What is the state of the union when a madman can come within a whisker of assassinating a member of Congress? When his rantings and ravings and drug use don't stop him from getting a high-capacity magazine? When a sophomore in high school can show up to school with a gun in his backpack, and accidentally shoot two of his classmates?
I'm not sure, but I know I'd really like to hear President Obama address this during his SOTU address--without platitudes, but with an actual plan of action. One which might include demanding that the Senate confirm his nominee to run the ATF forthwith, fixing gaps in government databases of mental health and criminal records, requiring states to share data on those who have been deemed mentally unfit, questioning the intelligence of selling high-capacity magazines to just anyone, allowing concealed carry without a permit, as Arizona and two other states do, wondering whether those with firearms should just be able to meander up next to their member of Congress, and closing loopholes that allow the crazed and criminal to get guns at gun shows while firmly ensconced on terrorist watch lists.
Oh yeah, it would also mean he is FAR to the Right of that key element in our democracy known as the American People:
"Large majorities of Americans agree with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns, and Americans strongly oppose efforts to ban handguns," said Bob Carpenter, vice president of American Viewpoint, the Republican polling firm that joined with Democratic firm Momentum Analysis to conduct the survey. "But Americans and gun owners feel with equal fervor that government must act to get every single record in the background-check system that belongs there and to ensure that every gun sale includes a background check. Most Americans view these goals, protecting gun rights for the law-abiding and keeping guns from criminals, as compatible."
Some findings from the poll results, provided exclusively to The Huffington Post:
-- 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners support fixing gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns.
-- 91 percent of Americans and 93 percent of gun owners support requiring federal agencies to share information about suspected dangerous persons or terrorists to prevent them from buying guns.
-- 89 percent of Americans and 89 percent of gun owners support full funding of the law a unanimous Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed after the Virginia Tech shootings to put more records in the background-check database.
-- 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from.
-------
Closing the so-called "terror gap" has particularly strong support. A 2010 Government Accountability Office report found that during the past six years, individuals on the terror watchlist were able to buy firearms or explosives from licensed U.S. dealers 1,119 times.
The NRA has opposed bipartisan legislation closing the gap on the grounds that the list is flawed -- some individuals are put on the list by mistake, while many who pose legitimate threats are never added.
But this position puts the NRA far to the right of even its members. A survey last year by conservative pollster Frank Luntz found that 82 percent of NRA members supported "prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." Eighty-six percent agreed with the statement that the country can "do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them."
This folks, is about whether we want democracy by ballot or intimidation by bullet. It goes to the very heart of who we are and want to be, and it is most certainly an issue of National Security--or security for our democracy. Lets hope President Obama does the right thing.
Arizona, Up Slightly From Bottom, Is 1/20th of Top Registration Rate
Over the weekend, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) issued a press release pointing out that 28 states have submitting less than 100 mental health records to the background check database for gun sales--a major flaw in the existing system that allowed Jared Loughner to slip through the cracks and buy two guns he should not have been able to purchase. What's more, 21 states have submitted less than 10 such records, including 10 that have submitted none at all.
Arizona, perhaps surprisingly is not one of them--though it was as recently as four years ago, before a new law was passed that remains severely underfunded--about 1/20th the intended funding level. But Arizona is still far below where it should be. The number of records Arizona has submitted--5,036--amounts to 78.8 per 100,000 residents, a rate less than 1/20th that of Virginia, the state with the highest level of compliance, which has submitted 139,185 records--1,739.6 per 100,000 residents. Virginia's rate is almost double that of Michigan in second place--989.8 per 100,000--and more than double New York in third--799.7 per 100,000. This leaves more than a million records out of the system--one of the biggest flaws in the existing system. From the press release:
The Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, bought a shotgun and passed a background check less than a year after he was rejected from the Army in 2008 for habitual drug use. He should have failed the shotgun background check, but he didn't because his record wasn't in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). He went on to buy a second gun, which he used to murder 6 people and injure 13 others.
Federal law prohibits dangerous people including felons, the mentally ill, and drug users from buying or possessing guns. But these people too often slip through the cracks and pass background checks because many key records are not in the database. At Virginia Tech, Seung Hui Cho was declared mentally ill by a judge, thereby barring him from gun possession under federal law - but his record was never submitted to NICS. Cho was then able to pass a background check and buy the guns he used to kill 32 people.
In response to Virginia Tech, Congress unanimously passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which was designed to improve reporting into the system. It requires that all federal agencies report relevant records into NICS, and it created a system of incentives for states to improve their reporting.
But federal data from August 2010 show there is a wide disparity in states' compliance.
The chart on the flip shows how state compliance stood in 2006, before the new law was passed, and how compliance stood as of August 31, 2010, and total records submitted by each state per capita.
In addition, the poll MAIG just released has three questions related to this issue, all of which show strong support for fixing it. Gun owners and the general public agree in equal numbers on all three questions asked:
90% supporting fixing the gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns
89% support fully funding the enforcement of the law Congress passed after the Virginia Tech massacre to prevent people with a history of mental illness from buying guns
83% support the broader proposition of fully enforcing gun laws currently on the books--which encompases both of the above.
Group armed with rifles seen among protesters at Barack Obama speech
A dozen people carrying guns, including at least two with assault rifles, have been spotted mingling among protesters outside a convention centre in Arizona where President Barack Obama was speaking. By Alex Spillius in Washington 6:51AM BST 18 Aug 2009
Phoenix police said the men carrying guns at Monday's event did not need permits, as the state of Arizona has an "open carry" law. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.
One of the men carrying a rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.
Phoenix police Detective J. Oliver, who was monitoring the man at the downtown protest, said police also wanted to make sure no one decided to harm him.
The presence of armed men among protesters has raised fears that the heated debate over Mr Obama's reform agenda could lead to deadly violence.
"Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions," Det Oliver said. "We were keeping peace on both ends."
The other rifle-carrier, a smartly dressed black man who appeared to be in his late 20s, had an AR-15 slung over his shoulder.
Mr Obama was speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars about improving benefits for veterans, and thanking the armed services for their sacrifice.
I had half-forgotten about this event, but it seemed well worth remembering on a number of counts. First, of course, was the sharp contrast with the Bush regime, which often managed to totally disappear any signs of protest when the president was around. Second, was the explanation offered, which I repeat:
One of the men carrying a rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.
Although the unindentified man might well deny it, there is a very clear subtext here. Saying "I still have some freedoms" implies that some have been lost. Saying "In Arizona" implies there is something special about Arizona--as opposed to the United States generally--when it comes to protecting those unidentified freedoms. This is clearly consistent with the paranoia and even secessionist talk that was ramped up along with the Tea Party to a record level around that time. Weapons had also been brought to a number of Tea Party events as well.
Third was the fact that no one was arrested, even though "Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions." In fact, if one of the armed men had said, "You're dead" or "Obama's dead," they almost certainly wouldn't have been arrested for that, either, although they might have been detained. But arresting someone and charging them with threatening the president's life requires ascertaining that a threat is serious, and not just blowing off steam, no matter how stupid that might be.
Pity poor Eric Fuller. He sparked a few emotions, or, more precisely, discomfort: "Witnesses sitting near Fuller told KGUN9 News that Fuller was making them feel very uncomfortable," KGUN9 reported.
He was quickly whisked away and arrested. The moral here is obvious: He should have brought a gun with him. Then no one would have messed around with his rights.
Once again, Americans are up in arms or perchance, better armed and dangerous. Only little more than a week into 2011, citizens have had to confront their fears, feelings, all at gunpoint. It began on a calm, clear Saturday. In a Safeway Store Tucson parking lot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords held one of her customary Congress on the Corner events. It was January 8, 2011. Friends and admirers from each political Party turned out. Suddenly, cordial chatter turned icy cold. gunshots shattered the calm. People were slaughtered. Some survived. However, as a nation, we were all wounded.
Retorts followed. Seemingly, a culture was changed, or was it? Just as has occurred, many times in the recent past, people quickly took sides. Blame was ballied about. Solutions were also presented. Some argued for stricter gun control laws. Others used the occasion to validate a need for less restrictive restraints on gun ownership. Persons who held a position similar to the most prominent victim proposed a need to protect themselves.
This evening on the Situation Room, Blitzer had on retired Army Colonel Bill Badger, in order to tell the story of his part in the takedown of Jared Loughner. I can't find any video of it, but Badger's composure and recall of detail in retelling the story makes the segment worthwhile on its own. As the interview is wrapping up, the Colonel makes use of his brief moment of fame to actually try and make something good come out of this travesy:
BLITZER: Colonel, do you own or carry a gun?
BADGER: No.
I have got a 21-year-old son. And when he was born, my wife made me get rid of .38. I had one up until that time.
But, you know, if I could say something right now, that something is drastically wrong with what's going on in our United States right now. And when an individual is turned down to get into the military and then can be -- is able to go out and buy a .9-millimeter Glock pistol, and he had one of the -- or his clips were the extended clips that were limited to law enforcement only, and, you know, that -- or somebody has to put a stop to that.
BLITZER: Colonel Bill Badger, retired U.S. Army, thanks so much, not only for joining us. Much more importantly, thanks for doing what you did Saturday morning in Tucson. We appreciate it very much.
BADGER: Wolf, and thank you. And keep up the great work.
Doubtful this will put the whole issue of "maybe doing something to stop this happening again" into serious discussion but having a 74 year old Army veteran cool enough to disarm a maniac even after being shot in the head himself speak out in favour of better gun control is a pretty decent opening for the topic. Between him and the Sherriff, some sterotypically right wing figures have stepped up to speak for sanity.
I don't have too much to add to the Giffords debate, but in case these points haven't been made (probably unlikely) or haven't been made prominently enough, let me raise three issues about the Arizona massacre:
Implicit versus explicit eliminationist rhetoric. There has been much justifiable focus on various forms of explicit, or even slightly veiled but still militant/aggressive rhetoric in the political discourse. I think more attention needs to go the implicit calls for violence, usually in the form of portraying adversaries as the extremes of evil, and even direct equation with history's greatest monsters like Stalin, Mao and of course, that Austrian painter who went on to a bad end. The thing about calling Obama Hitler, or Stalin is, you don't fight Stalin by organizing a petition drive, or a peaceful protest. He liquidates his enemies. You fight him tooth and nail in every alley and from every dark corner. By making such comparisons you foment in your supporters a romantic fantasy of being the French Résistance (perhaps the only time right wingers have anything good to say about France). After all, right wingers have spent a lot of effort comparing anyone who wants to negotiate with anyone considered "bad" to Chamberlain giving away Czechoslovakia to the Nazis. So if the enemy is Hitler, what else is there but violence to stop him? He cannot be appeased, it is either total victory for freedom or totalitarianism.
This debate should have happened years ago. While I support this issue being a major debate as the extremity of the crime certainly warrants the attention, I'm not alone in noting that there have been a frightening number of incidents of politically motivated violence, including numerous murders in recent years. While more people died and were injured this time than at some of the others, I fear that the real distinction here as far as Very Serious People are concerned is that actual Villagers or people the Villagers know were hurt and killed. Why didn't this debate erupt say when Dr. Tiller was murdered, or when 2 were murdered at the Knoxville church for being too liberal by the guy who wanted to get everyone in Bernie Goldberg's book? If in six months another madman kills even more people for political reasons but none of them are "important" people as far as Versailles is concerned, will a similar major discussion happen? I hope so but I think not.
Does the right have any actual policy to handle this? Lest the debate careen off into oblivion, some attempt to suggest any serious ideas for how to prevent this sort of thing from happening should occur. As it's clear the right is not going to fall on their knees and beg forgiveness for their rhetorical extremism, they should be challenged to suggest some actual laws that might have stopped this or the other incidents of political violence. It not enough to provide guards to members of Congress at public events; can the government guard every "liberal" Church or IRS office? There's far too many targets for lone lunatics to go after, so what is the right going to suggest we do about that? My suspicion is that they have no ideas for this. The right wing cupboard is bare. As for the left, it's true that the right has succeeded in making all gun control politically toxic, at least liberalism has ideas that might have either prevented this (such as making it easier to bar the mentally unfit from gun possession) to reducing the harm done (restore restrictions on magazine sizes that lapsed in the AWB) to even helping the mentally unsound before they become violent (say by a program that makes it easier to get people into free psychological help). At the very least, forcing the right to say (in effect) "We have no ideas, so America will just have to live with people going on killing sprees every six months..." is important in exposing the limits of their vision for life and society.
And to the inevitable and highly cynical right wing responses to any policy suggestions to this tragedy, let us only heap scorn. We who survive such tragedies have a responsibility to the living to prevent their recurrence. If that requires "politicizing a tragedy" or a "power grab" then I say politicize and grab while asking the critics "so what are you going to say to the next group of bereaved people to explain what you did to prevent this from taking away someone they love from a known threat?" I think people expect a little more inspiration from the political class than "shit happens, carry a gun."
Clearly, there's a lot of anger in America right now.
Much of it justified, as some can afford shower curtain rings that would dwarf others' weekly wages (and the latter are the ones who are lucky enough to have jobs). When you take this fact, combine it with the Orwellian "Newspeak" so pervasive in our media (which David Neiwert has written so articulately about), and multiply that by the NRA's mission to fight for the rights of criminals, the mentally ill and even terrorists to have access to guns, you have a toxic stew, ready to erupt.
Scene: Panama City, Florida. A school board meeting is interrupted by a man with a criminal record of assault (with a gun) waving a gun, and furious that his wife lost her job, his benefits have run out and the board members were unwilling to raise sales taxes so she and others like her wouldn't be fired (it should be noted that reports are still sketchy, so not all of what he says about his wife and himself during the 5 minutes when the board members try and talk him down can be confirmed yet).
A new report this week from Mayors Against Illegal Guns reveals the massive--and growing--role played in the Mexican drug war by crime guns trafficked into Mexico from US states--particularly border states, with Arizona leading the way on a per-capita basis. This comes just on the heels of a new report from the Pew Hispanic Center, showing a dramatic drop in the rate of illegal immigration.
A press release from Mayors Against Illegal Guns that accompanied the report stated:
The more than 500 members of the bi-partisan coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns today released a new report, entitled The Movement of Guns Across the U.S.-Mexico Border, that reveals that Southwest border states supplied a disproportionate number of crime guns to Mexico from 2006 to 2009. The report analyzes new data made available to Mayors Against Illegal Guns by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The new data, released by the coalition co-chaired by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, builds on the coalition's first groundbreaking source state analysis, The Movement of Illegal Guns in America, released in December 2008.
"Illegal guns and their accompanying violence devastate communities across our country, now we know more about how guns purchased here have helped sustain violent drug wars in Mexico," said coalition co-chair and New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. "I hope this report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a wake up call for policy makers - it is too easy for criminals and traffickers to get guns."
Just as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer finally admits that there are no beheaded corpses in her state's deserts. these two reports combine to show that the entire wave of hysteria she's been riding and helping to foment has everything exactly backwards: hard times are not just reducing illegal immigration, according to Pew, but are actually reducing the total number of undocumented immigrants in the US, at the same time that US-bought guns are exporting violence to Mexico.
Perhaps most striking is the dramatic decrease in the "Time-to-Crime" in Mexico, which experts regard as a key indicator of illegal gun trafficking:
We are spending $2 Billion a week in Afghanistan. If you want to see zeros, that's $2,000,000,000.00 a week. It also means $104 Billion a year.
Meanwhile, we can't afford to keep our education budgets in functional condition. We can't reduce our National Debt. We can't bring down our operating deficit. And we are spending a fortune on foreign servicing (read China) of our debt.
As kovie noted in Quick Hits, today the SCOTUS ruled that that Second Amendment "applies equally to the federal government and the states", as Alito wrote in his opinion. The case was around a ban on handguns in Chicago and the suburb of Oak Park, IL, which the Brady Center says is the last two places where such bans exist, following the SCOTUS decision in the Heller decision to strike down DC's ban here. Technically the decision did not strike down the ban, but ordered a federal appeals court to re-examine the decision. But the general consensus I'm hearing appears to be that the laws will be struck down sooner or later.
Post-Heller, the District of Columbia officials rightfully enacted stringent requirements in order to get a handgun, including demonstrating knowledge of firearms use and DC laws, completing a firearms safety course including at least four hours of instruction, fingerprinting, submitting photographs, background check, and others (and speaking as a resident, I'm grateful for these restrictions). All of these are reasonable, and if they go down, DC will probably once again be known as the murder capital of the nation. Not to mention that the NRA-sponsored amendment to the Voting Rights Act that was, which would eliminate other restrictions like a ban on firearms within a certain distance from schools or playgrounds, as well as banning the city from enacting any laws relating to firearms. The amendment was rejected as the basis for a compromise on the back of unanimous opposition from the DC Council and the Mayor, but was considered for a time by Norton and drives home the point on how gun "rights" advocates are hell-bent on eliminating what's left of urban gun control among nearly 600,000 residents (and more when VA and MD residents stream in on weekdays) in the nation's capital.
But hey, as Adam notes at DailyKos, if you're concerned about your safety, Alito and the majority says you can just get your own damn gun:
[P]etitioners and many others who live in high-crime areas dispute the proposition that the Second Amendment right does not protect minorities and those lacking political clout. The plight of Chicagoans living in high-crime areas was recently highlighted when two Illinois legislators representing Chicago districts called on the Governor to deploy the Illinois National Guard to patrol the City's streets. The legislators noted that the number of Chicago homicide victims during the current year equaled the number of American soldiers killed during that same period in Afghanistan and Iraq and that 80% of the Chicago victims were black. Amici supporting incorporation of the right to keep and bear arms contend that the right is especially important for women and members of other groups that may be especially vulnerable to violent crime. If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of handguns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.
In somewhat better SCOTUS news today, the court also ruled that a right-wing Christian group can't get legal funding and recognition from a California college if they discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.
The Supreme Court says a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join.
The court on Monday turned away an appeal from the Christian Legal Society, which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law.
The CLS requires that voting members sign a statement of faith and regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" as being inconsistent with that faith.
But Hastings said no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.
The court upheld the lower court rulings saying the Christian group's First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise were not violated by the college's decision.
The court also rejected a challenge to San Francisco's universal health care law from business groups upset that businesses are required to cover their workers or chip in towards city coverage. Many businesses have passed this fee along to its consumers. On my last visit to SF, there was a surcharge leveled on consumers as well, as the restaurant I visited (Dosa) noted at the bottom of the menu an additional fee on top of my bill. On the other hand, the program has covered 53,000 individuals and, according to the city, resulted in a 70% drop in emergency room visits at San Francisco General Hospital.
(I was going to write something about the NRA & gun madness this weekend. But then things got crowded. And then Cliff contacted me. This is the result. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
This week two fresh pieces of evidence came to light that prove once again that this country's guns nuts & the leadership of the NRA (one in the same?) are seriously out of touch with anything one might call reality.
Then there are the open carry nuts (see video #2 below), who think it makes sense to openly display their weapons while you're eating at a local diner or getting your coffee at Starbucks. Sadly for them, a new poll commissioned by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun violence dispels any myth that the public is with them on this one either.
As Paul Rosenberg has pointed out in this space before, The NRA represents nobody except the big gun manufacturers.
Full Disclosure: I am proud to consult for Mayors Against Illegal Guns & The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence
And have you noticed that even when they are "in Session" they throw away most of Monday and Friday with traveling? And have you noticed that from Tuesday to Thursday Senators are rarely on the floor, so they are spending more time having Quorum Calls than they are debating?
Have you noticed that when they are debating neither side ever seems to be actually "debating" with the other side... like they don't respond to each others' comments and queries? And have you noticed that even when they do comment on a question from the other side they never really provide an accurate answer?
When Democrats lost their House and Senate majorities in 1994, polling for organized labor showed that the top issue for union members voting Republican for Congress was guns, something that had nothing to do with unions.
In 2000, when Al Gore lost West Virginia, Gore's state manager later said that the top three reasons for Gore's defeat there were guns, guns and guns. Guns probably played a factor in not only Gore's loss of his home state of Tennessee but in every state that even touched Tennessee.
It was the presidential loss in 2000, on top of the congressional losses in 1994, that convinced the Democratic Party to simply shut up on guns. As much as many Democratic elected officials wanted to legislate the issue, they realized that they couldn't get re-elected if they kept offending so many union members, white males and rural and small-town voters on the gun issue.
Gun-control advocates had plenty of other reasons to support Democrats, so remaining silent on the issue didn't hurt the party that much. Rather, it enabled it to have a conversation with voters who otherwise would not listen as long as guns were on the table.
The problem with this conventional wisdom is that Democrats have not improved their share of the vote among gun owners since 2000. Whatever "conversation" Democrats ended up having with gun owners, it did not translate into votes. What did happen, however, is that the percentage of gun owners in the electorate dropped:
Gun Households In Presidential Elections, 2000-2008
Year
% of Electorate
Dem %
2000
48%
36%
2004
41%
36%
2008
42%
37%
Gore and Kerry received identical percentages of the overall vote, and identical percentages of the gun household vote. Obama improved among gun owners, but only by 1%. Given that he improved the Democratic share of the overall vote by 4.5%, that means that his increased vote percentage came disproportionately from non-gun owners.
Democratic outreach to gun owners failed to result in new votes. However, Democrats did benefit from a long-term decline in the percentages of Americans who live in a gun owning household. The change is rather striking (more in the extended entry):
Gun rights advocates have filed a new lawsuit in D.C. federal court, this time seeking to make it possible for American expats to buy guns when they're back home in the United States.
The suit, filed Friday at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges a government requirement that forces gun buyers without a federal firearms license to fill out their state of residence on a special transaction form. It also targets a law that bar gun dealers from selling fire arms to non-U.S. residents for anything other than hunting or sports purposes.
STATE BLOGS
