Court rules gun maker can be sued over Newtown shooting
Gun-maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday. Gun control advocates touted the ruling as providing a possible roadmap for victims of other mass shootings to circumvent a long-criticized federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes. Gun rights supporters bashed the decision as judicial activism and overreach. In a 4-3 decision, justices reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against Remington and overturned the ruling of a lower court judge, who said the entire lawsuit was prohibited by the 2005 federal law. The majority said that while most of the lawsuit’s claims were barred by the federal law, Remington could still be sued for alleged wrongful marketing under Connecticut law. “The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers,” Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority, adding he didn’t believe Congress envisioned complete immunity for gun-makers. Several lawsuits over mass shootings in other states have been rejected because of the federal law. The plaintiffs in Connecticut include a survivor and relatives of nine people killed in the massacre. They argue the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle used by Newtown shooter Adam Lanza is too dangerous for the public and Remington glorified the weapon in marketing it to young people, including those with mental illness. Remington, based in Madison, North Carolina, has denied wrongdoing and previously insisted it can’t be sued because of the 2005 law, called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. A Remington spokesman said Thursday the company had no comment on the court ruling. “We have no timeline for any comments to be made on the subject,” spokesman Eric Suarez wrote in an email to The Associated Press. James Vogts, a lawyer for Remington, has cited the 2005 federal law and previously said the Bushmaster rifle is a legal firearm used by millions of people for hunting, self-defense and target shooting. Lanza, 20, shot his way into the locked school in Newtown on Dec. 14, 2012, and killed 20 first-graders and six educators with a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, similar to an AR-15. He shot his mother to death in their Newtown home beforehand, and killed himself as police arrived at the school. Connecticut’s child advocate said Lanza’s severe and deteriorating mental health problems, his preoccupation with violence and access to his mother’s legal weapons “proved a recipe for mass murder.” Nicole Hockley, whose 6-year-old son Dylan died in the shooting, said Thursday that a main goal of the lawsuit is to stop Remington and other gun makers from gearing their advertising toward troubled young men. “We have always said our case is about reckless sales and marketing to disturbed youth,” Hockley said. “We wanted our day in court. This is a step forward to ensure that manufacturers like Remington are not allowed to keep targeting people who are at risk.” A gun industry group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which happens to be based in Newtown, said the state Supreme Court ruling was an “overly broad interpretation” of an exception to the 2005 federal law. “The majority’s decision today is at odds with all other state and federal appellate courts that have interpreted the scope of the exception,” the group said in a statement, adding it “respectfully disagrees with and is disappointed by the court’s majority decision.” Connecticut Chief Justice Richard Robinson focused much of the dissenting opinion on the intent of Congress to limit gun-makers’ liability. “Because the distastefulness of a federal law does not diminish its preemptive effect, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court striking the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety,” Robinson wrote. U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, called the ruling a victory for gun violence victims that gives moment to an effort by him and other federal legislators to repeal the 2005 law. “It’s a wow moment in American legal history,” he said. “It will change the legal landscape for this industry, potentially all across the country.” Blumenthal said the ruling reminded him of early court victories against tobacco companies that led them to disclose damaging internal documents and later agree to billions of dollars in legal settlements over sickened smokers. Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, has said the Bushmaster rifle and other AR-15-style rifles were designed as military killing machines and should never have been sold to the public. He accuses Remington of targeting younger, at-risk males through “militaristic marketing and astute product placement in violent first-person shooter games.” “The families’ goal has always been to shed light on Remington’s calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans’ safety,” Koskoff said Thursday. “Today’s decision is a critical step toward achieving that goal.” The lawsuit seeks undisclosed damages. Military-style rifles have been used in many other mass shootings, including in Las Vegas in October 2017 when 58 people were killed and hundreds more injured. The case was watched by gun rights supporters and gun control advocates across the country as one that could affect other cases accusing gun-makers of being responsible for mass shootings. Several groups, ranging from the NRA to emergency room doctors, submitted briefs to the court. The 2005 federal law has been cited by other courts that rejected lawsuits against gun makers and dealers in other high-profile shooting attacks, including the 2012 Colorado movie theater shooting and the Washington, D.C., sniper shootings in 2002. Robert J. Spitzer, chairman of political science at the State University of New York at Cortland and an expert on guns and the Second Amendment, said the Connecticut ruling runs counter to the 2005 federal law. Even though the court allowed the case to proceed, he said, there still be a very high bar for successfully suing Remington. “The likelihood
Bradley Byrne: Defending the Second Amendment
This past week, Democrats in Congress again launched an attack on our Constitution and the rights we cherish as Americans. This time, they came after the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms. H.R. 8, the latest Democrat-led gun control bill does absolutely nothing to prevent criminals or violent persons from getting their hands on firearms. What H.R. 8 does do is violate the Constitutional rights of millions of Americans, ignores the mental health crisis behind actions of mass violence, and limits the Constitutional rights of millions of responsible gun owners. I’m a gun owner and hunter myself. I’ve talked to lots of folks from all around Alabama who proudly own guns for sport, work, and protection. Congress should not and cannot limit the rights of the American people in the name of politics. Under the Democrat bill, almost every time a lawful gun owner wants to transfer or sell a gun, he or she will have to go through a government-sanctioned middle-man. Under this bill, no longer could I sell my gun to my cousin or my neighbor in a private transaction. If this bill were to become law, millions of law-abiding gun owners could suddenly be subject to federal prosecution. Of course, we all know that criminals are going to do what they already do: make illegal transfers of firearms. So, this won’t make any difference in cutting down on crime. I have a long track record of supporting commonsense bills to provide Alabamians a way to protect themselves while offering smart background check programs and mental health services to those in need. My grandfather was shot and killed by someone suffering from mental illness. I know the importance of providing important resources for those in need without infringing on the rights guaranteed by our Founding Fathers. The so-called solutions in the Democrat gun control bill do nothing to prevent mass violence. We should not punish law-abiding citizens, instead we should listen to responsible gun owners and work on solutions that protect our Second Amendment rights. I have news for the out-of-touch Democrats: Gun owners of America are watching this debate. They know what H.R. 8 is all about, and they know that this bill is just a sham to chip away at the Second Amendment and our Constitution. Instead of trying to attack the Second Amendment, we should be trying to protect it. During the debate last week, Speaker Pelosi blocked my amendment to strip out this anti-gun legislation and replace it with nationwide concealed carry reciprocity. Instead of trampling on our Constitution, Democrats could have accepted my amendment and allowed a vote on a bill that would have actually made our country safer. Our Founding Fathers enshrined the right to keep and bear arms in our nation’s Constitution. Throughout our history, we have seen the importance of the Second Amendment for people to make a living, to provide for their families, and to protect their life and liberty. It is clear that this bill was nothing more than yet another sham show vote from the Democratic leadership. The gun control bill promises much but delivers very little. I opposed this bill, and I will oppose any bill that goes against the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. It is my duty as a citizen of the United States and representative of the people of Alabama to defend our Constitution against any effort to roll back the important protections enshrined within it. One thing is for sure: I will always stand up for our Constitution, the Second Amendment, and the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Alabama and around the United States. Bradley Byrne is a member of U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.
Martha Roby: Lawmakers must stop playing games with the Second Amendment
As a gun owner myself, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens who use firearms for sporting purposes, as historical collector’s items, to go hunting with their children or friends, and if necessary, to protect themselves and their families. The Second Amendment states that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes. Unfortunately, some lawmakers view the Second Amendment as an inferior Amendment, subject to being restricted and curtailed whenever political winds blow. But, the bottom line is that the Founding Fathers included the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, because they understood the need to place restrictions on the federal government in order to protect Americans’ individual liberties. Any time Congress discusses placing restrictions on an enumerated constitutional right, it is our responsibility to very carefully weigh the many competing interests, which is ultimately why I recently voted against H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, during its consideration in the House Judiciary Committee. This is a poorly drafted and ill-considered bill that would punish lawful gun owners without doing anything to prevent gun violence. To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, H.R. 8 would implement a system of universal background checks that make the following actions illegal: Loaning a gun to your neighbor, donating a historic firearm to a museum, and gifting a gun to a relative. Democrats in Congress have been campaigning on ending gun violence in America for years. I, along with my fellow Republicans, want to see a reduction in violent crime and gun violence, too – but H.R. 8 won’t accomplish that, especially in relation to mass shootings. In fact, none of the recent mass shootings in this country would have been prevented by this bill. The State of California has some of the strictest firearm laws in the country, and their system of universal background checks has proven to be a failure. A recent study by the liberal-leaning Violence Prevent Research Program at the University of California – Davis and Johns Hopkins University found that the implementation of universal background checks has had no effect on the rates of homicide or suicide by firearm. In order to actually combat gun violence, we must take a long, hard look at making improvements in our society, like repairing our mental health care system. Our country has been experiencing a mental health crisis for far too long, and it is past time we address it with meaningful change. We must also more effectively enforce the laws that are currently on the books before implementing new regulations that criminalize law-abiding gun owners. To put it plainly, Congress should not be wasting valuable time on ineffective bills that would only serve to impede upon Americans’ constitutional rights. While I voted against H.R. 8, it ultimately passed the Judiciary Committee, and it will be considered for a vote by the full House in the coming weeks. I have and will continue to urge my colleagues to oppose this measure and get to work finding real solutions to gun violence. We must stop playing politics with legislation that will not benefit the American people. ••• Martha Roby represents Alabama’s Second Congressional District. She lives in Montgomery, Alabama, with her husband Riley and their two children.
Alabama’s deadly shooting sends a chill through black gun owners
Gun-rights advocates like to say, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” Some black gun owners, though, are not so sure it’s a wise idea for them to try to be the good guy and pull out a weapon in public. Twice in the span of 11 days last month, a black man who drew a gun in response to a crime in the U.S. was shot to death by a white police officer after apparently being mistaken for the bad guy. Some African-Americans who are licensed to carry weapons say cases like those make them hesitant to step in to protect others. “I’m not an advocate of open-carry if you’re black,” said the Rev. Kenn Blanchard, a Second Amendment activist and host of the YouTube program “Black Man With a Gun TV,” a gun advocacy show. “We still have racism. … We still scare people. The psychology of fear, it’s bigger than the Second Amendment.” The recent shootings of Jemel Roberson and Emantic Bradford Jr. amplified long-held fears that bad things can happen when a black man is seen with a gun. Roberson was working security at a Robbins, Illinois, bar when he was killed Nov. 11 while holding at gunpoint a man involved in a shooting. Witnesses said the officer ordered the 26-year-old Roberson to drop his gun before opening fire. But witnesses also reportedly shouted that Roberson, who had a firearms permit, was a guard. And a fellow guard said Roberson was wearing a knit hat and sweatshirt that were emblazoned “Security.” Bradford, 21, was killed Thanksgiving night by an officer responding to a report of gunfire at a shopping mall in Hoover, Alabama. Police initially identified Bradford as the gunman but later backtracked and arrested another suspect. Ben Crump, a lawyer for the dead man’s family, said witnesses claimed Bradford was trying to wave people away from the shooting. Crump said Bradford was licensed to carry a weapon but was presumably seen as a threat because he was a black man. The two shootings have brought up some of the same questions about racist assumptions and subconscious fears that were asked after the killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. Trevor Noah, host of “The Daily Show,” lamented Bradford’s death. “That’s what they always say, right? ‘The good guy with a gun stops the crime,’” Noah said. “But then if the good guy with a gun turns out to be a black good guy with a gun, they don’t get any of the benefits.” In some other cases involving black men killed by police: Philando Castile was shot in a car in 2016 in Minnesota, seconds after informing the officer he had a gun. The officer was acquitted of manslaughter. And John Crawford III was shot in a Walmart in Ohio in 2014 while holding a BB gun he had picked up in the sporting goods section. Security footage showed he never pointed it at anyone. According to the advocacy group Mapping Police Violence, 1,147 people were killed by police in 2017, 92 percent of them in shootings. While blacks made up 13 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for 27 percent of those killed by police, 35 percent of those killed by police while unarmed, and 34 percent of those killed while unarmed and not attacking, the organization said. Andre Blount of Tomball, Texas, once pulled out his shotgun to help a neighbor who was being attacked by an armed white man. The police eventually arrived and defused the situation, he said. “For me, being a legally registered owner and having a concealed weapon permit, I feel like I have to be more careful than the next person,” Blount said. “Because if not, the only thing anyone sees is a black man with a gun.” Blount said he tells younger black gun owners to really consider whether it’s worth risking their lives in coming to someone’s aid with a weapon. “You want your kids to help someone, but you don’t want them to be shot trying to help someone,” he said. “It’s a sad thing.” Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Alabamian recounts what it was like getting shot in a state that loves guns
Where I’m from, we like guns. They are as much a part of our story as Jesus, ‘Roll Tide,’ and monograms. Even if you’ve never shot one, you appreciate the romance. Those are words of Tuscaloosa-native, Elaina Plott, a Congressional reporter for “The Atlantic,” in a soon-to-be printed, must-read article titled “The Bullet In My Arm.” Plott, who was shot while she was driving home at the age of 21, recounts her personal experience with gun violence and how it’s shaped her thinking about guns in the years that have followed. The piece not only shines light on how she felt getting shot, but it also delves in the complexities of what it means to be a gun owner in the South, and what she thinks Congress needs to be doing to curb gun violence. Sometimes a friend would ask whether my feelings on gun rights had changed. I usually said “I don’t know,” and that was true. Knee-jerk calls for gun control didn’t resonate with me. Yet a reverence toward guns no longer felt right either. I found my ambivalence unsettling. Everyone else seemed so sure about how to feel about guns—people on campus, on the internet, back home. Unlike most of them, I had made intimate acquaintance with gun violence. I should have had some special insight. If what had happened to me wasn’t fodder for clarity, I feared nothing ever would be. Plott details how her ambiguity towards gun control began to shift after 2018’s school shooting in Parkland, Fla. It was then, that she began to ask the questions that so many in the South who “cling to their guns” are thinking: how can we stop the violence, but uphold the Second Amendment? Plott has a few ideas, like age restrictions. In all the times I’ve talked with GOP lawmakers about guns, why have they never mentioned that age restrictions are, for many conservatives, a worthwhile starting point? Better question: Do they even know? …Lawmakers of both parties are alienating reasonable and responsible gun owners out of deference to extremists, sure. Acknowledging the ambiguities, the gray areas, of American attitudes toward guns—all the things that could make a gun-violence victim want to go shooting, or a firearms dealer decide to regulate his own shop—won’t solve this problem, or single-handedly stem gun deaths. But continuing to see things in the current terms pretty much guarantees that we’ll get nowhere.
Jim Zeigler endorsed by BamaCarry
BamaCarry, a Second Amendment gun rights group endorsed Jim Zeigler for State Auditor on Friday. “Jim Zeigler is a man with convictions who cares about protecting our Second Amendment rights in Alabama! He has fought against gun-free zones and no-gun signs on public property and supports Constitutional carry. Jim believes we should have no conditions on Constitutional rights.” BamaCarry prides itself on being “Alabama’s only ‘No Compromise’ gun rights group.” They believe gun rights should be protected and preserved in the way that the founding fathers stated, and that “that Every Citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of self and state.” The goal of the organization is to return to those principles and they are currently working to bring Constitutional carry forward in the State of Alabama. Zeigler is a longtime member of BamaCarry and also believes the second amendment should not be tampered with. “BamaCarry Inc. is proud to endorse Jim Zeigler in the race for State Auditor, and our full support is behind him.” Zeigler is seeking his second term as State Auditor, and faces off against Stan Cooke and Elliott Lipinsky in the June 5 Republican primary. Read the full text of the endorsement below: Jim Zeigler is a man with convictions who cares about protecting our Second Amendment rights in Alabama! He has fought against gun-free zones and no-gun signs on public property and supports Constitutional carry. Jim believes we should have NO conditions on Constitutional rights. Jim has been a member of BamaCarry since we first formed and has participated in every one of our BamaCarry Firearm Freedom Conferences. We believe Jim Ziegler is a fighter who will not end to pressure from liberals in and outside of Alabama. Fighting corruption, He filed the initial ethics complaint against former governor Robert Bentley and has worked to clean up our state government. “BamaCarry Inc. is proud to endorse Jim Zeigler in the race for State Auditor, and our full support is behind him.”
State Rep. Mary Moore proposes ban on semiautomatic gun sales
One Alabama lawmaker has introduced a bill banning semiautomatic firearms sales in the wake of the Feb. 14 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla. Birmingham-Democrat state Rep. Mary Moore introduced HB472 on Thursday which would prohibit the possession, sale, or transfer of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition within the state. This bill defines assault weapons as “any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic, or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms. Included in her ban are: All AK series, including, but not limited to, the following: AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR, WASR-10, WUM, Rock River Arms LAR-47, and Vector Arms AK-47. All AR series, including, but not limited to, the following: AR-10, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite AR-180 and M15, Olympic Arms, AR70, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Smith and Wesson M and P15 Rifles, Colt AR-15, Rock River Arms LAR-15, and DoubleStar AR rifles. Algimec AGM1. Barrett 82A1 and REC7. Beretta AR-70 and Beretta Storm. Bushmaster Auto Rifle. Calico Liberty series. Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88. Colt Sporter. Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1, and Max FAMAS MAS 223. Federal XC-900 and SC-450. Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC. FNH PS90, SCAR, and FS2000. Goncz High Tech Carbine. Hi-Point Carbine. HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, SP-89, or HK-PSG-1. Kel-Tec Sub-2000, SU series, RFB. M1 Carbine. SAR-8, SAR-4800, SR9. SIG 57 AMT and 500 Series. Sig Sauer MCX Rifle. SKS capable of accepting a detachable magazine. SLG 95. SLR 95 or 96. Spectre Auto Carbine. Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48, and G-3. Sterling MK-6 and MK-7. Steyr AUG. Sturm Ruger Mini-14 with folding stock. TNW M230, M2HB. Thompson types, including Thompson T5. UZI, Galil and UZI Sporter, Galil Sporter, Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz), or Vector Arms UZI. Weaver Arms Nighthawk. A full list of additional guns listed on the ban can be found here. Moore said her bill would allow those Alabamians who already own semi-automatic weapons to keep them.
Alabama’s Congressional Democrats ready for gun control action, Republicans mum
Americans across the country are once again calling on Congress to take action on gun control following last week’s massacre in Parkland, Fla. that left 17 people dead at a high school. While Congress has yet to take action, President Donald Trump helped move the conversation forward on Monday when he offered support for a limited strengthening of federal background checks on gun purchases. “While discussions are ongoing and revisions are being considered, the president is supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system,” confirmed White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Trump’s is referring to the Fix NICS Act. Introduced last year by Texas-Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, the bill is aimed to “fix” the way in which existing background checks can prevent firearm purchases by those who present possible red flags to state and local authorities. The legislation would ensure that federal and state authorities comply with existing law and accurately report relevant criminal history records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill also penalizes federal agencies that fail to properly report relevant records and incentivizes states to improve their overall reporting and directs more federal funding to the accurate reporting of domestic violence records. Within the Alabama delegation, Democrats U.S. Sen. Doug Jones and 7th District U.S. Rep. Terri A. Sewell are glad to see Trump’s support for policy change and are ready to see Congress take action. “I absolutely support strengthening our background check system, and I’m glad the President agrees,” said Jones. “We need better data reported to the database, we need to close the gun show loophole, and we need to look at ways we can improve school safety. These won’t fix the problem overnight, but they are common sense first steps that we can take immediately.” Sewell agrees the Fix NICS Act is a step in the right direction. “I strongly agree that the Congress must take bipartisan action to strengthen background checks and address the epidemic of gun violence that has claimed so many lives,” remarked Sewell. “The Fix NICS Act is a step in the right direction, but alone, it is not enough to address the tragic reality of gun violence in America that has struck communities from Parkland to Las Vegas to Newtown.” But Sewell doesn’t believe the bill, which is backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, goes far enough on its own. “This bill does not close the gun show loophole or prevent the reckless sale of bump stocks, both of which deserve legislative solutions,” Sewell added. “I believe the President’s support for Sen. Cornyn’s bill is proof of the growing public demand for action among both Republicans and Democrats. I have always been a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, but Congress can no longer settle for symbolic gestures when gun violence kills more Americans every day.” Meanwhile Republicans have remained mostly mum offering only their thoughts and prayers to the victims’ families. 1st District U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne being the only exception. When Alabama Today asked all members of the Alabama delegation whether or not they supported improving the federal background check system, Byrne’s was the only Republican office to respond. “Congressman Byrne is open to evaluating any proposal from the Trump Administration regarding potential changes to the background check system. He will wait to review the proposals before weighing in,” said Byrne spokesperson Seth Morrow.
Stop vilifying gun owners and NRA members every shooting
Yesterday’s tragedy in Florida reminds us (again) that life is precious and evil exists. Shootings, as with other acts of violence and terrorism, have always struck me to the core. Innocent lives lost locally, across the nation or even across the globe are a tragedy that no one should endure. I thought I understood loss and fear — then I became a mother. As a mother, it makes me want to hold on to my children close and never let them out of my sight, though these days even that wouldn’t guarantee their safety. My children are my heart. I can’t begin to fathom the agony that the parents must feel losing theirs. When we have situations like the one in South Florida or Las Vegas, or any other gun tragedy, the question that come to mind first is how could this have been prevented? Yet very quickly, it stops being about actual prevention. And it becomes nothing more than a politically polarizing fight of us vs. them. Gun owners vs. gun critics. Facts and fiction get twisted. We saw this with the exaggeration of how many school shootings there had been, a Bloomberg group cited 18. That number includes more than violent acts it in schools during school settings. A Washington Post article sorts through the fact vs. fiction of that including the fact that number included an adult suicide in the parking lot of a school that had not been in use in seven months. It also included the discharge of a firearm after school hours and a few accidental discharges. But facts didn’t stop countless news outlets across the country from repeating the Bloomberg propaganda, and the facts certainly won’t stop the bad information from being spread throughout the internet. This brings me to the emotional arguments of gun control that follow shootings. There are those who believe that if you support gun rights you don’t have compassion for the lives lost, that you don’t value life, or that in some way you are responsible for this level of violence that we see. That’s simply not true. It’s disgusting to dehumanize someone based on their position on gun control. Just as it is wrong for conservatives to dehumanize pro-choice supporters. We are all human and I don’t know a single person who’s not rocked to the core by these senseless acts of violence and terror. I worked for the NRA-ILA for two campaign seasons. While I in no way speak for the organization, I can tell you about my personal experience. I went to both gun shops and gun shows and talked to gun owners. There’s such a strong sense of community and family among those who own firearms, and they absolutely want to protect their Second Amendment rights. But they also love life and those around them. Second Amendment supporters are opposed to and appalled, shocked and disgusted by gun crime. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. You don’t have to have a dead heart to be a member of the NRA or support Second Amendment rights. Opposing limitations on the lawful ownership and use of firearms and/or belonging to a group that is not the same as supporting crime and certainly is not an indictment on one’s character as gun opponents would have you believe. So what does “I am the NRA” mean to me? It means that I am member of an organization, a group of people who support fundamental, American rights. You may not understand someone’s need or want for a specific type of gun, but that does not mean that gun should be banned. You may not understand the need of, or desire, for someone to recreationally shoot firearms, but your opinion doesn’t trump their rights. I don’t like some profane words — I recently wrote a blog about the n-word. I don’t understand why people choose to use it. But it’s their right. I don’t understand lyrics to songs that incite violence, dehumanize women and negate the value of law enforcement, but I understand that they stem from someone’s right to express themselves and they exist for those who do enjoy them. Don’t tell me words don’t kill people the same way as guns because I’d argue they can, and do. Words can incite violence, and hatred, and disrespect, and that they’re immeasurably powerful. This is why we rallied as a nation when the Charlottesville protest happened to shout out the voices of hate. The idea that “common sense regulations” will stop violence is simply not the case. What we really need to get to is the heart of the matter. Everyone is looking for answers, as they do after each shooting. Even more than that, they’re looking for something that will give them a sense of control. It is during these initial days, full of grief and rage, that gun control advocates and Second Amendment supporters inevitably find themselves inundated with opinions from the other side. The shouting drowns out the solutions we could agree on. The solutions we do agree on which there are many. It also drowns out the questions that go beyond gun control that suck the air out of the room: Knowing that studies have shown early exposure to violent forms of entertainment are predictors of later aggressive behavior why aren’t we doing more to limit access to this source of influence? The Texas shooting showed a breakdown in reporting that allowed someone who was ineligible to purchase a firearm to do so. In the case of Florida would an involuntary mental health hold on the young man who committed the atrocious acts have put him in the system so that he would not have been able to purchase his firearm? Teachers and former classmates say while he was a student, he had an angry disposition that led to him being expelled and flagged as a danger on school grounds. Last year, he had reportedly commented on a YouTube post that he would be a “professional
House committee extends Stand Your Ground law to Alabama churches
An Alabama House committee on Wednesday approved a bill that would extend the state’s Stand Your Ground law to churches. Sponsored by Rogersville-Republican State Rep. Lynn Greer, HB34 was sent to the full House on a voice vote by the House Judiciary Committee sent. Under existing law, a person is justified in using physical force, including deadly force, in self-defense or in the defense of another person under certain conditions. And a person is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force, in self-defense or the defense of another person against a person committing or attempting to commit certain specified crimes. Under Greer’s bill, a person is presumed justified in the use of physical force to defend an employee, volunteer or member of a church from assault, whether on church grounds or in a church-related activity. Greer said he introduced the bill after churches in his district asked him to sponsor the legislation due to church shootings around the country. But not everyone is in favor of the bill. Members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America opposed the bill in a public hearing last week, putting pressure on lawmakers to reject it. There, Anne Leader, leader of the Alabama Chapter of the group, argued that Stand Your Ground laws allow people to “shoot first and ask questions later.” The bill moves on the full House for consideration.
Bradley Byrne: Standing up for the Second Amendment
The Second Amendment is clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Despite what some may try to argue, the Second Amendment makes clear that the federal government cannot prevent individuals from owning firearms. The vast majority of gun owners point out that their top reason for owning a firearm is self-defense. Studies have shown that violent crime has decreased as gun ownership has increased. Individuals should be trained and prepared to defend themselves should they find themselves in a dangerous situation Since being elected to Congress, I have continually stood up for the gun-owners and fought to prevent any attempt to restrict an individual’s Second Amendment right. Under the leadership of President Donald Trump, gun owners now have an advocate in the White House who respects the Second Amendment as well. Just this past week, the House of Representatives passed a major pro-Second Amendment bill. H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, passed the House with my support by a vote of 231 to 198. Simply put, the bill makes clear that a citizen’s Second Amendment right doesn’t end when they cross state lines. The bill would allow a person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that also issues concealed firearm permits. The bill would also apply for states that allow non-prohibited persons to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. Notably, the bill does not create a national licensing program, but would require states to recognize other states’ valid concealed carry permits. The legislation is strongly supported by Second Amendment advocates, including the NRA. Some have gone so far as it say it is the most “far-reaching expansion of self-defense rights in modern American history.” According to the NRA, the legislation “seeks to shift the law to the side of those who obey the rules so they – and not just the criminals – can exercise what the U.S. Supreme Court called ‘the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation’ in any state where their travels may take them.” To be clear, the bill does not change who is and isn’t eligible to own or possess a firearm. If someone is a criminal who is prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm, nothing in this bill would allow that person to purchase a firearm or carry one in a concealed fashion. Concealed carry permits have been shown to help deter crime. For example, there is the story of a sheriff’s deputy in Florida who was being violently attacked after car chase when a bystander, who had a concealed-carry permit, was able to intervene and subdue the suspect. The Lee County Sheriff has proclaimed the gentleman a hero for his efforts. The bill is also important because it helps end confusion caused by the current patchwork of state laws. I recently heard the story of a wounded warrior on the way back from receiving medical care for his injury being arrested in our nation’s capital for simply possessing a concealed handgun, lawfully permitted from his home state. This is unacceptable. By helping provide clarity, the American people will be able to conceal carry a firearm across state lines without being subject to potential criminal or civil risk. For me, I will continue doing everything I can to stand up for the Second Amendment. This is about protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans and working to make our country a safer place. • • • Bradley Byrne is a member of U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.
Martha Roby: Enhancing the protection of the Second Amendment
Our country’s Founders laid out certain rights in our Constitution in order to empower the people, not the government. Certainly among the most fundamental rights we have as Americans is the right to keep and bear arms, as declared by the Second Amendment. As a gun owner myself and a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, I am pleased to report that the House of Representatives has taken action to preserve Americans’ constitutional right and ensure that our background check system is functioning properly. The House has passed H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, to enhance and standardize the protection of the Second Amendment by simply ensuring all law-abiding citizens who obtain concealed carry permits in their home states can exercise the right to protect themselves in any state. Our Second Amendment right doesn’t end when we cross the state line, and I believe individuals who meet the requirements for concealed carry in their home state should be allowed the same privileges in any state, of course provided that they obey the local concealed carry laws. That’s what H.R. 38 does. This bill also seeks to ensure that our current National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is enforced and working properly. In the wake of the horrible shooting at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, we learned that the assailant had been allowed to legally purchase a firearm when he should not have been. If the system we have in place had worked, his time served in military prison for his history of domestic violence would have been properly reported into NICS by the U.S. Air Force, and he would have been prohibited him from obtaining such weapons. This oversight was unacceptable, deadly, and completely avoidable. That’s why H.R. 38 takes steps to hold federal agencies accountable for their responsibility to report information. Some gun control advocates claim that this bill somehow makes it easier for dangerous, unqualified individuals to obtain and carry guns. That is absolutely not true. If a citizen is currently prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm, this bill does nothing to change that. On the other hand, others have claimed this bill makes it harder for Americans to exercise their Second Amendment right. That’s not true either. H.R. 38 does nothing to infringe on any law-abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, but rather seeks to ensure that our current laws are properly enforced. Those of us who respect the Second Amendment and dedicate our careers to defending it will always fight to protect this fundamental right from those who would try to erode it. It is precisely because we want to preserve the Second Amendment for future generations that we must uphold and enforce our current laws designed to ensure that dangerous people cannot legally obtain weapons. As a member of the Judiciary Committee that worked on this legislation, I’m proud that the House has taken this important action. I also appreciate the work of the National Rifle Association and other groups to help build support for this legislation. I hope the Senate takes up this bill quickly and sends it to the President’s desk. I will keep you posted as we move forward. ••• Martha Roby represents Alabama’s Second Congressional District. She lives in Montgomery, Alabama with her husband Riley and their two children.
