Posts

Okay, Let’s Regulate Guns like Cars by Eugene Volokh

A commenter on a recent thread asked — seemingly from a pro-gun-control perspective — “Why can’t guns be treated like cars, regulated and available, only to those who demonstrate competence and compliance with laws?” That is a perfect excuse for me to reprise my analysis of the guns-cars analogy.

Cars are basically regulated as follows (I rely below on California law, but to my knowledge the rules are similar throughout the country):

  1. No federal licensing or registration of car owners.
  2. Any person may use a car on his own private property without any license or registration. See, e.g., California Vehicle Code §§ 360, 12500 (driver’s license required for driving on “highways,” defined as places that are “publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel”); California Vehicle Code § 4000 (same as to registration).
  3. Any adult — and in most states, 16- and 17-year-olds, as well — may get a license to use a car in public places by passing a fairly simple test that virtually everyone can pass.
  4. You can lose your license for proved misuse of the car, but not for most other misconduct; and even if you lose your driver’s license, you can usually regain it some time later.
  5. Your license from one state is good throughout the country.

This is pretty much how many gun rights advocates would like to see guns regulated, and is in fact pretty close to the dominant model in the over 40 states that now allow pretty much any law-abiding adult to get a license to carry a concealed weapon: No need to register or get a license to have a gun at home, and a simple, routine test through which any law-abiding citizen can get a state license to carry a gun in public.

And even if we require a test for all possession of a gun, at home or in public — again, something that’s not required for cars — that would still mean that pretty much any law-abiding adult (or 16- or 17-year-old) would be able to easily get a license to carry a gun. That would provide more functional gun rights in the remaining non-shall-issue states (including, for instance, New York) than is provided under current gun regulations.

Now I suspect that many gun control advocates would in reality prefer a much more onerous system of regulations for guns than for cars. Of course, one can certainly argue that guns should be regulated more heavily than cars; thoughtful gun control advocates do indeed do this.

But then one should candidly admit that one is demanding specially burdensome regulation for guns — and not claim to be merely asking “why can’t guns be treated like cars?”

Incidentally, I don’t claim any great originality on these points: Others have made them before me, see, e.g., David Kopel’s “Taking It to the Streets,” Reason, Nov. 1999. But some things are worth repeating.

This post first appeared at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Eugene Volokh
Eugene Volokh

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.

Florida State University President Thrasher Flip-flopped 4 times on Campus Carry

The media love to expose the underbelly of politicians whether it favors their own position or not.  Changing positions on issues only once apparently is acceptable but multiple times on the same issue rankles even the most understanding and tolerant person.

It is particularly significant when someone who uses his/her position to expend state funds to lobby the legislature against the constitutional rights of the people who pay those taxes.

Further, it is egregious when that position and power can be used to curtail First amendment rights to keep others from speaking out against the administration on Second Amendment rights.

Conservative, pro-campus carry faculty members and employees have expressed fear of retaliation if they speak out in support of issues which the anti-gun administration opposes.  There is a chill and a suppression of First Amendment rights when it comes to speaking out on gun rights.  If you support the administration’s position, you’re golden.  If you oppose their position, they’re afraid to speak out.

The following article published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune strikes at the heart of the problem of people of power forgetting their true obligation.

Williams: FSU president flip-flopped on campus carry 4 times

By Lee Williams

Published: Herald Tribune, Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 1:27 p.m.

John-Thrasher

Florida State University president John Thrasher

Florida State University president John Thrasher has become one of the most vocal opponents of campus-carry legislation in Florida.

The bill introduced by Rep. Greg Steube, R-Sarasota, would allow concealed-carry licensees to tote firearms for self-defense on college and university campuses.

Thrasher has very adamantly and very publicly criticized Steube’s bill, and similar legislation in the Senate.

“I’m personally opposed to it. I think it’s a bad thing for universities to do. I would love to see us have a gun-free zone frankly on our campus,” Thrasher said earlier this year.

It is a position that Thrasher has held on-again, off-again in the past five years: a Herald-Tribune investigation found that Thrasher has switched his position on campus carry four times during that time frame.

Two state representatives have told the newspaper that Thrasher personally lobbied them to vote against the campus-carry bill, even though state law prohibits him from lobbying lawmakers for two years after leaving the Senate.

“It seems as though he’s obviously taking the position he would take as president of the university,” Steube said. “I’d ask him why he’s changed his position back and forth.”

Flip-flopping

Thrasher supported campus carry in 2010, according to the “Florida Candidate Questionnaire” created jointly by the National Rifle Association and the Unified Sportsmen of Florida, the state NRA-affiliate.

The candidates were asked: “Concealed Weapons and Firearms Licenses are only issued to law-abiding adults who are 21 years of age or older. Do you believe the constitutional right of self-defense does not end on the campus of a college or university and that anti-gun administrators should stop discriminating against persons licensed by the state to lawfully carry firearms for self defense?”

Thrasher agreed, putting a check mark by a response that stated: “Yes, and I would support legislation to stop colleges and universities from banning lawful self-defense on campus.”

The two gun groups gave him an “A” rating.

One year later, Thrasher, as Rules Committee chairman, single-handedly killed a concealed-carry bill that was sponsored by Sen. Greg Evers, R-Baker.

The reason? The daughter of Thrasher’s dentist had been accidentally shot and killed by her boyfriend during a late-night party at an off-campus fraternity. The boyfriend, who at 18 did not possess a concealed-carry license, told police he did not know his rifle was loaded. He also admitted to drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana.

Thrasher told one newspaper that the decision to kill the 2011 bill was “beyond personal.”

A year later, in the 2012 candidate questionnaire, Thrasher for the first time opposed campus carry. He wrote a personal note on the form to former Marion Hammer, executive director of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida and a past-president of the NRA: “Marion, you and I have discussed.”

Based upon his response, the NRA and USF downgraded Thrasher’s candidate rating to a B-minus.

In 2014, facing reelection, Thrasher switched his position on campus carry again — this time supporting the bill — and he wrote another note to Hammer: “I am a strong advocate of the NRA and the second amendment and plan to continue to be.”

The two gun groups restored Thrasher’s A-rating.

FSU’s Board of Trustees selected Thrasher to serve as president in September 2014.

Just 10 days after taking office, there was a shooting in the FSU library. A 31-year-old alumnus shot a university employee and two students before he was fatally shot by police.

After the shooting, Thrasher changed his position again, and now remains opposed to campus carry.

Thrasher, in a brief interview Wednesday, said he had never flip-flopped since the death of his dentist’s daughter.

“When the young woman was shot on campus and killed accidentally by a student who had a gun, that’s when I changed my position,” he said. “I don’t care what I filled out. My position is that I’m opposed to guns. I don’t think it’s a good idea. That’s where I was last year. That’s where I was after the young woman was shot. I don’t care what the NRA says. Thank you.”

Hammer told the Herald-Tribune that she seldom sees anyone switch their position on the campus-carry bill, much less four times, since it “has no gray area.”

“Generally, we believe that when a candidate flip-flops, they have reasons that are not in the best interest of the Second Amendment that they profess to support,” she said.

Read more.

Trump: Protecting Our Second Amendment Rights Will Make America Great Again

Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump released his position on the Second Amendment. Trump’s policy states in part:

The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away.

[ … ]

We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop.

[ … ]

All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue.

[ … ]

Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried.

[ … ]

The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states.

[ … ]

Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless.

To read Donald Trump’s full policy on the Second Amendment click here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Third Time’s the Charm: Federal Appeals Court Voids Provisions of D.C. Gun Control in Heller III

Congressman Sam Johnson Introduces Bill to Protect Social Security Recipients From the Obama Administration’s Most Ambitious (and Outrageous) Gun Grab to Date

CNN Poll Offers Bad News for Gun Controllers, Anti-gun Candidates

Martin O’Malley: I’m More Anti-Gun Than Hillary!

Latest Gun Control Proposal Doesn’t Pass Constitutional Muster

Florida: Campus Concealed Carry and School Safety Bills Advance

Bills to remove the prohibition against Concealed Weapons License Holders carrying firearms on college or university campuses were heard in committees in both houses today.

Wednesday, September 16 at 9:00 AM SB-68, Campus Carry by CW License Holders  by Sen. Greg Evers (R- Baker) was heard in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee House and PASSED by a vote of 3-2.  Republican Senators Bradley, Brandes, and Evers voted in Favor of the bill while Democrat Senators Clements and Gibson voted Against it.

On Wednesday, September 16 at 10:30 AM HB-4001, Campus Carry by CW License Holders by Rep. Greg Steube (R-Sarasota) was heard in the House Criminal Justice Committee and PASSED by a vote of 8-5.  Republican Reps. Baxley, Fant, Harrell, Latvala, Plakon, Spano, Trujillo and VanZant voted in Favor of the bill while Republican Ray Pilon voted Against it.  Democrats Bracy, Kerner, Pritchett and Watson also voted Against it.

Under this bill, adults 21 years of age or older who have a valid Florida Concealed Weapons or Firearm License will have their rights restored and will be able to carry their concealed firearms on college or university campuses for protection.

Florida Governor Rick Scott Takes Action to Expedite Concealed Weapons Licenses for Military

THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA — Alarmed by a shooting rampage in Tennessee that killed four Marines and a sailor, Gov. Rick Scott on Saturday issued an executive order designed to increase protections for members of the Florida National Guard.

Scott directed Adjutant Gen. Michael Calhoun to temporarily move National Guard members from six “storefront” recruitment centers to armories. Also, he ordered Calhoun to work with local law-enforcement agencies to arrange regular security checks of armories and said the state will expedite processing of new concealed-weapons licenses for members of the National Guard.

“We’re going to do everything we can to make sure that all of our National Guard members are safe,” Scott, who was scheduled to hold a late-afternoon news conference in West Palm Beach, said during a CNN interview.

The executive order said Guard members will be moved from the recruitment centers to armories until Calhoun “can fully evaluate and make recommendations for improving the security” of the centers. It said possible improvements could include installing bulletproof glass and enhancing video-surveillance equipment.

The move to expedite new concealed-weapons licenses would apply to Guard members who do not have such permits. Scott said during the CNN interview that the move is designed for “personal protection when they are not on duty.”

Scott issued the executive order two days after 24-year-old Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez opened fire at a military-recruiting center and a Navy Reserve facility in Chattanooga, Tenn. Abdulazeez, whose name has been spelled in different ways by news organizations, killed four Marines, and a Navy petty officer died early Saturday of wounds, according to the Washington Post.

The shooting spree has spurred investigations into whether Abdulazeez, who also died, had links to terrorist organizations. In a Twitter post Saturday, Florida House Speaker Steve Crisafulli, R-Merritt Island, said he supported Scott’s executive order to “help protect our military from acts of terror.”

Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam, whose agency administers concealed-weapons licenses, issued a statement that said he is “fully committed to supporting our military members, and we look forward to expediting their concealed-weapon license applications.”

Anti-Gun Politicians Get Woman Killed in New Jersey

Carol Bowne

Carol Bowne / Courier-Post

Add Carol Bowne to the ever-lengthening list of people who have been killed because gun control supporters in elected office prohibited them from defending themselves.

In the most direct sense, Bowne, a resident of Berlin Township, New Jersey, was murdered, on June 3, by a violent ex-con she had prior reason to fear. But in a broader sense, anti-gun politicians also bear responsibility for Bowne’s avoidable death. It is they who forced her to choose between obtaining a handgun quickly and carrying it with her for protection — at risk of imprisonment, fines or worse at the hands of New Jersey’s law enforcement authorities and courts — or subordinating her self-preservation instincts to the dictates of those same politicians — at risk of death at the hands of her eventual killer.

To the eternal regret of those of us whose memory of this sickening story will not be erased by the banal arguments gun control supporters raise, as they try to escape the blame they very much deserve, Bowne, as a law-abiding citizen, paid the ultimate price.  In short, New Jersey’s extreme gun control laws provided Bowne’s murderer with exactly what he needed to perpetrate this horrific crime — a defenseless victim.

Bowne applied with her local police department for a permit to merely purchase a handgun — a permit to carry a handgun being out of the question in New Jersey — and waited. By law, state officials were required to process her application within 30 days.

They didn’t. As Charles C. W. Cooke noted this week, in Jersey, they rarely do. “Instead, would-be gun owners report waiting for three, four, six, and even nine months for permission to exercise what the Second Amendment makes clear is an unalienable individual right,” Cooke said.

In short, New Jersey’s extreme gun control laws provided Bowne’s murderer with exactly what he needed to perpetrate this horrific crime — a defenseless victim.   Much taller and heavier than Bowne, her assassin stabbed the defenseless Bowne with a knife in her driveway, repeatedly, twice walking away and returning to stab her again, then kicked her after she fell.

Someone of low moral caliber might ask “what difference does it make?” that the killer used a knife instead of a gun. But anyone who has to ask the question is incapable of understanding the answer. It is, simply, that gun control laws do not disarm murderers, they disarm their victims.

Because they deserve much of the blame for Bowne’s death, gun control supporters — if there are any who have a shred of decency and any sense of shame — should remain silent, while the sane among us go about the long overdue business of repealing New Jersey’s despicable gun control laws and any like them in other states. Several legislators in New Jersey have said they will take the very small — but important — step to introduce legislation requiring that handgun permit applications be expedited for women in Carol Bowne’s situation. But the far better solution is clearly to scrap the state’s absurd gun control laws altogether.Someone of low moral caliber might ask “what difference does it make?” that the killer used a knife instead of a gun. But anyone who has to ask the question is incapable of understanding the answer. It is, simply, that gun control laws do not disarm murderers, they disarm their victims.

Gun control supporters will not remain silent, of course. They will continue to press for more of the same restrictions that got Carol Bowne killed, and worse. One might ask “why,” but at some point, it doesn’t matter why gun control supporters do what they do — whether it is because of ignorance, a desire to control others, or a feeling of inferiority to, and disdain for, people willing and able to protect themselves. What matters is what they do, and what they do gets people killed.

Henceforth, let the gravest of risks be to the political careers of those who impose laws devoid of logic and contrary to the founding documents of this great country which jeopardize the lives of the people they are supposed to serve. On Election Day, in New Jersey and elsewhere, let’s remember Carol Bowne’s and that in all cases, elections truly do have consequences.

Hardening up our “Soft Targets”

soft target hard choicesMumbai, Nairobi, Boston, Martin Place, Peshawar, and Paris. What do all of these places have in common? They have all been victimized by the same terror tactic, a tactic which is difficult to fight. The dramatic September 11, 2001 terror attacks cost the terrorist operatives about $500,000 and countless man hours of flight training and planning to effectively implement. The ongoing terror attacks in Paris and the other places mentioned, cost little in terms of money, training and planning, but cost us an unimaginable amount in terms of precious lives and security costs. We must all remember that we are dealing with savages who are only interested in death and carnage. There will be no negotiations and no egress plan; these savages will die in the process of bringing death and destruction to others.

Although there is no reason to live in fear, or use these incidents to dissolve constitutional liberties, it is now the responsibility of business owners, school administrators, stadium and theater owners in population centers to, at a minimum, have a basic security plan for both a shelter-in-place and an evacuation scenario. If possible, make sure that you make contact with your police department’s community affairs liaison and ask them how you can assist in the unlikely, but possible, circumstance that your city or town is targeted by a small-arms tactical assault.

Some additional steps you can take which would cost you little but would benefit you greatly:

  1. Have floor plans of your business readily available both at the business or location, in electronic format, and in an off-site location, in the unlikely event that your business or location is part of any attack, law enforcement officials will need these plans to effectively strike back.
  2. Disregard all of the politically-driven narratives and do whatever you can do to legally obtain a concealed carry permit. Small-arms tactical attacks by terrorists will never be countered by begging, pleading, telling them you’re a gun-control supporter, or by spewing foul-language at them. These men and women are obsessed with death and have zero-interest in gun “control” laws. They will obtain the weapons they need to carry out their perverse mission; the only relevant question is “will you obtain yours to fight back?”
  3. High-quality video cameras are affordable and easy to install and will assist law enforcement not only with the identification of terrorists and criminals, but also with the identification of the tactics they are using.
  4. Do whatever you can, within reason, to make your big business, school, stadium or theater, “small.” A terrorist involved in a small-arms tactical attack needs to move to implement maximum carnage. Movement is the terrorist’s best friend and your worst enemy. Anything from remote door locks, to cheap door chocks, to security gates at strategic locations can make your big location “small” and restrict movement and buy you and law enforcement, time to respond.

There’s no need to panic and live in fear but there is a need to recognize the savages we are fighting and do everything we can, within reason, to “harden up” our soft targets and make the United States as unappealing a target as possible.

Why Florida needs to legalize concealed carry on campus: A rape survivor’s compelling argument

The Florida legislature is considering bills in both houses to allow students with a concealed carry permit to bring their gun on campus. Educators have a responsibility to keep their students safe while on campus. Students currently give up their unalienable rights to defend themselves while on a school campus. Making college and K-12 school campuses gun free zones puts safety on the back burner and self defense impossible.

In November 2014 three Florida State University students were shot on campus by a lone gunman. One of the wounded students was a military veteran and holder of a Florida concealed carry permit. He was unarmed because current Florida law prevented him from carrying while on campus.

The following are excerpts from an op-ed by Amanda Collins titled “Counterpoint: A rape survivor argues why we need guns on campus.” Amanda writes:

Across the country, legislators are debating the right of law-abiding concealed carry permit holders to legally carry firearms onto university campuses.

Just the other day, I was asked “Why do you need a firearm on campus? What’s so threatening about becoming educated?” Here’s my answer: Eight years ago, during my junior year at the University of Nevada-Reno, I was raped in the parking garage only feet away from the campus police office.

As this stranger raped me while holding a pistol to my temple, I could see the police cruisers parked for the night, and I knew no one was coming to help me. Eventually the man who raped me, James Biela, was caught. He was tried and convicted for not only raping me at gun point in a gun-free zone, but also raping two other women and murdering Brianna Denison. So, I ask, “How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?”
At the time of my attack, I had obtained my Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit for the personal choice of not wanting to be a defenseless target. In Nevada, permit holders are not allowed to carry firearms on campuses. As a law-abiding citizen, I left my firearm at home, which means that the law that is meant to ensure my safety only guaranteed the criminal an unmatched victim.

I still wonder what would have been different if I’d been carrying my weapon that night. But here’s the truth: Had I been carrying my firearm, I would have been able to stop the attack. Not only that, but two other rapes would have been prevented and three young lives would have been saved, including my own.

Any survivor of rape can understand that the young woman I was walking into the parking garage that night was not the same woman who left. My life has never been the same after my attack. Legalized campus carry would have saved my family, who happens to be the collateral damage in my story, and me a great deal of untold torment.

My case is a perfect example that despite law enforcement’s best efforts to ensure our safety, they are unable to be everywhere at once. All I wanted was a chance to effectively defend myself. The choice to participate in one’s own defense should be left to the individual. That choice should not be mandated by the government. As a law-abiding citizen, I should not have to hand over my safety to a third party. Laws that prohibit campus carry turn women like me into victims by stripping away our Second Amendment rights.

Unfortunately, legislators opposed to campus carry are more intimidated by law-abiding citizens like me sitting in class with a legal firearm, than the rapist waiting for me in the parking garage. Most people are unaware that one in four women will be raped while attending college and one-third of them occur on the campus they attend.

Read more.

EDITORS NOTE: Amanda Collins’ op-ed is a response submitted through the National Rifle Association to a Feb. 24 column, “More Guns on campus is not the answer to sexual assault,” by Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a Michael Bloomberg funded anti-gun organization.

Florida: “Astroturf” groups attack lawmakers who support campus carry (+ video)

Anti-gun “astroturf” groups don’t like guns on campus and they’re demanding an apology from two lawmakers who do.  Currently under attack from these fake grassroots groups are Florida Representative Dennis Baxley and Nevada State Assemblywoman Michele Fiore.

In this video Astroturf (fake grassroots organizations) is explained at the University of Nevada by Sharyl Attkisson:

At the top of the list of “astroturf organizations” are groups created and funded anti-gun former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to fight the NRA.  They are “Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America” and “Everytown for Gun Safety.”

sharyl attkisson

Sharyl Attkisson

In a column titled “Top 10 Astroturfers” Sharyl Attkisson writes: 

The whole point of Astroturf is to try to convince you there’s widespread support for or against an agenda when there’s not.

[ … ]

The groups present themselves as grassroots organizations of “mayors, moms survivors and everyday Americans.” They are spearheaded by former New York Mayor and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg, and former PR professional and mother Shannon Watts. Last year, they announced a $50 million political campaign to try to counter the efforts of the formidable gun rights lobby.

[ … ]

The results of an informal, non-scientific poll identify groups related to Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc. as top Astroturf efforts. These groups include Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Everytown, Everytown for Gun Safety, Gun Sense, It’’s Time for Gun Sense in America, Gun Sense Voter, I”m a Gun Sense Voter, Moms Take the Hill and Stroller Jam.

Attkinsson lists the following as the top 10 astroturfers:

  1. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and Everytown
  2. Media Matters for America
  3. University of California Hastings Professor Dorit Rubenstein Reiss and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s Dr. Paul Offit
  4. “Science” Blogs such as: Skeptic.com, Skepchick.org, Scienceblogs.com (Respectful Insolence), Popsci.com and SkepticalRaptors.com
  5. Mother Jones
  6. Salon.com and Vox.com
  7. White House press briefings and press secretary Josh Earnest
  8. Daily Kos and The Huffington Post
  9. CNN, NBC, New York Times, Politico and Talking Points Memo (TPM)
  10. MSNBC, Slate.com, Los Angeles Times and Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times, MSNBC and Jon Stewart.

Florida Rep. Steube files bill “to arm school personnel”

On February 27th , Florida Representative W. Gregory “Greg” Steube,  filed HB 1097 – School Safety, which takes a hard look at safety in Florida’s schools. Rep. Steube, an Army paratrooper and Iraq War combat veteran, states, “The safety of our school children and the dedicated teachers and personnel who educate them is a paramount concern to all communities.”

“We are all deeply concerned about the well-being of our children and we must come to a consensus on how to prevent violent crimes from occurring on school grounds. As a father and a son of a teacher, I feel a responsibility to my community and my state to address the safety of our students and teaching personnel. With this bill, schools will be better equipped to protect their faculty and students,” notes Rep. Steube.

HB 1097 would allow a school principal to designate one or more members of school personnel to carry a concealed firearm or weapon while performing his or her official duties. 

The bill requires that “designated personnel must complete additional training and coursework that covers emergency procedures, life safety, methods of prevention, terrorism awareness and firearm proficiency to ensure they are prepared to respond appropriately in the event that a threat arises on campus. Also, the bill would require each school to have a school safety officer present on campus, unless the principal has already designated a member of school personnel to carry a weapon or firearm on that campus.”

Below, you can find more information regarding HB 1097, as well as important tools that may help you advocate for your concerns.

HB 1097

HB 1097 Press Release

Legislative Tracking System

EDITORS NOTE:

Greg Ridgeway, Ph.D., Deputy Director National Institute of Justice, in a recently released document states, “On average there are about 11,000 firearm homicides every year. While there are deaths resulting from accidental discharges and suicides, this document will focus on intentional firearm homicides. Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year. Policies that address the larger firearm homicide issue will have a far greater impact even if they do not address the particular issues of mass shootings.”

This document provides a cursory summary of select initiatives to reduce firearm violence and an assessment of the evidence for the initiative. To read the document click here.

Watch this video statement by Christian Ziegler, State Committeeman from Sarasota, FL: