The Forgotten Guns in the Workplace Tragedy

In recent years, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has authored and successfully advocated for legislation to allow employees to bring firearms—including handguns and assault weapons—with them to work. Such laws have been enacted in at least nine states and typically require employees to keep their guns secured in their vehicle in company parking lots. In passing this legislation, state legislatures have ignored studies that show: 1) Approximately 81% of workplace homicides are committed with a firearm, and; 2) Workplaces where guns are permitted are five to seven times more likely to be the site of a worker homicide. Additionally, the NRA is now asking lawmakers to support legislation that would allow individuals to sue their employers if they are asked questions about whether they bring firearms to work.

A horrific tragedy that was almost totally ignored by the media and American public illustrates the importance of preventing workplace violence before the first shot is ever fired—in part because untrained civilians cannot be depended upon to respond to such crisis situations effectively.

“A very gruesome scene”
January 7, 2010 started like any other day at ABB, Inc., a firm that makes large transformers for power utilities in St. Louis, Missouri. But just after dawn, as workers from the night shift departed and employees arriving for daytime hours settled in, everything changed.

It was 17 degrees and snowing with 34 MPH wind gusts when ABB employee Timothy Hendron drove up to the front gate of the plant in a Nissan Altima at approximately 6:30 AM. On his hips in holsters were two handguns: a Hi Point .45 caliber semiautomatic and a Hi Point .40 caliber semiautomatic. In the back seat were two long guns: a Tri Star .12 gauge pump action shotgun and a Romarm Cugir 7.62 x. 39 caliber semiautomatic AK-47 rifle. Hendron wore a camouflage storage pouch around his waist stuffed with ammunition. Attached to his belt were additional ammunition magazines. Guard Shakira Johnson, who was manning the security booth that morning, noticed nothing unusual and waved him through the gate.

Hendron parked near the plant’s loading dock and entered a building where a group of employees were gathered for a morning meeting. Hendron immediately leveled his shotgun and opened fire on this group, which included employees Jerry Brown, Rick Lawrence, Derrick Harris, Vickie Wilson, Tony Edwards and Darrell Buckley. They scattered in terror. Most of them ran up a flight of stairs and eventually made their way to the roof of the building. Brown sustained a gunshot wound to his leg, but still managed to escape with this group.

Buckley was shot in the back by a second shotgun blast as he fled toward the office of supervisor Cory Wilson. Buckley and Wilson, 27, hid in a storage closet in the office as Hendron approached. When Hendron reached the office, he fired 30 rounds with his AK-47 rifle through the door of the closet, striking Wilson fatally and wounding Buckley in the abdomen and chest. Buckley managed to call both his wife and 911 as he lay bleeding. He told police he could hear Wilson struggling to breathe, until ultimately the breathing stopped altogether.

After shooting up Wilson’s office, Hendron moved to a different area of the building, where he shot Keith Garner and Terry Mabry in the leg. Hendron then stepped outside onto the sidewalk next to the building and opened fire on employees attempting to escape down an access road in their vehicles. He wounded John Green in the wrist and fatally shot Carlton Carter, who slumped lifeless over his steering wheel.

By this point, St. Louis Police Department officers had responded to the scene after multiple 911 calls. They observed Green and Carter’s cars driving erratically while under fire, but didn’t know whether they were involved in a gunfight with one another or victims of a separate shooter. At this point an officer called in to dispatch to instruct other responders to pull back from the plant “because the shooter was using an assault rifle and his position could not be determined.”

Meanwhile, after shooting Green and Carter, Hendron spotted Stephen Sharp II and Matt Elder carrying Terry Mabry (who couldn’t walk due to his wounded leg) across the parking lot in an attempt to move him to cover. Sharp and Elder were forced to leave Mabry when they heard Hendron’s gunshots closing in behind them. Sharp decided to run to his car to retrieve his .380-caliber Walther PPKS semiautomatic handgun.

Hendron rounded a corner and spotted Mabry lying on the ground. ABB employee Mark Campbell was watching Hendron from a distance while hiding behind a car in the parking lot. He saw Hendron stand directly over the wounded Mabry and shoot him twice with his assault rifle. Hendron then leaned down near Mabry’s face and screamed before shooting him three more times. Another witness stated that what Hendron yelled was “I got you now! You’re going to get what you deserve!”

By this time, Sharp had retrieved his semiautomatic pistol and taken cover behind a car. As Hendron fired 10 to 15 rounds at guard Cordin Hudson inside the security post, Sharp took aim. He fired eight rounds at Hendron—missing every time—before running out of ammunition. Sharp then left cover, sprinting across the parking lot to get away. Hendron fired on Sharp, critically wounding him in the abdomen and bringing him to the ground. Sharp laid still and played dead in fear that Hendron would shoot him again if he moved. The tactic saved his life.

Hendron then walked back into the ABB plant, entered a private office, and took his own life.

When police entered the building minutes later, SWAT commander Michael Deeba found Hendron seated by a desk with a gunshot wound under his chin and one of his handguns near his feet. Hendron’s assault rifle and shotgun were sitting on the desk. Deeba, taking no chances at this point, handcuffed Hendron’s hands to the arms of the chair he was sitting in.

The police later collected ballistic evidence indicating that Hendron fired approximately 115 rounds during the rampage. The plant was pockmarked everywhere with bullet holes. Hendron had killed three ABB employees and wounded five (two critically).

“We should have seen it coming”
The subsequent police investigation of the shooting painted a portrait of a disgruntled employee turned mass murderer.

Hendron’s co-workers recalled that he used to be a “happy-go-lucky guy” who would crack jokes and play billiards with co-workers at local bars/restaurants. Over the past five or six years, however, Hendron had become withdrawn and stopped socializing. In the words of one co-worker, he simply “clammed up.”

Many recalled that Hendron’s behavior had changed after the shift he supervised at ABB was terminated. Hendron was relocated to an administrative position, but didn’t get along with his new boss, so he opted to return to the assembly line alongside individuals he used to supervise. Later, he was passed over as supervisor when his old shift was restored. A much younger man, Cory Wilson, got the job (which made investigators speculate that Hendron had specifically targeted Wilson in the shooting). By this point, Hendron was acting “despondent,” “agitated” and “extreme.”

Kathleen Hendron further explained that her husband felt "ostracized" at ABB for trying to start a union and participating in a lawsuit against the company over its pension plan. She told police he was worried about his impending performance as a witness in the case. He was scheduled to testify in Kansas City on January 11, 2010. Hendron was also paranoid—and became convinced that people from ABB were coming to his property and “messing” with his car and home.

Hendron bought his .45 caliber handgun on January 23, 2008 and the .40 caliber handgun on April 4, 2008. The AK-47 rifle and shotgun were purchased the day before his shooting rampage on January 6, 2010. There is no waiting period for firearm purchases in Missouri.

In hindsight, ABB employee Jeff Ray told police, “We should have seen it coming.” Others concurred, saying they knew Hendron was “capable of doing something like this.”

Wolves, Lions and Lambs
Recently, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre told a Conservative Political Action Conference audience that "the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." LaPierre called for an “armed citizenry” to take back our nation’s streets and communities because—as he sees it—everyone is safer when "the wolves can't tell the difference between the lions and the lambs."

The inference is that would-be murderers will be deterred if they have reason to believe that a potential victim could be armed. Or, if killers can’t be deterred, armed citizens will rise up to shoot and stop them.

It didn’t quite work that way at the ABB plant on January 7, 2010. Stephen Sharp II was able to get his handgun, take aim at Hendron, and fire eight shots. But he missed every single time, and the “lion” quickly became a “lamb” as an enraged Hendron turned his gun on Sharp. One witness recalled Hendron shouting at Sharp, “I’m going to get you. You shot at me. I’m going to get you!” Sharp was critically wounded by Hendron and had to play dead until police arrived to help him.

Nonetheless, the NRA actively pushed a guns in the workplace bill in the Missouri legislature in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. It passed the Missouri House before being shelved in the Senate.

An Ounce of Prevention
The problem with relying on a “good guy” to shoot a “bad guy” is that mass shootings are characterized by panic and pure chaos. The potential for collateral damage in a crossfire is enormous and the killer will always define the rules of engagement.

A preferable strategy is to make sure the shooting never starts in the first place. There is a lot more our country could be doing to prevent homicidal individuals like Timothy Hendron from acquiring small arsenals (in this case two handguns, a shotgun, an AK-47 and hundreds of rounds of ammunition).

For years, dating back to the Brady Bill, the NRA has opposed waiting periods for firearm purchases. In this case, a waiting period could have made Hendron think twice before committing mass murder. The fact that he was able to acquire an assault rifle and a shotgun in a matter of minutes the day before the shooting left him little time to reflect on the consequences of his planned actions.

The ABB shooting rampage was also facilitated by the immediate access that Hendron had to military-style weaponry. Even had Hendron been a prohibited purchaser under federal law, he could have easily acquired the assault rifle and high-capacity ammunition magazines used in the shooting through an unregulated private sale in Missouri—no background check, no paperwork, cash and carry. Hendron’s weapon of choice—a semiautomatic AK-47 with banana clips—not only made it easier for him to wound and kill multiple victims, but also prevented responding law enforcement officers from immediately entering the plant to subdue him. First responders had to wait for a SWAT team with an armored vehicle because they feared they would be outgunned.

The ABB massacre joins a growing list of mass shootings made more lethal due to assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. And the NRA continues to fight all efforts to prohibit such items from being sold in the civilian market.

“I feel like my civil liberties are being taken away from me.”
ABB is certainly not the only company to experience the trauma of workplace violence. A 2008 report from the ASIS Foundation found that workplace violence affects more than two million workers in the United States each year and accounts for about 20% of all violent crime.

The House of Delegates of the American Bar Association passed a resolution critical of laws allowing employees to bring their guns to the workplace, noting that such laws conflict not only with traditional private property rights, but also with employers’ obligations under federal law to provide a safe workplace.

Unfortunately, many Americans do not feel safe at work. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence recently received the following emails from concerned individuals that live in states that allow guns in the workplace:

I am a manager for a glass shop. The owner of the company I work for has recently hired a former employee back as a tech for me to manage. He has informed me that he previously fired the employee due to complications stemming from an addiction to prescription pain medication. This employee now comes to work daily carrying a small semiautomatic pistol. He makes no attempt to "conceal" his weapon and regularly carries it in his waistband or sets it out in the open near his workspace or in the open in the company vehicle. I have voiced my concern with my employer several times, but to no avail. My employer does not confront the issue. I thought the idea behind a concealed weapon was that no one was to see or know that you had the weapon. Also upon reading I found that employers must ensure a safe work environment and as they cannot ban an employee from bringing a weapon to work, must ensure that the employee keeps the weapon "locked up in their vehicle in the parking lot."


I work at a fortune 500 company in Florida and here in the Gunshine State citizens could basically do whatever they want. After the recent events in Arizona, I am scared to work at my employer because at my employer we deal with not just angry customers, but a very intense atmosphere. Also, I don’t only work inside the building, but I work as a repair man for which I deal with even angrier people because they are paying for something that isn’t working correctly. In the atmosphere we live in now, I feel like my civil liberties are being taken away from me. Not sure what to do.

No American should have to go to work and fear for their safety. Peace of mind starts with a workplace that has a no-weapons policy. In the words of the ASIS Foundation: “Enforcing a no-weapons policy for employees as allowed by law is a fundamental component of establishing effective countermeasures [to workplace violence]. Weapons policies should be written, made known to all employees, and consistently enforced. Employer policies prohibiting firearms have been shown to reduce the incidence of homicide in the workplace, and they demonstrate a commitment to safety.”

But equally important are policies that keep individuals who are unstable or violent from stockpiling firearms. President Obama put it well in an editorial he wrote for the Arizona Daily Star: “I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that...an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to buy a gun so easily; that there's room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Second Amendment ... Porous background checks are bad for police officers, for law-abiding citizens and for the sellers themselves. If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else. Clearly, there’s more we can do to prevent gun violence.”

Yes sir, there is.

"Buy it from somebody like me that don’t give a &*%@."

A story from the state of Washington reinforces the dangers of the Gun Show Loophole and the threat it poses to America’s law enforcement officers. It also highlights the investigative benefits of requiring multiple sales reports from federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs)—a topic that has been in the news lately in regards to the illegal trafficking of firearms across the U.S. border into Mexico.

The story begins on the evening of October 31, 2009, when Seattle police officers Timothy Brenton and Britt Sweeney were sitting in their patrol cars discussing a recent traffic stop. Without any warning, a man approached in a white Datsun 210 and shot them both, killing Brenton and wounding Sweeney. He then successfully fled the scene.

Police confronted Christopher Monfort, 42, at his apartment six days later after a tip identified him as a suspect in the shooting. When Monfort drew a gun in response, he was shot, injured, and arrested. Authorities found an arsenal of firearms inside his apartment, including a Kel-Tec SU-16 semiautomatic rifle, a Mossberg shotgun M59O series, an Auto-Ordnance Corporation .45 caliber pistol, a Winchester model 70 7mm rifle with scope, a FN Herstal BelgiQue rifle, and an Interordnance of America M-59/66 7.62 x 39 caliber rifle. They also recovered numerous improvised explosive devices.

The Kel-Tec rifle was linked to the shootings of officers Brenton and Sweeney and traced back to its original purchaser. That purchaser indicated that he sold the rifle to David Devenny, 68.

Local, state and federal authorities were already well-acquainted with Devenny. In 2007, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) investigated a Canadian citizen who bought multiple firearms from Devenny—illegally—at Washington gun shows. Devenny is not an FFL, but because of the Gun Show Loophole, he was able to sell firearms at these events as a private individual without conducting background checks on purchasers or maintaining records of sale.

Devenny himself became the target of ATF investigations in May 2009 when the agency received a multiple sales report indicating that he had purchased nine handguns from one federal firearms licensee in a period of just five business days. When he bought these weapons, Devenny signed a form that stated, “I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of the law.”

During a conversation with an undercover ATF agent at Devenny’s home in January 2010, Devenny “admitted that he was the one that sold the gun that ‘killed the cop and wounded that lady cop.’” Devenny allegedly sold the Kel-Tec rifle at a gun show in Puyallup, Washington, on October 24, 2009, one week before it was used to kill Brenton. Devenny explained that “he did not know to whom he sold the gun because he did not keep records.”

On February 5, 2010, Devenny sold a .40-caliber Glock pistol and a Norinco SKS rifle to an ATF informant who told Devenny that he was under a restraining order that was in place to prevent him from “harassing, stalking and threatening an intimate partner.” On November 15, 2010, an undercover ATF agent and a confidential informant with a felony record went to Devenny’s home. The agent informed Devenny that the informant had two prior felony convictions. Nonetheless, Devenny sold the informant two firearms for $850. He even threw in a free box of ammunition.

In multiple conversations with undercover agents and informants, Devenny made his business practices patently clear. “What I don’t know, I don’t care about … It’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,” he stated. “Buy it from somebody like me that don’t give a **** [about a customer’s prior conviction for domestic violence] … Just as long as you forget where it came from.” Devenny also bragged that he “made good money” during eight years of selling firearms without a federal firearms license.

When authorities arrested Devenny on November 19, they recovered 42 guns and $32,000 in cash from his home. He has been charged with illegally selling firearms to individuals he knew were prohibited purchasers under federal law.“This is about public safety,” said U.S Attorney Jenny Durkan. “Illegal gun sales are a threat to our police and our communities. We will continue to prosecute felons who possess guns illegally. And we will prosecute the people who put those guns in their hands.”

And alleged cop killer Christopher Monfort? He has been charged with aggravated first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder in regards to the shooting of officers Brenton and Sweeney. King County prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

Having benefitted from the anonymity of private gun sales, Monfort has also emerged as high-profile gun rights advocate. At his trial on March 11, 2010, he parroted the National Rifle Association’s insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment, telling the court, “There is a reason why there is gunpowder and explosions on the 4th of July, to remind us, to remind us, that we are in charge. Freedom is not free.”

Certainly one family in America now understands that freedom is not free—that of Officer Timothy Brenton, who served the Seattle community faithfully for nine years before giving his life in defense of public safety.

Virginia's "Phantom Menace"

An all-too-common argument voiced by opponents of sensible gun legislation is the false claim that there is no such thing as the Gun Show Loophole. The loophole, of course, refers to the fact that private individuals who are “not engaged in the business of dealing” firearms can sell guns at gun shows to purchasers without conducting background checks or maintaining any records of sale.

Recently, those who would dismiss the danger of totally unregulated gun sales have been vocal in the Commonwealth of Virginia, where the Gun Show Loophole remains a hot issue.

For starters, Richmond Times-Dispatch columnist Bart Hinkle published an editorial on December 5 where he attacked “the so-called ‘gun-show loophole.’” He referred to a 1997 survey in claiming that only 1 or 2 percent of offenders obtain their weapons from gun shows. That survey, however, was based on the personal statements of convicted criminals and made no attempt to investigate the veracity of their claims or identify, confirm, and trace the crime guns they reported. Hinkle also claimed that “private, person-to-person sales is not limited to gun shows, so calling it a ‘gun-show’ loophole is disingenuous.” If you want to strictly talk semantics, Hinkle is right. Private sellers can also sell guns without any oversight through newspaper classified ads, over the internet, across a kitchen table, or even on a street corner. But does Hinkle think that is supposed to make Virginians feel safer?

Thankfully, Andrew Goddard—whose son Colin was shot four times during the Virginia Tech tragedy and survived—was on hand to respond to Hinkle’s column. In a December 10 letter to the Virginian-Pilot, he pointed out that in 2009, “the [Virginia] State Police arrested 68 people attempting to buy guns at Virginia gun shows who were ineligible” to purchase firearms under federal and state law. Goddard continued: “These were people who knowingly attempted to buy traceable guns from licensed dealers and voluntarily submitted to a background check. Hinkle would have us believe the ludicrous idea that no ineligible buyers went to the tables of unlicensed sellers nearby and bought identical but untraceable guns that they knew were being sold 'cash and carry' with no questions asked.”

The next denial came from Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on December 13. In a report by a New York affiliate of ABC News, reporter Jim Hoffer confronted the governor about the Gun Show Loophole. When asked about why the loophole has been left open in Virginia, McDonnell replied, “It’s not open.” When told that individuals could indeed purchase firearms in Virginia without undergoing a background check, McDonnell replied, “Well, not at a gun show.”

Hoffer had a surprise for McDonnell, however, informing him: “We’ve witnessed [it] firsthand. We’ve gone to a Roanoke Gun Show just a few weeks ago and saw how easy it is for anyone, including a criminal if they wanted to, to buy a gun and not have a question asked, not even asked about their name.”

Hoffer was referring to a brand new undercover video he filmed with Colin Goddard, who is now working with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. During that shopping spree at a Roanoke gun show, Colin purchased the following firearms from private sellers in the span of just one hour: a .40 caliber Sig Sauer Pro semiautomatic pistol, a Mossberg Shotgun, a Tec- 9 semiautomatic assault pistol (along with 50-round ammunition clips), and a .22 caliber semiautomatic carbine. He paid $2,000 in cash, never underwent a single background check, never presented any identification, and never even gave his name. At one point in the video he asks a seller, “Cash and carry, yeah?” to which the seller responds, “Yep, cash and carry!” Stranger yet was that after completing his day at the gun show, Goddard was required to undergo a background check when he turned his firearms over to the Henrico County Police. “If I know it’s so easy,” Goddard says, “I’m sure the person who is trying to bypass a background check also knows that this is an easy way to [buy guns].” [A recent case from Front Royal, in which an unlicensed dealer was indicted for selling firearms to convicted felons, shows how true this is.]

Confronted with the fact that he was part of a video that directly disproved his misstatements, McDonnell told Hoffer, “The [choice] that we made in Virginia is to not regulate the private sales of firearms.” That policy choice, of course, is not popular with Virginia residents. A 2009 poll from Rasmussen Report showed that 76% of Virginians think the Gun Show Loophole should be closed. Indeed, even 69% of National Rifle Association members support closing the loophole.

So, please no more denials. It is a fact that criminals and the dangerously mentally ill can and do buy firearms at Virginia’s gun shows without a background check. The only open question is why McDonnell and his friends still think this is a good idea.

Heeding God's Call in Maryland

The involvement of faith leaders in efforts to strengthen gun laws in the United States goes back decades if not further. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, for example, was originally founded by the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society and other religious organizations in mid-1970s. An exciting campaign known as “Heeding God’s Call,” however, is providing the faith community with new opportunities to take the lead in reducing gun violence in our country. Originally started in Pennsylvania, Heeding God’s Call has now spread south into Maryland.

The mission statement of Heeding God’s Call calls for the campaign to “unite people of faith in the sacred responsibility to protect our brothers, sisters and children.” The campaign realizes it mission by: 1) Helping local faith communities organize advocacy campaigns to encourage gun shops to adopt a code of conduct to deter illegal purchasing and trafficking of handguns; 2) Providing support and resources for faith communities to form multi-racial, ecumenical and interfaith partnerships working together, on both social and legislative levels, to prevent gun violence; 3) Serving as a “connection point” for congregations and partnerships to connect with, learn from and support the work of gun violence prevention organizations and efforts already in place, and ; 4) Advocating for faith communities to make commitments to raise voices and take action to prevent gun violence.

Started in 2008, the signature victory of Heeding God’s Call came in September 2009 when the sustained protests of faith leaders in Philadelphia pressured the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to shut down Colosimo’s Gun Center, a store that was the source of one out of every five crime guns recovered in the city. That same month, a Heeding God’s Call campaign took root in the Pennsylvania state capital, Harrisburg. Now, in 2010, new groups have sprung up in Baltimore and Prince George’s County, Maryland.

On October 20, faith leaders from Baltimore gathered at Clyde’s Sport Shop in Lansdowne, Maryland. They asked the store’s owner, Clyde Blamberg, to sign a 10-point Code of Conduct. This voluntary code asks gun dealers to implement marketing safeguards to prevent illegal “straw” sales; such as videotaping gun sales, deterring fake IDs, and conducting background checks on all store employees. A 2008 report from the Abell Foundation found that Clyde’s was the second largest source of crime guns seized in Baltimore during the period January 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007.

"We are not implying that you break the law," Bishop Douglas Miles of Koinonia Baptist Church told Blamberg. "I'm sure you faithfully follow the procedures. We just want to ask you to help us to help prevent the havoc that is going on in our communities.” “We need people voluntarily who will decide to do the right thing. We can’t just depend on the law to have good communities, we need people of good will,” added Rev. Dr. Eugene Sutton, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland. Standing with Miles and Sutton were Rev. Peter Nord, Presbyter Executive of the Presbytery of Baltimore; Rev. Jack Sharpe, President, Central Maryland Ecumenical Council; Rev. Wolfgang D. Herz-Lane, Synod Bishop, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Imam Earl El-Amin, Muslim Community Cultural Center of Baltimore; Rev. John R. Schol, Baltimore-Washington Conference United Methodist Church; Dr. Arthur Abramson, Executive Director, Baltimore Jewish Council; Rev. Dr. John Deckenback, Central Atlantic Conference United Church of Christ; and Rev. Denis Madden, Auxilliary Bishop, Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore.

“We’re not interested” was Blamberg’s immediate response (Clyde’s supporters find no fault with his business practices, instead pointing a finger at the “culture” of “black males in the city”).

The Baltimore group is not giving up so easy, however. “With a primary goal to reduce the flow of illegal handguns on city streets,” Heeding God’s Call will return to Clyde’s Sports Shop on December 11 at 3:00 PM to again ask Blamberg to sign the Code of Conduct.

Blamberg is not the only gun dealer in Maryland who has been approached by the faith community. On November 13, the Partnership for Renewal in Southern and Central Maryland (PRISCM) conducted a prayer vigil and protest at Realco Guns in Forestville. 60 people attended the event, including religious leaders, gun violence survivors, and elected officials. They were responding to a recent Washington Post investigation that revealed that more than 2,500 guns used in crimes have been traced back to Realco in the past 18 years. In addition, nearly one in every three guns confiscated by authorities in the District of Columbia and Prince George's County was purchased from the dealer.

“We’re not here today to necessarily gang up on Mr. [Carlos] del Real, who is the owner of this shop, but we are here to bring attention to this shop,” said Youth Minister Raimon Jackson of Gethsemane United Methodist Church. “We are here to...let him know that our community will no longer stand for...the traces of guns that are found in connection with this shop.”

Minister Rosita Barnes of St. Paul's Baptist Church contributed a prayer: “Lord we ask that you would touch the buyers, the would-be buyers and the sellers...We pray that each would-be buyer in this shop—or anywhere else—looks deep within themselves where we believe [they] will find God and ask the question, ‘Lord, what shall I do?’”

The faith leaders in Prince George’s County presented del Real with a copy of the Code of Conduct. He accepted it, but like Blamberg, refused to sign. Like their counterparts in Baltimore, however, these faith leaders were not deterred. They announced they, too, would be coming back, and soon.

One Who Can't Walk Away

On the morning of April 16, 2007, students and teachers alike went to their classrooms at Virginia Tech as if it were any other school day. Before the morning was over, 32 of them were murdered, and an additional 17 wounded, in the deadliest shooting rampage in the nation's history. The shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, had previously been evaluated in a psychiatric facility. A judge determined that Cho “present[ed] an eminent danger to [him]self or others as a result of mental illness, or [was] so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for [him]self.” According to federal law, Cho should have been prohibited from buying firearms, but because of a loophole in Virginia law he was able to pass background checks and purchase two handguns.

Colin Goddard was one of the students wounded on that snowy day in April. He was shot four times by Cho—in his left knee, left hip, right shoulder and right hip. A new, critically acclaimed short documentary, “Living for 32,” tells the story of the Virginia Tech tragedy through his eyes (a trailer for the film is available here).

In the film, Kristina Anderson, another survivor who was shot that day, says, “There’s three ways that I’ve seen that people react to things like this. The first is they completely deny it. The second way is probably that they admit it, but also don’t want it to have any effect on their future life and they go on. [The] third person can internalize it, turn it around and put it towards their future to kind of make something come out of that; and that’s a survivor’s mission. It’s usually something that was so traumatic, and so powerful, and so life changing to you that you have to do something about it ... You can’t walk away from it.”

Colin Goddard is the latter type of person. He doesn’t believe that he was “saved” as part of some divine plan. “I was one of seven students to survive out of a class of 17,” he says. “I don’t know why. I know that there were people who were killed all around me who did nothing different than I did. I just got lucky.” Not wanting future Americans to have to rely on similar good fortune, Goddard has chosen to use his story to promote and create a safer America.

Soon after graduating from Virginia Tech, Goddard began interning for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, where he offered to go undercover to expose one of the most dangerous aspects of our nation’s weak gun laws: the Gun Show Loophole. Goddard traveled to gun shows across the country and legally bought everything from an AK-47 to the exact model of handgun that he was shot with with nothing but cash. He never underwent a background check as part of these “private sales,” and in some cases didn’t even have to show identification. Goddard’s father, Andy, explains that his son secretly filmed these purchases to, “make it easy for people; put it right there in front of their faces; hang it in front of them on the TV screen and say, ‘Look, this is legal, all of this is legal; everything that was done is legal. Do you want it to be legal? Do you think that that makes you safe, that this kind of thing’s legal?’”

In “Living for 32,” however, Colin Goddard learns that changing things is tough even when the overwhelming majority of people are on your side. On July 14, 2010, Rep. “Bobby” Scott (D-VA)—the Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security—co-hosted a Congressional Forum with Reps. Mike Castle (R-DE), Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Mike Quigley (D-IL). The forum was designed to explore the merits of H.R. 2324, the “Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009.” Goddard provided moving testimony at the forum—Rep. Castle described Goddard’s words as the “most compelling” he had ever heard during his time in Congress.

Nonetheless, H.R. 2324 has not received a full hearing or a vote on the House floor despite having 112 co-sponsors. “I didn’t think that changing some laws in Washington was going to happen by me telling my story,” Goddard states. “As I learn more I’ll change my strategy, I’ll change it up to do whatever I have to do to get what I want changed ... It’s not changing the whole world, it’s not getting guns from every man. [I’m] talking about two or three small little things that I think would make America a better place.”

“Living for 32” documents Goddard’s courageous journey from tragedy to triumph—which is still in its infancy. The film has received a strong reception after multiple public screenings across the country. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has announced that “Living for 32” is among the eight finalists for this year’s Best Documentary Short award.

The film’s next big screening will take place at New York University’s Skirball Center for Performing Arts on Wednesday, November 17, from 6:00-8:00 PM. Members of the public are invited to attend and can RSVP here.

It will be just one more night of work for Colin Goddard. “There is no meaning in our tragedy,” Kristina Anderson reflects in the film. “We didn’t ask for this, but unfortunately there are people that don’t have a voice anymore, and so it’s kind of like we should speak for them ... I think that’s what Colin has done.”

A Winning Issue

It has already been well chronicled that gun control supporters fared well in the November 2 elections. As the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence pointed out, candidates who endorse common-sense gun laws won Senate races from both sides of the aisle. Victorious on Tuesday were the following Democrats: Barbara Boxer in California; Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand in New York, Ron Wyden in Oregon; Barbara Mikulski in Maryland; Daniel Inouye in Hawaii; Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut, Michael Bennet in Colorado; and Chris Coons in Delaware. Then there is the incoming Republican Senator from Illinois, Mark Kirk, who currently serves as the Co-Chair of the Task Force on Illegal Guns in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Much was made of the fact that the National Rifle Association (NRA) endorsed many Blue Dog Democrats running for re-election in the House, but the support of the gun lobby did little to improve their fortunes. Of the 49 Democratic incumbents who lost in the November 2 elections, 29 (59%) had an A rating from the NRA, 27 were endorsed by the NRA (55%), and 25 (51%) received financial support from the NRA. On the flip side, only three of the 101 Democratic House incumbents who co-sponsored legislation to close the Gun Show Loophole (H.R. 2324) lost on Tuesday. The loophole allows private individuals to sell firearms at gun shows without conducting background checks on purchasers or maintaining records of sale.

One particularly interesting House race took place in Virginia’s 11^th Congressional District, where first-term Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly faced off against Keith Fimian, a local businessman. The 11^th is as “an odd-shaped Congressional District stretching from the rural Virginia horse country near Warrenton, then meandering east through the battlefields at Bull Run, and finally racing north headlong towards the uber-metropolian suburbs of Fairfax and Arlington. Nestled near the armpit of the District lies the impressive headquarters of the National Rifle Association.” In 2009, the 11^th supported the Republican slate, voting for Bob McDonnell as Governor, Bill Bolling as Lieutenant Governor, and Ken Cuccinelli as Attorney General.

The NRA’s endorsement in its home district went to Fimian. The gun issue did not figure large in the race, however, until Fimian made the following controversial comments:

I think that at Virginia Tech, if one of those kids in one of those classrooms was packing heat, I think that would not have happened … The perpetrator of that crime would have thought twice before walking into a classroom if he thought there was any chance of someone being armed and preventing him from doing that.

Gerry Connolly immediately bucked the “conventional wisdom” among Democrats in rural and conservative districts that the gun control issue is “untouchable” and “a loser.” James Walkinshaw, Connolly's campaign manager, told the press that “Keith Fimian's extreme position on guns and outrageous comments about the Virginia Tech tragedy serve to show yet again that he is too extreme for Northern Virginia. Fimian's opposition to closing the Gun Show Loophole, his callous lack of regard for the victims of the tragedy, and belief that guns should be allowed on our schools and college campuses are way out of the mainstream.”

Survivors of the shooting at Virginia Tech also took great offense to Fimian’s remarks. Omar Samaha, who lost his sister Reema during the tragedy, appeared in a television ad sponsored by Americans United for Safe Streets (AUSS). "Ask Keith Fimian why he's protecting criminals, instead of protecting us,” he implored his fellow Virginians. Retired Lt. Col. Peter Read, whose daughter Mary was also killed, accepted an apology from Fimian for his remarks, but noted, “He has yet to decide his answer on the simple question of whether he'll support background checks for every gun sold at a gun show. I need my representative in Congress to know the answer to that question.”

The pressure to clarify his stance on these issues became so intense that Fimian’s campaign literally began to run from questions.

Overcoming a massive wave that saw the Republicans gain 60+ seats in the House, Connolly prevailed in the 11^th on Election Day. He currently holds a 935-vote lead over Fimian, with only 300 ballots left to be counted. As one voter told The Connection Newspapers, “I heard some comments that one of the candidates made about Virginia Tech, and I decided to come out and vote for the other guy.”

Even the blog Red NoVA had strong words on the matter: “Keith’s comments saying that if a student was ‘packing heat’ there would have been fewer deaths were incredibly insensitive and damaging to his cause … To make matters worse, this entire drama unfolded on every network news station in the DC region.”

Time will tell if other Democrats in the Commonwealth and across the country catch on, but public safety was clearly a boon to the party in an otherwise disastrous 2010 election. Resources also make a difference—AUSS spent $450,000 on ads and mailers in the VA-11 race and it paid off. Far from a liability, strong support for policies to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is a career booster.

Celebrating Death

Late last month, the National Rifle Association’s Institute of Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) posted an alert highlighting an editorial by the founder of www.libertyunderfire.org. Quoting the first paragraph of the editorial, the alert read:

In light of the double murder in a prominent California city where two 16 year old thugs with baseball bat and knife bludgeoned an elderly couple to death after first robbing them in the hopes of acquiring more money for their frequent marijuana usage, I wonder if this tragedy may have been avoided had the victims used a gun to protect themselves. Many crime victims also are victims to our society's undying trust that if we are law abiding, others around us will be also, and those who are not will be dealt with swiftly by law enforcement. Such is naive, impossible and a great American myth.

A typical gut reaction to the story would be, “Sure, it would be great if all elderly couples were armed and ready to deal with murderous thugs.” After all, this was a horrific tragedy that involved the senseless loss of precious lives in a heinous crime. Caught up in emotions like anger and fear, one might forget that only 86 Americans were murdered during home burglaries in 2007. During that same year, of course, there were 613 accidental firearm deaths, 12,362 firearm-related homicides, and 17,352 suicides committed with a gun (CDC data, WISQARS tool). Furthermore, the FBI has confirmed through its Uniform Crime Report that victims know their murderers personally more than ¾ of the time (i.e., they are family members, friends, boyfriend/girlfriend, co-workers, acquaintances, etc.).

That has not stopped the NRA from perpetuating the myth that one must constantly have a loaded gun at the ready to deal with evil, faceless criminals, however. Since 1958, the NRA has published a column in its American Rifleman magazine entitled, “The Armed Citizen.” The column highlights “incidents of law-abiding Americans using firearms to halt or prevent crime” and elevates “justified” killers to the status of cult heroes.

Even assuming that the gun lobby has little regard for the Ten Commandments, a closer look at their “Armed Citizen” clippings reveals an overall picture that is far from black and white in terms of guilt and innocence. It seems that the only requirement for inclusion in the column is if a “good guy” shoots a “bad guy(s),” no matter what the particular circumstances of a given case are. Keep in mind, too, that many of these incidents take place in states where the laws governing the use of lethal force have been dramatically liberalized by NRA-drafted “Castle Doctrine/Shoot First” statutes.

Here are some recent examples of “Armed Citizens” Tweeted on the NRA News feed:

• On September 10, an auto sales store owner in Imperial, Missouri, was sleeping at his business when he heard the sounds of a door rattling and glass breaking. Confronting a burglar at the door, he fired two shots from a revolver, killing the man, who was in his late 30s/early 40s. The would-be robber had no weapon of any kind and there was no indication that the shop owner’s life was under threat.
  
  
• On September 16, Michael Pickering was at home in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, when Robert Lee Green, 48, appeared at his kitchen door and began knocking aggressively. Pickering, who knew Green personally, opened the door and told him to leave. According to Pickering, Green then rushed into the house. Pickering shot him in the head with a handgun, killing him instantly. Green had no weapon on him when he was killed. Pickering was taken into custody and an investigation is ongoing.
  
  
• On September 17, Theodore Vinnet, 82, heard a noise outside of his window in St. Rose, Louisiana, and suspected someone was robbing his carport. According to Vinnet, he opened the window and blindly fired a round from his shotgun to scare the burglar. Instead he shot Morris Paul Jr., 39, wounding him. There was no indication that Paul had a weapon or made any threats to the homeowner. Vinnet failed to report the incident to police and was arrested later that day and charged with aggravated battery.
  
  
• On September 21, 15-year-old Otilio Rubio, 16-year-old William Murphy, 17 year-old Zachary Garcia and 15 year-old Austin Clements randomly chose a house to break into in their Davenport, Florida neighborhood. Homeowner Jose Luis Oyola-Aponte, 37, fired a handgun at Rubio and Murphy, hitting Rubio in the head and Murphy in the abdomen. Rubio died the next day at the hospital. Oyola-Aponte initially told police that the Rubio was in his home with another boy when he shot them. Later he changed his story, stating that Rubio had one leg in his window when he shot him. Murphy was shot as he stood outside the house. When police searched Oyola-Aponte’s home, they found a bag of cocaine in a fanny pack, which resulted in his arrest for possession of drugs and intent to sell. There is no indication that the teenagers were armed with weapons of any kind during the break-in. Only Rubio had any previous criminal history.
  

Why would anyone glorify a substance abuser and possible drug dealer who shoots two teenage boys, killing one? And isn’t it patently obvious that all of these incidents could have—and should have—been resolved without the use of lethal force? It is understandable that Americans would want to take reasonable precautions to defend themselves and their families from crimes. But when individuals open fire on unarmed perpetrators—some of whom have yet to commit any crime—it is hard to argue that justice is being done. Our country has never defined property theft as a capital crime—and for good reason.

The NRA might feel that it is “naive” for Americans to have faith in law enforcement, but these trained professionals are there for a reason. One of their primary duties is to ensure that conflicts in local communities do not escalate into unnecessary violence. Whatever the NRA thinks can be accomplished by Americans shooting each other (beyond increased gun sales), it will never lead to a more peaceful society.

A Serious Violation

Despite the critical mid-term elections that are rapidly approaching, the Democratic Congress has seemingly forgotten its base (and agenda) and is instead taking orders from the National Rifle Association (NRA). Two Congressional committees are currently planning hearings on H.R. 2296/S. 941, the NRA-drafted “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Reform and Firearms Modernization Act,” which would severely limit ATF’s ability to shut down corrupt gun dealers.

Under the legislation, it would be “all but impossible” for ATF to revoke the licenses of rogue dealers, even when they repeatedly break federal gun laws. The legislation would require ATF to show that a federally licensed dealer knew the specific law he/she was violating and intentionally disregarded that law, an unusually high and difficult burden of proof. The bill also creates a classification system for violations, but the ATF would only be allowed to revoke a license based on a “Serious” violation. “Minor” violations, such as “losing” hundreds or perhaps thousands of guns, would not warrant revocation of a dealer’s license. H.R. 2296/S. 941 would also allow dealers who have their licenses revoked to transfer their remaining inventory to their "private collection" and sell these guns for 60 days without conducting background checks on purchasers.

The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), had arranged a hearing on S. 941 for September 14, but chose to postpone it because of a “scheduling conflict.” Some speculate it was because of pressure from the Obama administration and grassroots activists who were outraged about Leahy’s priorities. A new date for the hearing has yet to be scheduled. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) is also planning to hold a hearing on H.R. 2296 in the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, date and time TBD.

Gun rights advocates have argued that H.R. 2296/S. 941 is necessary to prevent “heavy-handed” enforcement by the ATF. The NRA claims that it is all too common for the ATF to revoke licenses for “insignificant technical violations—such as improper use of abbreviations or filing records in the wrong order.” The problem is they have not produced a single example of a case where this occurred.

In truth, the ATF rarely uses its power to revoke federal firearm licenses. In 2007, the agency conducted 10,000 inspections and revoked only 100 licenses—which represents just 0.1% of the total population of federally licensed firearms dealers in the U.S.

So why is the NRA pushing H.R. 2296/S. 941? It is well aware that just 1% of federally licensed gun dealers are the source of more than 57% of guns recovered in crimes nationwide, and this small group of extremely bad apples is who the ATF targets for revocation. The NRA wants to protect their profits, and some of these dealers have extremely close ties to the gun lobby.

Sandy Abrams, a former NRA board member, was cited for more than 900 violations of federal law before his Valley Gun license was revoked in 2006. At the time, Valley Gun was ranked 37^th out of 80,000 gun dealers in the country in terms of the number of guns it sold that were later linked to crimes. Almost 500 crime guns were traced back to Abrams’ store in one four-year period alone. The Department of Justice referred to Valley Gun as a “serial violator” and stated that Abrams had “endangered the public by failing to account for hundreds of weapons.” Abrams saw it differently. “Forms fall behind the counter. Or maybe someone throws it away,” he explained to authorities.

It’s clear why the NRA wants H.R. 2296/S. 941 to become law, but the bigger question is why are Democrats moving the legislation? One would think that Democrats would want to motivate their base to vote in the November elections. Gun owners have not traditionally been part of that base. Over the past three presidential elections, voters in gun-owning households have voted Republican 61%-63% of the time. Nor have Democrats received significant largesse from the gun industry. 78% of the money the NRA has contributed in the 2010 election cycle has gone to Republicans. And progressives are certain to take offense at Democrats’ support for an organization that has consistently undermined their agenda (i.e., see the DISCLOSE Act).

Additionally, it seems odd that Democrats would take action on legislation that law enforcement has serious concerns about. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) says H.R. 2296/S. 941 would “significantly impede criminal investigations and diminish the ability of law enforcement to protect their communities from the crime and violence associated with the illegal use of firearms.”

The IACP recognizes the obvious: In a country in which illegal firearms trafficking is epidemic, the ATF needs more authority and resources to put corrupt gun dealers out of business, not less. Concerned citizens can call Speaker Nancy Pelosi at (202) 225-0100. Tell her to cancel hearings on the "ATF Reform and Firearms Modernization Act" and table this dangerous legislation immediately.

What's so Funny About Shooting Government Officials?

When National Rifle Association (NRA) President Charlton Heston hoisted a rifle above his head at the organization’s 2000 convention and shouted the words “from my cold dead hands,” there was no joke about it. He was conveying a serious threat by expressing the organization’s belief that the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to take violent action against our government—“one bullet at a time”—when they deem it has become “tyrannical.” Since the conservative wing of the Supreme Court gave legal backing to this dangerous “Insurrectionist Idea” in 2008, there have been a significant number of violent acts by those who fear and hate our government.

The NRA, however, now appears to find its advocacy for insurrectionism humorous. In a bizarre new video released in late August as part of its “Trigger the Vote” campaign, a group meeting is being held to discuss what should be done about the government coming to take away people’s guns. An old woman in the group, in an expletive-filled tirade reminiscent of Heston, states that if the government wants her gun, “they’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.” Martial arts expert/celebrity Chuck Norris then busts into the room and tells the participants that “there’s only one way to protect our rights,” by registering to vote.

The use of Chuck Norris as a voice of reason is curious, to put it mildly. Just last year, Norris told conservative radio/TV host Glenn Beck, “I don't use [guns] for hunting. I'm not a hunter. But the thing is, it's for protection ... If the government decides to become a tyrannical government, our guns are to protect us against that. And that's really what the Second Amendment is all about.” Norris even warned in March 2009 that a “second American Revolution” will happen “if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.” Norris clearly buys into the insurrectionist ideology his new ad so casually dismisses.

The “Trigger the Vote” campaign is a sharp departure from previous NRA rhetoric, and raises questions about the organization’s motives. The NRA’s embrace of insurrectionism—formalized through its amicus brief in the 2008 D.C. v. Heller case referenced above—has received significant press attention as of late, particularly after armed Americans began to appear at town hall meetings, presidential speeches, and other political events. The NRA might be trying to distance itself from this type of behavior with the “Trigger the Vote” campaign. It is also undoubtedly attempting to reach out to more moderate swing voters before a critical mid-term election.

Even long-time NRA supporters, however, are beginning to question its wisdom on the subject of guns, democracy and freedom. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has done much to advance the gun lobby’s agenda, recently ran ads against Republican Senate candidate and Tea Partier Sharron Angle that strike directly at the Insurrectionist Idea. In one ad, the president of the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada states that Angle’s “Second Amendment remedies” are a clear call for “armed resistance” and denounces them as “crazy” and “way over the line.”

Two weeks after Reid’s “Over the Line” ad ran, the NRA chose not to endorse him in the upcoming election. This prompted some to speculate that the NRA was punishing him for rejecting their extreme ideology. The NRA denied this, however, claiming that its decision had to do with Reid’s support of Supreme Court nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The bottom line, however, is that no matter how hard you try to mask insurrectionist ideology with a public relations campaign, if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig. If the NRA is sincere in its desire to condemn insurrectionism, it should have its legal counsel issue a statement making it clear that the Second Amendment does not provide individuals with the right to shoot government officials when they feel “oppressed” or sense “tyranny.”

Until then, when the NRA chooses to joke about this topic, all Americans should ask: What’s so funny?

"We have rights as well."

A place of worship is a sanctuary and an asylum. It is a place for families and friends to gather and celebrate their religion— a place of prayer that should be safe and free of violence. This may all be compromised in Louisiana by the passage of Act 944, which allows certain citizens with concealed handgun permits to bring their firearms into places of worship.

Under Act 944, churches, synagogues, and mosques are allowed to choose which concealed handgun permit holders—if any—are allowed to bring guns onto their premises. If a place of worship does allow some parishioners to carry handguns, they must announce that decision to their congregation. To attain a concealed handgun permit in Louisiana, applicants must undergo an instant computerized background check and complete nine hours of gun safety training (a one-time requirement). If a permit holder is selected to carry a gun in a place of worship, he/she is supposed to complete eight additional hours of training per year. However, according to the Louisiana State Police, it is up to the place of worship—and not law enforcement—to determine what type of training is acceptable and enforce this policy.

Advocates of the bill claim that the law will make churches safer and make it easier for people to protect themselves, but opponents argue exactly the opposite. Laura Cutilletta, a senior staff attorney for the Legal Community Against Violence, says, “Studies show that the more guns are around, the more opportunities there are for injury and death … If you bring guns into places of worship, they are increasing the danger to the families that are going there.”

During a February incident in an Orlando church, a man was shot in the foot after an NRA instructor’s handgun accidentally discharged during a gun safety class. If highly-trained professionals have accidents with their guns, how can we assume that average citizens with minimal training will perform better?

The rules regarding the use of lethal force in Louisiana are also a concern. A few years ago, the state eliminated residents’ duty to retreat to avoid violent conflicts. In the past, if it was possible for a person to remove him/herself from a violent situation without using deadly force, they were required to do so. But the new law reads, “A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force…and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.” Residents are now justified in shooting and killing someone if they believe they are in imminent danger of receiving “great bodily harm.” Are parishioners in Louisiana’s places of worship more likely to confront deranged mass murders or engage in mundane confrontations with friends, neighbors and acquaintances—confrontations that could escalate into something more dangerous because of the presence of firearms? It’s a question that should have been asked before Act 944 was signed into law.

Religious organizations in Louisiana are divided over the issue of concealed weapons in churches. Bishop Sam Jacobs of the Diocese of Houma-Thibodaux has stated that concealed weapons will not be allowed in any Catholic churches in the state. In contrast, Pastor Steve Folmar of the First Baptist Church of Houma has stated that members of the congregation will be allowed to carry weapons if they wanted to. “By and large, anyone with a permit is a law-abiding citizen and would not be a person with a probability for endangering other people,” he stated.

Louisiana, however, is a “Shall-Issue” state, which means that as long as an applicant passes an instant computerized background check and meets a set of basic requirements, the state must issue a permit. Unfortunately, dangerous individuals can slip through the cracks of this minimal screening. For example, a person who was convicted of a misdemeanor crime of violence may attain a concealed handgun permit as long as five years have passed. Additionally, residents who have previously been the subject of restraining orders can also obtain permits. Mental health screening is also quite menial.

CSGV board member and Presbyterian minister Jim Atwood has stated that it is a travesty that a place of worship would be associated with any policy that promotes violence. “The truest form of religion is about life and peace,” he said. “It is not advocating trust in deadly instruments. There is no such thing as security in the world, but we human beings spend our lives seeking it in wealth, position, power, and guns. True security is loving God with all our hearts, minds, and strength; and our neighbors as ourselves.”

Bishop Sam Jacobs of Louisiana sees it as a human rights issue: “Our churches are places of worship and sacred spaces. Yes, we respect the rights of someone to carry a concealed weapon if they have a permit. But at the same time, we have rights as well and we do not wish our rights to be violated to honor that person’s right.”