Here at CSGV, we are frequently reminded by gun rights activists that they care about lives lost to gun violence, too. We have been blessed to receive regular communications from firearm enthusiasts who have serious, thoughtful ideas about how to create a more peaceful America. And with April 19 celebrations in full swing among those who understand that God granted them their Second Amendment rights, our mailbox was more full than ever!
We heard from those who were ready to help the survivors of Columbine by informing them that guns had nothing to do with the tragedy...
From: Bishop_Dave@comcast.net
Subject: Gun violence
Date: April 21, 2010
I have heard Mr. Mauser's plea to join this organization because he lost his son in the Columbine tragedy on a radio spot. It is so frustrating that Mr. Mauser seems to still ignore two factors relating to Columbine. Yes the two killers had guns, however they had made home made bombs and placed them throughout the high school, which then completly neutralized the SWAT teams efforts for about 3 hours. This allowed the two killers time to go through Columbine grid by grid to find their victims. Secondly, there have been two school shootings in Colorado within the last couple years. In both cases there were no explosive devices, but mass amounts of ammo being carried by the shooters. In one case, a man tackled the shooter after two shots rang out and the event ended. In another case the shooter was cornered, and shot one victim after being cornered. Though both are tragedies, in one of those two cases there was no loss of life. The one factor that changed the outcomes, explosive devices !! That's it. So rather than continue your misguided assult on the 2nd Amendment, and filing frivolous lawsuits against gun makers, which I realize helps keep you damn lawyers rich beyond belief because you snatch 40% up front ! Do something worthwhile, and go after all the bomb making crap readily available via the internet. That is where the two Columbine killers exceeded all other school shooters. Shut down your anti-gun operation and go after the internet bomb making recipies readily available there !!
Dave Bishop
We heard from those who evoked the elocution of our Founders…
From: itchitup@gmail.com
Subject: Horwitz: "Our founders got rid of violence with Constitution"
Date: April 19, 2010
Josh Horwitz, you are a cock sucking, cunt. The founding fathers offered the constitution/bill of rights in exchange for our God given inalienable rights, to form a greater good. Anytime the government becomes "intolerable", we have a DUTY to ... History proves that the longer the train of intolerable abuse, the more difficult and violent the struggle. Stop sucking Pelosi/Napolitano cock and get off your knees. Millions of strong fighters have died for freedom and we are left with weak metro fucking pissasses like you...
Michael Mitchell
We heard from men of few words…
From: redneck@rcn.com
Subject: gaynes
Date: April 19, 2010
homo
We heard from those with a beautiful vision for our country...
From: info@republicofarizona.com
Subject: Thank God
Date: April 16, 2010
One other issue .................. thank God the founding fathers of this nation did not have to contend with the likes of you regarding our over throw of the repressive British regime. There does come a time when violence is the only answer. After all, how do you plan on ever disarming the millions of gun owners that will never allow ANY government, foreign or domestic, to take our firearms ......... period? When asking nicely doesn't work, then what? A citation? A lecture?
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Steve Grant
Republic of Arizona
From: chanbates@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Political Violence is Not an American Value
Date: March 31, 2010
Imagine a future free of criminals and war. Then imagine a future free from gun violence. You have one vivid, ridiculous imagination. Until you and your ilk provide all of us with 100% security from such threats (and I believe you will be totally unpersuasive with criminals and religious fanatics from overseas), I will preserve my own life, the lives of my loved ones, and any other innocent person—including you—from the evil in the world, and I will probably use a firearm to do it, violently.
Chan Bates
We heard from attorneys for the National Rifle Association who think that GOOGLE doesn’t exist...
From: cbmonfort@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Let's Leave "The Wild West" in the Past
Date: March 25, 2010
I'm interested in making a donation to your organizationm though I do have a couple of preliminary questions. Do you think all of the states that have shall issue CCW policies have become the wild wild west? Do they have higher violent crime rates than states that hardly issue CCW permits? I'd be interested to hear your responses to these questions before I make any donations to your organization. Thank you!
Clint B. Monfort
We heard from lawnmower salesmen...
From: Bullseye5477
Subject: What loophole?
Date: February 14, 2010
What the fuck does a gun show have to do with anything. What's next? The guvment tellin' me I can't sell my lawnmower to someone because they might take it home and run over their kids foot?
We heard from Mondays with Mike fan Larry Mattera...
From: matteralarry@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: Looking Forward to a New Year
You suck ass! I want all your funding to dry up for my Christmas present! I wont miss Mondays with fatass.
Larry Mattera
We heard from those who understand the public health threat presented by caffeine...
From: izaktaylor@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Todays email Major Nidal Malik Hasan
Date: November 19, 2009
so allegedly Major Nidal Malik Hasan went crazy 10 years after the permit. he had traumatic violent experiences that alter his perception of reality. The concealed weapon permit had nothing to do with it whatsoever. You could claim he was the 5 person whote drank pepsi that commited a mass murder as well, it just wouldn't serve your limited political agenda.
Isaac Taylor
We heard from winners...
From: forestofdeadtrees@sbcglobal.net
Re: New Blog on Protester with AR-15 Assault Rifle
Date: August 28, 2009
You are a loser.
Sincerely – Jeremy Parish
We heard from those who were eager to express condolences...
From: tlooft@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: CSGV Statement on the Passing of Senator Kennedy
Date: August 26, 2009
About damn time that old SOB kicked off, a great day for USA!!!
Terry Looft
We heard from those who are particularly concerned about the eight children and teens who die every day in the U.S. from gun violence...
From: tomfinnegan13204@yahoo.com
Subject: Violent Hangun Deaths in Children
Date: August 13, 2009
Including suicides in the CSGV's blanket statement of 8 deaths a day is certainly misleading. Many youth bent on killing themselves will surely find another means to do so if a gun is not available. In fact, according to the wisqars report on the CDC site, almost 30% more youths who commit suicide use a means other than guns to do it (535 gun suicides versus 761 suicides that do not involve guns)
The reason I brought up gang violence in our conversation was that most hardcore juvenile gang-bangers have been involved in an extremely violent lifestyle for many of their formative years. Is this tragic? Certainly. But your site, as evidenced by the cutesy little crayon drawing of innocent little children, next to the erroneous statistic of 8 gun deaths a day, is obviously meant to bring out an emotional response in those who this portion of the site is meant for. It is not based on truth or reason. And reason indicates that even with more stringent gun laws, criminals will still get guns. Ergo, gang members will still kill each other.
Even if you think that it is valid to keep suicides and gang-related deaths in your total number, what you report and what the total numbers actually are "do not jive." The true number then would be 6.3 deaths a day, not 8.. This does not surprise me though. The vast majority of what passes for intellectual rigor among Liberals is based on emotive response, not logic and reason.
Tom Finnegan
Syracuse, NY 13204
And finally, we heard from someone who momentarily forgot about that peace thing...
From: MurphyMURPH1176@aol.com
Subject: gun violence
Date: August 2, 2009
love to see evening news reports , include the number of shootings that occur each and every day in the united states
richard
April 26, 2010
CSGV Mailbag
March 22, 2010
No Heroes Here
Bills are currently pending in seven states (AZ, GA, MI, OH, OK, SC, TN) that would restrict the ability of America’s colleges and universities to regulate firearms on campus (at least five other states have considered similar legislation during the past year). The gun lobby continues to advocate for guns on campus despite overwhelming opposition from the American public, university officials, and organizations like the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators and American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
Five stories from the past month go far in explaining why America’s colleges and universities have fought so hard to maintain their strict regulations regarding firearms:
- At 3:20 a.m. on February 19, Brian Mulder, 24, was smoking outside a residence hall at Northern Illinois University (NIU) when Zachary Isaacman, 22, attempted to follow a female resident into the building, “kind of like he was stalking her.” “It looked like she was nervous,” recalled Mulder, the president of the residence hall’s council. Isaacman, an NIU student who lives off-campus, began banging on windows and doors trying to get residents to let him in. Mulder told Isaacman he could not enter the hall because he was not a resident there and instructed him to “cut through the lagoon and go home.” At that point, Isaacman pulled out a handgun and pointed it at Mulder’s face. When Mulder moved to knock the gun away, Isaacman drew back and shot Mulder in the thigh. He was caught minutes later by campus police.
Isaacman has been charged with two felony offenses (aggravated battery with a firearm and aggravated battery) and a misdemeanor (unlawful use of a weapon). University Police who searched his room at the Phi Kappa Theta fraternity house found at least one AK-47 assault rifle, a revolver, a shotgun, and a large amount of ammunition.
Mulder, who is recovering after demonstrating great courage in fulfilling his duties, said, “I’m not really worried about my safety. There’s not a ton of people with guns around here. It just happened to be this one guy. I’m glad nobody else got hurt.”
- At 2:46 a.m. on February 27, officers from the Bloomington Police Department received a 911 call about an individual exposing a handgun at Kilroy’s Sports Bar. Arriving at the location, they found intoxicated Indiana University student Alexander Edward Brill surrounded by five bar employees in an alley outside the establishment.
Moments earlier, Brill was reportedly talking to a woman he knew when he was confronted by five men, who verbally harassed him. Brill responded by drawing a loaded Smith & Wesson .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun and pointing it at a female employee of the bar. When a male employee tried to intervene, Brill pistol-whipped him with the weapon.
Brill, who possesses a permit to carry a concealed handgun from the state of Indiana, faces three preliminary felony charges of pointing a firearm, battery while armed, and intimidation with a deadly weapon.
- On March 2, Ike Dean Atkins, 57, drove his wife to a class at Spartanburg Community College in South Carolina. As he waited for her in the parking area inside his car, Atkins, a concealed handgun permit holder, decided to clean his weapon. During this process, the gun accidentally discharged, shooting him in the hand. “Our concern is the safety of our students, faculty and staff, and emergency response was immediate and great,” said Cheri Anderson-Hucks, the college’s Director of Marketing and Public Relations. Atkins violated state law by having a gun on the school’s property and will be charged.
- Hours after purchasing a gun from the Dakota Territory Gun Show on March 6, University of North Dakota student Brad Uvelhor, 28, accidentally shot himself in the leg with the firearm on university property. It is a violation of the school’s policy to carry weapons on campus—all firearms must be checked in to the University Police Department—and Uvelhor could be charged.
- Jonathan Brett, a Western Connecticut State University student, was arrested in the early morning of March 18 after threatening a patron at Maxwell's Bar in Danbury, Connecticut. Brett allegedly argued with the patron about a woman, telling him, "You don't want me to take my gun out." Brett holds a valid concealed handgun permit from the state of Connecticut. It was illegal for him to have his Walther PPK 380 handgun in a bar. He has been charged with threatening, breach of peace, and possession of a handgun while intoxicated.
It is extremely fortunate that none of these events resulted in loss of life. Far from playing the “hero” in some fantasized conflict with a deranged criminal assailant, the “law-abiding gun owners” in these incidents were themselves the threat to the campus communities around them.
March 10, 2010
"Nothing came up."
On February 12, professor Amy Bishop, 45, sat with her colleagues in a biology faculty meeting at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. Suddenly, without warning, she drew a semi-automatic 9 mm handgun and began methodically shooting those sitting closest to her. Bishop killed three and critically wounded three other colleagues before her weapon jammed. Faculty members were then able to push her out of the room and barricade the door. “She looked like she was intent on doing this, and she was angry,” said one of the survivors. Bishop was arrested outside the university shortly after calling her husband, James Anderson, to pick her up. As she was placed in a police car, she quietly muttered, “It didn’t happen ... There’s no way … They are still alive.”
The shooting occurred after the university had denied Bishop’s last appeal for tenure. Her husband said she was frustrated with what he called a “tough, long, hard battle.” He also indicated she recently acquired the handgun used in the shootings. Bishop would only say that she borrowed the gun and was “cagey” about the details, according to Anderson. He had joined her in a trip to an indoor shooting range where she practiced her marksmanship.
After the massacre, Alabama police officials ran a background check on Bishop. “Nothing came up,” they reported. That nothing did is disturbing, and speaks to how America’s weak gun laws are incapable of stopping individuals who are clearly violent and deranged from legally acquiring guns.
Within hours after the shooting, news reports began to surface about Bishop’s bizarre past... In 1986, she fatally shot her 18-year old brother in their hometown of Braintree, Massachusetts. According to a police report, Bishop—who was 21 at the time—was trying to unload the family’s shotgun and accidentally discharged it into her bedroom wall. She then came downstairs to ask her mother for assistance and allegedly discharged the weapon as her brother walked past her in the kitchen, killing him. Bishop then ran out of the house, discharging the weapon into the wall on her way out.
Bishop fled to a nearby auto repair shop, where she entered the storefront and began searching for car keys. When two nearby men came to investigate, she turned her shotgun on them and told them to get their hands up. As one of the men recalled, Bishop was saying, “I need a car, I need to get out of here,” and ranting about how “[her husband] would be looking for her, and that if he found her he would kill her.” [Bishop was not married at the time.] Finally, police arrived. “I drew my service revolver and yelled three times ‘drop the rifle’,” Officer Timothy Murphy remembers. “After the third time, she did.” Bishop, however, was released from jail within hours and not questioned until 11 days later. She was never charged with any crime.
The man who was the Chief of the Braintree Police Department at the time, John Polio, said he never saw the police report in the case and called the investigation “shoddy and definitely fishy.” “To say someone accidentally fired a shot gun three times is crazy,” Polio states.
In 1993, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) questioned Bishop and her husband about two pipe bombs that were sent to Dr. Paul Rosenberg, a former colleague of Bishop’s at Boston’s Children Hospital. Rosenberg told ATF investigators that he played a role in Bishop’s resignation as a postdoctorate research fellow at the hospital’s neurobiology lab, explaining that Bishop “exhibited violent behavior” and “was not stable.” Another witness recalled that, “Anderson stated that he wanted to get back at Dr. Rosenberg and that he wanted to shoot him, bomb him, stab him or strangle [him].” The couple was never charged and the case remains unsolved to this day.
A third incident in Peabody, Massachusetts, occurred in 2002, when Bishop was arrested for punching a woman in the head at an International House of Pancakes after the woman took the restaurant’s last booster seat. According to the police report, Bishop struck the woman while yelling, “I am Dr. Amy Bishop!” Bishop was charged with assault, battery, and disorderly conduct. She eventually admitted to the assault, served probation, and the charges against her were dismissed.
How could someone with so many red flags in her background possibly come up clear in a background check?
There has been no formal confirmation from ATF as to where Bishop got her handgun, but she was a legal firearm purchaser under federal law. Federal law prohibits convicted felons, those under active restraining orders, those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses, and those who have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution or adjudicated as a “mental defective” from purchasing guns (along with certain other categories). Individuals purchasing guns from Federally Licensed Firearm Dealers (FFLs) are run through the FBI’s National Instant Computer Background Check System (NICS) and, sometimes, through a state database. Because Bishop did fall under any of the prohibited categories mentioned above, she had no disqualifying records in the system.
An instant computer check (normally completed in a matter of minutes), however, is no background investigation. Only a few states in the country license handgun purchasers and conduct such investigations (i.e., New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts), in addition to running them through the NICS system (virtually every other industrialized democracy has licensing and registration processes for firearm purchasers that include background investigations). These investigations can involve detailed questionnaires and interviews with character witnesses (i.e., spouses, co-workers, friends, etc.). Law enforcement is typically given the discretion to deny licenses to individuals who present a threat to public safety.
Such background investigations are capable of yielding important information about individuals like Amy Bishop who fall through the cracks of a computer check but present numerous red flags in their backgrounds. Not coincidentally, states that conduct such investigations on handgun purchasers have some of the lowest gun death rates in the country.
The gun lobby has effectively bullied America’s legislators into believing that even minor inconveniences during the gun purchasing process are “infringements” on Second Amendment rights. But does anyone seriously believe that a system that is incapable of stopping individuals like Amy Bishop from buying guns would have been endorsed by our Founders? Or that they would have failed to see it as an obvious threat to individual liberty, given the resulting carnage?
February 15, 2010
With a Little Help from our Friends
Over the years, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) has been blessed to receive charitable donations from the founder of The Fest for Beatles Fans. The Fest started in 1974, when Beatles fan Mark Lapidos decided that he wanted to organize an event to commemorate the ten-year anniversary of The Beatles’ arrival in America. He arranged a personal meeting with John Lennon and proposed a Beatles convention at New York’s Commodore Hotel. Lennon’s response? “I’m all for it,” he said. “I’m a Beatles Fan, too!” That fateful meeting led to “the original and longest running Beatles celebration.”
Over the past 35 years, Lapidos has held conventions in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Seattle, Orlando, Las Vegas and Boston. “The first generation—baby boomers—still attend,” Lapidos says, “but there is always a great amount of younger fans. With the release of the Remastered CDs and Beatles Rock Band, we are sure there will be another resurgence in their popularity.” Lapidos also operates the world’s largest Beatles mail-order catalogue.
The Beatles will be forever linked with the issue of gun violence because of the violent and untimely death of John Lennon. Lennon was shot and killed in front of his Manhattan apartment building on December 8, 1980, by a deranged fan, Mark David Chapman. Lennon was only 40 years old.
Chapman, like so many contemporary American mass shooters, was seriously mentally ill and never should have been allowed to purchase the Charter Arms .38 Special revolver he used to kill Lennon. Three years prior to the assassination, he had attempted suicide and was admitted to a psychiatric facility for clinical depression. Chapman had developed a series of obsessions and heard voices in his head. Despite this, he not only was able to purchase firearms, but also found employment as an armed security guard. Six psychiatrists/clinical psychologists were prepared to testify at Chapman’s murder trial that he was psychotic before he pled guilty.
This horrific tragedy drove Lapidos to support the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “John’s dear friend Harry Nilsson became a national spokesperson for gun control and CSGV and, at the same time, we started raising money and awareness for the cause.” The Fest for Beatles Fans also supports Yoko Ono’s Spirit Foundation, which was set up to further her and Lennon’s philanthropic initiatives. “We thought these two were the best way to remember John on the charity side,” Lapidos says.
Lapidos was joined in mourning the loss of Lennon by millions of people around the world. Lennon was not only a musical icon, but also a global spokesman for peace and nonviolence. He once said, “I think the only way to do it is Gandhi’s way. And that’s non-violent, passive, positive, or whatever he called it in those days.”
Regarding the famous “Bed-Ins” for peace in Amsterdam and Montreal that he conducted with wife Yoko Ono, Lennon recalled, “People said, ‘Well, what does this do for peace?’ We thought, ‘The other side has war on every day, not only on the news but on the old John Wayne movies and every damn movie you see: war, war, war, war, kill, kill, kill, kill.’ We said, ‘Let’s get some peace, peace, peace, peace on the headlines, just for a change!”
The song “Happiness is a Warm Gun” gave Lennon an outlet to tackle the issue of gun worship. “They were advertising guns and I thought it was so crazy that I made a song out of it,” he recalled. “[Beatles Producer] George Martin showed me the cover of a magazine that said ‘Happiness is a Warm Gun.’ I thought it was just a fantastic, insane thing to say. A warm gun means you’ve just shot something!”
Lennon’s loss continues to be felt to this day. 2009’s “The New York City Years” exhibition at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame featured a display with a picture of Lennon’s bloodied glasses, the paper bag his clothes were put in, and a placard that read, “More than 932,000 people have been killed in the U.S.A since John Lennon was shot and killed on December 8, 1980.”
The surviving Beatles refuse to relinquish their optimism, however. Paul McCartney, looking back on the Beatles’ years together, said, “I’m really glad that most of the songs dealt with love, peace, understanding. It’s all very ‘All You Need is Love’ or ‘Give Peace a Chance.’ There was a good spirit behind it all, which I’m very proud of.”
And we at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence are proud to be associated with that legacy through the generosity of Mark Lapidos and The Fest for Beatles Fans.
February 8, 2010
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.
February 1, 2010
What's Going On (at Gun Shows): The Heavy Hand of Reason
During the past year, there have been a number of groundbreaking investigations that have exposed the dangers of the “Gun Show Loophole.” The loophole allows unlicensed individuals to sell firearms from their “personal collections” at gun shows without conducting background checks or maintaining records of sale. The latest hotspot for gun show controversy is central Texas, where an effort by law enforcement to regulate criminal activity has run into resistance.
Federal agents from Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement (ICE) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) are partnering in an investigation that has uncovered dozens of cases of criminal activity occurring at gun shows throughout Texas. The Austin Police Department (APD) has assisted in this effort by arresting “prohibited persons (primarily convicted felons and illegal immigrants) that obtained firearms illegally at a local gun show.” “Virtually all” of these sales to prohibited purchasers were made by private citizens who are unlicensed sellers, both inside the shows and in the parking lots outside. Federal convictions have been obtained in a majority of cases.
Because of the recurring criminal activity at Texas Gun Shows events in North Lamar, the APD Nuisance Abatement Unit conducted a meeting with the property lessee for the shows (HEB Grocery), the building sub-lessee (Andrew Perkel, Austin Event Center) and the event promoter (Darwin Boedeker, Texas Gun Shows). At the meeting, ADP and ATF officials offered several recommendations to reduce illegal gun sales, including: 1) Allowing only licensed gun dealers at the shows; 2) Providing on-site security to prevent illegal sales in the parking lot, and; 3) Defining a process for non-licensed firearm sellers to participate to ensure that background checks are conducted. HEB Grocery agreed with these recommendations and instructed Perkel and Boedeker to implement them.
Boedeker complied with HEB’s request and put up a sign outlining the first two recommendations at the two-day gun show held on January 16-17. When police reported that a private gun sale to an illegal immigrant had nonetheless occurred that weekend, HEB Grocery announced that gun shows would not be hosted on their property until the issue was resolved.
Boedeker, outraged at the decision, began organizing a petition to the Texas Attorney General and stated, “All they are doing is keeping the honest man from being able to do what is afforded to him by the Constitution.” But he seemed to contradict himself in explaining what happened at the meeting. While on one hand Boedeker admitted, “[Law enforcement] made it a point to keep repeating themselves [to say] ‘these are just recommendations,’” on the other, he quoted them as saying, “You do what we say or we shut you down.”
Conspiracy theorist/radio host Alex Jones then interviewed Boedeker and helped him articulate his outrage further. Jones didn’t hesitate to take the opportunity to attack the Obama Administration, saying, “He’s got these armed thugs doing this. This is tyranny. This is the end of America.” His comments about ATF agents were even more offensive and recalled the National Rifle Association’s “jack-booted thugs” smear. “They are an absolutely wicked bunch of un-American trash,” said Jones.
The controversy over Texas Gun Shows recalls a 2004-2005 investigation of gun shows in Richmond, Virginia, that was conducted by the ATF. During that investigation, 56 arrests were made for the following violations of state and federal law: Making False Statements on ATF Form 4473, Felon in Possession of a Firearm, Straw Purchase of a Firearm, Possession of Marijuana, Possession of Cocaine, Felony Fugitive Apprehension, Misdemeanor Fugitive Apprehension, Carrying a Concealed Weapon and Grand Larceny—Theft of Firearm.
The promoter of the Richmond shows, Steve and Annette Elliot of C&E Gun Shows, nonetheless described the investigation as follows: “It's just a persecution thing. It's not really an attempt to solve crimes or stop them. It's their way of trying to get rid of gun shows.” ATF was then hauled in front of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security for a show trial. Chairman Howard Coble admonished, “it does appear that maybe the ATF activity may have risen to the threshold of being heavy-handed.” No action was taken against C&E Gun Shows. They continue to profit and have done nothing to modify their business practices to curb the criminal activity catalogued by ATF.
Were the actions of the APD and ATF in central Texas “heavy-handed”? Not by any reasonable American’s standard. For starters, Texas is the leading source state of guns being illegally trafficked to drug cartels into Mexico, and that is probably why so many illegal immigrants were arrested buying firearms at Texas Gun Shows events. Second, a 2009 survey by Republican pollster Frank Luntz showed that 69% of National Rifle Association (NRA) members and 85% of non-NRA gun owners support background checks for all firearm sales at gun shows. Finally, even the NRA was forced to admit that the “voluntary agreement concerning the transfer of firearms at the Austin gun show…was a self-imposed regulation, not a rule from the BATFE [popularly known as the ATF] or an ordinance of the City of Austin.”
It doesn’t take a law enforcement professional to realize there is a problem when criminals and illegal aliens (whom the NRA describe as “criminal aliens”) are openly buying firearms without undergoing background checks at gun shows. Hopefully, Texas officials will dispense with Alex Jones’ conspiracy theories and continue to act in the interest of public safety.
January 19, 2010
The Mailman Delivers the Truth
In recent years, there has been a great deal of controversy concerning professional athletes and guns. Whether it was New Jersey Net Jayson Williams accidentally killing his chauffeur while showing off his shotgun, L.A. Clipper Sebastian Telfair boarding the team plane with a loaded handgun in his pillowcase, New York Giant Plaxico Burress accidentally shooting himself in the leg at a nightclub, or Cleveland Cavalier Delonte West riding his motorcycle on the Capital Beltway with three loaded firearms on his body, the combination has proven to be a toxic mix that produces one horror story after another.
A recent incident that has captured national attention involves Washington Wizards guard Gilbert Arenas. On Christmas Eve, Arenas (who has a history of not complying with firearms regulations) admitted to storing four unloaded guns at the Verizon Center in Washington, D.C. Arenas was apparently unaware of two important facts: 1) The District of Columbia requires residents to register their firearms with the Metropolitan Police Department; and 2) The NBA’s collective bargaining agreement prohibits players from bringing firearms into league facilities or carrying them while traveling on league-related business.
Arenas originally claimed that he moved the guns to his locker after the birth of his daughter, but soon a more disturbing story was revealed. Arenas and teammate Javaris Crittenton allegedly had a scuffle during a card game on a flight back from Phoenix on December 19, in which threatening comments were exchanged. Two days later, Arenas laid out four unloaded guns in Crittenton’s locker, reportedly with a note reading, “Pick one.” Witnesses indicate Crittenton responded in the locker room by brandishing his own gun, loading it, and chambering a round.
Because of an ongoing police investigation, NBA Commissioner David Stern was initially reluctant to respond to the incident. After Arenas playfully formed his hands into pistols and pretended he was shooting at teammates before a game in Philadelphia on January 5, however, Stern announced that “[Arenas’] ongoing conduct has led me to conclude that he is not currently fit to take the court in an NBA game” and suspended him indefinitely.
Stern’s response to the incident—and the disgust expressed by Wizards management and NBA fans—was not surprising. What was surprising was the reaction of retired NBA superstar and currently-serving National Rifle Association (NRA) board member Karl “The Mailman” Malone.
Malone played in the NBA for 19 years, 18 of them for the Utah Jazz. Following his retirement he became an NRA spokesman and has served on the organization’s Board of Directors since 2001. Writing for Sports Illustrated Online days after Arenas’ suspension, Malone commented, “I don’t want Arenas made an example of, but this is not just a minor situation, and if we say that, it’s ridiculous. It’s wrong to make light of a firearm. That’s when mistakes are made ... This is nothing to be laughing about.” Malone is certainly right, and this is the very same reason Washington Wizard’s owner Abe Pollin decided to change the team’s name from the Bullets in 1995.
But what Malone said next was a shocker. “You can’t tell me one good thing that can happen with a gun in an arena, but I can tell you a thousand bad things,” he said “I’ll be the first to tell you I don’t go anywhere in my vehicle without my weapon, but at no point has it ever occurred to me to take it inside anywhere, let alone an arena.”
Apparently Malone isn’t familiar with the policies and statements of the organization he represents. The NRA is currently pushing to allow the carrying of concealed handguns in public spaces across America—schools, churches, parks, airports, metro transport, restaurants, bars, you name it. And Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s CEO, has stated in no uncertain terms, “Right-to-carry saves lives ... An armed few make the many safer, because the bad guys don't know who's armed and who's not.”
Malone missed the memo. He goes on to say:
If I were a gun dealer and somebody walked in and said, ‘I want this for protection,’ I don't know if I would sell it to that person, because that person's only thinking about another confrontation. The people who get threatened or cut off in their car and think about their guns are the people who don't need a gun … The big picture is that guns won’t protect you. If someone really wanted to get you, they would.
Doesn’t Malone realize that gun ownership is a “fundamental, God-given right”? Why would he possibly assert, “It’s a privilege to own a firearm”? Heresy!
But is Malone simply a misguided “sheep” in the NRA flock, or are his views actually representative of gun owners in America? Well-known Republican pollster Frank Luntz recently conducted a national survey that seems to support the latter contention. The poll showed that strong majorities of gun owners (and NRA members) support sensible gun policies, such as requiring background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows and prohibiting terror suspects from buying guns.
Perhaps the NRA’s leadership is as extreme as advertised. Gun owners realize that Gilbert Arenas made “a terrible mistake” by bringing guns into a public arena.
Well, most gun owners, anyway.
January 11, 2010
These Second Amendment "Rights" Need to Be Exorcised
Following a summer that saw far-right-wing activists bringing guns to political events across the country, two more recent incidents suggest that it wasn’t just the heat driving the “open carry” craze.
On December 20, 2009, Leonard Embody walked into Radnor Lake State Park in Tennessee with a loaded AK-47 pistol, reportedly with the intention of testing a new state law allowing those with concealed carry permits to bring their handguns into state parks. One woman who encountered Embody in the park reported, “He was wearing military boots and a black skull cap. He didn’t look like the friendliest of guys. It was scary.” Soon, park rangers appeared on the scene and questioned Embody at gunpoint.
The rangers were apparently confused about whether his AK-47 was a rifle, which would have been illegal in the park. On OpenCarry.org, Embody wrote that one of the rangers said he “had never heard of a 7.62x39 handgun” (the 7.62x39mm cartridge was originally designed during World War II and is common in military-style rifles). The practice of shortening assault-style rifles into pistol-sized handguns to make them more easily concealable began in the late 1990s. According to the Director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis, Dr. Garen Wintemute, (who has photographed these weapons at gun shows across the country), “Less than 24 inches long, [these guns] use the same ammunition and high-capacity magazines that the rifles do. With the magazine detached they are easily concealed.”
After Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents arrived at the scene and confirmed that the firearm was indeed a pistol, rangers released Embody in accordance with the law without pressing charges. On OpenCarry.org, Embody has stated that he plans to openly carry the same handgun again at Bicentennial Mall, a Nashville State Park.
This issue has been a controversial one in The Volunteer State. Counties and municipalities have been permitted to opt out of a law allowing handguns in parks that they manage, and approximately 70 of them—fearing threats to public safety—have done so.
Another disturbing example of “open carry” occurred on January 2, when a crowd of over 300 people gathered at a busy intersection to protest the Obama Administration in Alamogordo, New Mexico. The rally, organized by the local Otero Tea Party Patriots and the Second Amendment Task Force, was a response to recent health care reform efforts, as well as a demonstration of Second Amendment “rights.”
Many of the attendees at the rally openly carried handguns and/or rifles (one woman even strapped a .32 caliber handgun to her dog’s back). New Mexico law allows residents to openly carry a firearm in most public places, as well as concealed weapons with a state-issued permit.
Several individuals who carried guns at the rally indicated they were doing so to exhibit “responsible gun ownership.” Others, however, admitted a darker purpose. One man stated that his handgun was a “very open threat” to the “socialist communists” in the Obama Administration. “The government fears the people, and a disarmed people are slaves,” he said. “Political power comes from the barrel of a gun ... They’re pushing us to our limits.” Jim Kizer, a veteran of the Korean War who carried at the rally, echoed this sentiment: “I’ve fought Communists all my life, and now our government is being taken over by them. That’s why I’m here.”
The rally kept law enforcement well occupied. Although the protest was not as large as anticipated, Alamogordo Department of Public Safety officers and the New Mexico State Police drove through “the intersection at no less than five-minute intervals during the two-hour event.” The constant patrolling of the protest distracted law enforcement from their regular duties, depriving the surrounding community of valuable resources.
Dan Woodruff, the founder of Alamogordo’s Second Amendment Task Force chapter, opined that the rally “put a positive light on gun ownership.” Others were not so convinced. Walt Rubel of the Las Cruses Sun-News questioned the benefit of “inviting every yahoo with a weapon in southern New Mexico to gather at the busiest intersection in Alamogordo and wave their firearms at the passing traffic.” Denise Lang, a counter-protester on the scene that day, offered, “I'm very much a pro-gun rights person. I come from a military family. My late husband was a gunsmith, [and] I think gun use is OK in an appropriate time and place. Wearing guns to a protest, to me, is extremely juvenile."
Beyond scaring their fellow citizens (“It’s a shock value thing,” admitted one handgun-toter), distracting law enforcement, and presenting potential threats to public safety (at political events that typically involve heated discussion), armed protesters present a more fundamental challenge to the integrity of our democracy. Their belief that the Second Amendment allows them to use force to bypass non-coercive, peaceful avenues of change undermines the First Amendment rights of all those who disagree with them. Perhaps “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” (as Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung stated in 1938) in a totalitarian state, but not in a functioning democracy.
Ron Browne of Alamogordo, a bystander at the January 2 rally, grasped that armed protest leads to something far different than “freedom.” “I see this as the seeds of terrorism being born,” he said. “You have the guns. Eventually, you'll have the hate, then someone will actually take it one step further and try to hurt the president. Hate has to start somewhere and grow. This is it, right here. You're looking at it. If this keeps expanding, we're going to have a civil war.”
December 21, 2009
Practice Makes Perfect
A failed shooting attempt at the Woodbridge campus of Northern Virginia Community College (NVCC) suggests that there has been progress made in responding to “active shooter” incidents at our nation’s colleges and universities.
On December 8, student Jason Hamilton, 20, walked into a classroom at NVCC and fired two shots at his mathematics professor with a Marlin .30-06 bolt-action rifle he had bought the day before at Dick’s Sporting Goods. The teacher took cover under a desk after the first shot and was not injured. As Hamilton attempted to fire a third time, his gun jammed, and he discarded it. He then walked out of the classroom and sat down in a chair in the hallway.
It didn’t take long for authorities to find him. Prince William County police began arriving on the scene within two to three minutes of the shots. An emergency response team at NVCC’s offices in Annandale coordinated the response via phone and Internet and locked the Woodbridge campus down.
NVCC had created the job of Director of Emergency Planning a few months after the shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007. Since that time, NVCC has trained faculty and staff in emergency response, purchased additional emergency notification equipment, and enhanced cooperation with local law enforcement. Just two days before the December 8 incident, NVCC’s campus police had conducted a mandatory, eight-hour training session where they practiced a scenario in which a student shot a teacher. “Everything that was done on Tuesday, we had practiced on Sunday,” said Cheryl Creed, NVCC’s acting Police Chief.
The county and campus police kept the campus locked down for approximately three hours after Hamilton was arrested in case there were other suspects still at large. “We erred on the side of caution and kept the lockdown until we could complete the search and evacuation,” said Prince William Police Chief Charlie T. Deane.
Not everything went smoothly. It was more than 30 minutes before an announcement was made over classroom speakers informing students and faculty to shelter in place due to an emergency. As a result, some rushed out of the building after shots were fired in violation of the school’s emergency policy. Interestingly, students made up for some of these communication mishaps by sharing information through text messages.
In any case, it was a vast improvement over the Virginia Tech response, where the administration never ordered a campus shutdown and delayed notifying students and faculty after the first two victims were shot and killed in West Ambler Johnston Hall.
Perhaps in part because of improving emergency preparedness, Colorado State University’s Board of Governors recently voted unanimously to overturn the school’s policy allowing concealed handguns on its two campuses. “This makes us fairly unusual,” said Pueblo Campus President Joe Garcia, “as most institutions of higher education have a complete concealed weapons ban.”
Garcia is right. Utah’s public colleges and universities and Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia are now the only schools in America (out or more than 4,300 colleges and universities in the United States) that allow concealed handguns on campus.
Colorado State University is also now aligned with the policy of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA), which has stated, “There is no credible evidence to suggest that the presence of students carrying concealed weapons would reduce violence on our college campuses” and called on public policy makers to “weigh heavily the…unintended consequences of any proposals to allow college students and any other persons to carry concealed weapons on campus.” IACLEA is instead “working with other campus public safety stakeholders to provide and promote campus crime prevention training programs, as well as to develop strategies and programs to enhance emergency preparedness.”
It is good to see that such efforts are bearing fruit. While the Woodbridge incident could have been far worse-particularly if Hamilton had used a more dangerous firearm like an assault rifle-law enforcement deserves credit for taking campus safety seriously and demonstrating results.
December 14, 2009
"That's not a civilized society."
Earlier this year, an interesting study was published in the University of Miami Law Review by Zachary Weaver. Entitled “Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law: The Actual Effects and the Need for Clarification,” it raises some serious questions about the expanding parameters for the use of lethal force in our country.
On April 26, 2005, Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed “Stand Your Ground” (aka “Shoot First”) legislation into law. The law eliminated the state’s common law duty to use every reasonable means available to retreat prior to using deadly force, which the Florida Supreme Court had legitimized by explaining, “human life is precious, and deadly combat should be avoided if at all possible when imminent danger to oneself can be avoided.” The law states that any individual who is in a place where he/she has a legal right to be, and who is “not engaged in an unlawful activity ... has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” Individuals using lethal force in this manner are immune from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.
In his article, Weaver catalogues the opposition of prosecutors and law enforcement to the law, citing the National District Attorneys Association, the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, multiple State Attorneys, and police chiefs from cities like Miami and St. Petersburg. Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer is quoted as saying, “I dislike the law because it encourages people to stand their ground…when they could just as easily walk away. To me, that’s not a civilized society.” Paul Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association, points out that the law “give[s] citizens more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review.”
Most troubling to Weaver is that the law creates a conclusive presumption that an individual had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm if an he/she can prove that an intruder unlawfully entered (or attempted to unlawfully enter) the individual’s home or vehicle. As Weaver describes it, “If the presumption applies, then there can be no criminal or civil repercussions for the use of deadly force. When found to apply, the presumption’s practical effect is that a jury will no longer be able to decide the factual question of whether the defendant had the reasonable fear necessary to use deadly force ... According to the law, if an intoxicated teenager enters his neighbor’s home by mistaking it for his own, the homeowner can presumably use deadly force. Even if the State could prove that the homeowner knew the intruder was his neighbor’s teenager and that the teen meant no harm, the presumptions entitle him to use deadly force.”
As a result, the law is “causing cases to not be filed at all or to be filed with reduced charges,” according to Russell Smith, President of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Duval County State Attorney Harry Shorstein has observed “a lesser sensitivity to gun violence and death” since the law was passed.
Weaver cites several disturbing incidents from the Sunshine State that highlight these problems, including the following:
Finally, Weaver draws attention to a curious passage in the law that lays out its rationale in part by stating, “WHEREAS, Section 8 of Article I of the State Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves...” Citing the “heavy influence and publicity by the NRA” that preceded the passage of the law, he asks: “What is the real purpose behind including the statement about the right to bear arms under the Florida Constitution? What message is the legislature sending to the citizens of Florida? Is the legislature encouraging the use of firearms when a person acts in self-defense? And if so, should it be?”
Weaver offers several recommendations for the Florida legislature to clarify the intent of the law and provide insight as to how it should function in practice. First, he advises the legislature to create a system to track self-defense claims—whether or not they result in indictments—so that Floridians can see the actual effects of the law. Second, he recommends that the legislature either eliminate the presumptions of reasonable fear and of an intruder’s malicious intent or make these presumptions rebuttable with other evidence. This would discourage a “shoot first mentality” by allowing a jury to determine if an individual’s use of lethal force was justified under the circumstances. Third, the permissible amount of force which can be used in confrontations should be defined; and it should be roughly equivalent to the force of the threat. Finally, the legislature should clearly define “unlawful activity” and “explain the extent to which the provision applies, including the precise time-framing and degree of unlawful activity that will exempt an individual using force from claiming the law’s benefits.”
With 23 other states having adopted versions of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, Weaver’s scholarship could not be more timely. Hopefully, it will help spur a new look at legislation that is at best confusing, and at worst, dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)