Gun industry found 'positive feelings' among gun owners to reform

 In 2019, with the horrors of the Parkland mass shooting still fresh in most Americans’ minds, the gun industry funded a study to “determine the most effective ways of communicating with the American public about the benefits of firearm ownership,” reported The Trace/Rolling Stone.                                  

Its findings, which were not shared with the public, indicated that Americans who support gun ownership could be persuaded by the value of reforms that are vigorously opposed by the gun industry, gun rights groups, and Republican lawmakers. Those reforms include universal background checks, red flag laws, and even a gun registry, which vocal gun rights advocates have falsely claimed made the Holocaust possible.

The study, titled “Communicating With The American Public About Firearm Ownership,” was commissioned by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a nonprofit that serves as the gun industry’s trade group, founded to ensure the survival of its dues-paying members, which include firearms manufacturers, retailers, and ranges. An online survey administered to more than 4,000 Americans tested the power of 24 pro-gun and 24 anti-gun messages. The respondents were divided into multiple categories, including those who had a “positive feeling” about gun ownership.

While the study does not cite Parkland or any mass shooting as a reason for its undertaking, it was conducted at a moment when substantial reforms seemed possible. The indiscriminate killing of students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School had galvanized the nation in a manner not seen since Newtown, and the pressure for regulation and accountability was high. Many young Americans, in particular, who had come of age as mass shootings became commonplace, held a negative view of firearms, according to industry research, and that posed a problem for future business. There was a need, it seemed, to find the most resonant ways to convey the value of gun ownership.  

“While the sports shooting industry devotes substantial funding and effort to communications initiatives to boost participation in and support for sport shooting and firearms,” the study notes, “little reliable data exists indicating which messages and communications themes work best.” 

The Trace and Rolling Stone obtained a copy of the study for an ongoing series that seeks to unearth what the gun industry conceals about its customers and practices from public view. The NSSF declined to provide a comment for this story.

On Wednesday, August 27, a 23-year-old shooter, who legally purchased three firearms recovered by law enforcement, opened fire at a Catholic school in Minneapolis, murdering two children and injuring 14 more before taking their own life. The setting and the ages of the victims evoked the 2022 massacre in Uvalde, Texas. That year, President Joe Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act into law, a gun bill that contained politically safe reforms, such as the allocation of funds for mental health resources and school safety. 

After decades of congressional gridlock on the issue, the package was hailed as an epic breakthrough, a valiant example of bipartisan compromise that still mostly relied on Democrats for passage. The NSSF study, then, raises a key question: Why have Republican lawmakers largely stood against more significant reforms, let alone any reform at all? As the study indicates, many people with a favorable view of gun ownership appear open to going further than the lawmakers and special interests who represent them.

For people who the study says have a “positive feeling” about gun ownership, the study ranks the top five arguments for and against it. The top arguments in favor almost all revolve around rights, beginning with “Self-defense is a basic right,” followed by “Americans have the right to own a gun,” “It’s people’s right as Americans to own a gun,” and “Gun ownership is protected by the Constitution.” The remaining argument, which came in at No. 3, states, “Owning and training with a firearm teaches important skills, including responsibility, accuracy, safe gun handling, self-defense, and strategies to avoid dangerous situations.”

When told to rank the “most effective arguments against firearm ownership,” these same respondents chose policies that the gun industry and Republican lawmakers actively oppose. The argument the group found to be most effective is: “Universal background checks for gun sales and transactions are supported by approximately 85 percent of Americans.” 

Other statements deemed highly effective by these respondents included “Guns should be licensed just like cars,” “State red flag laws to remove guns from those who show warning signs of violence keep guns out of the hands of those who would harm themselves or others,” “Gun violence is an epidemic in the U.S.,” and “Common sense gun laws to close loopholes in current gun laws will save lives and prevent gun violence.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh's radicalism is mainstream today

April 20th marked the 30th anniversary of the young military veteran and far-right radical, Timothy McVeigh’s attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City . The bombing was met with near-universal revulsion at the carnage he created and at the ideology that inspired it, reported The Guardian.

A crowd yelled “baby killer” – and worse – as 26-year-old Timothy McVeigh was led away in chains from a courthouse in rural Oklahoma where the FBI caught up with him two days after the bombing. He had the same crew cut he’d sported in his army days and stone cold eyes.

An hour and a half’s drive to the south, 168 people lay dead, most of them office workers who had been providing government services, along with 19 young children in a day care centre directly above the spot where McVeigh parked his moving truck packed with ammonium nitrate and other explosives.

The children were, most likely, his prime target.

Bill Clinton, then president, rallied the country by vowing justice that would be “swift, certain and severe”. His attorney general wasted no time announcing she would seek the death penalty. Whatever flirtation the country had been entertaining with rightwing militia movements in the wake of a national assault weapons ban that enraged gun rights activists, and controversies over the heavy-handedness of federal law enforcement, came screeching to a halt.

Even elements of the radical right, McVeigh’s fellow travellers, were stunned by the sight of firefighters pulling dead babies out of the wreckage. Before the bombing, they had been full of heady talk of war against the government, but many of them imagined this would involve an attack on federal judges who had displeased the movement, or blowing up a building at night.

“Didn’t he case the place?” one acquaintance of McVeigh’s asked incredulously. “The bastard has put the Patriot movement back 30 years,” lamented an erstwhile mentor of McVeigh’s from Arizona.

Fast-forward those 30 years, and the movement is not only very much revived but has moved from the outer fringes of American politics to the very centre.

McVeigh wanted to strike at what he saw as a corrupt, secretive cabal running the US government – what Donald Trump and his acolytes refer to as the Deep State and are now busy dismantling.

McVeigh believed the US had no business extending its influence around the world or becoming entangled in foreign wars when white working-class Americans from industrial cities such as Buffalo, his home town, were suffering – an early expression of Trump’s America First ideology, which won him tens of millions of blue-collar votes last November.

McVeigh’s favourite book, a white supremacist power fantasy called The Turner Diaries, blamed a cabal of Jews, black people and internationalists for perverting America’s true destiny – a sentiment now finding coded expression in Trump’s twin wars on immigration and on diversity, equity and inclusion.

McVeigh believed it was up to ordinary citizens like him to take up arms and fight against a tyrannical ruling order, no matter the cost in innocent lives, because that was what the country’s founders had done during the American war of independence. The T-shirt he wore when he was arrested carried a quote from Thomas Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

During the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021, the QAnon-friendly Republican congresswoman Lauren Boebert expressed much the same sentiment as she cheered on the rioters smashing and bloodying their way past uniformed police officers into the halls of Congress. “Today is 1776,” she tweeted.

The parallels have not been lost on political veterans of the 1990s. Clinton himself observed in a recent HBO documentary: “The words [McVeigh] used, the arguments he made, literally sound like the mainstream today. Like he won!”

To read more CLICK HERE

 

'What is wrong with our country?'

Mother jailed for contempt for ignoring family reunification therapy with husband who allegedly abused children

Across Colorado, children are in danger because of forced family reunification therapy. The process, meant to rebuild a parent-child relationship strained by separation or divorce, can be mandated by a family judge even when the child has accused a parent of abuse, reported The Washington Post.

That was the case for Rachel Pickrel-Hawkins, who was joined by dozens of people — mostly mothers — urging Colorado courts to reevaluate how they handle child custody rulings, particularly family reunification therapy.

The 48-year-old mother of six made headlines last week when she was jailed for contempt after opposing family reunification for her two youngest sons and their father, a former police sergeant who was charged July 29 with sexually assaulting three of their daughters and physically abusing one son.

Christopher Estoll, an attorney for Michael Hawkins, 55, did not immediately respond to request for comment but has previously denied the accusations on his client’s behalf. In an Aug. 1 court filing, Estoll said the accusations were “not supported by evidence” and characterized Pickrel-Hawkins as a “not credible” witness who manipulated the couple’s children.

Hawkins, an Aurora, Colo., officer who in 2012 was hailed among the first responders to the deadly movie theater shooting in Aurora, remains free on bond with ankle monitoring. Pickrel-Hawkins, meanwhile, must report to weekend jail for seven weeks.

During Thursday’s rally outside the state Supreme Court, Pickrel-Hawkins said parents like her who are mired in custody battles following relationships marked by alleged domestic violence are silenced — “by gag orders, by going to jail, silenced to say anything else or they’ll get less time with their children.”

“What is wrong with our country?” Pickrel-Hawkins asked the crowd. “What is wrong with our state?”

Since 2010, 30 children have been killed by abusive parents, with eight of those deaths coming in 2023 alone, Colorado state Rep. Meg Froelich (D) said in a letter sent this week to Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Monica Márquez. Froelich said she hopes the letter, signed by a mix of Colorado lawmakers and child-safety advocates, will prompt the new chief justice to push the state’s family courts to embrace changes that include ensuring family court judges and family reunification counselors are trained to understand domestic violence and trauma.

Crucially, Froelich said, children must be given a voice in the courtroom and should be allowed to address a judge during custody hearings without the parents present. The current system prioritizes the wishes of a parent who wants to reconnect with their child over the child’s preferences or stated safety concerns, Froelich said.

Under Colorado’s embattled family court system, some reunification therapy counselors have pressured children to reconcile with the parent who abused them — something that would never be asked of victims in other scenarios, Froelich said.

“Since when is the twist of fate that you’re biologically linked mean that you should move toward reconciliation and forgiveness?” Froelich said following the rally. “We’d never say that to a sexual assault survivor. But [Pickrel-Hawkins’s] children were told to go to their father and forgive him.”

According to an affidavit for Hawkins’s arrest, allegations of his abuse stretch back nearly two decades and include claims that Hawkins repeatedly raped his daughter and sexually abused his adopted daughters from Pickrel-Hawkins’s previous relationship, groping them beneath their underwear. He is also accused of using police restraint tactics on the children and forcing his children to witness or participate in animal cruelty.

Colorado’s legislature has enacted some family court restructuring in recent years, including a bill passed last year that restricts the use of family reunification camps, or situations that isolate a child from their preferred or bonded parent to improve their relationship with an estranged parent.

Still, Froelich said Pickrel-Hawkins’s situation proves more changes are needed. Fighting the custody arrangements has put Pickrel-Hawkins deeply in debt and forced her to live in a domestic violence shelter with her two youngest children.

Pickrel-Hawkins told The Washington Post through a representative that she hoped sustained attention would remain on her case and others like it, and that the news media would “thoroughly investigate, stand up, and speak for those who have been wrongfully silenced and punished for protecting the innocent children that desperately need our protection most.”

Pickrel-Hawkins declined a phone interview Friday afternoon, indicating she would be spending the last hours of the day with her children before returning to jail.

To read more CLICK HERE

Creators: Supreme Court's 'Modest' Gun Ruling Hardly a Victory

Matthew T. Mangino
Creators
June 24, 2024

Last Friday, advocates for sensible gun access applauded a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision appeared to slow a trend by the court to eradicate any limitation on gun ownership.

The Supreme Court ruled that the government can take guns away from people subject to restraining orders for domestic violence. According to Adam Liptak of The New York Times, just two years ago, the court expanded the scope of the Second Amendment when it formulated a new test to assess all gun-related laws, one that would judge constitutionality by looking to tradition and historical practices.

Recently, I wrote about the Supreme Court's "new" method of interpreting the U.S. Constitution — "history and tradition." History and tradition is a spinoff of "originalism." Former Justice Antonin Scalia was a proponent of originalism and argued that high court decisions should be grounded in the moment the Constitution was written, to prevent judges from substituting their values for the wisdom of the nation's founders.

In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, a New York state law required anyone wanting to carry a concealed handgun outside the home must show "proper cause" for the license.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects a broad right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. In the future, according to Amy Howe of the SCOTUSblog, courts should uphold gun restrictions only if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history.

In United States v. Rahimi, decided Friday, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a Texas man could be prosecuted under federal law making it a crime for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess guns. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for an 8-1 majority, wrote, "Since the founding, our nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms."

The court found through history and tradition that the Second Amendment has limits. That is important. Roberts went on to write, "The appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition."

Court watchers held their breath waiting on the Court's decision. Could the Court find that a domestic abuser, deemed dangerous, should be allowed to possess a gun?

As little as 10 years ago, it would have been unthinkable that persons found to have battered their partners would be guaranteed the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Oh, but how things have changed. The 6-3 conservative bent of the Supreme Court has some Americans celebrating as a "victory" what would have, not so long ago, been thought of as a "no-brainer" — disarming perpetrators of domestic violence.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, wrote that the government cannot "strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order — if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime."

Apparently, proving someone is a batterer in civil court, in Thomas' mind, is not enough to disarm the person. Only, for now, a criminal conviction would be adequate.

According to Liptak, the chief justice said the court's opinion was modest. "We conclude," Roberts wrote, "only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment."

For those supporting sensible gun restrictions, this "modest" decision is hardly a victory; it is merely a reminder of how much ground has been lost in the battle to reduce the number of injuries and deaths as the result of easy access to firearms.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book "The Executioner's Toll, 2010" was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

To read more CLICK HERE

U.S. Supreme Court delves into domestic violence and Second Amendment

“The only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.”

-U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar

Supreme Court cases often come with sympathetic protagonists: longtime devoted partners who want to celebrate their love with marriage, or devout people of faith who say government policies keep them from living out their beliefs,, writes Robert Barnes of the Washington Post.

But in a major Second Amendment case that comes before the Supreme Court Tuesday, the Biden administration presents an almost textbook antihero in defending a federal law that bars people who are under domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.

Zackey Rahimi’s transgressions with guns, detailed in the government’s brief, range from the terrifying — shooting at a witness who saw Rahimi drag his child’s mother by her hair into his car — to the bewildering — firing a few rounds into the air outside a Whataburger when his friend’s credit card was rejected.

When Rahimi was arrested at his Texas home in early 2021, the government says, officers found “a .45-caliber pistol, a .308-caliber rifle, magazines, ammunition, and a copy of the protective order” a judge had issued that forbade him from possessing firearms.

In her brief, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar reminded the court of something it recognized in a 2014 case: “the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.”

But it is a Supreme Court decision of more recent vintage that the court will be examining Tuesday. The justices will for the first time take an extensive look at the fallout from their 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires the government to point to historical analogues when defending laws that limit Second Amendment rights.

The decision has created considerable churn in lower courts, with dozens of gun-control laws declared suspect as a result of the justices’ new test. The Rahimi case asks a pointed question of the conservative justices who formed the Bruen majority: Does their test mean Congress might lack the authority to disarm those who are under domestic violence protection orders?

Gun rights advocates concede the combination of the issue at hand — the universally lauded attempt to protect domestic abuse victims — and an unsympathetic defendant creates a better climate for the government than it sometimes faces at the Supreme Court, especially when the issue is gun control.

“It’s certainly not the case I would have picked to go to the Supreme Court” as the first review after Bruen, said Clark M. Neily III, senior vice president for legal studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, which has strongly advocated Second Amendment rights. “But look, Public Interest Litigation 101 is you try to position the case in a way that is as sympathetic for your side as is possible. I don’t know whether the DOJ sequenced the Rahimi case strategically, but if they did, hats off to them.”

Neily was part of the team behind the lawsuit that led to District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark 2008 decision that established a Second Amendment right of gun ownership for individuals. Among his clients was Dick Heller, who carried a gun in his job as a security officer in federal buildings but was forbidden from keeping one for personal protection in his home.

Neily has filed an amicus brief supporting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision for Rahimi that ruled unconstitutional the federal statute barring gun possession by those subject to civil protective orders. His brief says the law does not provide adequate due process before suspending someone’s Second Amendment rights. Congress could fix the law, he wrote, but it is not the court’s role to do so.

Notably, Neily’s brief never mentions the subject of the case by name. Rahimi, Neily said in an interview, seems to be someone “who you wouldn’t want running around with guns, and I wouldn’t want running around with guns.”

The unanimous 5th circuit panel conceded Rahimi was “hardly a model citizen,” although his criminal record at the time the protective order was issued was scant. The judges found Rahimi was among those whose right to a weapon is protected by the Second Amendment, and rejected the historical comparisons advanced by the government to justify the law.

Preventing domestic abuse was “doubtless” a salutary policy goal, added Judge Cory T. Wilson, who was nominated by President Donald Trump. But the government’s logic about disarming rule-breakers had no limit, he said.

“Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms?” he proposed. “Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle?”

Why all the warnings about the Maine gunman didn't stop the massacre

The allegations against Rahimi, of course, were far more serious. And his alleged crimes did not end with the 2019 violent encounter with his ex-girlfriend, who escaped Rahimi’s car when he was firing at the bystander. He later called her and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the assault.

A Texas court considering the woman’s request for a protective found that Rahimi had “committed family violence” and that such violence was “likely to occur again in the future.” The civil order suspended his gun license, prohibited him from possessing a firearm and warned him that possessing a firearm while the order remained in effect may be a federal felony.

It apparently did not have the desired effect. In her brief, Prelogar said Rahimi subsequently threatened a different woman with a gun, leading to state charges. Then, in the space of two months, he opened fire in public five times. He is alleged to have shot at the driver in the other car after an accident Rahimi caused, the records showed.

Rahimi currently is in jail in Fort Worth awaiting trial on some of the state charges that arose from the alleged assaults. Federal public defender J. Matthew Wright declined to comment on his client’s behalf, but said in a brief to the Supreme Court that the only relevant events in the proceedings are the protective order issued Feb. 5, 2020, and the subsequent discovery of a handgun and a rifle in Rahimi’s room on Jan. 14, 2021.

“Everything else is disputed and irrelevant to his guilt or innocence under the law,” the brief states.

Rahimi initially pleaded guilty to the federal charges and was sentenced to six years in prison. The appeals court first affirmed his sentence, but after the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling, it withdrew its original opinion.

In Bruen, the justices voted 6 to 3 to strike down a century-old New York state law requiring a special need to carry a firearm outside the home. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said government officials cannot justify restrictions on firearms based solely on “an important interest” such as public safety concerns. Instead, he wrote, officials must “demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The analogy does not have to be a “twin,” the court ruled, but must be relevant. “Courts should not uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue, because doing so risks endorsing outliers that our ancestors would never have accepted,” Thomas wrote.

The decision has imperiled all types of gun regulations and left lower court judges divided over how to evaluate long-standing restrictions, in some cases asking whether they should call on historians to help. But the 5th Circuit panel said it was clear the federal statute’s ban on gun possession because of a civil protective order went too far.

The 5th Circuit swept away the historical analogies the government offered in defense of the federal law. And in a concurring opinion, Judge James C. Ho said the statute was difficult to justify because it disarms individuals “based on civil protective orders” rather than “criminal proceedings.”

Wright, in his Supreme Court brief on Rahimi’s behalf, said “Bruen makes this an easy case.”

The gun possession ban in the federal law arises not from a criminal conviction but “from a civil state-court order, often after a one-sided proceeding,” Wright wrote, adding “Whatever the founding generation believed about state and local legislatures’ power to restrict firearm ownership, they would have resisted a federal law purporting to say which citizens could, and which citizens could not, keep firearms.”

Prelogar replied that the idea Congress is “powerless to restrict firearm possession by domestic abusers and other categories of dangerous individuals defies precedent, history, and common sense.”

The government’s position in the case is supported by a wide array of states, localities, domestic violence-prevention groups and gun control activists. They provide dire warnings. “Every month, an average of 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner,” said a brief filed by the group Everytown for Gun Safety. “And access to a gun makes it five times more likely that a woman will die at the hands of her abuser.”

The lesson that Prelogar says should be drawn from the court’s decisions in Heller and Bruen is that the Second Amendment protects “law-abiding, responsible citizens” and allows disarming those who have been shown not to be. The phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” appears 40 times in the government’s brief.

Such a broad rule seems at odds with a court majority that lately has been more skeptical of gun control measures. But it could also be cast with an eye toward future challenges.

The court on Friday said it would review the federal ban on bump stocks announced by the Trump administration after the devices were used in a 2017 mass shooting on the Las Vegas Strip. And waiting in the wings at the Supreme Court are other challenges to federal bans on gun possession by those who have been convicted of nonviolent felonies and by habitual drug users.

To read more CLICK HERE

Protection orders in Pennsylvania may soon extend to pets

 John L. Micek writing in the Pennsylvania Capital-Star:

You might have missed it during the hubbub over the state budget earlier this month, but a bill providing important protections to Pennsylvanians’ four-footed friends is on its way to the state Senate.

That’s because lawmakers in the lower chamber voted 130-73 last week to approve legislation expanding protection from abuse orders to include animals and house pets, thus “ensuring the safety and well-being of both domestic violence victims and their beloved animal companions,” the legislation’s sponsors, Reps. Christina Sappey, D-Chester, and Natalie Mihalek, R-Allegheny, said in a joint statement.

The legislation comes in response to the sadly unsurprising news that abusers often target pets when they’re trying to get back at someone who has filed a protection from abuse order. That finding is backed up by “extensive research,” the lawmakers said.

The bill has the backing of more than 70 law enforcement, domestic violence, and animal welfare organizations, pointing to the very real need for its enactment, Sappey and Mihalik said.

“Pets are family members and play an essential role in offering comfort to individuals experiencing abuse,” Sappey said. “It is imperative that we take action to safeguard animals in conjunction with the well-being of those suffering from domestic violence. I’m pleased to see the bipartisan support this legislation has received.”

Mihalik echoed that sentiment.

“The decision to leave an abusive environment is difficult enough. Making certain that a pet can live free from abuse needs to be part of the PFA system, so it doesn’t further complicate the victim’s decision and also safeguards a loyal part of the family,” Mihalek said. “I want to thank Representative Sappey for working with me on this and seeing it as high as a priority as I do.”

Animal welfare advocates called on the state Senate to approve the measure.

“Victims of domestic abuse often delay leaving an abusive situation because they fear the abuser will harm their animals. By permitting the inclusion of pets within a protection order, [the bill] would make it easier for victims to leave a dangerous situation with their entire family, including their pets,” Kristen Tullo, the Pennsylvania state director of the Humane Society of the United States, said.

Natalie Ahwesh, the executive director of Humane Action Pittsburgh, called the bill a “commonsense, bipartisan issue.

“Abusers often use family pets as leverage in their torment of their victims, threatening to harm or kill them if victims leave. With this bill, we can protect both animals and humans,” Ahwesh said.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

SCOTUS may agree to decide protection from an abuser v. the right to a gun

A federal court ruled that a federal law that makes it a crime for people subject to domestic-violence orders to possess guns violated the Second Amendment, reported The New York Times.

Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider whether to hear an appeal of that decision, which applied a history-based test to rule that the government was powerless to disarm an abuser under the domestic-violence law. The chances that the justices will agree to hear the case are good.

The case started in 2019, when Zackey Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone, leading her to obtain a restraining order. The order suspended Mr. Rahimi’s handgun license and prohibited him from possessing firearms.

Mr. Rahimi defied the order in flagrant fashion, according to court records.

He threatened a different woman with a gun, leading to charges of assault with a deadly weapon. Then, in the space of two months, he opened fire in public five times.

Upset about a social media post from someone to whom he had sold drugs, for instance, he shot an AR-15 rifle into his former client’s home. When a fast-food restaurant declined a friend’s credit card, he fired several bullets into the air.

The shootings led to a search warrant of Mr. Rahimi’s home, which uncovered weapons, and he was charged with violating the federal law.

After a judge rejected his Second Amendment challenge to the law, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to more than six years in prison. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at first affirmed his conviction in a short decision, rejecting the argument that the law violated the Second Amendment in a footnote.

But the appeals reversed course after the Supreme Court issued a decision last June establishing a new test to decide whether gun control laws are constitutional, one focused on history.

Under that test, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled, the law prohibiting people subject to domestic-violence orders from possessing firearms violated the Second Amendment because there was no historical support for it.

Next week, almost a year to the day after the Supreme Court announced the new approach in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices are set to meet to discuss whether to hear the Biden administration’s appeal. The court often hears appeals of decisions holding federal laws unconstitutional.

The case, United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915, would give the court a chance to explore the scope of its new test, which requires the government to identify historical analogues to justify laws limiting Second Amendment rights.

As a general matter, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his majority opinion in Bruen, the Second Amendment protects the rights of “an ordinary, law-abiding citizen.” And there is, the Biden administration told the justices in the new case, “strong historical evidence supporting the general principle that the government may disarm dangerous individuals.”

But the Fifth Circuit rejected a variety of old laws identified by the government as possible analogues, saying they did not sufficiently resemble the one concerning domestic-violence orders. Many of them, Judge Cory T. Wilson wrote for the panel, “disarmed classes of people considered to be dangerous, specifically including those unwilling to take an oath of allegiance, slaves and Native Americans.” That was different, he wrote, from domestic-violence orders, which make case-by-case judgments about a particular individual’s dangerousness.

Lawyers for the administration questioned that distinction. “It would be bizarre,” they wrote, “if legislatures could disarm dangerous individuals based on categorical presumptions, but not based on individualized judicial findings after notice and a hearing.”

Judge Wilson, who was appointed by President Donald J. Trump, wrote that the government’s insistence that it can disarm people who are not law-abiding “admits to no true limiting principle.”

 “Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms?” he asked. “Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle?”

Judge Wilson conceded that the challenged law “embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society.” But he said the approach required by the Bruen decision did not allow courts to weigh the benefits of the law against its burdens. What was important, he wrote, quoting that decision, was that “our ancestors would never have accepted” the law on domestic-violence orders.

Judge James C. Ho, who was also appointed by Mr. Trump, issued a concurring opinion saying there were better ways to protect victims of domestic abuse.

“Those who commit violence, including domestic violence,” he wrote, “shouldn’t just be disarmed — they should be detained, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated. And that’s exactly why we have a criminal justice system — to punish criminals and disable them from engaging in further crimes.”

But Judge Ho said domestic-violence orders were products of the civil justice system and were subject to abuse.

“Scholars and judges have expressed alarm that civil protective orders are too often misused as a tactical device in divorce proceedings — and issued without any actual threat of danger,” he wrote. “That makes it difficult to justify” the law Mr. Rahimi challenged “as a measure to disarm dangerous individuals.”

In a brief urging the Supreme Court to deny review, lawyers for Mr. Rahimi said domestic violence was not a new phenomenon. “The founders could have adopted a complete ban on firearms to combat intimate-partner violence,” their brief said. “They didn’t.”

To read more CLICK HERE

DOJ asks SCOTUS to review gun decision

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking a reversal of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, in which the court ruled that a law prohibiting access to firearms to persons under domestic violence restraining orders was unconstitutional, reported Jurist. The Fifth Circuit held that the law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(c), violated the Second Amendment on its face because it failed to comport to the nation’s “historical tradition.”

However, the DOJ cites a 1662 English law that empowered the Crown to seize arms from people deemed “dangerous to the kingdom.” The DOJ further argues that the law “fits squarely within the longstanding tradition of disarming dangerous individuals.” The Fifth Circuit originally affirmed the law’s constitutionality but withdrew their opinion after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down a New York state law prohibiting open carry in public places, holding that the law failed to pass an originalist reading of the Second Amendment.

Originalism is a school of constitutional interpretation that seeks to understand the Constitution as it would have been understood at its writing. This line of constitutional interpretation has drawn criticism from legal scholars. Critics such as Dean of Berkeley Law School Erwin Chemerinsky contend that “even the founders didn’t believe in originalism.” However, four justices of the Supreme Court—Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—are self-proclaimed originalists, while a fifth, Justice Samuel Alito, describes himself as a “practical originalist.” Even Justice Elena Kagan, part of the court’s liberal bloc, stated “We are all originalists now” in her confirmation hearing.

To read more CLICK HERE

Wisconsin Supreme Court expands persons eligible to carry concealed weapon

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin unanimously ruled on the issue of individuals allowed to possess a license to carry a concealed weapon (CCW license) in the state, in effect broadening the eligibility, reported Jurist.

The case traces back to 1993 when petitioner-appellant Daniel Doubek received a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence after he broke into his estranged wife’s home and proclaimed threats. In 2016, Doubek applied for and was issued a CCW license. However, a 2019 audit conducted by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) determined that Doubek’s misdemeanor conviction prohibited his possession of a CCW license. The DOJ found that his “conviction constituted a disqualifying ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ under federal law.” Doubek then initiated a lawsuit to reinstate the possession of his CCW license.

While the revocation of Doubek’s CCW license was upheld by the Circuit Court for Brown County, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed this decision and held that “disorderly conduct is not a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under federal law, and therefore does not disqualify a person from holding a CCW license.”

In Justice Jill Karofsky’s concurrence, she wrote that “[t]hough legally correct, this result is as nonsensical as it is dangerous. In the realm of domestic violence, threats to kill, like the one Doubek made to his wife, more than double the risk of femicide.”

The case has been remanded to the circuit court.

To read more CLICK HERE

Biden and Garland host summit on violence

 At a summit on public safety on February 3, President Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland announced new efforts to fight violent crime at the local level, reported Jurist. This is part of the administration’s comprehensive strategy to prevent and respond to gun crime, announced in May 2021. Hours after Biden told every US Attorney’s Office in the country to direct funds toward fighting violent crime, Garland announced how the Department of Justice (DOJ) would help its local partners.

Garland spoke on the new federal actions to support this local work. Among these efforts is a national ghost gun enforcement initiative to train prosecutors on bringing charges for unregistered firearms that are assembled at home. The DOJ claims they are also “strengthening…firearms trafficking strike forces” to prevent violent criminals from obtaining firearms through illegal gun pipelines.

The DOJ’s mix of local and federal strategy is “designed to address violent crime from all angles:”

It includes targeted enforcement, data-driven approaches, and programming that reach every aspect of the problem, from the earliest prevention strategies and violence interruption approaches to post-conviction reentry services. The strategy recognizes that we are most successful when we work closely with state, local, Tribal, and territorial counterparts—and when we serve as a force multiplier for their frontline efforts, including with critical grant funding.

The Biden Administration and DOJ’s plan to keep direct actions primarily in the hands of local authorities, who allegedly have a better understanding of their communities, but seek to work cooperatively across local and federal lines. The summit was hosted by New York City mayor Eric Adams at a New York Gun Violence Strategic Partnership meeting, seen as a model of working across jurisdictions to remedy violent crime and gun trafficking.

Presidential Proclamation for National Stalking Awareness Month

THE WHITE HOUSE
Washington, DC

All people deserve to feel safe and protected — whether in their home, at work or school, online, or in any other public or private spaces.  During National Stalking Awareness Month, we support all those who are threatened and harmed by the pervasive crime of stalking, recognize those who raise awareness and advocate for survivors, and recommit to eradicating stalking nationwide.

Stalkers employ multiple tactics to instill fear, intimidate, surveil, and exert control over the people they target.  Studies show that 1 in 6 women and 1 in 17 men have been subjected to stalking in their lifetime, the majority of whom were threatened by someone they know — often a current or former intimate partner.  Survivors often suffer physical, psychological, and social harms, such as higher than average rates of depression, anxiety, and insomnia.  Stalking also can take a serious economic toll, as those who are stalked may have to uproot their lives at their own expense to evade their stalkers, or take unpaid time off from work in order to protect themselves and their families.

In recent years, the most prevalent form of stalking crimes has involved the use of smartphones, computers, and other devices.  With schools, workplaces, and social interactions relying on virtual platforms, the risk of stalking has grown considerably.  As technology continues to advance, we must ensure that all people — especially women, girls, and LGBTQI+ individuals who are at greatest risk — can engage in online spaces freely and safely.  We must also seek accountability for individuals or systems that perpetrate or enable stalking.

Given the disproportionate impact of stalking and other forms of digital abuse on women and girls, my Administration’s National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality includes a commitment to launch a task force to address online harassment and abuse.  This task force will be specifically focused on technology-facilitated, gender-based violence and will be charged with developing concrete recommendations to improve prevention, response, and protection efforts domestically and worldwide.

The task force will seek input from survivors, advocates, law enforcement professionals, civil and human rights groups, technology platforms, and other experts to ensure that those with expertise and lived experiences are able to directly inform these recommendations.  My Administration has also committed to developing the first-ever National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, which will further our efforts to prevent and respond to stalking and other forms of gender-based violence.

This effort has been one of the central causes of my career.  To address these abuses of power — stalking, domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual assault — I wrote and championed the Violence Against Women Act nearly three decades ago to begin to change our culture and ensure that survivors of these appalling crimes receive the services and support they need.  Through the years, I have worked to reauthorize the Act several times — each time expanding its protections.  Now, I am calling on the Congress to once again reauthorize and modernize this landmark legislation with enhanced provisions to expand the way our country responds to and prevents stalking and other forms of gender-based violence.

Stalking operates in the shadows and is fueled by silence and inaction.  As we begin this new year, let us commit to shining a brighter light on this insidious crime, to broadening our support for those affected, and to ensuring that all people can live in a world free from violence and fear.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 2022 as National Stalking Awareness Month.  I call on all Americans to speak out against stalking and to support the efforts of advocates, courts, service providers, and law enforcement to help those who are targeted and send the message to perpetrators that this crime will not go unpunished.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-sixth.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR

To read more CLICK HERE

Gun purchases during pandemic and resulting violence

Blake Diaz writing for The Crime Report:

Firearm purchases surged dramatically during the first months of the coronavirus pandemic. With it, domestic violence rose too, according to a study by the University of California, Davis Violence Prevention Research Program.

However, the study did not find the same correlation between firearm purchases and other types of interpersonal firearm violence―a result researchers called “unexpected.”

“Given what we know about the risks of firearm violence associated with firearm access in general, and firearm purchasing surges specifically, we expected to see a relationship between these two during the pandemic,” wrote Julia Schleimer, lead author for the study, published in the Injury Epidemiology journal.

The data in fact showed that states with the largest increases in purchases from March through July 2020 did not experience the largest increases in non-domestic firearm violence.

“This was unexpected given prior studies,” Schleimer said, noting that although in the country “as a whole” firearms purchases and violence both increased, “when we looked state-by-state at the places in which firearm purchases increased the most, those weren’t the places where the violence increased the most.”

The connection between domestic violence, the COVID-19 lockdowns and firearm ownership has been established in a number of studies in the U.S. and overseas.

UC Davis researchers found that the states where firearm purchases rose the most also showed the largest increases in firearm injuries from domestic violence. But “while this was particularly true during April and May when social distancing was at its peak,” the correlation was not as strong in subsequent months.

“Additional analyses showed that other, unmeasured variables might explain the association,” the study acknowledged.

Physical distancing and stay-at-home orders were at their peak during April and May of 2020 but not in the following months, according to the researchers.

Other “unmeasured variables” contributing to the increase in domestic violence could include changes in access to domestic violence-related services and trends in drug and alcohol use, the study said.

Violence and the Pandemic

Interpersonal violence also rose substantially beginning in May 2020.

Between April and July 2020―the peak period of the pandemic―there was a 27 percent increase in “interpersonal firearm injuries” (which includes firearm homicides and nonfatal firearm assaults), or roughly 4,075 more injuries than would have been predicted for that period.

Over the same period, the number of background checks registered for guns—an indicator of firearm sales—rose to 9.3 million, an increase of 85 percent over the expected volume, the study said.

The researchers acknowledged that background checks do not correspond perfectly to the number of firearms purchased, as the majority of states allow a single person to purchase multiple firearms at once.

The researchers used a cross-sectional study of monthly firearm purchasing and violence from January 2018 to February 2020, prior to the increase in violence, to estimate expected trends.

The researchers suggested a number of other contributing factors could account for the increase in firearms injuries.

“The pandemic has also exacerbated factors that contribute to interpersonal violence—including financial stress, trauma, and strains on community resources—particularly among Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color which already experience a disproportionate burden of interpersonal firearm violence ,” the study said.

“In addition, recent killings of Black people, and the broader racial inequities they reflect, have spurred nationwide protests and counter-protests that have been accompanied by violence. These events may heighten concerns about violence and contribute to an increase in firearm purchasing.”

Moreover, although the study found a positive correlation between firearm purchasing and domestic violence in April and May of 2020, it did not find a correlation in June or July of 2020.

The study included the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia. Hawaii and Alaska were not examined due to incomplete data.

Study Method and Limitations

 The study utilized state-level data from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to approximate firearm purchasing based on background checks performed for firearm purchases.

The U.S. Census’ Annual Estimates of the Resident Population was used as the denominator for rates.

The study did not research the risks of firearm access during the pandemic, but rather the risks of “excess” firearm access.

Violence was measured using data from the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) which compiles records of gun violence nationally based off news outlets and other public sources.

Violent incidents were separated according to whether they were domestic violence or non-domestic violence related. No unintentional or self-inflicted injuries were included.

 The study found the average statewide monthly rate of non-domestic violence related firearm injuries from March to July of 2020 was 1.36 per 100,000 and the average monthly rate of domestic violence related firearm injuries for the same period was 0.07 per 100,000.

These rates were compared to the rates from January 2018 to February 2020 which was recorded as 0.98 and 0.05 per 100,000 for non-domestic violence related firearm injuries and domestic violence related firearm injuries, respectively.

The study noted that for some violent incidents, there was not enough information to determine whether they are domestic violence-related or not, and therefore may result in misclassification.

The researchers also noted they did not have information in order to determine whether the firearms purchased during the study period were used in violence, the characteristics of firearm purchasers or how the firearms were stored.

To read more CLICK HERE

Las Vegas will no longer take firearms in DV cases

The cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas will prosecute misdemeanor domestic violence cases without requiring those convicted to give up their firearms, reported the Las Vegas Review Journal.

Las Vegas officials said the decision could face legal challenges from critics of the new policy.

In a 6-1 vote, the Las Vegas City Council approved the ordinance Wednesday in response to a recent state Supreme Court ruling that requires defendants in such cases to be afforded the option of a jury trial. Councilman Cedric Crear voted against the plan.

The high court ruled a month ago that defendants were entitled to a trial after deeming the offense no longer “petty” but a “serious” one because of a 2015 state law that banned convicted individuals from possessing firearms.

Officials in Las Vegas have lamented that the city’s municipal court is ill-equipped to hold trials because it does not have jury boxes or administration, plus there are not enough city prosecutors or judges, nor a means to summon a jury pool. In addition, state law doesn’t allow for jury trials in municipal courts.

Other cities in Nevada face similar burdens. Henderson unanimously passed a similar ordinance Tuesday, while North Las Vegas passed its ordinance Wednesday night in a 3-1 vote. Councilman Isaac Barron cast the lone vote against the measure but did not explain his opposition. Councilwoman Pamela Goynes-Brown was not present for the vote.

“Without this solution, battery domestic violence that happens in this city cannot and will not be prosecuted, and victims will be left with limited criminal legal resource,” North Las Vegas City Attorney Micaela Moore told council members.

To read more CLICK HERE

NRA is opposed to reauthorizing Violence Against Women Act

The National Rifle Association is opposing the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act over provisions designed to keep domestic abusers from having access to firearms, reports the Huffington Post.

The pro-gun group told HuffPost it will issue a a “key vote” alert against VAWA, which warns members of Congress that their vote on the legislation will be scored and included in their NRA rating.

According to a report by the National Journal, some Republicans reportedly wanted the NRA to take a stand so they could have political cover to vote against it. 

On March 7, a bill to reauthorize and expand VAWA, a landmark domestic violence law, was introduced in the House. The law expired in late December during the partial government shutdown, but was extended just a few more weeks after a short-term spending deal reopened the government.

On top of making improvements in services for victims of domestic and sexual violence, the reauthorization bill aims to tighten gun laws for domestic abusers.

Under federal law, individuals convicted of domestic violence offenses against their spouses or family members are already barred from owning firearms. But the law does not apply to individuals who abuse their dating partners. The VAWA reauthorization bill would fix that, closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole.”

It would also prohibit individuals convicted of misdemeanor stalking offenses ― which experts believe can be a predictor of future violence ― from owning or purchasing firearms.
To read more CLICK HERE

The connection between domestic violence and mass shootings

It seems like there is no place in America that is immune to a mass shooting. Inside a darkened movie theater. At a nightclub throbbing with sweaty bodies. During Sunday services at church. At an outdoor country music concert.

These days, home seems like the safest bet. But the truth is, the most likely location for a mass shooting is precisely in that presumed refuge, reported the Huffington Post. The nightmarish reality is that most mass shootings in America are related to domestic violence. The overwhelming majority take place behind closed doors.

From 2015 to early November 2017, there were 46 mass shootings in the U.S., defined as an incident in which four or more people were shot and killed, not including the gunman. According to data collected by Everytown for Gun Safety, in 27 cases, or about 59 percent, the perpetrator killed an intimate partner or family member during the massacre or had a history of domestic violence.

Perpetrators of mass shootings, far from being strangers to their victims, are usually husbands or boyfriends. They kill their romantic partners and family members, as well as friends, neighbors, co-workers and innocent bystanders.

To be sure, the overwhelming majority of men who abuse their families do not go on to commit acts of mass violence. Domestic violence is prevalent in our society; mass shootings are not. But it’s worth noting the connection, as researchers have identified the key warning signs of abusers who are likely to kill in the future. They share remarkably similar traits: They have histories of strangling their partners, stalking and death threats. And, crucially, they have access to firearms.

To read more CLICK HERE

Trump budget will slash funding for domestic violence victims

President Donald Trump’s “skinny budget” blueprint  eliminates the 43-year-old Legal Services Corporation, the federal entity that provides millions for state-based legal aid operations, reported The Intercept. One-third of cases handled by LSC-affiliated groups involve women who are victims of domestic violence.
Not to mention the cut would deny millions of poor people access to the civil justice system, which would disproportionately impact women, who make up 70 percent of clients served by LSC funds. One-third of cases handled by LSC-affiliated groups involve women who are victims of domestic violence.
Trump wrote that his “aim is to meet the simple, but crucial demand of our citizens — a government that puts the needs of its own people first. When we do that we will set free the dreams of every American, and we will begin a new chapter of American greatness.” 

Cutting a program that provides for the safety of domestic violence survivors — among many others — seems an odd way to achieve greatness, according to The Intercept. Currently, 93 percent of the LSC’s $385 million federal budget goes to fund 134 nonprofit legal aid organizations operating more than 800 offices across the U.S. and its territories.

To read more CLICK HERE

Indiana domestic violence legislation: Don't disarm the abuser, arm the victim

Two competing bills in the Indiana House seek to make domestic violence less deadly for women — one by removing guns from the equation, one by adding more guns, report the Indianapolis Star. Only one of them is advancing.

Moving forward is a bill that would enable victims of domestic violence to get a handgun as soon as a judge grants a protective order against their abuser.

Going nowhere is a bill that would quickly deprive an alleged abuser of his guns once he becomes subject to a protective order.

This is despite an oft-cited study by advocacy groups that found women are five times more likely to die in domestic violence situations when a gun is present. The same study, published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2003, found no clear evidence that women are safer if they have access to a gun.

The legislation that's advancing, House Bill 1071, would enable abuse victims to use a protective court order as a handgun permit, avoiding the typical waiting periods. "It would give them a chance to immediately protect themselves," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Sean Eberhart, R-Shelbyville.

The Republican-controlled House Public Policy Committee voted 8-4 along party lines to move the bill to the House floor. The committee added an amendment to establish a group to study repealing Indiana's law requiring a license to carry a handgun.

The legislation that has yet to be heard, House Bill 1534, would force an alleged domestic abuser who is subject to a protective order to hand over his guns to police within 48 hours. So long as the order remains in effect, the abuser could not buy a gun or possess a gun.

To read more CLICK HERE

Georgia town fines victims of domestic violence who refuse to testify

The Columbus, Georgia Recorder’s Court has been fining victims of domestic abuse who decline to testify against their alleged abuser, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

The Southern Center for Human Rights on Wednesday sued in U.S. District Court in Macon, charging that domestic violence victims in Columbus are required by city ordinance to help law enforcement prosecute their attackers. If they don’t — even if they did not report the abuse — they must be fined.

“The city’s policy toward women experiencing domestic violence sounds like something out of the 19th century,” said attorney Sarah Geraghty with the Southern Center. “It’s a holdover from an era in which women were blamed for male violence.”

The suit said women who ask that charges be dropped or who refuse to testify against spouses or boyfriends are ordered to pay a “victim assessment” of at least $50 — and often several times that much — “without any consideration of the circumstances of their cases or their reasons for desiring not to prosecute.”

The complaint was brought in the name of Cleopatra Harrison, 22, who earns $12 an hour as a cleaning and food service contractor at Fort Benning. The defendants listed in the suit are Recorder’s Court Judge Michael Cielinski, Muscogee County Sheriff John Darr, Columbus Police Chief Ricky Boren and officer Michael Lincoln.

To read more CLICK HERE