy from happening again—including measures to improve screening of gun purchasers.

Regrettably, the U.S. Congress and state legislatures have taken little action in the wake of the panel’s report to deny deranged shooters access to firepower.

Today, gun laws in Virginia and Illinois remain fundamentally unchanged. The current FOID card application in Illinois is nearly identical to the one that Kazmierczak sailed through in December 2006. And while Virginia clarified the process by which mental health records are transmitted to their State Police, loopholes remain open that allow prohibited purchasers and others to buy guns without undergoing a background check.

At the federal level, the picture is no more impressive. Last year, Congress passed the “NICS Improvement Act of 2007,” which was signed into law by President Bush. The bill was intended to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by creating financial incentives for states to submit more disqualifying records to the federal database, including mental health records. Before it was passed, however, the National Rifle Association was permitted to make a number of detrimental additions. Contrary to its original purpose, the legislation will now require states who accept grant funding to create programs to restore firearm purchasing privileges to those previously restricted because of mental health disability. Moreover the bill has yet to be appropriated and no grant money has been disbursed. The bottom line, however, is that the U.S. Congress has not passed meaningful gun control legislation since 1997.

If the cases of Seung-Hui Cho and Steven Kazmierczak have taught us anything, it’s that red flags and warning signs do appear consistently among shooters before they engage in acts of mass destruction. What is needed is a screening process that effectively identifies these warning signs before individuals purchase handguns, assault weapons, and other firearms. A handful of states have effective laws that go beyond a simple computerized background check and thoroughly screen gun purchasers. New Jersey is a good example—the state conducts an actual background investigation on an applicant before licensing them to purchase a handgun. Moreover, the recent decision by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller expressly stated that background checks and licensing and registration laws were constitutional.

The question is, how much more bloodshed will it take until we implement such best practices on a national level to prevent terrible tragedies like the ones at Northern Illinois and Virginia Tech?

No License? No Problem.

For years, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has called attention to the problem of “bad apple” gun dealers who violate federal regulations and sell firearms that are later used in crimes. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reports that just 1.2 percent of dealers are the source of over 57 percent of guns found on crime scenes.

A recent story demonstrates how easy it is for these “bad apples” to continue arming criminals even after ATF has revoked their licenses to sell firearms. The story focuses on Project Blackhawk, a two-year investigation of an organized gun and drug-smuggling ring between the United States and Canada. As part of the investigation, authorities traced more than 200 crime guns to one particular Chicago-area dealer, Ugur “Mike” Yildiz.

Yildiz was the owner of Chicagoland Bells, a gun shop in the suburbs of Chicago. In 2003, just one year after the store opened, ATF agents inspected it and found 500 violations of the Gun Control Act. Soon thereafter, the agency revoked Yildiz’s federal license to sell firearms. Instead of confiscating his remaining inventory, however, the ATF allowed Yildiz to transfer 200 guns from the store’s inventory to his personal collection of firearms. Yildiz then illegally smuggled these guns across the Canadian border and sold them to criminals and traffickers. Ontario police have seized 80 of Yildiz’s guns from gang members and have even connected one with an attempted murder.

Current law requires individuals “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms to possess a federal license, to conduct background checks on purchasers, and to keep records of sales so firearms can be subsequently traced if they are later used in crime. Private or “hobby” sellers, however, are exempt from these requirements under a loophole created by a 1986 law, the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Once Yildiz transferred his store’s guns to his “private collection,” he was able to evade government oversight altogether.

This is not the first time a bad apple dealer has exploited the Fire Sale Loophole. A similar situation occurred at Valley Gun Shop in Maryland in 2004. ATF recorded 900 violations of federal law by gun shop owner (and then-National Rifle Association Board member) Sandy Abrams and revoked his license to sell firearms. With legal assistance from the NRA, Abrams sued the federal government, seeking an order that would allow him to continue selling guns privately. The Bush Administration and the Department of Justice concurred with Abrams and announced in court papers that “when a dealer loses his license he can dispose of his inventory by selling those firearms” privately without being charged for illegal dealing in firearms. Through such unregulated private sales, Abrams continued to sell guns, one of which was an assault weapon later used by a criminal to shoot at police.

The NRA has worked with Members of Congress to codify the Fire Sale Loophole through the ATF Modernization and Reform Act. This legislation would enhance the ability of prohibited purchasers to obtain firearms without undergoing background checks.

Mayors around the country, however, have stood against the bill and are determined to close the Fire Sale Loophole for good. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston are the co-chairs of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition which joins over 320 mayors from 45 states in opposing unlawful gun trafficking. Their proposal to close this loophole is common sense. Dealers who repeatedly violate federal law clearly pose a threat to public safety and should not be allowed to sell firearms without processing any paperwork after their licenses have been revoked.

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.

If Chávez Were Alive...

Here at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), we are fortunate to be able to work with talented and passionate interns from across the country. This summer, Hector Argueta, a student at the César Chávez Public Charter School for Public Policy in Washington, D.C., spent three weeks interning at the Coalition. Hector enjoyed his experience with us and contributed the following blog about the great American his school is named after:

“César Estrada Chávez, born in Arizona, was an American farm worker and labor leader. He co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became United Farm Workers of America. Chávez’s work over three decades led to numerous improvements for union laborers. He is also hailed as one of the greatest American civil rights leaders. His birthday has become a holiday in many U.S states.

César’s mother, Juana, was one of the greatest influences in his use of non-violent methods to organize farm workers. His other influences were Indian political leader Mahatma Gandhi and American civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr.

Non-violence is a simple but powerful tactic. Non-violence takes away the power of the oppressor by encouraging people to withdraw their cooperation. If the non-violent resistors are then handled with force, the justness of their cause if revealed to the broader society.

César Chávez did this to secure rights for farm workers. He organized strikes, boycotts, marches, and other nonviolent events. Chávez even went on a 25-day fast, which attracted enormous national attention. The fast demonstrated his strong belief in non-violence.

If Chávez were still alive, he would be very supportive of efforts to reduce gun violence in America, especially because of his concern for the Latino community. Latinos are far less likely than blacks or whites to own guns, but they are murdered by firearms at a rate second only to blacks. All guns do is lead to violence, which in turn leads to more violence. Chávez would have tried to stop this in a peaceful way, by educating people about how easy it is to get a gun, and that guns kill thousands of people every year. He would have wanted things to be different—Chávez would have made sure that people could walk freely through their neighborhoods without constantly living with the fear of getting shot. He was always thinking of ways to improve people’s lives. Chávez tried to empower people who had no power, or thought they didn’t. If he were alive today, he would organize peaceful marches on the nation’s capital protesting to make gun laws stricter. He might have also fasted to attract more media attention to this issue and to convey to people that it is a real problem.

As Chávez once said, ‘Non-violence is not inaction. It is not discussion. It is not for the timid or the weak. Non-violence is hard work. It is the willingness to sacrifice. It is the patience to win.’ This demonstrates Chávez’s total commitment. Slowly but surely, he would have strived to make America a safer place. He would have not stopped until something had changed. Chávez would have even sacrificed his own body to make it so that other people would have been safe.

Change does not happen overnight—it takes time and nobody knew that better than César Chávez. In my opinion, Chávez would have never given up until something was done about the epidemic of gun violence in our country.”

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.