Tag Archives: gun violence

national news

Governor stands for safer gun rules

concealed_carry

Now that we’ve re-entered the realm of gun violence, gun safety and gun regulations in the wake of the Orlando, Fla., massacre, I want to applaud a Missouri politician for retaining some sanity in this discussion.

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon today vetoed a bill that landed on his desk that would have allowed residents to carry concealed weapons without obtaining a permit to do so.

That’s right. The bill would have removed the requirement for Missouri residents to take classes, obtain a permit and submit themselves to a criminal background check.

Nixon said the bill would make his state less safe. Gee, do you think?

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article86150657.html

A number of states have enacted concealed carry legislation over the years. Texas was among the first to do so. My own initial objections to enactment of the law have given way to acceptance of the law in Texas, if not an outright embrace of it.

Many Texans have sought and obtained these permits only to be able to carry a firearm if they choose to do so.

The regulations in Missouri mirror those in Texas. They are reasonable and prudent. Indeed, state and local police officials opposed the weakening of the restrictions there.

According to the Kansas City Star: “I cannot support the extreme step of … eliminating sensible protections like background checks and training requirements, and taking away the ability of sheriffs to protect their communities,” Nixon said.

Gov. Nixon’s veto faces the threat of a legislative override in September. It is my hope the veto withstands an effort to throw out common sense regulations.
national news, Uncategorized

Filibuster provides a rare Senate ‘victory’

Chris Murphy was incensed at his U.S. Senate colleagues.

Four years after his Connecticut constituents suffered the unspeakable grief from the Newtown school massacre, Congress hadn’t done anything to curb gun violence.

So, the Democratic lawmaker took the Senate floor the other day and began filibustering.

He was spurred to talk and talk and talk by the latest mass slaughter, of 49 individuals in Orlando, Fla., this past weekend.

I want to applaud Sen. Murphy for something he achieved from his 15-hour gabfest. He persuaded the Senate Republicans who run the place to hold votes on at least a couple of key bills that proponents say will help curb gun violence.

Hey, it’s a big deal. As big a deal is that it came about by a senator persuading his colleagues to schedule these votes by talking the issue to death.

Filibusters are unique to the Senate. The House doesn’t allow it.

A filibuster allows senators to talk about whatever they want. They can use the procedure to stall legislation. Some prominent lawmakers have used the filibuster to obtain legendary status. The late Sen. Strom Thurmond holds the record for non-stop Senate blabbing. My former senator, the late Wayne Morse of Oregon, was another well-known blowhard who knew how to use the filibuster to maximum advantage.

Sometimes senators’ use of the filibuster backfires. Ted Cruz of Texas sought to filibuster the Affordable Care Act to death in 2013. He failed.

Murphy, though, managed to get a vote on one of the knottiest issues of our time: gun control.

I am not sure where it will go. There are some interesting compromises to what Murphy favors, dealing with disallowing suspected terrorists from obtaining a firearm.

I won’t comment further here on the merits of what Murphy desires.

However, I applaud the senator for talking long enough to get the Senate leadership to at least put this issue to a vote.

national news

A little self-awareness, please, Sen. Cruz

I cannot let this pass without comment.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called the filibuster led by Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut a “distraction.” He said it’s a “game.” He labeled it “political gamesmanship,” which he said the public considers to be “ridiculous.”

Wow, dude.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/16/cruz_senate_filibuster_a_distraction_political_gamesmanship.html

Filibusters by their very nature are meant to “distract” senators.

I believe I’ll now point to Sen. Cruz’s own game of “political gamesmanship” when he led a faux filibuster three years ago to defund the Affordable Care Act. The effect was to temporarily shut down the federal government as Cruz read passages from Dr. Seuss on the floor of the Senate.

He didn’t succeed in defunding the ACA, but he did succeed in making a fool of himself.

Of all the 98 remaining senators who could have spoken out against Sen. Murphy’s filibuster that he used to force a vote on gun legislation, why did it have to be Ted Cruz, the unofficial king of “political gamesmanship”?

 

national news

Filibuster ends; now, let’s go on the record on guns

3 Comments

Chris Murphy has declared a form of victory in his effort to enact gun-control legislation.

The junior U.S. senator from Connecticut, though, likely won’t be able to win the proverbial “war” against his colleagues who oppose him.

He spoke for 15 hours on the floor of the Senate, ending his filibuster at 2 a.m. As he yielded the floor to Republicans, he said he received assurance that the Senate will vote on whether to approve expanded background checks and to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.

I will concede that the background check idea is a bit problematical for the Democratic senator. Opponents of expanding those checks contend that those who buy guns already are subjected to them.

It’s the other one, the terrorist element, that puzzles me.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dem-senator-wages-filibuster-claims-progress-on-gun-control/ar-AAh6MfJ?li=BBnb7Kz

Congressional Republicans so far have opposed the ban on gun sales to individuals on federal no-fly lists. That’s right. Someone who isn’t allowed to board a commercial airliner because of suspected terrorist affiliation can purchase a gun. Wow, man.

Murphy was moved, obviously, by the slaughter in Orlando, Fla., this past weekend — and by the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School four years ago in his home state of Connecticut.

I own two weapons. I understand what the Second Amendment says — I think. I hesitate only because, in my view, the Founders wrote it badly.

Sen. Murphy’s filibuster is supposed to lead now to a Senate vote on these two critical issues: background checks and no-fly list bans.

He isn’t likely to win the day on these votes, given that the Senate is controlled by Republicans who, in turn, appear to be controlled by the gun lobby.

President Barack Obama acknowledged the other day that these measures won’t stop all future acts of gun violence. They might prevent some of them. Isn’t there some value in that?

Let’s put all senators on the record. Do you favor these measures that, in my view, retain the Second Amendment right to gun ownership, or do you oppose them?

national news, political news

Rewrite the 2nd Amendment? Just try it

3 Comments

The Orlando, Fla., massacre has ignited yet again — for the zillionth time — the debate over whether to enact tighter controls on the purchase of guns such as the weapon used by the monster who mowed down those innocent victims.

I don’t intend to enter that debate here. I do, though, want to introduce you to an idea that’s being kicked around: rewriting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I’ve long believed that of all the first 10 amendments, those that guarantee our civil liberties, the Second is the most horribly written of them.

It seems to contain two distinct references that appear to be at odds with each other.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Are clear on that? Now? Forever?

Hardly.

Gun-control advocates glom onto the first part, the reference to the well-regulated militia; gun-owner advocates cling to the second part that refers to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The founders inserted a couple of commas in the middle of the text that seem — to my eyes, at least — to add to the confusion.

Mac McCann, a blogger for the Dallas Morning News, has posited the notion that the Second Amendment needs to be modernized. Will it happen? Sure, it’ll happen about the time both sides of the gun violence divide come together, lock arms and sing in perfect harmony.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2016/06/maybe-the-only-solution-is-to-rewrite-the-second-amendment.html/

McCann writes: “I hold the Constitution in the highest regard, and I’m naturally skeptical of government power. But I’m moved by Obama’s words: ‘to actively do nothing is a decision, as well’ — and clearly not a good decision.

“We need a text that reflects the will of the American people in today’s world — which, of course, is far different from the world the Constitution was written in.”

Of course, any effort to amend an amendment is going to be interpreted as repealing the original text. We’ve had discussion in the past about amending the First Amendment, too. Free-speech/freedom-of-religion/free-press purists such as myself, quite naturally, have opposed such a thing on its face. That puts us in a bind when discussions come up regarding the Second Amendment, which is held in equally high regard by purists interested in gun-related issues.

This notion of modernizing the Second Amendment, though, is a discussion worth having.

If only we can have it intelligently and without the demonization that is guaranteed to erupt.

Your thoughts? Talk to me.

 

national news, political news

Here comes the gun-rights demagoguery

2 Comments

Some of the weapons collected in Wednesday's Los Angeles Gun Buyback event are showcased Thursday, Dec. 27, 2012 during a news conference at the LAPD headquarters in Los Angeles. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office says the weapons collected Wednesday included 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns and 75 assault weapons. The buyback is usually held in May but was moved up in response to the Dec. 14 massacre of students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

The National Rifle Association, to no one’s surprise, gave its blessing to the presidential candidacy of presumed Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

And also, again to no one’s surprise, Trump stood at the podium at the NRA meeting to condemn likely Democratic Party opponent Hillary Clinton’s view on gun violence.

He did so with his customary panache, meaning his customary hyperbole and outright lies.

Trump said Clinton wants to rescind the Second Amendment. He said she wants to “disarm American women.” He said he intends to rescind “gun-free zones” at local schools.

Trump’s answer to gun violence? Put more guns out there.

I’ve been going through the public record of Clinton’s statements on gun violence and, for the life of me, I cannot find a single statement that could be interpreted remotely as an effort to repeal the Second Amendment. It’s not there.

She’s talked about regulating the purchase of firearms. She joins other Americans in condemning the hideous increase in gun violence across the nation.

Does she intend to propose a rescinding of the Second Amendment? Does she really intend to disarm Americans?

Hell no!

That won’t deter Trump and continuing his demagogic tirades.

Let’s all get ready for more of the same.

 

local news

No guns on these campuses

1 Comment

guns on campus

Every so often you hear public officials say things that make you want to stand and cheer.

The brand new head of the Amarillo Independent School District administration today said one of those things. I wanted to stand and cheer. I kept my seat and remained quiet.

Superintendent Dana West declared that the school district has “no plans” to allow teachers or other staff members to carry guns on any of the district’s campuses.

You go, Mme. Superintendent!

She told a Rotary Club of Amarillo luncheon gathering at the Amarillo Club that the only people who’ll be packing heat on campuses throughout AISD are the liaison officers assigned to work at various campuses by the Amarillo Police Department. The trained law enforcement officers will be carrying weapons. Not teachers. Not principals.

The issue comes up every time there’s a school shooting. Individuals and groups across the nation issue the call to let qualified teachers carry guns so they can stop the shooter in their tracks. More guns creates a safer environment, they say.

West apparently doesn’t see it that way.

She said that when teachers and students have “good relations,” the chances are good that the students are going to tattle on fellow students who might be up to mischief.

She didn’t say it, but I only can presume that the mischief might include guns.

That’s where the police liaison officers come in.

Let highly trained police officers handle whatever might occur on campus, whether it’s a student or an intruder intent on doing harm.

As another leading educator told me, “We’re dealing with human beings and everyone has good days and bad days. Do we really want a kid who’s having a really bad day trying to get a gun from a teacher?”

Uhhh. No.

 

national news, political news

NRA was MIA at Obama town hall

2 Comments

gun-control

Barack Obama had a “town hall” forum tonight.

He fielded questions from an audience about his strategy to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.

I was heartened to hear questions from some folks who doubt the president’s message. The forum wasn’t an amen chorus of folks who agree with the president, which of course would have ruined the notion of it being an actual town hall forum.

But the audience was missing a key component: the National Rifle Association.

The president said he had invited the NRA to attend the meeting. The nation’s leading gun-owner-rights organization was missing.

It should have been there to challenge the president, to joust with him publicly — on national television.

It’s not that I endorse the NRA position on gun control. It is that when given a chance to air its views on the same stage as the president of the United States, I believe the NRA should have taken advantage of the opportunity to do so.

Will the NRA decline future opportunities? It’s my hope that we can have a sensible, intelligent discussion from individuals and organizations on all sides of this most polarizing debate.

legal news, national news, political news

Are all rights absolute?

barack

Barack Obama made a number of interesting points today as he laid out his strategy to use his executive authority to reduce gun violence.

One of them dealt with the First Amendment and whether we should treat it as an absolute right. Yes, the president said, we have the right of free speech, but we cannot yell “fire!” in a crowded theater.

We also have the right to religious freedom, but the law prohibits human sacrifice.

The Second Amendment is seen by many in this country as being an absolute right. The men who wrote the constitutional amendment meant that all Americans had the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Sure thing. I, too, have read the amendment and I get it.

I keep asking, though: Aren’t there measures that we can take that regulate the sale of these weapons while protecting the integrity of the Second Amendment? Gun-owner-rights groups — namely the National Rifle Association — keep insisting that the two principles are mutually exclusive. You can’t regulate firearms in any manner without watering down the Second Amendment, they say.

I guess I’ll just have to disagree with such a notion.

President Obama isn’t seeking to “legislate” through executive order, as his critics suggest he’s seeking to do. He has a team of constitutional lawyers who are advising him on what he can do legally. He wants to make it tougher for criminals or mentally disturbed individuals to put their hands on firearms and said today he has no intention of stripping law-abiding Americans of their constitutional right to own a gun.

Doesn’t that goal protect the amendment while trying to make the nation safer from bad guys with guns?

 

national news, political news

Law-abiding gun owners can relax; your guns are safe

gun over american flag

I’m trying to wrap my mind around this notion.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to “keep and bear arms.” It doesn’t say so explicitly, but my strong hunch is that the men who wrote that amendment intended for it to apply to law-abiding Americans.

Now we hear the president of the United States suggesting that we need to tighten laws in an effort to ensure greater gun safety.

He said clearly and unequivocally: We aren’t going to confiscate the guns of law-abiding citizens who have guns for the right reasons . . . to hunt or to shoot at targets.

The target — if you’ll pardon the intentional pun — are the criminals who are able to purchase guns through loopholes in current state and federal law.

Thus, President Obama has acted.

Measures outlined.

I’m certain I heard him say he believes in the Second Amendment. He noted that it’s written “on paper.” It’s on the record. His support of the amendment will stand forever.

He noted quite correctly that we register our cars. Why can’t we register our guns? he asked. If the law-abiding folks want to own guns, they are able to do so. No problem. No issue here.

Obama said he wants those who sell guns to go through extended background checks. He wants to hire more agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He wants Congress to authorize more money for mental health care.

Does any of that suggest that the president is going to dispatch storm troopers across the land to take away the guns of those who own them, who use them properly, who want to defend themselves against those who would do them harm?

I do not believe that will happen.

Ever.