IPGV is a member of
Iowa Shares
|
|
|
1/7/02
|
Understanding IPGV's
Legislative Agenda - This Week: SF 488
The Iowa Legislature convenes on January 14th, and IPGV will have two
bills at the forefront of our agenda—SF 488 to close the gun show
loophole and HSB 78 to prohibit firearms possession by domestic
abusers. This Monday and next Monday, we will profile these bills
to give IPGV members and friends an idea of the intentions of the
legislation and the details that make these bills strong.
Today—Senate File 488.
Senate File 488 was first proposed by IPGV last session and passed out
of the Judiciary Committee in a bipartisan 8-3 vote—four Republicans
and four Democrats voting for the bill. However, the bill was
never brought up for a floor debate in the Iowa Senate. In order
to reach the Senate this year, SF 488 must again be approved by the
Judiciary Committee.
The main goal of SF 488 is to close the gun show loophole—a loophole
in federal law that allows private citizens to sell guns at gun shows
without conducting a criminal background check on the buyer. The
lack of background checks on these sales is significant considering
that approximately 30-40% of all gun sales conducted in the United
States are secondary sales—those taking place between unlicensed
individuals where a background check is not required.
If SF 488 were approved by the Iowa
Legislature, the
following changes would be implemented at gun shows throughout
Iowa. All firearm sales by unlicensed sellers at gun shows would
have to be conducted through a federally licensed gun dealer and meet
all applicable federal and state laws. Senate File 488 defines a
gun show as any event where 25 or more guns are offered for sale, or
where 3 or more vendors are present. This includes other
events—such as flea markets or estate sales—which fit the definition of
a gun show, and the law applies to all areas on the premises, including
parking lots. Finally, the law would apply if any part
of a transaction were to take place at a gun show—in other words, a
transaction could not be arranged at a gun show and conducted off the
premises in order to avoid the background check.
Gun show promoters would be responsible for providing at least one
federal firearms licensee (FFL)—a licensed gun dealer—to conduct the
background
checks for unlicensed sellers at the gun show. This FFL would be
allowed
to charge a fee not to exceed $5 for each background check he/she
conducts.
Exemptions to SF 488 include all sales conducted by someone authorized
to do so by a law enforcement agency, those conducted between relatives
(unless the buyer is prohibited from possessing firearms), and all
sales
of antique firearms, collector’s items, devices not designed for use as
a firearm, devices designed solely for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic,
line-throwing, safety, or similar device, or a firearm that is
unserviceable.
Transfer of a firearm at a gun show without going through a licensed
gun dealer would result in an aggravated misdemeanor—an offense that
could
bring a punishment of confinement for no more than two years and a fine
of at least $500 but no more than $5,000. If, however, a seller
is
aware that the buyer is in a prohibited category—a felon, minor,
domestic
abuser, etc.—that seller is subject to a class “D” felony. Class
“D”
felonies are punishable by confinement for no more than five years and
a
fine of at least $750 but no more than $7,500.
SF 488 is a simple bill that would prevent many sales of firearms to
people in prohibited categories, and support for closing the gun show
loophole
is strong. A 1999 National Gun Policy Survey found that nearly 8
out
of 10 Americans favor regulating private gun sales.
IPGV intends to lobby for SF 488 this
year, and we
are joined in our efforts by the members of the newly formed Iowa
Coalition for Sensible Gun Laws. The Ecumenical Ministries of
Iowa, the Iowa Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Iowa
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual
Assault, the League of Women Voters of Iowa, and Quad Citians for
Responsible Gun Laws will
be actively supporting SF 488 throughout the next year.
The Iowa Coalition For Sensible Gun Laws will hold a press conference
on January 23rd at the Statehouse in Des Moines to announce our
formation and detail our support for SF 488 and HSB 78. The press
conference will be accompanied by a lobby day, and all IPGV members and
friends are
encouraged to attend.
|
1/14/02
|
Understanding
IPGV's Legislative
Agenda - This Week: HSB 78
Last week we examined the details of Senate File 488 to close the gun
show loophole. Today, we’ll look at the other bill supported by
the Iowa Coalition for Sensible Gun Laws in the 2002 Legislature—House
Study Bill 78.
In Iowa, gun violence is overwhelmingly a public health problem, as
opposed to a crime problem. One of the biggest killers is the
domestic homicide. Simply put, guns and domestic violence make a
lethal combination.
Women are much more likely than men to be victims of domestic violence
related gun homicide. An IPGV study found that 84% of females
killed in Iowa between 1996 and 1998 were killed in domestic
situations—the majority in
domestic disputes or murder-suicides. Overall, between January
1990
and September 1999, at least 87 Iowa women were murdered by a husband,
boyfriend,
or intimate partner.
According to a 1998 Violence Policy Center study, in the United States,
more than 12 times as many females were murdered by a male they knew
(1,699 victims) than were killed by male strangers (138 victims).
The accessibility of a firearm in these cases often turns a domestic
dispute into a fatality. As reported in the Journal of the
American
Medical Association, “Firearm-related assaults by family members and
intimate
acquaintances were 12 times more likely to result in death than were
those
involving weapons other than a firearm.”
Under federal law, a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm if
they have been convicted of a domestic violence assault or are under a
court restraining order for domestic violence. House Study Bill
78
is designed to address the problem of access to firearms in domestic
violence
situations. Proposed in the 2001 Iowa General Assembly by Office
of
the Attorney General, HSB 78 would make it unlawful to possess a
firearm
under Iowa state law if a person is prohibited from possessing a
firearm
under federal law. This bill would enhance the ability of Iowa’s
law
enforcement to enforce the terms of federal law. Currently, it is
difficult
to enforce the federal law because (1) local law enforcement officials
lack
authority to enforce federal law, and (2) federal law enforcement
officials
are not equipped to respond effectively to all of the cases that arise
in
Iowa.
IPGV intends to lobby for HSB 78 and SF 488 this year, and as stated
last week, we are joined in our efforts by the members of the newly
formed
Iowa Coalition for Sensible Gun Laws. The Ecumenical Ministries
of
Iowa, the Iowa Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Iowa
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual
Assault, the League of Women Voters of Iowa, and Quad Citians for
Responsible
Gun Laws will be actively supporting SF 488 throughout the next year.
|
1/21/02
|
Join the Iowa
Coalition for Sensible Gun Laws at the Statehouse!
Join the Iowa Coalition for
Sensible Gun Laws
tomorrow morning at the Statehouse for a Press Conference and Lobby Day!
The Iowa Coalition for Sensible Gun Laws consists of: Ecumenical
Ministries of Iowa, Iowa Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics,
Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Iowa Coalition Against Sexual
Assault, Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, the League of Women
Voters
of Iowa, and Quad Citians for Responsible Gun Laws.
We support SF 488 to close the gun show loophole and HSB 78 to empower
law enforcement to remove guns from the homes of domestic abusers.
Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence will have a display in the
lobby of the Statehouse from 10:00am until 3:00pm, and there will be an
Iowa Coalition for Sensible Gun Laws press conference at 10:00 in the
rotunda.
We need you to come and tell your legislators that you support SF 488
to close the gun show loophole and HSB 78 to remove guns from the hands
of
domestic abusers.
|
1/28/02
|
Senate Majority
Leader Stewart Iverson Wants Letters and Phone Calls
On Wednesday, January 23, 2002, the Iowa
Coalition for
Sensible Gun Laws held a press conference at the Statehouse in Des
Moines to advocate for two bills—SF 488 to close the gun show loophole
and HSB
78 to empower Iowa’s law enforcement to remove guns from the hands of
domestic abusers. Speakers included John Johnson, Executive
Director of Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, Kirsten
Meredith, Communications Coordinator for Iowans for the Prevention of
Gun Violence, Jill Avery, Program Supervisor for the Children and
Families of Iowa, Family Violence Center, and Jan McNelly, President of
the League of Women Voters of Iowa.
Members of the Coalition include the Ecumenical Ministries of Iowa, the
Iowa Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Iowa Coalition
Against Domestic Violence, the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault,
Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, the League of Women Voters
of Iowa, and
Quad Citians for Responsible Gun Laws.
The press conference was attended by
NBC, ABC, CBS,
Fox, KUNI, WHO Radio, AP, the Cedar Rapids Gazette, the Sioux City
Journal, and the Quad City Times. The Des Moines Register did not
attend,
but did include a photo and caption in Thursday’s paper.
At the press conference, the Iowa Coalition released the results of a
statewide public opinion poll taken by the independent polling firm
Frank N. Magid Associates of Marion Iowa during the week of January 14,
2002. The poll asked Iowans if they would be in favor of or
opposed to a law requiring background checks on all buyers of guns at
gun shows. Respondents
were also classified by gender, political affiliation, gun ownership,
region,
and whether or not there were children in the home.
When the results were in, 87% of all respondents, including 80% of gun
owners, said that they supported legislation that would close the gun
show loophole. SF 488, currently stalled in the Senate Judiciary
Committee, would close the loophole. Last year, the bill passed
the Senate Judiciary Committee by an 8-3 vote, with four Republicans
and four Democrats voting for the bill. However, it was not
brought up in the Senate under
the direction of Senate Majority Leader Stewart Iverson (R-Dows).
In an article published Thursday, January 24 in the Cedar Rapids
Gazette, Iverson is quoted as saying: “I’ve never made a decision based
on polls,” and in responding to questions by a KUNI Radio reporter,
Iverson noted
that despite the poll, he has not received one letter or phone call
from
constituents supporting SF 488.
We would like to change
that. At the
end of this email you will find Senator Iverson’s contact
information. We must tell Senator Iverson to let SF 488 reach the
full Senate because
requiring background checks on all sales at gun shows would eliminate
the
purchase of weapons at gun shows by individuals in prohibited
categories—felons,
domestic abusers, minors, etc. The need for this legislation is
great. According to the ATF, gun shows are the second leading
source of guns recovered in illegal gun trafficking
investigations. This loophole is exploited by individuals in
prohibited categories across the nation—not excluding
Iowa.
As Jan McNelly, President of the League of Women Voters of Iowa, said
in her statement at the press conference, “responsible government
should be responsive to the will of the people.” If Senator
Iverson does not think an 87% majority of Iowans constitutes “will,” it
is time to send him letters—lots of them.
Write him a letter; give him a phone call. It will take 34 cents
and/or 3 minutes of your time, and it will make a big difference.
Senator Iverson needs to hear from the many people of Iowa who support
this
legislation—not just from the staff of Iowans for the Prevention of Gun
Violence.
We need your help—make your voice heard.
Address:
The Honorable Stewart Iverson
Senate Chamber
State Capitol Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
Telephone: 515-281-3560
E-mail: stewart_iverson@legis.state.ia.us
Visit this link for a profile of Senator Iverson:
http://web.legis.state.ia.us/GA/78GA/Senate/Members/StewartE-Iverson.html
|
2/4/02
|
Poll Shows 87% of
Iowans Support Closing the Gun Show Loophole, Including 8 out of 10 Gun
Owners
During the week of January 14, 2002, the independent polling firm Frank
N. Magid Associates conducted a statewide poll to determine the level
of support for legislation that would close the gun show loophole in
Iowa by requiring background checks on all gun sales at gun
shows. There were 400 Iowans polled, and there is a margin of
error of +/-4%.
The poll found that 87% of Iowans, including 8 out of 10 gun owners,
support legislation to close the gun show loophole. SF 488,
introduced
in the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, would close this
loophole.
The numbers below show the percentage of people in each category who
support mandatory background checks for all sales at gun shows.
Iowans Support for Closing the Gun Show
Loophole
Frank N. Magid Assoc. Poll, January 2002
|
Gender
|
|
Men
|
81% support
|
Women
|
93% support
|
Age
|
|
18-34
|
88% support
|
35-54
|
88% support
|
55+
|
87% support
|
Children in home
|
|
Children in home
|
88% support
|
No children in
home
|
87% support
|
Region (East-West)
|
|
Eastern
|
90% support
|
Central
|
86% support
|
Western
|
85% support
|
Region (North-South)
|
|
North
|
91% support
|
South
|
83% support
|
Locality
|
|
Urban
|
86% support
|
Rural
|
88% support
|
Gun in home
|
|
Keeps gun in home
|
85% support
|
No gun in home
|
90% support
|
Gun Ownership
|
|
Owns a gun
|
80% support
|
Does not own a
gun
|
91% support
|
Political Affiliation
|
|
Democrat
|
93% support
|
Republican
|
80% support
|
Independent
|
90% support
|
Socio-Economic Status
|
|
Low
|
87% support
|
Middle
|
85% support
|
High
|
94% support
|
Income
|
|
$50,000 and below
|
86% support
|
$50,000-$100,000
|
88% support
|
$100,000
+
|
88% support
|
Education
|
|
High school or
less
|
86% support
|
College/Trade
School
|
89% support
|
College degree
|
87% support
|
Post-graduate
work
|
92% support
|
|
2/11/02
|
Shays-Meehan Campaign
Finance Reform Bill Vote on Wednesday - Tell Your Representative to
Curb the Effects of Soft Money TODAY!
The Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Bill (HR 2356), proposed in
the US House of Representatives, would ban soft money
contributions—large,
unregulated contributions from special interests to political parties,
which then launder the money into specific federal campaigns.
These
contributions have replaced the will of constituents as the major
driving
force behind policy making in the United States.
As the table below shows, soft-money contributions from the National
Rifle Association are substantial. The NRA was the fourth largest
donor to Republicans in the 1999-2000 election cycle, one step above
Enron. The result of these contributions is the stalling of gun
control legislation and the appointment of officials—like lifetime NRA
member and US Attorney General John Ashcroft—who will support the NRA’s
agenda at every turn.
Top Donors to Political Parties During the
1999-2000 Election Cycle
|
Democrats
|
Amount
|
Republicans
|
Amount
|
American
Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees
|
$6,463,600.00
|
AT&T
|
$2,303,951.00
|
Service Employees
Int’l Union
(SEIU)
|
$5,090,696.00
|
Philip Morris
Cos. Inc.
|
$2,098,922.00
|
United
Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners
|
$2,925,000.00
|
Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co.
|
$1,518,019.00
|
Communications
Workers of
America
|
$2,420,000.00
|
National Rifle
Association
|
$1,455,187.00
|
United Food and
Commercial
Workers
|
$2,151,250.00
|
Enron Corp.
|
$1,433,850.00
|
Shays-Meehan’s companion bill in the Senate—the McCain-Feingold
bill—passed the full Senate in April 2001. However, House
leadership stalled
the Shays-Meehan bill, refusing to bring it up for a vote.
Shays-Meehan supporters used a tactic called a discharge petition to
force the bill
to the floor. Over the past few months, supporters collected
Representatives’ signatures, needing a majority of the House in order
to override the House leadership. In the end of January, the
petition succeeded, and 218 signatures freed Shays-Meehan for a floor
debate and a vote in the House.
Shays-Meehan will be brought up for debate on Tuesday, February 12th,
and the vote is expected on Wednesday, February 13th. Because of
last minute amendments, a replacement bill called the Ney Bill, and
other attempts that will be made to weaken the bill or divide its
supporters, it is crucial to let Representatives know that we support
this legislation. The
passage of Shays-Meehan will empower the movement to end gun violence
in
the United States—tell your Representative to curb the effects of soft
money!
Call Your Representative FOR FREE: 1-800-660-8244.
or
Visit www.commoncause.org to
send a free email or fax to your Representative—just enter your Zip
code!
|
2/18/02
|
Olympic Security
Officials and the Secret Service Agree - Concealed Weapons are a Safety
Risk
Proponents of lax concealed
weapons laws
argue that more guns in the hands of individuals will decrease the
potential for violent crimes. However, security officials
consistently decide against allowing concealed weapons into venues
where safety is their responsibility. This year’s Winter Olympic
Games are no exception.
This year, the games are taking place in Salt Lake City, Utah—a state
with a “shall issue” concealed carry law. “Shall issue” states
require only a background check before a concealed carry permit must be
issued;
Iowa, on the other hand, is a “may issue” state, requiring that
applicants
pass a background check and demonstrate a “need” to go armed.
Because the games would be taking place in a US state where there are
approximately 22,400 concealed carry permit holders—all of whom are
allowed to carry their guns into public places, Olympic officials
backed an effort to pass legislation allowing Olympic venues to ban
concealed weapons on the
premises. In March of 1999, Utah lawmakers passed this
legislation, banning concealed weapons in 2002 Winter Olympics
venues. As Shelly Thomas of the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing
Committee noted, the move was “something
that was absolutely essential for our security planning for the games.”
This is not the first high profile
incident of
concealed weapons being banned in Utah events. In August,
concealed weapons
were banned at Utah’s Republican organizing convention because of a
visit
from Vice President Dick Cheney. A group called the Utah Gun
Owners
Alliance planned a protest at the convention, arguing that the ban
violates
Utah state law allowing concealed weapons permit holders to carry their
guns into convention halls and other places. However, the AP
reported
on August 26th that there were no disturbances at the convention.
In fact, the ban on concealed weapons at the convention is consistent
with US Secret Service policy. The U.S. Secret Service prohibits
guns from any venue where the President, Vice President or other
high-ranking federal officials appear.
As one incident in Iowa displays, the Secret Service reaction to
concealed weapons holders in proximity to the President is a definite
security consideration. As reported in the IPGV June newsletter,
while President Bush was jogging in a Des Moines park in May of 2001, a
man was arrested and detained when he informed the Secret Service that
he had a loaded handgun and a legal
permit to carry. The man was later released, and no charges were
filed.
Overall, it seems that security officials agree—individuals carrying
concealed weapons are a safety risk, not an asset.
DON’T
FORGET:
An IPGV supported theatre project called “Voices of Youth” will have a
staged reading on February 24th at 3:00pm at CSPS in Cedar Rapids, and
all are welcome! Thanks to IPGV President Tom Gilsenan for the
following
description:
We're going to offer a first look at our "Voices of Youth" project in a
"staged reading" on Sunday, Feb. 24 at 3 pm in the afternoon. You'll
get to see and hear scenes for a new play based on interviews with
young people in communities around eastern Iowa. This isn't the full
production. It will be a series of scenes to give you an idea of what
the show will be like – and to give us an idea of how these scenes
sound in front of an audience. After the reading, we hope you'll stick
around for a few minutes and talk with us.
This staged reading will be held at CSPS Art Gallery, 1103 Third St.
SE in Cedar Rapids (not too far from downtown). We chose this place
because of the Corita Kent exhibit, which is now there. Corita used art
to inspire young people to social activism.
So circle the date on your calendar and plan to join us on Sunday
afternoon, Feb. 24. And if you're interested in reading a scene,
let us know. We're still looking for a few more people (ages 18-26) to
read. Contact Tom Gilsenan at (319) 335-1281 or via e-mail at thomas-gilsenan@uiowa.edu.
This project has been made possible by support from Iowans for the
Prevention of Gun Violence.
|
2/25/02
|
Press Release: More
than 75% of Surveyed U.S. Newspapers Allow Unchecked Gun Sales Through
Classified Ads
Washington, DC - More than 75% of
surveyed
newspapers in 16 states allow unchecked gun sales through classified
ads, according to a study released by the National Campaign to Close
the Newspaper Classified Gun Ad Loophole—a coalition of 24 state gun
violence prevention groups
and Million Mom March chapters lead by Iowans for the Prevention of Gun
Violence.
As part of the national effort to prevent potential terrorist acts, the
National Campaign to Close the Newspaper Classified Gun Ad Loophole is
calling on newspapers to stop allowing the sales of guns through
classified ads.
The Campaign also released a letter to Homeland Security Director Tom
Ridge and Attorney General John Ashcroft urging them to take action to
close the newspaper classified gun ad loophole, either through
regulatory powers available to them in their efforts to fight terrorism
or through the use of their "bully pulpits" to urge newspapers to
discontinue the practice of
allowing the sale of guns through classified ads. The National Campaign
to
Close the Newspaper Classified Gun Ad Loophole recommended that this is
a patriotic contribution that newspapers can make to the war on
terrorism.
"Sales of guns through newspaper classifieds offer the anonymity and
ability to avoid law enforcement checks, which make them a potential
source
of guns for terrorists," said John Johnson, Executive Director of
Iowans
for the Prevention of Gun Violence, which founded the coalition.
Two major U.S. newspapers, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Chicago
Tribune have already changed their policies in response to the Campaign
to no longer accept gun ads for either handguns or rifles and shotguns.
The Sandusky Register in Ohio changed its classified advertising policy
to only accept classified ads for rifles and shotguns, and will no
longer
accept ads for handguns.
The National Campaign is not calling for the end of newspaper display
ads for licensed retail gun dealers because background checks are
required at the time of sales.
One revealing example of why the newspaper loophole needs to be closed
is the case of Ben Smith, a white supremacist from Peoria, Illinois.
Smith attempted to purchase handguns from a gun dealer, but was
prevented from doing so because he underwent a criminal background
check. Smith, however, took advantage of the "newspaper gun ad
loophole" and bought two handguns from a local paper, the Peoria
Journal Star: a Bryco .38 and a Ruger 22. Over the July 4th, 1999,
weekend, Smith went on a shooting spree in Illinois and Indiana killing
two and wounding nine others before committing suicide.
"Ben Smith is a chilling example of how easy it is to obtain a gun
simply by taking advantage of the newspaper classified gun ad loophole
and reigning terror on a community," said Thom Mannard, Executive
Director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
"People blame the media for violence, which may or may not be true,"
said Ona Hamilton, President of the Pennsylvania Million Mom March.
"However, the newspaper classified gun ad loophole is an example of
newspapers potentially providing a direct connection to violence by
making it easy for overseas or domestic terrorists to get guns."
"A potential terrorist or criminal can purchase virtually any type of
firearm he wants from the classifieds of many papers, including assault
rifles
in some cases, and still avoid going through a background check in most
states," said Bryan Miller, Executive Director of Ceasefire New Jersey.
Results of the Survey:
A total of 282 newspapers were
surveyed in
16 states by 24 state and grass roots organizations working to prevent
gun violence. 77% of newspapers surveyed accepted classified ads for
guns.
In Texas, Michigan, Virginia, and Delaware, all of the newspapers
surveyed
accepted gun ads.
46% of newspapers surveyed did not accept classified ads for handguns.
"We consider 46% of newspapers refusing to accept classified ads for
handguns significant," said John Johnson. "Handguns account for 80% of
all firearm- related deaths and injuries and 90% of all gun crimes.
Clearly newspapers are aware of America's handgun problem if almost
half of the newspapers
surveyed won't accept classified ads for handguns."
The Campaign displayed the wide-ranging weaponry found in classified
ads with enlargements of ads for assault rifles, including an AK47 and
an AR 15. The ads that Ben Smith found in the Peoria Journal Star were
also
on display.
"There is a hole in the law as big as Texas," Jennifer Beazley,
Executive Director of Texans for Gun Safety commented, "and terrorists
and criminals can walk right through it to buy their guns."
Several newspapers have taken courageous steps towards limiting a
potential terrorist threat, domestic or foreign, by voluntarily
choosing to not accept classified gun ads. "We hope more newspapers
follow suit and close the
newspaper gun ad loophole," said Toby Hoover, Executive Director of the
Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence.
|
3/4/02
|
A New Context for
Death and Taxes: H&R Block Makes a Deal With the NRA
The student “watch-dog” organization Gun Industry Watch has recently
reported that America’s number one tax firm—H&R Block—has entered
into
an agreement with the NRA. When an NRA member has his/her taxes
done
by H&R Block, the tax firm will make a donation to the NRA.
The
NRA has also agreed to promote H&R block on its website.
Considering that resistance from the NRA
stalls
legislation that would help to prevent some of the 30,000 gun violence
deaths each
year, Gun Industry Watch has put out an action alert asking opponents
of
the NRA to send a message to H&R Block: “Don’t play with the NRA,
or
we won’t play with you.” The group has also organized protests
outside
H&R Block offices and asks supporters of gun control to find a new
place have their taxes done.
In response to the attention drawn to this partnership, H&R Block
has issued a statement to its potential customers, saying: “H&R
Block has not entered into an agreement with the National Rifle
Association nor are we providing any funding to the NRA.” H&R
Block claims that the partnership is actually between H&R Block’s
marketing firm and the NRA.
This, of course, is not a relevant distinction as far as Gun Industry
Watch is concerned, because the NRA is still receiving donations from
H&R Block. In fact, unlike H&R Block, the NRA is
unashamed of the
partnership, and features it on the NRA website: “NRA, the
nation's
largest pro-Second Amendment organization, and H&R Block, the
nation's
largest tax preparation service, recently announced a program that will
benefit both—and this has led to a small anti gun organization to call
on
its supporters to protest this.” The bottom line is that H&R
Block’s
business interests are directly linked to NRA profits.
Tell H&R Block: “Don’t Play With the NRA”:
www.hrblock.com/customer_support/submit_a_question.jsp
|
3/11/02
|
New Study Links High
Rates of
Gun Ownership to Increased Homicide, Suicide and Unintentional Death
A new study conducted by researchers at the Harvard School
of Public Health and published in the recent issue of the Journal of
Trauma shows that states with higher rates of gun ownership also have
higher rates of gun homicide, gun suicide and unintentional shootings.
As a result, overall rates of homicide and suicide are higher in states
with wider gun ownership.
The study compared rates of gun ownership to the number of
5-14 year olds who died from homicides, suicides, and unintentional
shootings between 1988 and 1997, and found a strong correlation.
According to the findings, children living in the five states with the
highest rates of gun ownership-Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi,
Arkansas, and West Virginia-were 16 times more likely to die from
an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to die from a gun
suicide, 3 times more likely to die from a gun homicide, and 2 times
more likely to die from suicide and homicide than children living in
states with
the lowest rates of gun ownership-Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
New Jersey, and Delaware.
In contrast, non-firearm homicides and non-firearms suicides were not
significantly associated with gun availability, indicating
that "children living in high-gun states are not significantly more
lethally violent towards themselves than are children in low-gun
states,
nor are they significantly more likely to be victims of lethal non-gun
attacks. Rather, the disproportionately high level of overall lethal
violence where guns are more available suggest that where there are
more guns, violence is more likely to turn lethal."
Researchers Mathew Miller, MD, MPH, ScD, Deborah Azrael, PhD, and David
Hemenway, PhD drew the following conclusion: "Where there are more
guns, children are not protected from becoming, but are rather much
more likely to become, victims of lethal violence."
|
3/18/02
|
Victory! H&R
Block Severs
Ties With the NRA
|
3/25/02
|
Technical
Difficulties/Successes, Speaker's Bureau, DM Action Group, Action Alert
Due to computer problems at the office, the First Monday and Every
Monday email list has been altered. It is possible that some
who will receive this email have not previously subscribed. First
Monday
and Every Monday is the weekly email list of Iowans for the Prevention
of Gun Violence, through which our organization distributes Action
Alerts, Updates, News, and Editorials. We hope you will stay on to be
connected to the movement to reduce gun violence in Iowa and the United
States. However, if you wish to be removed, please let me know by
responding
to this email. First Monday and Every Monday can now be accessed
through
the IPGV website.
Technical Successes
IPGV has recently updated our website, and we now have an Action Center
to alert IPGV members and supporters of opportunities to take action to
prevent gun violence. The Action Center features action alerts,
updates, contact information for federal and state legislators and
other public officials, and links to the websites of state and national
groups involved in (and opposed to…) the movement for gun violence
prevention. Visit our Action Center!
Speaker's Bureau
Over the weekend, IPGV Executive Director John Johnson spoke at the
First Presbyterian Church in Cedar Rapids on why gun violence is an
important issue and what can be done about it. Jeremy Brigham,
Research Associate with IPGV, spoke the previous weekend on the Public
Health Approach to gun violence and the Iowa face of suicide. IPGV
Speakers
are available to speak for groups and events. Contact us to arrange a
speaker at 319-743-7823.
Action Alert
The Shays-Meehan (and McCain-Feingold) Campaign Finance Reform Bill has
now passed the Senate and has moved to the desk of President George W.
Bush. Encourage him to sign it into law to limit the political
influence of big soft money donors like the NRA:
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
SWITCHBOARD: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
Email President Bush via the IPGV Action Center on this website!
|
4/1/02
|
Mental Health Parity
Bill & Clearing Up Sarah Brady Confusion
Last Thursday, the Iowa Senate voted on an Amendment that would make it
mandatory for businesses to include mental health coverage in insurance
packages made available to employees. Considering that the majority of
gun deaths in Iowa are suicides and many involve untreated mental
illnesses, IPGV supports the Mental Health Parity Bill and the
Amendment
making coverage mandatory.
The Amendment was passed with the votes of 20 Senate Democrats and 6
Senate Republicans. However, Senate Majority Leader Stewart
Iverson moved to defer, thereby postponing a vote on the bill
indefinitely.
Senate President Mary Kramer said, "we deferred to think through
whether
or not that is really the policy direction that we would like to
go…we'll
continue to discuss the bill and see whether or not it has a future."
Please-write to Senators Mary Kramer and Stewart Iverson and tell them
to bring the Mental Health Parity Bill up for a vote. Mandatory mental
health coverage will provide Iowans with the treatment they require,
resulting in a healthier population and a decreased
tendency for self-destructive action.
Clearing Up Sarah Brady Confusion
As some of you may have heard, it was reported by the New York Daily
News that Sarah Brady purchased a rifle for her son during 2000, and
that she may have violated Delaware State Law. Mrs. Brady describes the
purchase in her recently released book, A Good Fight. The Brady
Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the national gun control group that
Sarah Brady chairs, has issued a response to this story, saying that
"The speculation in this story is false; no laws were broken, and the
New York Daily News printed a retraction in the March 23 edition [of
the paper] … Mrs. Brady has always been quite clear that she is not
'anti-gun,'
but rather wants common-sense gun laws."
The following is the New York Daily News' retraction:
Correction
A New York Daily News story incorrectly reported that gun control
advocate Sarah Brady may have skirted Delaware's gun laws when she
bought a rifle for her adult son but did not declare who was going to
own the weapon.
The Delaware Department of Justice initially insisted to the Daily News
that gun purchasers must declare who the weapon was intended for so
that person's background could be checked.
On Friday, a spokeswoman for the Delaware Department of Justice said it
misinterpreted the law and Brady was not obligated to state that the
gun was for her son as long as he was legally qualified to own a gun.
In addition, a spokesman for Brady said, "Sarah Brady told
the gun store that the gun was for her son and filled out the forms
that they asked her to fill out."
|
4/8/02
|
Gun Sales Down Across the
Country
Gun sales have decreased dramatically in the last ten years according
to an April 2 report by the Christian Science Monitor. In fact, despite
a brief upswing in gun sales after the terrorist attacks of September
11, the number of background checks performed in 2001 was fewer than in
2000, and checks from January and February of 2002 indicate sales have
decreased 10.5% since the beginning of 2001. The decline is attributed
to "tougher gun-control laws, lower crime rates, and a shift in
American attitudes towards guns."
Results of a University of Chicago General Social Survey place the rate
of gun ownership at 24% in 2001-a decrease from 31% in 1996. Iowa
maintains a higher rate of gun ownership than the national average,
with 35% of adult Iowans owning one or more guns and 51% of Iowa homes
containing a gun (Frank N. Magid Associates poll, January 2002).
This decline is strongly demonstrated by the rate of handgun sales in
California over the last decade. According to Department of Justice
data, California handgun sales have dropped to the lowest level in 30
years, representing a downturn of 70% since the peak of sales in 1993.
Luis Tolley, the Western Regional Director of the Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence, notes that this decline represents "a seismic
shift in attitudes towards handguns. More and more families are
deciding that their families are safer without having handguns lying
around." This change in attitudes comes after several studies in recent
years
demonstrating the danger of keeping guns in the home, a practice
associated
with increased risk of firearm homicide, suicide and unintentional
shootings.
|
4/15/02
|
Come to the
Quarterly Meeting of the DM Action Group!
The Des Moines Action Group is a group of local activists who want to
learn more about gun violence and how to prevent gun violence in Iowa.
There will be a showing of the 2001 film distributed by the Alliance
for Justice - Deadly Business: How the NRA and the Gun Industry Market
Mayhem to America. A discussion will follow the film, and
representatives of Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence will be on
hand to answer questions. There is no charge, and refreshments will be
provided.
Join Us!
Wednesday, April 17, 2002
7-8:30pm
The American Friends Service Committee
42nd and Grand
Des Moines, IA
|
4/22/02
|
Constituents Must Say "No"
to Gun Industry Immunity
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection of the
Federal House Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings last week on
the "Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (HR 2037).
This Act, sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and backed by the gun
lobby, intends to make gun manufacturers and dealers immune from
lawsuits
filed as a result of their negligent sale and/or distribution of guns
then used in gun crimes.
The only gun control organization asked to testify before the committee
was the Washington D.C. based Violence Policy Center, a national
organization conducting research and policy development aimed at
reducing gun-related violence. VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand
addressed the Committee, stating: "The Violence Policy Center is
opposed to any legislation restricting the rights of public officials,
consumers, or any
other injured party to hold the gun industry accountable for its
actions and its products. H.R. 2037 is an unwarranted assault on the
rights of public officials to protect their citizens from gun
violence."
This debate comes in tandem with a report released by the General
Accounting Office that demonstrates how easy it is for an illegal gun
trafficker to use a plainly counterfeit Federal Firearms License to buy
guns. If HR 2037 were enacted, manufacturers and dealers providing
weapons to traffickers would be immune from prosecution.
The debate of gun industry immunity legislation follows efforts by 33
city, county and state governments to hold negligent gun manufacturers
and distributors legally accountable for the violence resulting from
the negligent sale and distribution of their products. To date, 22
states have succumbed to gun lobby pressures and enacted immunity laws
protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.
Senator Steve King (R-Kiron) introduced a bill (SSB 1173) in the Iowa
Senate last year that would prohibit Iowa cities from filing civil
actions against gun manufacturers. The bill died in the State
Government Committee chaired by King.
HR 2037 is a dangerous bill that would make it virtually impossible to
hold an industry already exempt from federal health and safety
standards accountable for the destruction resulting from their
negligent conduct. No other industry is granted such blanket immunity.
It is unfortunate that the sponsors of this bill have a greater loyalty
to the gun industry than to reducing the human suffering caused by
firearms in the United
States.
Tell the members of the Sub-committee not to
support
this bill! If you have friends or relatives in any of the states
represented by the following legislators, please engage their help as
well!
The Capitol Hill Switchboard Number is 202-224-3121
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection of the
Federal House Energy and Commerce Committee
Cliff Stearns, (R-FL), Chairman
Republicans
Fred Upton (MI-6)
Nathan Deal (GA-9)
Ed Whitfield (KY-1)
Barbara Cubin, (WY-AL)
John Shimkus (IL-20)
John B. Shadegg (AZ-4)
Ed Bryant (TN-7)
Steve Buyer (IN-5)
George Radanovich (CA-19)
Charles F. Bass (NH-2)
Joseph R. Pitts (PA-16)
Mary Bono (CA-44)
Greg Walden (OR-2)
Lee Terry (NE-2)
Ernie Fletcher (KY-6)
W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (LA-3)
(Ex Officio)
Democrats
Edolphus Towns (NY-10), Ranking Member
Diana DeGette (CO-1)
Lois Capps (CA-22)
Mike Doyle (PA-18)
Chris John (LA-7)
Jane Harman (CA-36)
Henry A. Waxman (CA-29)
Edward J. Markey (MA-7)
Bart Gordon (TN-6)
Peter Deutsch (FL-20)
Bobby L. Rush (IL-1)
Anna G. Eshoo (CA-14)
John D. Dingell (MI-16)
(Ex Officio)
|
4/29/02
|
IPGV Participates in
Regional Brady/MMM Conference
This past weekend, as Germany experienced a traumatic school shooting,
lives were lost to gun violence throughout the United States, and the
NRA held its annual meeting in Nevada at which Charlton Heston
announced his intention to remain President of the NRA for yet another
year, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united with the
Million Mom March and in collaboration with state and local gun
violence prevention groups held a Midwest/Great Lakes regional
conference.
At the regional conference, representatives from IPGV and other state
groups joined the Washington D.C. and Los Angeles staff of Brady as
well as numerous chapters of the Million Mom March located throughout
the region. The Brady Campaign merged with the Million Mom March last
year in an effort to strengthen grassroots activism throughout the
country.
The focus of the conference was increasing Coalition Building and
Community Organizing throughout our region. Many Million Mom March
chapter representatives were surprised to find that there are currently
no official chapters of MMM in Iowa, although efforts have been made to
develop chapters in Iowa City and Des Moines.
Following the Conference, the Brady Center sponsored a session of the
Hechinger Speaker's Bureau Training, which seeks to provide
speakers on gun violence prevention to interested state and local
groups.
IPGV participated in this training.
Anyone interested in the Million Mom
March or
securing a speaker on the subject of gun violence prevention should
contact IPGV. It is important that we expand our grassroots
infrastructure and demonstrate our support for effective gun violence
prevention
efforts in Iowa and nationwide.
|
5/6/02
|
Does Iowa Have a Gun Problem?
Cedar
Rapids, IA
- Many Iowans, including some lawmakers at the Statehouse in Des
Moines, believe that Iowa "doesn't have a gun problem." This was the
reason given by Senate Majority Leader Stewart Iverson (R-Dows) for not
taking up legislation (SF 488) during
the last session of the Iowa legislature that would have closed the gun
show loophole by requiring a criminal background check on all firearm
sales
at gun shows.
According to data collected by the
Iowa
Department of Public Health, Iowa's overall gun death rate is 6.75
deaths per year per 100,000 population. For the three-year period
1998-2000 (the last year that data is available), there were an average
of 189 gun deaths in Iowa each year.
The gun death rate in Iowa is lower
than the
United States as a whole. A comparison of gun deaths in Iowa versus the
U.S. is provided in the following table.
| Type of Gun Death |
Iowa Deaths (a.) |
Death Rate |
U.S. Deaths (b.) |
Death Rate |
| Gun Homicides |
30 |
1.07 |
10,828 |
3.87 |
| Gun Suicides |
152 |
5.43 |
16,599 |
5.93 |
| Unintentional Shootings |
7 |
0.25 |
824 |
0.29 |
| Unknown |
0 |
0.00 |
623 |
0.22 |
| Overall |
189 |
6.75 |
28,874 |
10.31 |
a. Average number of gun deaths per
year for
three-year period 1998-2000 (Iowa Dept. of Public Health data) and a
2000 Iowa population of about 2.8 million.
b. Gun deaths for 1999 (National
Center for
Health Statistics data) and a 2000 U.S. population of about 280
million.
As shown in the above table, the
death rates
from gun
suicides and unintentional shootings in Iowa are slightly less than the
national
average, whereas the death rate for gun homicides in Iowa is about 28
percent
of the national average. Overall, Iowa's gun death rate of 6.75 per
100,000
is about 65 percent of that of the U.S. as a whole at 10.31 per
100,000.
Does this mean that Iowa doesn't
have a gun
problem? "It depends on your point of reference," explains John
Johnson, executive director of Iowans for the Prevention of Gun
Violence (IPGV). "The fact that the gun death rate in Iowa is less than
the United States as a
whole isn't saying much because the United States has the highest gun
death rate of any industrialized country. What we should be doing is
comparing Iowa's gun death rate with that of other industrialized
countries."
Recent mass shootings in France and
Germany
have focused attention on gun violence in other countries. A 1998 study
by the National Center for Health Statistics compared gun deaths rates
in 11 industrialized countries, including the United States.
Gun Death Rate (per 100,000)
| Country (a.) |
Homicide |
Suicide |
Overall |
| England/Wales |
0.1 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
| Netherlands |
0.4 |
No Data |
0.5 |
| Scotland |
0.1 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
| Denmark |
0.3 |
1.7 |
2.1 |
| Israel |
0.7 |
1.7 |
2.8 |
| Australia |
0.4 |
2.3 |
2.9 |
| New Zealand |
0.4 |
2.3 |
3.1 |
| Canada |
0.5 |
3.2 |
3.9 |
| Norway |
0.3 |
3.9 |
4.3 |
| France |
0.4 |
5.1 |
6.3 |
| Iowa |
1.1 |
5.4 |
6.8 |
| United States |
3.9 |
5.9 |
13.7 |
a. Ranked from the lowest overall
gun death
rate to the highest.
Compared to these 11 other
industrialized
countries, Iowa's gun death rate ranks as the second highest, exceeded
only by the gun death rate in the U.S. Iowa's gun death rate is 1.1
times France, 1.6 times Norway, 1.7 times Canada, 2.2 times New
Zealand, 2.3 times Australia, 3.4 time Israel, 3.2 times Denmark, 11.3
times Scotland, 13.6 times
the Netherlands, and 17.0 times England and Wales.
Even Iowa's gun homicide rate,
which is one of
the lowest in the U.S., is 2 to 10 times higher than any of the other
industrialized countries included in the study, except for the U.S.
Does Iowa have a gun problem?
Compared to other
industrialized countries, Iowa does indeed have a gun problem.
|
5/13/02
|
A Suicide Prevention
Strategy for Iowa
On June 5th, 32 people concerned
about suicide
in Iowa will gather in Des Moines to consider a suicide prevention
strategy that IPGV has developed, using the model of the National
Strategy for Suicide Prevention proposed by the US Surgeon General in
May, 2001.
These 32 people come from a variety of backgrounds, from service
providers and community activists to researchers and public health
professionals. They will form five teams to work on various
aspects of the problem. The Surgeon General identified the stigma
attached to people seeking help with mental illness, substance abuse
and suicidal impulses as the chief
barrier to reducing suicide. The first team will deal with public
information campaigns to reduce this stigma. Among their
objectives
will be to inform the public of the risk of suicide, particularly for
teenagers,
when guns are in the home.
The second team will focus on
the
development of community-based suicide prevention programs. A
high priority for this team will be school and college based suicide
prevention strategies. All thirty private colleges, fifteen
community colleges, and the three
state regent’s institutions have been invited to share their suicide
prevention strategies. All three of the regent’s institutions
have responded, but only three of the community colleges and seven of
the private colleges. Of special concern are the community
colleges because of their open enrollment policies and the difficulty
of reaching students. We are also concerned about the response of
the middle and high schools, and have found a few
programs that directly address serious social and emotional problems in
the schools, which we would like to promote across the state.
A third team will work specifically on the restriction of lethal
means. Two of the objectives in this area are for health workers
such as pediatricians and family physicians to routinely ask about
firearms in the home, and
watch for indications of factors that might lead to suicide, such as
substance abuse and mental ill ness among family members. This
team will also work on the project of a national consumer protection
agency for firearms. This has been and will be one of Pig’s
ongoing projects.
A fourth team will work on clinical and professional practices in a
wide range of human services, including medical, educational,
correctional,
legal, religious, social work, counseling, law enforcement,
firefighting,
and funeral directors. People in all these lines of work should
receive
training in the recognition of and response to suicide attempts, with
particular
attention to the role of lethal means such as firearms.
Finally, the fifth team will focus on issues of
methodology—surveillance and research—so that data collection will be
better organized and coordinated, and to increase public support for
research into injury prevention, particularly the role of firearms in
suicide.
IPGV has taken the lead in promoting this statewide strategy because
80% of the firearm deaths in Iowa are from completed suicide attempts,
and 55% of all suicides in Iowa are by means of firearms. Men are
the victims of 90% of firearm suicides. We are particularly
concerned
with young people because nearly 65% of all youth 15-24 that commit
suicide
have done so with firearms. For those under 19, these means are
almost
always available in their own homes. In addition, suicide is the
second highest ranking cause of death among those 15-34 in Iowa, and
the
fourth highest cause of death among those 35-54. Suicide is a
serious
public health issue that needs continual coordinated and focused
attention.
Firearms are a large part of the means by which suicides are completed,
particularly among men.
States around Iowa—Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska and Missouri—have
already initiated suicide prevention strategies. We are drawing
from their experience, seeking to take the best of each. The 32
members of the steering committee have each pledged themselves to
support the inclusion
of suicide prevention in the meetings of their own organizations, and
to
support and annual statewide conference on suicide. They have
also
pledged themselves to work toward and Office of Suicide Prevention in
Iowa’s
Department of Public Health.
|
5/20/02
|
US Department of
Justice Position on Second Amendment Inconsistent with Court
Interpretation
In two recent communications to the US Supreme Court, US Attorney
General John Ashcroft, speaking for the US Department of Justice,
argued that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own
a firearm. This position is in direct conflict with virtually every
court decision on the Second Amendment, including every Supreme Court
decision ever
rendered on the subject, which support the right to bear arms only in
connection with service in a State militia (the "collective rights"
interpretation").
Ashcroft's loyalty to the slogan and agenda of the National Rifle
Association is not surprising, considering his life membership in the
organization and the NRA's great financial generosity to Ashcroft
during his losing Senate bid to deceased Missouri candidate, Mel
Carnahan.
Concern with Ashcroft's intention to uphold existing gun control laws
after having received $499,000 of NRA dollars for his 2000 campaign
preceded his confirmation as Attorney General. During his confirmation
hearings on January 17, 2001, Ashcroft was asked whether he would
uphold gun control laws to which he has demonstrated great personal
opposition. He responded that his responsibility "is to uphold the acts
of the legislative branch of this government in that area" and that he
would "do so and continue to do so in regard to the cases that now
exist, and further enactments
of the Congress."
The recent communications to the US Supreme Court demonstrate that,
contrary to his January statement, Ashcroft intends to uphold not
the laws of the land, but the agenda of the National Rifle Association.
His willingness to overstep the bounds of Executive Branch duties and
infringe on the powers of the courts in order to support this agenda is
clear.
It should be noted that Ashcroft chose to recluse himself from the
federal government's investigation of Enron because he received
a mere $50,000 from Enron during his failed Senate campaign. Given that
he received almost ten times that amount from the NRA, it would seem
appropriate that he recluse himself from all matters that deal with
federal gun laws.
Tell the US Justice Department and the Bush Administration to assume
its Executive Branch duties by upholding the gun control laws drafted
by US Legislature and affirmed by the US Courts.
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
SWITCHBOARD: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
|
5/27/02
|
US Reps. Carolyn
McCarthy and
John Dingell Sponsor New Bill to Improve Federal Background Check System
US Representatives Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and John Dingell (D-MI)
announced their joint support for a new bill, which would improve the
F.B.I.'s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS),
thereby making background checks on gun purchasers more thorough and
more effectively preventing prohibited purchasers, such as felons,
minors, and domestic abusers, from purchasing firearms.
The bill, H.R. 4757, would require U.S.
states to
provide NICS with all information needed to conduct timely and
effective background checks on gun buyers-including criminal and mental
health records. The bill would also provide grants to state agencies
and courts to automate and improve the transmission of relevant
records.
Currently, records submitted to NICS are incomplete and many
states have poor systems of automating and transmitting records.
According to a 2002 report by Americans for Gun Safety, approximately
10,000 felons and others in prohibited categories passed background
checks and obtained firearms due to inadequate record keeping and
submission over a 30 month period. In Iowa, ranked 4th best for record
submission, 73 prohibited purchasers obtained firearms despite a
background check.
According to the report, "half the states have automated less than 60%
of felony conviction records (Iowa 8%.), two-thirds of the states don't
automate any records of those involuntarily institutionalized in
mental health facilities (Iowa doesn't), and fifteen states don't
computerize any records of restraining orders or domestic violence
misdemeanors (Iowa does)." The need for improving record keeping and
submission is clear.
What is not clear is Representative Dingell's motivation for
co-sponsoring the bill. Dingell is an unlikely supporter of gun control
legislation, having opposed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban
as well as efforts by his new co-sponsor, Rep. McCarthy, to close the
gun show loophole by requiring all gun sales at gun shows to involve
a background check on the buyer.
Dingell's co-sponsorship of this legislation has raised skepticism and
questions from gun violence prevention advocates. As Michael Barnes,
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence asks, "Is this
sudden change of heart because Congressional re-districting has Mr.
Dingell facing Congresswoman Lynn Rivers-a supporter of common-sense
gun policy-in a competitive primary? Is this merely a thinly-veiled
attempt by Dingell to appear moderate in a new district where polls
indicate
that the voters value sensible gun laws?"
Despite media portrayals of gun control as a "losing issue" for
Democrats in the 2000 election cycle, the facts demonstrate the
importance to American voters of a candidate's positive commitment to
gun violence prevention.
During the 2000 election cycle, gun control was a winning issue. The
gun lobby lost five of their most important Senate incumbents to
candidates strongly supporting gun control, and more seats were lost
to gun control supporters in open House and Senate races. More
recently,
Philadelphia mayor Ed Rendell, a strong supporter of gun control
measures,
won the Democratic primary for Governor in Pennsylvania by 12 points
despite
an advertising campaign carried out by the National Rifle Association.
|
6/3/02
|
New Bush
Administration Second Amendment Position Already Helping Gun Criminals
On May 8, 2002, the US Justice
Department, lead
by NRA Life Member Attorney General John Ashcroft, went against decades
of policy to change the position of the US Government on the Second
Amendment. The Bush Administration became the first
Administration to declare that
the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own firearms, as
opposed to a collective right connected to the maintenance of a State
Militia.
Gun criminals have already used the new Administration position to
defend themselves in court.
The most high profile case involves Californian John Walker Lindh, who
is accused of supporting and fighting with the Taliban. As the
New York Times reported on May 16, lawyers for Mr. Lindh filed papers
asking that the firearms charge against him—one of ten charges to which
Lindh has plead not guilty—be dismissed based on the new position of
the US Government on the Second Amendment. His lawyers argue that
charging Lindh with firearms violations would violate his Second
Amendment right “as an individual” to use and possess a firearm.
On May 31, the New York Times reported another case involving two men
charged with carrying pistols without a license in Washington,
D.C. The two men, Michael Freeman and Manuel Brown, have sought
the dismissal of their case based on the inconsistency between the new
Administration position
and a ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.
According to the Times, the Justice Department has “urged the continued
prosecution of the men” stating that the D.C. statute is upheld by
controlling precedent—in other words, the collective rights view of the
Second Amendment—“even though it contains reasoning that is
inconsistent with the position of the United States.”
The Administration’s use of a controlling precedent with which it
disagrees to justify prosecution of gun criminals makes its reversal of
60+ years
of Government interpretation of the Second Amendment confusing at best,
and worrisome at the very least. Considering that the
Administration
has said it supports “reasonable restrictions designed to prevent
possession
by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms
that
are particularly suited to criminal misuse,” its efforts to reverse
controlling precedent on the Second Amendment would seem to undermine
the very laws
it professes to uphold.
|
6/10/02
|
New Steering
Committee Forms, Will Work to Prevent Suicide in Iowa
On June 5, a group of 29 mental health, substance abuse, public health,
corrections, law enforcement, education, violence prevention and other
Iowa professionals met in Des Moines to form the Steering Committee for
the Iowa Suicide Prevention Strategy. The goal of the Steering
Committee will be to develop and ratify programs that will help to
reduce suicide in Iowa.
Activities of the Iowa SPS Steering Committee will also include program
presentations to relevant agencies and organizations, sponsorship of
annual conferences on suicide prevention in Iowa, and representation of
Iowa to national bodies working to prevent suicide.
At the meeting, Steering Committee members divided into six teams to
concentrate their efforts on specific areas of suicide
prevention.
The teams focused on: Media, Mental Health & Substance Abuse
Screening,
Community-Based Services, Lethal Means Restriction, Professional
Practices
(with sub-Teams for Education and Law Enforcement), and Methodology.
Each team chose one member to serve on the Executive Steering
Committee. The Executive Steering Committee will meet more
frequently than the entire Committee, and will coordinate efforts of
the entire Committee.
Executive Steering Committee Members are: Ardis Glace (Director, Iowa
Substance Abuse Program Directors Association), Margaret Stout
(Executive Director, Iowa Alliance for the Mentally Ill), Tom Parker
(Superintendent, Camanche Public Schools), Jeremy Brigham (Research
Associate, Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence), Steve Johnson
(Clinical Director, Merit Behavioral Services), Barbara Allen (School
Nurses Association), Bruce Williams (Counselor, Hillcrest Family
Services), and Carolyn Turvey (Assistant Professor, Dept. of
Psychiatry, University of Iowa).
Efforts of the Steering Committee will include reducing the stigma
associated with consumers of mental health and substance abuse
services, publicizing the preventability of suicide, increasing access
to mental health and substance abuse services, coordinating and
improving data collection/analysis on
suicide and related information, assisting in the implementation of
suicide
prevention strategies at Iowa’s schools, and reducing access to lethal
means of committing suicide.
|
6/17/02
|
Unintentional Shooting
of Pella,
IA Woman Raises Issue of Regulating Guns for Consumer Safety
In what press reports are
describing as a
“tragic accident,” a Pella, IA woman was killed June 10 when her
fiancé’s .40 caliber Glock handgun “went off.” The woman
was hiding in a closet with her sister to surprise her
fiancé. Hearing a noise, he
took his Glock handgun to investigate. The gun “went off” as the
woman
and her sister jumped from the closet to surprise him.
This is not the first time a Glock handgun has gone off unintentionally
with tragic results. In fact, Glock handguns have a reputation
for being prone to misfirings and overfirings. They have gained
this reputation because of several features that become especially
lethal when the gun
is handled incorrectly or without caution. These features are:
the
lack of an external safety device and a light trigger pull.
The Glock pistol was developed in the early 1980s by Gaston Glock, an
Austrian engineer. Until then, most semiautomatic pistols had
external safety devices that had to be turned off before the gun could
fire. Glock eliminated the external manual safety.
He also modified the trigger pull of the pistol. “Trigger pull”
is the amount of force (measured in pounds), which must be applied to
the trigger to fire the gun. Semiautomatic pistols before the
Glock required approximately 10-14 lbs. of pressure to depress the
trigger for the first shot, then reduced the weight to 4-6 lbs. for the
following shots.
The Glock broke new ground by
reducing the
pressure to 4-6 lbs. for the first shot—thereby making the firearm more
likely
to discharge unintentionally. According to Glock’s website
(www.glock.com), the trigger pull of Glock .40 caliber handguns
currently ranges from 4.5
to 5.5 lbs.
Glock acknowledges the need for caution in handling the pistol, noting
on its website that a user should “keep your finger out of the gun’s
trigger guard and off the trigger until you have aligned the gun’s
sights on a
safe target and you have made the decision to fire!”
While this is good advice, a string of unintentional shootings by
Washington D.C. police officers armed with the Glock during the 1990’s
“came amid
10 years of warnings from firearms experts about the Glock’s light
trigger
and propensity to fire an unintentional shot when handled incorrectly.”
(Washington Post)
According to Mother Jones, 11 years after the introduction of the Glock
as the D.C. police weapon, the Washington DC Police Department had “120
accidental firings, 19 officers had wounded themselves or others with
Glocks, and the district had paid $1.4 million in damages from
resulting lawsuits related to Glock accidents.”
By way of comparison, the NYPD, which instituted a minimum trigger pull
of 10-14 pounds in 1990 as a safety measure, had a much lower rate of
unintentional firings and overfirings. According to the
Washington Post, “from
1975 to 1983, New York averaged 1.36 fatal shootings annually by police
per 1,000 officers, and Washington's rate was nearly identical at 1.44
… By 1995, New York's rate had dropped below 1 and Washington's had
risen
to nearly 4.” Approximately 65% of all US law enforcement
officers
use Glock handguns today. (Mother Jones)
In addressing the potential causes of unintentional firings of Glock
handguns, one must take into account two things: the handling of the
gun,
and the gun itself.
Glock places the responsibility for safety on the gun user, in the form
of safe handling and storage, and views the light trigger pull as a
feature requiring increased caution, not a design flaw requiring
modification.
Its website tells gun owners: “FIREARM SAFETY DEPENDS ON YOU!”
While human error cannot be ignored, the reputation of the Glock
handgun for “going off” unintentionally demonstrates that a light
trigger pull
increases the weapon’s lethality. As Beretta notes in advertising
its 92FS pistol: “92 FS pistols fire double action on the first round
and
single action on the subsequent rounds. The longer, heavier
trigger
pull of the double action makes inadvertent discharge less likely,
while
the lighter, shorter single action trigger pull allows faster, more
precise
discharge of subsequent rounds.” (www.berettadefence.com)
It seems that the gun industry is aware of the effect a trigger pull
will have on the potential rate of unintentional shootings: the heavier
the trigger pull, the less likely the gun will go off
unintentionally.
So, in order to minimize the number of unintentional injuries and
deaths
resulting from use of the Glock handguns, it seems necessary to send
the
safety message back to the manufacturer of the gun: “FIREARM SAFETY
DEPENDS
ON YOU!”
|
6/24/02
|
Responses to Lask Week's
Editorial (Unintentional Shooting of Pella, IA Woman...)
In response to last week’s First
Monday—Unintentional Shooting of Pella, IA Woman Raises Issue of
Regulating Guns for Consumer Safety—IPGV received several responses
from Iowa and throughout the country. We’d like to dedicate this
week’s First Monday to sharing excerpts from
some of the letters we received:
Dear idiot:
Just to let you know, the gun didn't go off. The trigger was PULLED by
the moron because of poor training. The same applies to the stupid
police officers that are walking around with their fingers on the
trigger.
Using your logic that guns are at fault, make sure you ban knives,
automobiles, cleaning products, cigarettes and alchohol [sic.] for
these things kill
many more people than guns.
Whatever you do, don't blame any people. It can't possibly be because
of their own stupidity or carelessness, whatever destruction they cause
has
to be the fault of the object [sic.].
When are you people going to pull your heads out of your asses and face
the truth. Guns make us safer. If you take guns away from responsible,
law-abiding citizens then only criminals will have them because they
don't give a rats [sic.] ass about laws to begin with.
*****
The first point I would like to address is your statement that gun
safety starts with gun manufacturers. That is partially true, however
it is not the manufacturers fingers [sic.] on the trigger of any of the
guns involved in the incidents you mention. In each and every case it
is the finger of
the gun owner pulling the trigger that causes the weapon to discharge.
Which
brings me to the next thing I wish to point out. [sic.] That is
the
basic rules of gun handling, they are as follows,[sic.]
#1. Treat all firearms as if they are loaded.
#2. Do not point your firearm at anything that shouldn’t be destroyed.
#3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
#4. Be aware of your target and what is behind it.
These four rules are constantly recited from one gun owner to another
when certain question [sic.] come up such as the incident involving the
man,
his fiance, and soon to be sister-in-law in Pella, IA.
What this all boils down to is that at some point we need to start
taking responsibility for our actions and for the most part we gun
owners do just that. There are of course a few bad apples (idiots) in
every bunch. So
naturally there are always going to be incidents where someone is
seriously
hurt or killed with a gun, or a knife?, or a baseball bat? The list
could
go on forever. My last point is this, a loaded gun lying on a
table
is completely and totally harmless [sic.]. When is it dangerous? When a
human gets involved.
*****
He pulled the trigger. Period. He violated at least 3 of the 4 gun
safety rules any gun owner is taught from day one.
#1. Treat all firearms as if they are loaded
#2. Do not point your firearm at anything that shouldn't be destroyed.
#3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire
#4. Be aware of your target and what is behind it.
He obviously ignored rules 2, 3, and 4 and I could make a case for #1 as
well.
If you took the time to look at investigations of ADs (Accidental
Discharges), finger on the trigger when it shouldn't be is the number
one
factor. A foreign object engaging the trigger is second. These two
situations make up 99.9% of all ADs and fall under operator error.
Perhaps you should call for Manslaughter charges to be brought against
the
gun owner. The blame lies with him, not with Glock.
*****
My Glock, just like the millions of others, does EXACTLY what it was
designed to do, every single time. Quite simply; when the trigger
pulled
when the weapon is loaded with a round in the chamber, it fires. [sic.]
A manufacturer’s responsibility extends no further then [sic.]
providing the function it was designed to do. If Glock handguns were
malfunctioning, then they should be responsible for repairing the
damage, but Glock handguns NEVER malfunction. The safety of this tool
like any other, [sic.] is in
the hands of the user!
*****
Glock handguns do not go off unintentionally...the trigger must be
pulled.
An accelerator of the average car probably does not require 10 lbs
pressure, [sic.] we all know that we do not step on it until we have
identified that we need to move forward and that there is no object or
person in our path. We do not equip accelerators with mechanical
safties [sic.], nor do we
require them to need excessive force to be deployed. Every year, there
are reported incidents of "sudden unexpected acceleration" where life
or
property is harmed. In all but a very few rare cases, the fault is the
result
of the driver stepping the gas while a "victim" or other object is in
front
of the vehicle.
*****
Glock places the onus of firearm safety on the USER of the gun, just
as Colt, Smith & Wesson and every other gun manufacturer does.
Just as Toyota, Honda, Chevrolet and Ford place the safe use of their
product in the hands of its USERS, just as Kawasaki and Harley Davidson
does, just as Coca-Cola expects the users of its product will not
inject it
or club someone over the head with a Coke bottle. Is the concept of
personal responsibility such a foreign one to you?
Why is it so fashionable in the media to blame anything bad that
happens on
the product rather than on the user? Are we such infants now in
America
that we can't even admit when we do something stupid and take the
consequences like adults?
*****
A gun doesnt [sic.] "go off" unless someone pulls the trigger.
This is like saying that a toyota is more likely to run over someone
because
the accelerator pedal is easier to push than a ford. You people are
mindless.
This person who shot someone who he didnt [sic.] intend to was because
of thier [sic.] own stupidity, not because of a gun.
Why dont [sic.] you spend your time and effort to outlawing [sic.]
cigarettes. They kill scores more people than guns every day.
Wake up,
*****
“Glock places the responsibility for safety on the gun user, in the
form of safe handling and storage, and views the light trigger pull as
a feature requiring increased caution, not a design flaw requiring
modification.
Its website tells gun owners: "FIREARM SAFETY DEPENDS ON YOU!"”(quote
from
First Monday, 6/17)
The responsibility mentioned is well placed. Vehicular safety depends
on the driver. The safest car can still mow down dozens of people in a
crowded market. The most regulated lawn mower can still cut off hands,
fingers,
toes etc if used IMPROPERLY. Because people make mistakes in the
carrying
and operation of a lethal weapon, the gun is not flawed. Their actions
are.
The Glock used in the tragedy in Council Bluffs did not malfunction.
It worked perfectly with unfortunate, horrific results.
*****
I would like to see your message in the Gazette and the Register.
Very compelling.
*****
|
7/1/02
|
The Case for
Regulating Guns as Consumer Products
Two weeks ago, IPGV wrote an
editorial on the
unintentional shooting of a Pella, IA woman and advocated for the
regulation of guns as consumer products because of the “light” trigger
pull of the .40
caliber Glock handgun used in the shooting. This week, we would
like
to examine the issue of gun industry regulation on a larger scale.
Why regulate guns as a means of reducing firearm related deaths and
injuries? The first reason is that there is already precedent for
regulation of consumer products for health and safety in the US.
Not only is regulation
of potentially dangerous consumer products accepted, the vast majority
of Americans expect it from their government.
For example, food and drugs by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
pesticides and hazardous materials by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and automobiles by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). The Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) regulates
over 15,000 consumer products used in homes, at schools, and in
recreation
for health and safety.
However, even though guns are the second leading cause of product
related death, no federal agency has authority to regulate guns
manufactured and sold in the U.S. The authority of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is limited mainly to licensing of
firearm dealers, tracing stolen
guns, and collecting excise taxes. There are more federal regulations
on
toy guns than real guns.
But the best reason to regulate guns is that regulation works! The
history of consumer product regulation teaches that a significant
number of deaths and injuries can be prevented by safety regulation.
For example, since
1966 when Congress created NHTSA, the annual death rate from automobile
accidents has decreased 40 percent – from 27.1 deaths per 100,000 in
1966
to 16.1 in 1998. There are currently about 44,000 deaths from
automobile
accidents a year, which is too many. But if Americans were dying in
automobile
accidents at the rate they were dying in 1966, there would be
approximately
74,000 deaths a year. Since 1966, an estimated 250,000 deaths have been
prevented as a result of automobile regulation. Clearly, regulation is
working
in the automobile industry. It is also working in other places – food
products,
drugs, chemicals, and aviation, to name just a few.
Polls and public opinion surveys show that the general public supports
government regulation of guns. In fact, 89% of Iowans support
requiring all handguns to be regulated for safety (Frank Magid
Associates poll, 1998). There is a bill in the U.S. Congress that
would do just that – the Firearm Safety and Consumer Protection Act,
sponsored by Sen. Robert Torricelli
(D-NJ) and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI). This Act would give the U.S.
Department of the Treasury the power to regulate the design,
manufacture, and distribution of guns and ammunition, with authority to:
First, set minimum safety standards for guns. Gun manufacturers have
developed various safety features for guns that make guns less
dangerous
to the public (which should not be confused with making guns safe).
Such
features include load indicators that indicate to a user that the gun
is
loaded with ammunition, magazine disconnect devices that prevent a gun
from being fired if the ammunition magazine is removed, integral
trigger
locking devices that prevent discharge of a gun by an unauthorized
person,
and minimum trigger pulls so that guns cannot be fired by young
children.
Second, issue recalls and warnings about defective guns. Many gun
owners and innocent bystanders have been injured or killed by defective
or hazardously designed guns, e.g., guns that discharge when dropped,
guns that are prone to jam and then unexpectedly discharge when the
user tries to free the
jam, and gun barrels that “explode” when the gun is fired.
Third, collect data on gun related deaths and injuries. The legislation
would create Firearms Violence Information and Research Clearinghouse
to collect and analyze data regarding firearm related death and injury
such as
the specific type of gun, caliber, and source. This kind of data is
considered essential to identify guns that are exceptionally likely to
be involved in firearm related death or injury, and to notify gun
owners of the risks associated with such guns.
Fourth, ban products when no other remedy is sufficient. From the
analysis of the data collected on firearm related deaths and injuries,
Treasury
could then identify specific guns, classes of guns, and gun products
that
are exceptionally likely to be used in gun deaths, injuries, and crimes
and to restrict the availability of such guns to prevent unreasonable
risk
of injury to the general public. Banning products is appropriate when
no
other safety measure would adequately protect the public from harm, and
where the costs to society far out weigh the benefits.
For far too long America’s gun industry has enjoyed a free ride, exempt
from the rules that govern other industries in America. And while this
has been good for business, it’s been a disaster for the American
public – gun owning and non-gun owning alike. Our nation will not see a
significant reduction in gun death and injury until we hold guns to the
same safety and health standards as all other consumer products.
|
7/8/02
|
IPGV Praises
Wal-Mart for New Policy to Strengthen Criminal Background Checks on Gun
Purchases
Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence praises Wal-Mart for a new
policy requiring a background check to be completed before a firearm
can
be sold, even if the background check takes longer than the three day
time
limit the federal government has allotted for gun dealers to conduct
the
check. This is called a “don’t know, don’t sell” policy.
According to a July 3 Los Angeles Times article, Wal-Mart executives
issued an internal memo five weeks ago telling store managers not to
sell
firearms in cases in which a background check could not be completed on
time. The memo noted that the policy change was an “extra step
toward
keeping guns out of the hands of individuals who possibly ought not to
have
them.”
Under federal law, federally licensed firearms dealers must conduct a
criminal background check for every gun sale in order to determine
whether or not the buyer is a prohibited purchaser, such as a domestic
abuser, felon, or minor. However, if the check cannot be
completed in three business days, the gun vendor is allowed to release
the weapon to the buyer without confirmation that he/she is not a
prohibited purchaser. The background check is still
completed. If the buyer turns out to be a prohibited purchaser,
then law enforcement tries to track down the person to get the gun back.
According to a government report, 72% of background checks are
completed within two minutes and 95% are completed within two
hours. The remaining 5% of checks that take more than two hours
are twenty times more likely
to result in a rejection because the person is prohibited by law from
possessing a firearm.
Some checks require more time to be completed because of poor record
keeping, similar names or personal information, and slow entry of
records
into the computerized system maintained by the FBI – the National
Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
According to a 2002 report by Americans for Gun Safety, approximately
10,000 felons and others in prohibited categories obtained firearms
over a 30 month period because a background check could not be
concluded within 3 days. This is due to inadequate record keeping
and submission. In Iowa, ranked 4th best for record submission,
73 prohibited purchasers obtained firearms despite a background check.
In response to the policy change, the National Rifle Association stated
that it would consider organizing a boycott of the Wal-Mart
chain. It remains to be seen whether or not Wal-Mart, the
nation’s largest gun seller, will stand up to the pressure of the
nation’s gun lobby.
Regarding Wal-Mart’s decision,
John Johnson,
Executive Director of IPGV, issued the following statement:
“Wal-Mart’s new policy on gun sales is a good example of corporate
responsibility. We hope that Wal-Mart’s example will lead other
firearms dealers to adopt a similar policy. The interesting thing about
Wal-Mart’s new policy is
that it didn’t take an Act of Congress. All it took was a management
decision. It was that simple.
The NRA’s response to organize a boycott of Wal-Mart was predictable.
The NRA says that they are for “enforcing existing laws.” But then they
do
everything in their power to prevent gun laws from being enforced. In
this
case, they oppose Wal-Mart’s attempt to strengthen enforcement of the
federal
law that prohibits selling firearms to persons who are prohibited by
law
from possessing firearms.”
A check of Cedar Rapids area stores that sell guns as one of many
products revealed the following: The corporate policy of Scheels
and K-Mart is to not release the gun until the background check is
completed, even
if the check takes longer than three days. The corporate policy
of
K’s Merchandise is to release the gun after three days, even if the
background check is not complete. Fin and Feather, with stores in
Cedar Rapids and Iowa City, would not disclose its policy, stating that
it is legal for them to release the gun after three days independent of
whether or not the background check is complete.
Thank
Wal-Mart for
demonstrating concern for public health and safety by requiring a
background check to
be completed before releasing a firearm to a customer!
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Bentonville, Arkansas 72716-8611
1-800-WAL-MART
|
7/15/02
|
NRA
Money At Work
According to a recent Buzzflash
editorial, US
Representative Ernest Istook Jr. (R-OK) moved to block the ATF from
releasing information in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
requests dealing with the tracing of firearms. Istook’s effort
comes after an FOIA request
made by the city of Chicago for ATF records regarding multiple sales of
firearms and firearms traced in crimes.
Chicago, which is involved in a public nuisance lawsuit against several
gun manufacturers, dealers and distributors that operate around the
perimeter of the city, requested the information in order to
demonstrate the lack
of concern on the part of the gun industry for the flood of handguns
into
the city. Chicago has a handgun ban, and many of the guns
entering
the city are eventually used in crime.
Istook’s effort would block municipalities from receiving necessary
documents, thereby undermining legal efforts currently underway to make
the gun industry accountable for the results of its negligence.
Why would Representative Istook want to limit the ability of cities and
counties from filing suit to recover the costs of gun violence?
Since 1994, Representative Istook has received a total of $26,850 in
contributions from the NRA. How do Iowa lawmakers stand up?
The following data on campaign contributions involving the gun issue
in Iowa was taken from The Center for Responsive Politics website:
www.opensecrets.org. The Center is a non-partisan, non-profit
research group that tracks money in politics and its effect on
elections and public policy.
Which Iowa
lawmakers on
Capitol Hill took gun related money?
US Senate
Charles Grassley (R) Gun Rights
$11,900 ($9,900 from NRA)
Tom Harkin (D) Gun Control $6,147
($4,947 from Handgun Control Inc.)
US House
Leonard Boswell (D) Gun Rights
$4,500 ($4000 from NRA)
Greg Ganske (R) [NONE]
Tom Latham (R) Gun Rights
$6,500 ($6,000 from NRA)
Jim Leach (R) [NONE]
Jim Nussle (R) Gun Rights
$8,950 ($8,950 from NRA)
Which Iowa
lawmakers at
the Des Moines Statehouse took money from the NRA in 2000?
Clel Baudler (R) $1500
Neal Schuerer (R) $500
Kitty Rehberg (R) $500
Mike Gronstal (D) $500
Richard Drake (R) $500
Daniel Boddicker (R) $500
Jerry Behn (R) $500
Mark Zieman (R) $300
James Van Fossen $300
Jodi Tymeson (R) $300
Brent Siegrist (R) $300
James Hahn (R) $300
Betty De Boef (R) $300
Michael Cormack (D) $300
Danny Carrol (R) $300
Barry Brauns (R) $300
Donald Redfern (R) $250
Paul McKinley (R) $250
Mary Lundby (R) $250
John Kibbie (D) $250
Sandy Greiner (R) $250
Merlin Bartz (R) $250
Phil Tyrrell (R) $200
Leigh Rekow (R) $200
Christoper Rants (R) $200
Dan Huseman (R) $200
Lance Horbach (R) $200
Russell Eddie (R) $200
Roger Broers (R) $200
Stephen Warnstadt (D) $100
David Millage (R) $100
Dennis May (D) $100
Hubert Houser (R) $100
Teresa Garman (R) $100
Marcella Frevert (D) $100
Jack Drake (R) $100
Cecil Dolecheck (R) $100
Clyde Bradley (R) $100
Effie Boggess (R) $100
Donna Barry (R) $100
Richard Arnold (R) $100
Jeff Angelo (R) $100
Frank Chiodo (D) $100
Phil Wise (D) $50
Which Iowa
lawmakers at
the Des Moines Statehouse took money from the NRA in 1998?
Ron J. Corbett (R) $250
Stewart Iverson (R) $250
Brent Siegrist (R) $250
Clel Baudler (R) $200
Daniel Boddicker (R) $200
Mike Cormack (R) $200
Jo Ann Douglas (R) $200
Russel Eddie (R) $200
Tom Flynn (D) $200
Ralph Klemme (R) $200
Derryl McLaren (R) $200
Russell Tieg (R) $200
Phil Tyrrell (R) $200
Mike Sexton (R) $150
Richard Arnold (R) $100
Donna M. Barry (R) $100
Dennis H Black (D) $100
Gary Blodgett (R) $100
Nancy Boettger (R) $100
Effie Lee Boggess (R) $100
Clyde Bradley (R) $100
Michael Cataldo (D) $100
Frank Chiodo (D) $100
John H. Connors (D) $100
Dick Dearden (D) $100
William A. Dotzler (D) $100
Jack Drake (R) $100
Teresa Garman (R) $100
Chuck Gipp (R) $100
Sandra H. Greiner (R) $100
James Hahn (R) $100
David E. Heaton (R) $100
Danny J. Holmes (R) $100
Wally E. Horn (D) $100
Hubert Houser (R) $100
Dan Huseman (R) $100
Libby Jacobs (R) $100
Mary Kramer (R) $100
Jeff Lamberti (R) $100
Rick Larkin (D) $100
Chuck Larson (R) $100
Mona Martin (R) $100
Dolores Mertz (D) $100
David A. Millage (R) $100
Scott Raecker (R) $100
Christopher C. Rants (R) $100
Henry Rayhons (R) $100
Paul Scherrman (D) $100
Steve Sukup (R) $100
James Van Fossen (R) $100
Dick Weidman (R) $100
Jerry Welter (R) $100
Philip Wise (D) $100
|
7/22/02
|
Sign Our Petition
to Close
the Gun Show Loophole in Iowa!
During the 2001 Legislative
Session, IPGV
introduced a bill (SF 488) to close the gun show loophole in Iowa by
requiring a criminal background check to be completed on all sales of
guns at gun shows. Senate File 488 passed out of the Judiciary
Committee in a bipartisan 8-3 vote with four Republicans and four
Democrats voting for the bill.
However, the bill was never brought up for a floor debate in the Iowa
Senate. Senate Majority Leader Stewart Iverson (R-Dows) said of
SF 488: “I do not support this legislation and it will not be debated
in the Iowa Senate.”
A poll conducted in January of 2002 by the independent research firm
Frank N. Magid Associates of Marion, IA showed that 87% of
Iowans—including 8 out of 10 gun owners—support legislation that would
require a criminal background check to be conducted before a gun could
be sold at a gun show.
Despite efforts by IPGV and other members of the Iowa Coalition for
Sensible Gun Laws during the 2002 Legislative Session, SF 488 was not
discussed in the Iowa Senate last session.
Since the legislature has not acted on our bill to close the gun show
loophole, we want to demonstrate public support for the bill with a
petition, and we need you to sign it. The petition can be signed
by replying to the First
Monday email with your name, address, and email address and a short
message
saying you would like to sign. Also, you can visit our website at
www.ipgv.org
to sign the
petition. The petition
is located at www.ipgv.org/actioncenter.html.
If you would like to take the petition to a social gathering in your
town to collect much needed signatures, see the files attached to this
email. Included are the petition (MS Word) and a sign-up sheet
(MS Excel). If you have trouble with the files and would like a
copy of the petition, respond to this email with your request.
|
7/29/02
|
Does Iowa Have a Gun
Show Loophole?
Gun laws are different from state
to
state. Therefore, it is important to understand the intricacies
of the established state systems in order to understand the nature of
the potential loopholes in the law. Because Iowa requires a
permit in order to purchase handguns, opponents of gun control laws
argue that Iowa does not have a gun show loophole. We disagree.
Under Iowa law, a person is required to first obtain a Permit to
Acquire Pistols or Revolvers to purchase a handgun. Permits are issued
by local county sheriffs and include a background check. Permits are
good for one year and a person may purchase an unlimited number of guns
with the permit. A
permit to acquire is required to legally purchase a handgun, whether a
person
buys from a licensed gun dealer or an unlicensed seller (non-dealer).
A permit to acquire is not required to purchase a rifle or shotgun. If
a person buys a rifle or shotgun from a licensed gun dealer, the dealer
conducts an "instant" background check. Background checks are conducted
by accessing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS), a computerized database maintained by the FBI.
However, if a person buys a rifle or shotgun (including weapons such as
the AK-47, AR-15 and Uzi, which are sometimes deemed “assault weapons”)
from an unlicensed seller at a gun show, the seller is not required to
conduct a background check. In fact, unlicensed individuals can’t
conduct background checks because only licensed gun dealers and law
enforcement have access to
NICS.
Furthermore, Iowa’s “permit system” for handguns has several weaknesses
in the case of private or non-dealer sales.
1. Non-dealers are not required to keep records, whereas licensed gun
dealers are required to keep records of all transactions. This aids law
enforcement in tracing stolen guns and guns used in crimes.
2. Because no records are kept for non-dealer sales, there is no way
for law enforcement or ATF to verify compliance. ATF agents
periodically audit licensed gun dealers to verify compliance with
federal gun laws, e.g., that background checks are performed on all
sales.
3. Non-dealers are not required to report multiple sales, whereas
licensed gun dealers are required to report multiple sales. Reporting
multiple sales makes it easier to identify “straw purchasers” and
illegal gun traffickers.
Does Iowa have a gun show loophole? The answer is yes.
Iowa’s permit system is better than no system at all, but it does not
make non-dealer sales of handguns equal to dealer sales.
IPGV’s position is that all sales, rifles, shotguns, and handguns
should be equal to a dealer sale.
To sign the petition to close the gun show loophole in Iowa, you can
(1) Reply to this email with your name, address, and email address and
a short message saying you would like to sign. (2) Visit our
website to sign at www.ipgv.org/actioncenter.html.
|
8/5/02
|
Introducing the
National Violent Death Reporting System
The gun violence prevention
movement today
focuses on gun violence as a public health issue, with strategies
stressing prevention rather than punishment. In order to design
and implement effective prevention
strategies, it is essential to follow the basic steps of the public
health
approach: surveillance (identifying the problem), risk factor
identification (identifying the cause), intervention evaluation
(identifying and testing effective strategies), and implementation
(putting strategies into effect).
However, there has been no national database to collect and integrate
essential data on the “who, what, when, where, how and why” of gun
violence deaths.
That changed with the appropriation of $1.5 million for FY 2002 to
continue planning and begin limited implementation of the National
Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) under the control of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Eventually, the system
will require $20 million annually to be
comprehensively implemented.
The NVDRS will collect detailed information about the different types
of violent death—including homicide, suicide and some unintentional
deaths—and determine the circumstances surrounding the deaths.
The system will collect data uniformly from crime labs, medical
examiners, police, etc. and integrate it into one database. This
database will be an essential resource
for state, national and local professionals working to reduce violent
death
and injury throughout the country.
Each year, there are approximately 50,000 violent deaths in the United
States—29,000 of which are caused by firearms. With the
implementation of the NVDRS, violence prevention groups such as IPGV
will have more of the knowledge needed to prevent some of those deaths.
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin (D) played a key role in this
appropriation. Harkin serves as Chairman of an Appropriation
Subcommittee that requested the funding for the NVDRS.
Send a thank you letter to Senator Harkin!
tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov
Office of Senator Tom Harkin
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
|
8/12/02
|
Gun Accident
Involving NRA Board Member Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) Demonstrates the Need
for Consumer Product Regulation of Handguns
Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), an NRA board
member, was
involved in a gun accident at a reception on August 2, demonstrating
the need for the
regulation of guns as consumer products. According to the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution,
a 1908 .38 caliber Colt pistol discharged as it was passed from the
reception’s
host, lobbyist and Barr supporter Bruce Widener, to Rep. Barr. No
one
was harmed in the incident.
Widener took responsibility for the incident, saying in a statement
released by the Barr campaign: “The gun is almost 100 years old, and I
was not aware it was loaded.” Widener said that he had removed
the ammunition magazine from the pistol, but did not realize there was
a round in the chamber.
It is fortunate that the only casualty from the shooting was a glass
door. Many fatal and nonfatal shootings occur each year because a
person handling a firearm is unaware that the firearm is loaded.
Two devices, a “load indicator” and a “magazine disconnect,” could
prevent these shootings.
A “load indicator” simply demonstrates to the person handling the
firearm whether or not it is loaded. Even a $10 disposable camera
tells the user that there is film in the camera and how many pictures
are left.
A “magazine disconnect” is a device that prevents a gun from firing
when the magazine is removed, whether or not there is a bullet in the
chamber, as there was with the Barr incident. If the Colt pistol
handed to Barr had been equipped with a magazine disconnect, it would
not have discharged unintentionally. While the pistol in the Barr
incident was almost 100 years old, only a few models of current
semiautomatic pistols are equipped with a magazine disconnect, which
costs only a few cents—but could save a life.
The gun industry is currently unregulated for consumer safety—no
federal agency has the power to issue regulations, recalls, or bans for
defective or particularly unsafe firearms. The Barr incident
demonstrates that gun safety education is insufficient to prevent
unintentional shootings and re-affirms the need for regulation of guns
as consumer products in order to
reduce gun injury and death.
|
8/19/02
|
Preventable
Tragedy and
Consumer Product Safety
Last week, we reported on a gun
incident
involving Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), an NRA board member. At a
reception for Barr, a semiautomatic pistol discharged when someone
pulled the trigger as the gun
was being transferred from the reception’s host, Bruce Widner, to Rep.
Barr.
Barr and Widner were deceived into believing that the gun was
unloaded.
Widener removed the ammunition magazine before handing the gun to
Barr.
But unknown to Widener, a bullet was left in the chamber.
“I didn’t know it was loaded” is an all too common post-tragedy
utterance and a cause of unintentional gun death and injury that could
be prevented with simple regulation of the gun industry for consumer
product safety.
While the only casualty of the Barr incident was a glass door, two
incidents from the past two weeks demonstrate that many unintentional
discharges result in fatalities and tragedy.
On August 6, Cody Scott, a 15-year old Ohio boy, was playing with a
handgun in his room when the gun discharged, leaving Cody with a head
wound that would
prove fatal on August 8. Cody’s father, Donnie Scott, told
reporters that Cody had completed a hunter-safety course and knew how
to handle firearms. In fact, Cody owned hunting guns
himself. The police found the gun with
the magazine removed in Cody’s room, and Cody’s father suspects the
magazine
was removed before the gun fired. Since the gun had no magazine
disconnect,
the gun could still fire as long as there was a bullet in the
chamber…and
there was.
Then, on August 12, Douglas Donohue, a 12-year old Delaware boy,
discovered a .25 caliber pistol in his parents’ bedroom. As his
two younger sisters looked on, he removed the magazine and two bullets
from the gun, pointed it
at his face, and pulled the trigger. There was a bullet in the
chamber, and Douglas died from a gunshot wound to the head at 11:25
that morning.
A magazine disconnect is a device that prevents a firearm from
discharging once the magazine has been removed, regardless of whether
or not there is a bullet left in the chamber of the gun. This
simple device, costing only a few cents to install, could save hundreds
of lives each year if it were made mandatory. As there is no
federal body with the authority to regulate the gun industry, few gun
makers include safety features such as magazine disconnects or load
indicators in their products.
It is time to recognize guns for what they are—inherently dangerous
consumer products—and to regulate guns the way we regulate other
consumer products from teddy bears to airplanes.
Mandatory safety features on firearms, such as load indicators and
magazine disconnects, would reduce firearm deaths and injuries.
For too long, lawmakers and other policy makers have neglected their
responsibility to protect the public from gun violence. How many
preventable tragedies will it take before lawmakers will act?
|
8/26/02
|
Reinvigorated Iowa
Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility To Hold September 7th
Event: Re-Committing to Health and Global Survival
The reinvigorated Iowa chapter of
Physicians
for Social Responsibility will hold a kick-off event in Iowa City on
September 7, 2002 entitled Re-Committing to Global Health and
Survival. The event will be a one-day conference featuring
speakers, panelists, and discussion on topics including small arms
violence, military build-up, and environmental health issues. It
will take place at the Iowa City library from 9:30-5:30.
Through research, education and activism, Physicians for Social
Responsibility (www.iowa-psr.org)
works
to educate and mobilize the health community to eliminate nuclear
weapons, environmental health threats and gun injury and death.
|
9/2/02
|
Recalls and Warnings
Will Prevent Gun Consumers and Others from Becoming Victims
In recent weeks, First Monday has
examined
safety features such as minimum trigger pull, magazine disconnects and
load indicators as safety features that would make guns less dangerous
to consumers (gun owners
and innocent bystanders alike). However, few gun models are
equipped
with these basic safety features because no federal agency has the
authority
to set minimum safety standards for guns. If guns were regulated
like
other consumer products, minimum safety standards would be just one of
four
components of consumer product safety regulation that could be imposed.
Along with minimum safety standards, a regulatory body overseeing the
gun industry could also: (1) issue recalls and warnings about defective
guns, (2) collect data on gun related deaths and injuries, and (3) ban
products when no other remedy is sufficient.
This week, we will focus on recalls and warnings as a tool for reducing
injury and death associated with firearms. Recalls and warnings
are
effective mechanisms for maintaining public health and safety. A
good
example of the importance of recall capability is the case of the
Bridgestone/Firestone tire recall of 2000.
Over a seven-year period from 1993 to 1999, an estimated 150 people
died as a result of defective Firestone tires. Through the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and its data
collection system, the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS), the
models and source of the defective tires were pinpointed, and 6.5
million tires were recalled, saving many lives.
Recalls and warnings such as this contributed to the 40% decline in
automobile accident related deaths from 1966 to 1998 after the creation
of NHTSA—the regulatory body for automobiles—in 1966. As guns are
the second leading cause of product related death (following
automobiles), it is essential that they be regulated for health and
safety like virtually all other consumer products from teddy bears to
automobiles.
Many gun owners and innocent bystanders have been injured or killed by
defective or hazardously designed guns, e.g., guns that discharge when
dropped, guns that are prone to jam and then unexpectedly discharge
when the user tries to free the jam, and gun barrels that “explode”
when the gun is fired.
In 1995, Remington Arms settled a suit for $31.5 million dollars
involving 12 models of shotguns it had manufactured over a 35-year
period. The plaintiffs agued that the shotguns they had purchased
had barrels made of steel of insufficient strength, making them prone
to explode. Along with the damages, Remington agreed to upgrade
the steel it used to manufacture the firearms.
If a federal agency were given the power to regulate the gun industry
for consumer safety, gun owners and others affected by defective guns
would have the ability to hold the manufacturer accountable for the
deaths caused by poorly or cheaply made weapons, and consumers would
have access to vital information
about a weapon’s past performance, the danger it may pose, and the
destruction
it may have brought to other consumers.
|
9/9/02
|
Oppose Gun Industry Immunity!
In April, you were told that
Constituents Must
Say No to Gun Industry Immunity! (First Monday, April 2002). At
that time, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection
of the House Energy
and Commerce Committee was holding hearings on a dangerous bill (HR
2037)
titled the “Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” by its sponsors,
and
known by those in the gun violence prevention movement as a gun
industry immunity
bill.
Unfortunately, the Committee passed the bill, and the NRA has been
lobbying hard for its passage in both the House and the Senate—it is
currently the NRA’s number one legislative priority.
This Act, sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and backed by the gun
lobby, intends to make gun manufacturers and dealers immune from
lawsuits filed as
a result of their poorly manufactured products or negligent conduct in
sale
or distribution of guns. This bill would prohibit not just suits
filed
by municipalities seeking to recover the costs of gun violence, but
also
suits filed by individuals directly affected by gun violence.
This is a dangerous bill that would make it virtually impossible to
hold an industry already exempt from federal health and safety
standards accountable for the destruction resulting from their
negligent conduct. No other industry is granted such blanket
immunity. This bill would set back progress that has been made in
suits filed by individuals and municipalities, as well as acts of state
legislatures.
The importance of resisting this bill is demonstrated by the Merril v.
Navegar lawsuit.
In July of 1993, a man by the name of Gian Luigi Ferri killed eight and
wounded six others with two TEC-9 “assault pistols” at a California
Street
office building in San Francisco. The guns were equipped with Hell-Fire
triggers, which make them capable of firing at a faster rate.
With the help of lawyers from the Legal Project of the Brady Center to
Prevent Gun Violence, a suit was brought against Navegar—the maker of
the TEC-9. In May of 1997, San Francisco County Superior Court
Judge James Warren dismissed the case, concluding that because the
weapon was legally manufactured and sold, Navegar was not at
fault.
In September of 1999, that Judge’s decision was reversed by a 2-1 Court
of Appeals decision which noted that, although the manufacture and sale
of
the TEC-9 were legal, that did not mean that “those who manufacture,
market
and sell firearms have no duty to use due care to minimize risks which
exceed those necessarily presented by such commercial activities."
Navegar appealed to the California Supreme Court, and in August of
2001, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal ruling, stating
simply that an existing California law forbade claims such as those
brought against Navegar. The statute to which the Court referred
was a gun industry immunity law.
This summer, the California
Legislature
repealed the immunity, but it was too late for the victims of the
California Street shooting. This clearly shows why states should
not grant the gun industry immunity from suits addressing their
negligent manufacture, sale or distribution of firearms.
Protect the Victims of Gun Violence!
Tell your Senators and Representatives to Oppose HR 2037 in the House
and S 2268 in the Senate, which would give the gun industry immunity
from lawsuits filed by municipalities and citizens seeking compensation
for damages resulting from gun industry misconduct.
Oppose S.
2268 in the
Senate!
Senator Tom Harkin: phone - (202) 224-3254
Senator Chuck Grassley: phone - (202) 224-3744
Office of Senator ___________
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Oppose HR
2037 in the
House!
Representative Jim Leach (1st district): phone - (202) 225-6576
Representative Jim Nussle (2nd district): phone - (202) 225-2911
Representative Leonard Boswell (3rd district): phone - (202) 225-3806
Representative Greg Ganske (4th district): phone - (202) 225-4426
Represntative Tom Latham (5th district): phone - (202) 225-5476
Office of Representative ___________
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
|
9/16/02
|
ATF
Could Move to DOJ
As reported by the Associated
Press, in keeping
with widespread reorganization of the federal government proposed since
September 11th, Bush Administration and Department of Treasury
officials have proposed to move the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (ATF) from Treasury to the Department of Justice. The
change will be proposed to Congress, which would have to approve it.
The ATF, which split from the IRS to become an independent agency in
1972, currently has about 5,000 employees and an annual budget of
upwards of $850 million. The agency is responsible for tracking guns
and bombs, investigating bombing and arson cases, enforcing federal
laws and regulations on alcohol and tobacco products, and collecting
excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco and firearm products.
When the Administration announced earlier this year which agencies
would be transferred to the new Homeland Security Department, some ATF
officials were surprised that their agency was not included in the move.
Although the ATF was deeply involved in anti-terrorism efforts
including the investigation of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the
1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the post-September 11th efforts to
implement measures to keep terrorists from obtaining handguns or
explosives, White House officials said the ATF’s functions weren’t
considered primarily a homeland security mission.
Following the Bush Administration decision to move two other Treasury
agencies—the Customs Service and the Secret Service—into the proposed
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Treasury decided to
reevaluate the placement and
mission of the ATF.
In reevaluating the agency, a senior Treasury official described the
mission of the ATF as primarily law enforcement, saying that a move to
Justice would be “common sense” and would be better than a move to the
Homeland Security Department, which focuses more on the security of
borders and transportation.
Kathleen Kiernan, the assistant director of public and governmental
affairs at ATF said the move would be fine, but that it’s critical to
move the entire agency. “The proposal would partner us with traditional
law enforcement agencies under Justice, including the FBI [Federal
Bureau of Investigation] and DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] ...
eliminating duplication of efforts.” Proposals have mentioned
moving either all or part of the agency.
|
9/23/02
|
Examining the Recent
Congressional Decision to Allow Arming of Commercial Airline Pilots
On September 5th, the US
Senate
overwhelmingly (87-6) passed the Armed Pilots Against Terrorism and
Cabin Defense Act (Smith/Boxer S.2254) as an amendment to the Homeland
Security Act. Those voting against
the amendment were Sen. Corzine (D-NJ), Sen. Jeffords (I-VT), Sen.
Specter
(R-PA), Sen. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Sen. Reed (D-RI), and Sen. Chaffee
(R-RI).
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin (D) was among several Senators not to vote on
the
Amendment.
The House passed a similar bill in early July by a vote of 310-113,
removing provisions that would have limited the program to only 1,400
pilots and expanding the program to include any pilot who volunteers to
participate and has gone through adequate training. At that time,
the Bush Administration was completely opposed to the bill, and both
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and Transportation Secretary
Norman Mineta vocally opposed the arming of commercial
pilots.
However, as political pressure from pilot unions built and members of
Congress began to act, the Administration’s position has shifted.
As reported by the Sacramento Bee on September 6th, the Administration
has modified its position, saying that it does not want pilots to be
compelled to carry guns and that there must be extensive training of
any pilots participating. The Administration has also warned that the
cost of implementing the program could
be prohibitive. James Loy, director of the Transportation
Security Administration,
notes that it could cost $900 million to establish a program to train
about
85,000 pilots in weapons use. Also, each cockpit would have to be
equipped
with special sleeves to hold the firearms.
The issue of arming pilots was raised in Congress earlier this year
after the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and other unions, who
support arming pilots, clashed with the airline industry, lead by 21
major airline CEO’s, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
both of which were strongly opposed to the idea of arming pilots,
fearing that the presence of weapons would enhance, not diminish, the
risk of death or injury to passengers.
Shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks, the issue was
raised as part of a list of airline security improvements that would be
considered (Reuters, Sept. 17th). The Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), created after September 11th as an agency with
authority over aviation security, would have some of its authority
taken away by the signing of the bill into law. Originally, it
was intended that the head of the TSA, John Magaw, would decide whether
pilots would be allowed to carry weapons. Pilot unions pushed
Congress to act on the issue after becoming frustrated with their
interactions with the TSA, the Washington Post reported on July 11th.
Those arguing in support of arming pilots cite recent evidence that
current security measures are not sufficient. Barbara Boxer
(D-CA), the major sponsor of the bill and a supporter of gun violence
prevention efforts, notes that airport security systems have been
easily and repeatedly breached during random tests at up to a 40%
failure rate. In addition, the federal government
is behind schedule placing marshals on commercial flights, and airlines
are
having trouble complying with deadlines for strengthening cockpit
doors,
which are sometimes open, protected only by verbal warnings against
passengers
approaching the doors.
While opponents do not deny the fact that current measures may not be
meeting goals, they argue that adding firearms to the mix will only
increase the disarray.
Arguments against arming pilots include the myriad of other actions
taken
to prevent hijacking, such as fortified cockpit doors, the hiring of
hundreds
of air marshals, and the hiring of a new federal workforce to take over
security
at the nation’s airports.
Kristin Rand of the Washington D.C. based Violence Policy Center, which
opposes the measure, questions the effectiveness of the program.
She
notes that “expecting a pilot who is already engaged in flying an
airplane
to be able to effectively defend against a hijacker is a scenario rife
with
potentially disastrous consequences. Highly trained police
officers--whose
nly job is law enforcement--all too often fail to use firearms
successfully.” She cites the following to support her argument:
· One study found that 21 percent of officers
killed with a handgun were shot with their own service weapon.
· Trained law enforcement officials have only
an 18 to 22 percent hit ratio in armed confrontations.
Most recently, as the AP reported on September 11, 2002, leaders of
foreign-owned airlines have united to voice their opposition to the
arming of American pilots,
saying that the measures will clash with gun laws in many
countries. A spokesperson for the Federal Aviation administration
noted that the US may
have to negotiate separate agreements with different countries.
|
9/30/02
|
Suicide: A Call to
Action - A Report from the Indiana Partnership to Prevent Firearm
Violence Annual Meeting
Iowa and Indiana are two states in which gun violence prevention groups
are taking the lead in research and action regarding suicide
prevention. We are in a position to learn from one another about
how to take effective
action to reduce suicide, although the demographics of the states vary
somewhat.
While both the firearm suicide and homicide rates are higher in Indiana
than in Iowa, there are more firearm suicides than homicides in both
states.
In Indiana the two target groups are 20-34 year old black males and
elderly white males. In Iowa the target groups are 15-24 year old
white males and elderly white males.
There were two speakers of national importance at the conference:
Colonel (Doctor) David A. Litts, USAF and Alan Berman, Ph.D., Executive
Director of
the American Association of Suicidology. Dr. Litts emphasized
the need for community capacity to reduce suicide. By this he
meant two key aspects: first, shared responsibility for the general
welfare of the
community and its members; and second, collective competence in
confronting situations that threaten the integrity of the community and
the safety and well-being of its members. If both of these
qualities are present, the
community is empowered.
Communities need a good sense of interconnectedness, knowledge and
skills, a high value for human life, positive attitudes toward
help-seeking, and an
accurate understanding of mental health and mental illness. With
these qualities will come drops not only in the suicide rate, but also
in family violence, truancy, substance abuse and crime. Litts
urged us to consider not just high-risk groups, but the whole
community. He pointed
out that the number of suicides in mid-life groups is higher than in
elderly
groups, although the rate is higher among the elderly. If we take
care
of the whole population, we save more lives from suicide and other
problems
than if we focus only on a small segment of the population.
Litts emphasized the risks of guns in the home when teens are present.
He pointed out that teens may go along for weeks appearing quite
happy, content and productive, but one day without warning may have a
moment of
despair or self-doubt and consider taking their own lives. If a
gun is available or easily accessible, it takes just a few minutes for
a person to end his life.
Dr. Berman spoke on best practices and recommendations for state
suicide prevention planning. He emphasized the importance of
evaluating any program that is used. Berman was critical of
school-based suicide awareness curriculums, because they usually
aren¹t long enough to really change behaviors, and have shown an
actual decrease in referrals by students.
Berman emphasized the need for more didactic training in suicide for
mental health professionals. Family physicians and pediatricians
also need more training in childhood depression. Berman spoke of
a training program in Gotland, Denmark, where 90% of the general
practitioners received training,
which led to a reduced suicide rate. However, such training needs
to be repeated every couple of years.
Berman emphasized the importance of reducing availability and
accessibility of firearms as a way of reducing suicide. He said
that reducing means more frequently used in other cultures ha been
effective in
reducing salaries. The fact that increased ownership of firearms
is correlated with higher rates of firearm suicide is a good reason to
focus on specific means to reduce firearm availability.
Berman also addressed the need for more media education aobut suicide,
timely post-vention interventions, and skills development or coping
strategies in schools.
He pointed out each suicide costs the society about $400,000 in lost
earnings. This can be used with politicians to free up money to
prevent suicide, which would be a lot less expensive for states.
It is important to
work from the top down, by using the political will available, and also
upward from the grassroots level. Finally, Berman emphasized that
work
on suicide is a marathon, not a sprint. Many training programs
need
to be repeated at regular intervals, because of turnover and forgetting.
Xun Shen, an epidemiologist working with the Indiana group, spoke about
his analysis of the data. One of the interesting results was that
30%
of suicide victims have had contact with the law. Many of the
suicides
occurred in the time before sentencing, as person's anxieties about the
outcome and consequences increased. This was a more serious
factor
for those youth and adults than for seniors. Among seniors
physical
illness was
a more common factor.
Dean Hawley, MD, Professor of Pathology at Indiana University School of
Medicine, spoke of the difficulty of getting consistent and correct
information
from across the state, particularly when the source is the elected
county
coroner. Their training and accountability varies drastically
from
county to county, with some having less than a high school education.
|
10/7/02
|
New World Health
Organization (WHO) Report Calls for Violence Prevention
“This
report,
the first comprehensive summary of the problem [of violence] on a
global scale…shows that where violence persists, health is seriously
compromised…This report urges us to work with a range of partners and
to adopt an approach that is proactive, scientific and
comprehensive…Violence is often predictable and preventable…Many of the
factors that increase the risk of violence are shared across the
different types of violence and are modifiable.” (Gro Harlem
Brundtland, Director-General, WHO)
The World Report on Violence and Health, released by the World Health
Organization (WHO) earlier this month, is a landmark document bringing
the problem of violence
into focus from the viewpoint of global public health.
In the report, WHO defines violence as “the intentional use of physical
force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person,
or
against a group or community, that either results in or has a high
likelihood
of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or
deprivation.” The report divides violence into three types:
self-directed violence (including suicidal behavior and
self-mutilation), interpersonal violence (family, intimate partner, and
community violence), and collective violence (including armed conflict,
human rights abuses and terrorism).
The report examines the impact of violence on global health using an
ecological framework—a four-tiered model consisting of factors and
behaviors relating to (1) individuals, (2) inter-personal
relationships, (3) the community, and
(4) society. The fourth tier—society—includes discussion of
factors that have contributed to a “climate in which violence is
encouraged or inhibited.” This includes weapons availability,
socio-cultural norms such as the stigma associated with suicide, and
factors such as the prevalence of alcohol and drug abuse or mental
health conditions in a society.
According to the report, approximately 1.6 million people died as a
result of violence in the year 2000—half of them suicides, one-third
homicides, and
one-fifth related to armed conflict. Most violence, however, is
non-fatal,
resulting in physical or psychological damage. The costs of
violence
are substantial, including hospitalization, long-term care, legal
costs,
lost productivity, damage to property and societal infrastructure and
negative
affects on economic development and tourism. Overall, violence is
one
of the leading causes of deaths for all people ages 15-44, and accounts
for
14% of deaths among males and 7% of deaths among females.
The report notes that around the world,
“priority is
usually given to dealing with the immediate consequences of
violence—providing
support to victims and punishing offenders. While such responses
are
important and should be strengthened wherever possible, there needs to
be
much greater investment in primary prevention of violence—that is,
measures
to stop violence from occurring in the first place.”
The report lists nine recommendations for action, the fourth being to
promote primary prevention responses. Among other suggestions
mentioned under primary prevention, such as media campaigns, parenting
training, and improvements to urban infrastructure, the report lists
“measures to reduce firearm injuries and improve firearm-related
safety.”
IPGV’s mission is to reduce firearm-related death and injury in Iowa
and the United States. We view gun violence as a public health
problem and
work toward strategies that emphasize prevention rather than punishment.
The WHO report on global violence can be accessed on-line at: http://www5.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/main.cfm?p=0000000117
|
10/14/02
|
Weapons of Mass Destruction
A sniper with a high-powered rifle
has been
terrorizing the Washington, DC area, killing eight and wounding two at
this writing (Oct. 14). All the victims, seven males and three females,
were shot while going about normal daily activities—mowing the lawn,
pumping gas, shopping, going to school, etc. Ages of the victims range
from 13 to 72.
While I take note of all high profile gun shootings in the news, I have
been following the Washington shootings with special interest. The
reason
being that before coming to Iowa in 1993, I lived in the Washington, DC
area
for 27 years—the last 14 years in the Washington suburb of Bethesda,
Maryland in Montgomery County where five of the shootings have
occurred. Since all of the shootings so far have been on or near major
roadways, I am very familiar with most of the shooting sites, having
driven by them on numerous occasions. It’s an eerie feeling.
But my feelings are nothing compared to what the residents of the
Washington area are going through. Outdoor school activities have been
cancelled; parents escort their children into school; a weekend girl’s
soccer tournament was cancelled; few people are seen on the bike trails
and jogging paths; people crouch down inside their cars while pumping
gas; restaurant patrons avoid sitting at outdoor tables, etc. Many
people feel that they are taking a risk by just going outdoors.
While all the shooting was going on, the U.S. Congress passed a
resolution giving the President broad authority to go to war against
Iraq. The reason given for the need for this resolution is to rid
Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons. This is just the administration’s latest initiative
in the war on international terrorism.
But the sad truth is that Americans have been terrorized for decades by
another type of weapon of mass destruction—guns. In the last 40
years,
more than 1 million people have died from gun shot wounds in the
U.S.—more
than the number of U.S. soldiers killed in all foreign wars in the
nation’s
history.
In the one year following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the
U.S., approximately 29,000 Americans were killed by firearms; 10 times
the number of lives lost in the attacks. This works out to about 80
firearm related deaths
a day – 47 gun suicides, 30 gun homicides, and 3 unintentional
shootings. And for each firearm death, there are approximately three
nonfatal firearm injuries; many of which result in paralysis or
permanent disability of the victim.
Compared to the daily toll of gun violence in the U.S., the recent
sniper shootings in the Washington area are an insignificant drop in
the bucket. They barely register on the daily statistics of firearm
related deaths and injuries.
While the U.S. is now spending hundreds of billions of dollars to
protect Americans from international terrorism, federal and state
lawmakers have neglected
their duty to protect Americans at home from gun violence.
A good start for lawmakers would be to subject an out-of-control gun
industry to the type of consumer product regulation that we apply to
virtually all other consumer product—from teddy bears to airplanes. In
an unregulated environment, the gun industry has turned to increased
lethality of its products to increase sagging sales. Assault
weapons, sniper rifles and ammunition designed for military use are
sold on civilian markets, where they are available to virtually anyone
who can pass a criminal background check. While it may be good for
business, it has been a disaster for the general public.
We need more lawmakers in the Congress and the Iowa General Assembly
who have the courage and backbone to stand up to the gun lobby, and who
will take
meaningful steps to protect Americans from all types of weapons of mass
destruction.
|
10/21/02
|
Ballistic
Fingerprinting of Firearms - Part 1
Ballistics testing has now linked the
sniper shooting
at a restaurant in Ashland, Va. over the weekend to 11 other sniper
shootings in the Washington DC area since Oct. 2. In this
shooting, a man was wounded in a parking lot next to the restaurant and
is now in a hospital in
Richmond.
The markings and impressions left on fired bullets and shell casings
are unique to each gun. These “ballistic fingerprints,” as they are
often called, have been used by law enforcement for more than 80 years
to convict tens of
thousands of criminals. In the typical case, a bullet or shell casing
is
recovered from a crime scene. A suspect is arrested with a gun. Police
test
fire the gun and compare the ballistic fingerprints on the test bullet
and
shell casing with the fingerprints on the bullet or shell casing found
at
the crime scene. If the two fingerprints match, police can link the gun
found
on the suspect to the gun used in the crime.
But what if guns were test fired by the manufacture before they were
sold and each gun’s ballistic fingerprints were placed in a national
registry? With such a system, law enforcement would be able to trace a
bullet or shell casing found at a crime scene to the serial number of
the gun and eventually to the person who first purchased the gun. Such
a system would be enormously helpful to law enforcement in solving gun
crimes.
The Washington sniper shootings have resulted in intense debate over
whether the government should create a database of ballistic
fingerprints. Legislation has already been introduced in the U.S.
Congress. While law enforcement is strongly in favor of such a national
database, predictably, the NRA and the gun industry are opposed.
So is the Bush administration. Echoing the NRA party line, Ari
Fleischer, President Bush’s press secretary, said at a press conference
on Oct. 14, “The
more a gun is used, the less accurate the tracing can become.” He went
on
to say, “A simple nail file put down the barrel of a gun can alter the
amount
of tracing that’s on a bullet, and therefore change the accuracy of
fingerprinting,
very unlike any fingerprinting of human beings.”
Both statements are grossly misleading.
1. While repeated firings do change the markings
slightly, this doesn’t significantly effect the reliability of the
system. Studies show
that bullets and shell casings can be matched to the first fired
bullets and
casings after hundreds or even thousands of firings.
2. While it is possible to alter a guns ballistic
fingerprint, it is not that easy to do so. The person would have to
alter at least six parts of a gun to completely change its fingerprints
– the breech face, ejector, chamber, ejection port, firing pin, and
extractor. While some criminals might alter a gun’s fingerprints, most
probably won’t. For example, criminals know that all they have to do is
wear gloves so that they won’t leave fingerprints. But many criminals
are convicted every year because of fingerprint evidence nonetheless.
It is evident that the Bush administration’s loyalty to the NRA is
greater than its concern for the victims of gun violence.
A national database of ballistic fingerprints would not be immediately
effective because only a limited number of guns (e.g., all new guns)
could be fingerprinted at first. But as time went on, the system would
become more useful.
While proponents of a ballistics fingerprinting system claim that it
would help solve crimes, what they fail to mention is that it may also
help prevent crimes. If criminals know that it is possible to trace a
bullet used in a crime back to them, then they may be deterred from
committing the crime.
Ballistic fingerprinting is a small, but important, step that can be
taken to reduce gun violence in the U.S.
|
10/28/02
|
Ballistic
Fingerprinting of Firearms - Part 2
Suspects Arrested in Sniper Attacks
We are, of course, thankful that two suspects in the Washington DC area
sniper attacks have been arrested in Maryland after a shooting spree
that
killed ten and seriously wounded three others. Imagine, a one man and a
teenager with just a single high powered military style assault rifle,
a Bushmaster XM15, were able to terrorize a population of 5 million
over a three-week period.
Ballistic Fingerprinting
As a result of the sniper shootings, there has been increased interest
in creating a national database of the ballistic fingerprints (the
unique markings on fired bullets and shell casings) of all news guns
sold in the U.S. A national database would enable law enforcement to
trace bullet fragments and shell casings found at crime scenes to the
person who first purchased the gun and the gun store from which it was
bought. (See First Monday, Oct. 14, 2002.) Through ballistic
fingerprints, forensic scientists have been able to positively identify
the Bushmaster XM15 rifle found in the suspects’ car as the gun used
in the sniper shootings.
Legislation has already been introduced in the U.S. Congress that would
create a national database of ballistic fingerprints. That is, all gun
manufacturers would be required to test fire their new guns and submit
each gun’s ballistic fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (ATF) to build a national database. At first, the Bush
administration said that it was opposed. But under pressure, the
administration changed its position to say that it was asking ATF to
conduct a study. But ATF has already conducted numerous studies of
ballistic imaging systems, and strongly supports the concept of
creating a national database.
So why do we need another study? We don’t. This is obviously just a
delaying tactic by the Bush administration to buy time for lawmakers to
forget about the sniper attacks and go back to business as usual, which
is to side step the gun violence issue.
Cost of National Database
Some critics have asked how we would we pay for a national ballistic
fingerprinting system – which they estimate could cost up to $40
million per year. No problem. Charge a “user fee.” In the U.S.
there are about 8 million new guns sold each
year. A $5 surcharge on all new guns sold would pay for the system. Or
conservatively
assuming the average price of a new gun to be $400, a 1.25 percent tax
on
all new guns sold would also pay for the system. As for the gun
manufacturer’s
cost to test fire each new gun and submit the ballistic fingerprint
images
to ATF, let them pass the cost onto their buyers.
This is not a new idea. The nation’s roads and bridges are paid for
from federal and state taxes on gasoline. And airport security is paid
for from a surcharge on airline tickets. So it makes perfect sense for
gun owners to
pay for a national ballistic fingerprinting system.
Ballistic Fingerprinting Not a Miracle Cure
While ballistic fingerprinting would be an important tool for law
enforcement in solving gun crimes, it is not a “miracle cure” for gun
violence. While the Washington DC area sniper shooting received
virtually nonstop news coverage for three weeks, random gun violence by
strangers shooting strangers is really an anomaly rather than the norm.
On average, there are 80 gun related deaths each day in the U.S. – 57
gun suicides, 3 unintentional shootings, and 30 gun homicides.
Of the gun homicides, about three-fourths are the result of arguments
or disputes between family members, friends, and acquaintances. Only
about 10 percent of all gun deaths are crime related. That is, a
homicide in connection with a felony crime such as robbery, rape,
abduction, or stranger shooting. Much more than just ballistic
fingerprinting will be needed to dramatically reduce gun violence in
the U.S.
We need to keep our “eye on the ball” and not lose sight of the bigger
picture of gun violence. The "shooting gallery" is still open.
|
11/4/02
|
Go to the Movies! (Bowling for
Columbine)
“Bowling
for
Columbine is not a film simply about guns or school shootings. That is
only the starting point for my 2-hour journey into the dark soul of a
country that is both victim
and master of an enormous amount of violence, both at home and around
the
world… It is a movie about the state sponsored acts of violence and
terrorism against our own poor, and how we have created a culture of
fear that is based on the racial dilemma we continue to ignore. And
it’s a devastating comedy.”
-Michael Moore, October 10, 2002
Last Monday, I was in Chicago for the Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan
(HELP) Conference focusing on nonfatal gun injuries. After a day
of panels and workshops focusing on the devastation caused by gun
injuries—including the stress on emergency medical services, the
thousands of people coping with
disability, post-traumatic stress and other difficulty, and the great
need
for prevention strategies and support groups—the last thing I wanted to
think
about was the epidemic of gun violence in America.
Then someone told me what was playing at a theater within walking
distance from the hotel—Michael Moore’s new documentary about the
American culture of fear, violence and guns—Bowling for
Columbine. And up Michigan Avenue I went to get an answer to the
burning question: “Are we a nation of gun nuts
or are we just nuts?”
Bowling for Columbine has been a topic of discussion and a point of
contention since its highly successful world premier in May of 2002 at
the Cannes Festival in France. The first documentary accepted at the
Festival since 1956, Bowling for Columbine won the Cannes 55th
Anniversary Jury Prize as well as a thirteen minute standing ovation—a
Cannes record.
Since then, the film has been widely distributed throughout the world
and has caused something of a stir. In its first weekend in US
theaters (New York and L.A.), Bowling for Columbine set the new
all-time opening weekend box office record for a documentary in the
United States with an average of
$27,000 per screen. Over the weekend of October 26, the film was
#2
in box office per screen average in the United States for ALL FILMS,
and it
was #1 in Canada.
Using the tragic Columbine high school shootings as a springboard,
Michael Moore plunges into a stunning examination of a nation that
loses 30,000 lives each year to gun violence. Through discussions
with everyone from NRA President Charlton Heston to one of the creators
of the popular cartoon South Park to victims of the massacre in
Littleton, Colorado, Moore seeks to uncover the reasons behind the
violence Americans have come to expect, dread and even
accept.
This is an important film. Go see it.
Bowling for Columbine is currently playing at the JAC Varsity 1 theater
in Des Moines, and according to United Artists—the US distributor of
the
film—the film should be in Iowa City on November 15. To get
updates
on new venues or to learn more about the film, visit www.bowlingforcolumbine.com.
|
11/11/02
|
Sniper Attacks Boost
Bushmaster Sales
According to a feature article in
the weekly
news and culture publication Seven Days Vermont (www.sevendaysvt.com),
sales of the Bushmaster rifle – now infamous as the weapon of the D.C.
area snipers – have increased markedly since the sniper attacks.
The Bushmaster rifle –the “civilian” version of the M-16 assault rifle,
known for its role in combat during the Vietnam War – costs about
$700.
As the Portland Press Herald reports, Bushmaster sells about 50,000
rifles
a year, bringing in $36 million.
When asked what factors contributed to the rise in sales, one Vermont
gun dealer, the owner of Parro’s Gun Shop & Police Supplies in
Waterbury, VT answered: “I think people see it as an investment
in case the government tries to ban that entire family of
weapons.” Another dealer confirmed the sentiment, saying that
“Every time there’s a tragedy, we see an influx of buyers afraid the
government will impose more laws…people want Bushmasters now not only
as collectibles, but to proclaim their right to own that gun.”
The federal ban on assault weapons adopted in 1994 under President
Clinton expires in 2004 and will be an issue for the recently elected
Congress.
Read the original article at: http://www.sevendaysvt.com/-thisweek/feat/02.html
|
11/18/02
|
The Power of
Lawsuits, What
the NRA is Doing to Stop Them, and What You Can Do to Stop the NRA
As reported by the Associated Press, on
November
14, a Florida jury ordered gun distributor Valor Corporation to pay
$1.2 million to Pam Grunow, the widow of Barry Grunow, a Florida
teacher who was killed with a handgun distributed by the company.
The central issue in the case was whether or not Valor Corporation was
negligent in selling a gun that is frequently linked to crime.
The guns are known as “Saturday Night Specials” or “junk guns” because
they are cheaply made, affordable and concealable.
This is the first verdict against a distributor for selling “junk guns”
without safety features, such as an internal locking device that would
prohibit
the gun from being fired by unauthorized users. Gun manufacturers
have already begun to incorporate internal locking devices into their
firearms, and it is thought that the success of the Florida lawsuit
will expedite that process.
The prosecutor in the case is Bob Montgomery, the attorney who
represented the state of Florida in its battle against the tobacco
industry—a lawsuit that eventually won the state $11.3 million.
According to the Florida Sun Sentinel, Montgomery “hopes the jury’s
verdict award would make it impossible for a group of gun makers and
distributors in California to get insurance for cheap handguns,
effectively putting them out of business.” Lawyers from the Brady
Center to Prevent Gun Violence were also involved with the case.
Lawsuits with the power to put negligent gun manufacturers and
distributors out of business are just what the NRA fears.
The NRA fighting back with gun industry immunity bills that would make
gun manufacturers and distributors immune from litigation filed by
victims and municipalities alike—on both the federal and state
levels.
On the federal level, H.R. 2037, sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns
(R-Fla.), and S.2268, sponsored by Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) are quickly
coming up for consideration. There are 232 sponsors of the House
bill, and 48 Senate supporters. These are dangerous bills that
would prohibit lawsuits such
as the one filed and won by Pam Grunow, making it virtually impossible
to
hold an industry already exempt from federal health and safety
standards accountable
for the destruction resulting from their negligent conduct.
To date, 22 states have succumbed to gun lobby pressures and enacted
immunity laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits. Senator
Steve King (R-Kiron),
recently elected to the US House of Representatives, introduced a bill
(SSB
1173) in the Iowa Senate last year that would prohibit Iowa cities from
filing
civil actions against gun manufacturers. The bill died in the
State
Government Committee chaired by King. However, with the NRA’s
current
focus on immunity legislation, Iowa is a potential target for a new gun
industry
immunity bill.
Legislators need to know the danger this bill poses to victims of gun
violence and their families. Educate your representatives about
this issue!
Call your representatives!
Tell them to say “no” to gun industry immunity!
Call your Representative and Senators through the U.S. Capitol
Switchboard.
Sen. Charles Grassley: 202-224-3744
Sen. Tom Harkin: 202-224-3254
Rep. Jim Leach: 202-225-6576
Rep. Jim Nussel: 202-225-2911
Rep. Leonard Boswell: 202-225-3806
Rep. Greg Ganske: 202-225-4426
Rep. Tom Latham: 202-225-5476
Tell them to
vote NO on HR
2037 and S 2268.
|
11/25/02
|
The Consequences of
Attorney General Ashcroft's Actions
During his confirmation hearings on
January 17,
2001, John Ashcroft was asked whether he would uphold gun control laws
to
which he has demonstrated great personal opposition. He responded
that
his responsibility “is to uphold the acts of the legislative branch of
this
government in that area” and that he would “do so and continue to do so
in
regard to the cases that now exist, and further enactments of the
Congress.”
Shortly after being sworn in as the new Attorney General of the United
States in early 2001, John Ashcroft sent a letter to the NRA stating
that he “unequivocally” believed the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution to guarantee an individual right to own firearms.
Although some believe that Ashcroft was merely paying lip-service to
the gun lobby, it is clear that since his confirmation, he has
diligently followed through on his statement to the NRA. Now, his
actions jeopardize the very gun laws he, as Attorney General, has sworn
to uphold.
On May 6, 2002, Ashcroft filed briefs in the US Supreme court that
signaled a new US interpretation of the Second Amendment, uprooting a
long-standing interpretation held by the government and endangering gun
laws across the country. For decades, the position of the US
Department of Justice had
been that the Second Amendment guarantees only a collective right of
the
states to maintain and arm militias, but with the new interpretation,
the
Justice Department has joined the NRA chorus to argue that the Second
Amendment
guarantees gun rights to individuals.
Shortly after this announcement, on May 30, two men charged with
carrying a handgun without a license in Washington D.C. filed suit on
Second Amendment grounds to overturn D.C.’s handgun ban. The ban
has been in place since 1976, prohibiting all D.C. residents who are
not law enforcement officials from owning a handgun.
As the Washington Post reported on May 31, the local U.S. Attorney’s
office urged the D.C. Superior Court to uphold the gun ban in spite of
the new interpretation held by the Justice Department. The US
Attorney argued that a 1987 D.C.
Court of Appeals ruling was binding local precedent. In that
ruling, the Court stated that “the right to keep and bear arms is not a
right conferred upon the people by the federal Constitution” but “a
collective right” of the
states to bear arms.
Now, as CNS News reports, the Cato Institute—a non-profit public policy
research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C. which promotes
public
policy based on limited government, individual liberty and free
markets—is
developing a legal strategy to overturn the ban in order to allow D.C.
residents
to own handguns for self-protection. Legal scholar Gene Healy of
the
Institute also noted that the institute hopes to involve the US
Department
of Justice in the case.
These latest developments demonstrate once again that Attorney General
John Ashcroft cannot be trusted to uphold and enforce this nation’s gun
laws, and
that he payed lip-service not to the NRA, but to Congress and the
American people.
|
12/2/02
|
IPGV Legislative Agenda
for 2003
As the year 2002 comes to a close,
IPGV begins
to focus on priorities for the upcoming year. Our focus includes
both legislative
and non-legislative issues. In order to keep our members and
supporters
up to date on our efforts, we will focus this Monday and the next on
our
agenda for 2003. This week, we have included our legislative
agenda.
Next week, we will share our non-legislative agenda. We hope you
have
all had a wonderful Thanksgiving weekend!
IPGV
Supports:
Extending
Brady
Background Checks to All Firearm Sales:
When a federal firearms licensee (FFL) – a licensed gun dealer – sells
a firearm, he/she must conduct a criminal background check on the buyer
to ensure
that the buyer is not a felon, domestic abuser, minor or other
prohibited purchaser. However, unlicensed sellers who sell
firearms from a “personal collection” do not have to conduct background
checks. Venues for non-dealer sales include gun shows, flea
markets, estate sales, firearm sales over the Internet, and firearm
sales through classified ads in newspapers. It is estimated that
about 40 percent of all firearm sales are non-dealer (secondary) sales.
IPGV supports extending the Brady background check requirement to all
secondary firearm sales in order to prevent prohibited purchasers from
buying guns from
unlicensed sellers.
Removing
Gun
Privileges of Domestic Abusers:
Under federal law, a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm if
he/she has been convicted of a domestic violence assault or is under a
court restraining order for domestic violence. However, it is
difficult for local law enforcement to enforce the federal law because
(1) local law enforcement officials
lack authority to enforce federal law, and (2) federal law enforcement
officials
are not equipped to respond effectively to all of the cases that arise
in
Iowa.
IPGV supports legislation to make it unlawful to possess a firearm
under Iowa state law if a person is prohibited from possessing a
firearm under federal
law. This bill would enhance the ability of Iowa’s law
enforcement to
enforce the terms of the federal law.
One
Gun a Month
Law:
The Brady Law prevents felons and other prohibited purchasers from
buying guns directly from licensed gun dealers. However, un
traffickers often employ “straw purchasers” (individuals who may
legally purchase a firearm) to buy handguns in bulk. The guns are
then sold on illegal markets—to felons, juveniles and other persons who
are prohibited by law from buying or possessing guns. The
following states have enacted one gun a month laws: South Carolina
(1975), Virginia (1993), Maryland (1996), and California (1998).
IPGV supports legislation that would limit handgun purchases to one gun
per month per person to reduce illegal gun trafficking.
Assault
Weapons
Ban:
On September 13, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act into law, which included the ban on the
manufacture and sale of semiautomatic weapons deemed “assault
weapons.” The bill bans 19 weapons by name (including several
models of AK-47s, the Colt AR-15, the TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and the Uzi) as
well as banning combinations of features found on many assault weapons
(such as large capacity ammunition magazines, pistol grips, folding
stocks, barrel shrouds and bayonet mounts). However, the ban had
a time limit of 10 years, and it will “sunset” in September of 2004 if
it is not reauthorized by Congress and signed into law by the
President.
IPGV supports the reauthorization and strengthening of the Assault
Weapons Ban in the next session of Congress. Because
manufacturers were able to work around the current ban by making
minimal design changes to existing assault weapons, renaming them, and
continuing their sale, IPGV supports strengthening
the ban to make it more effective.
Regulation
of the
Gun Industry:
No federal agency has authority to regulate guns manufactured and sold
in the U.S. The authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (ATF) is limited mainly to licensing of firearm dealers,
tracing stolen guns, and collecting excise taxes. There are more
federal regulations on toy guns than real guns.
IPGV supports legislation pending in the US Congress that would give
the U.S. Department of the Treasury the power to regulate the design,
manufacture, and distribution of guns and ammunition.
Treasury would be given authority to:
1. Set minimum safety standards for guns. Gun
manufacturers have developed various safety features for guns that
include load indicators that indicate to a user that the gun is loaded
with ammunition, magazine disconnect
devices that prevent a gun from being fired if the ammunition magazine
is
removed, integral trigger locking devices that prevent discharge of a
gun
by an unauthorized person, and minimum trigger pulls to prevent guns
from
being fired by young children.
2. Issue recalls and warnings about defective guns.
Many gun owners and innocent bystanders have been injured or killed by
defective or hazardously designed guns, e.g., guns that discharge when
dropped, guns that are prone to jam and then unexpectedly discharge
when the user tries to free the jam, and gun barrels that “explode”
when the gun is fired.
3. Collect data on gun related deaths and injuries.
Currently, very little information is collected about gun injury and
death in the United States. Improved collection would include
data such as the specific type of gun, caliber, and the way the gun was
purchased. This kind of data would aid injury prevention specialists in
identifying guns that are exceptionally likely to be involved in
firearm related death or injury, and to notify gun owners of the risks
associated with such guns.
4. Ban products when no other remedy is sufficient.
From the analysis of the data collected on firearm related deaths and
injuries, Treasury could then identify specific guns, classes of guns,
and gun products that are exceptionally likely to be used in gun
deaths, injuries, and crimes, and restrict the availability of such
guns to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to the general public.
Banning products is appropriate when no other safety measure would
adequately protect the public from harm, and where the costs to society
far out weigh the benefits.
IPGV Opposes:
“Shall
Issue”
Carry Concealed Weapons Laws:
Under Iowa law, a permit is required to carry a concealed weapon (e.g.
a loaded handgun) in public places. Applicants are required to
provide “reasonable justification” of the need to go armed.
Permits are issued at the discretion of local county sheriffs.
Iowa is called a “may issue” state because the sheriff may or may not
issue a permit on a case basis. Iowa is one of 13 states that are
considered “may issue.”
In 30 other states,1 a permit or license is also required to carry a
concealed weapon. However, in these states, the issuing agency is
required to issue a permit to anyone who meets the requirements for a
permit set by the state – usually, passing a background check.
These states are called “shall issue” states, meaning that the issuing
agency shall issue a permit as long as the applicant is not in a
prohibited category. The issuing agency has no discretionary
power.
IPGV opposes legislation that would convert Iowa from a “may issue” to
a “shall issue” state, which would eliminate the ability of Iowa’s law
enforcement to deny concealed carry permits to individuals without a
demonstrated “need to go armed.”
Gun
Industry
Immunity:
Gun industry immunity bills make gun manufacturers, distributors and
dealers immune from lawsuits filed as a result of their poorly
manufactured products or negligent conduct in the sale or distribution
of guns. Such bills would prohibit not just suits filed by
municipalities seeking to recover the
costs of gun violence, but also suits filed by individuals directly
affected by gun violence.
IPGV opposes gun industry immunity bills that would make it virtually
impossible to hold an industry already exempt from federal health and
safety standards accountable for the destruction resulting from their
negligent conduct, forbidding civil lawsuits by municipalities and
individual citizens alike.
Six states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas)
do not allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. One state
(Vermont) does
not require a permit or license to carry a concealed weapon.
|
12/9/02
|
IPGV Non-Legislative
Agenda for 2003
We
Support:
Public
Education
on the Risk of Guns in the Home:
A gun kept in the home for self-protection is twenty-two times more
likely to be used to shoot a friend, family member, or acquaintance
than a criminal intruder. (1) The presence of a gun in the home
increases the risk of
homicide of a family member by a factor of three (2) and increases the
risk
of suicide by a family member by a factor of five. (3)
Furthermore, 48% of gun-owning households with children do not
regularly make sure that guns are equipped with child safety or other
trigger locks. (4) In 72% of unintentional firearm deaths
and injuries, suicide, and suicide attempts of 0-19 year olds, the
firearm was stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a
friend. (5)
IPGV supports educating the public about the risks of keeping a gun in
the home and advocates removing guns from homes with small children or
others with increased risk of injury, e.g., persons with mental illness.
Public
Education
on Suicide Awareness and Prevention:
Suicide takes approximately 30,000 American lives each year and is
consistently one of the top ten causes of death in the United States,
usually ranked eighth or ninth. (6) For teenagers and
young adults ages 15-24, suicide is the third leading cause of death
nationally, and the second leading cause of death in Iowa. (7)
A large part of the problem of suicide in the United States is the lack
of public awareness of the risk factors associated with suicide.
One
of the most important risk factors is access to a firearm. In
1996-1998, firearms were used in 57.8% of all US suicides and 53.3% of
all Iowa suicides. (8) In 2001, 83% of all Iowa gun deaths were
gun suicides. (9) Suicide attempts with firearms result in death
85-90% of the time. (10) Restriction of lethal means is one of
the goals (goal 4) in the Surgeon General’s National Strategy for
Suicide Prevention.
IPGV supports public education efforts directed toward making the
public more aware of signs and symptoms of suicidal behavior as well as
the fact that suicide is preventable. IPGV strongly supports
public education efforts emphasizing the importance of restricting
access to lethal means (firearms)
as a tool of suicide prevention.
Suicide Prevention Strategy for Iowa:
On June 5, 2002, the first meeting of the Iowa Suicide Prevention
Steering Committee took place in Des Moines. IPGV formed the
committee to examine all aspects of suicide on a statewide level and
work toward implementation of prevention strategies as derived from the
Surgeon General’s National Strategy for Suicide Prevention as published
in 2001.
The Committee has six task forces to work on aspects of suicide
prevention. These aspects are: public awareness, mental
health/substance abuse issues, community-based programs, reducing
access to lethal means, clinical and professional practices, and
methodology or research. An executive steering committee meets
quarterly to assess progress and provide direction.
IPGV supports the work of the Iowa Suicide Prevention Strategy Steering
Committee.
Closing
the
Newspaper Loophole:
Federal law (Chapter 44 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) requires that
anyone “engaged in the business” of buying and selling guns be
licensed, but this terminology does not include “a person who makes
occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the
enhancement of a personal collection or for
a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of
firearms.”
Under the Brady Law (enacted by Congress in 1993), federally licensed
gun dealers are required to conduct criminal background checks on all
buyers. In addition, dealers are required to maintain records of their
transactions. These records aid law enforcement in tracing stolen guns
and guns used in crimes. However, unlicensed individuals selling
firearms from a “personal collection” are not required to conduct
background checks or keep records. In the gun business, firearm sales
by unlicensed sellers are referred to as
“secondary sales.” Researchers estimate that “secondary sales”
account for 40% of all gun transfers. (11)
One source for the secondary sale of firearms is gun shows (the gun
show loophole). Other sources include flea markets, estate sales,
firearm sales over the Internet, and firearm sales through classified
ads in newspapers.
We call firearm sales by unlicensed individuals through classified ads
in newspapers the “newspaper loophole.” As with the gun show loophole,
the newspaper loophole allows felons, domestic abusers, minors, and
other persons in prohibited categories to buy firearms with no criminal
background check, no record of sale, and no questions asked.
IPGV supports closing the newspaper loophole by asking newspapers to
adopt a policy of not accepting classified ads for guns from unlicensed
sellers.
“Don’t
Know,
Don’t Sell” Gun Dealer Policy:
Under the Brady Law (enacted by Congress in 1993), federally licensed
gun dealers are required to conduct criminal background checks on all
buyers to
ensure that potential buyers are not felons, domestic abusers, minors
or
others in prohibited categories. However, if a background check cannot
be
completed within 3 business days, federal firearms licensees (FFLs) are
allowed
to complete the sale. This is called a “default proceed.”
According to the General Accounting Office, 72% of criminal background
checks are completed within 2 minutes and 95% are completed within 2
hours. The remaining
5% of the checks take anywhere from a few hours to several weeks to
complete
and are 20 times more likely to result in a denial because the would-be
buyer
is a prohibited purchaser.
According to a report by Americans for Gun Safety, (12) between
December 1998 and May 2001 (a 30-month period), approximately 10,000
felons and other prohibited purchasers (73 from Iowa) were able to
obtain guns by default because
the background check could not be completed within 3 days.
IPGV supports a “don’t know, don’t sell” policy for Iowa’s gun dealers,
meaning that gun dealers would not release a firearm to a would-be
buyer
until after a background check is complete, regardless of how long it
takes
to complete the check.
-------------------------------------------------
1. Kellerman, et. Al, Injuries and
Deaths Due
to Firearms in the Home, Journal of Trauma, 1998, Vol.45, No.2,
p.263-267
2. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP,
Rushforth NB, et.
al., "Gun Ownership As A Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," N Engl
J
Med. 1993;329:1084-1091.
3. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et. al. "Suicide in the
Home in Relation to Gun Ownership", N Engl J Med. 1992;327:467-472
4. Peter Hart Research Associates Poll, July 1999
5. Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center Study,
Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Aug. 1999
6. National Strategy for Suicide Prevention: Goals and
Objectives. Public Health Service, 2001.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
8. DHHS: CDC: NCIPC: State Injury Profile for Iowa.
Atlanta, 2001.
9. Iowa Department of Public Health
10. A.L. Kellerman, F.P. Rivara, R.K. Lee, J.G. Banton, P.
Cummings, B.B. Hackman, and G. Somes, "Injuries due to firearms in
three cities," New England Journal of Medicine 335:14381444, 1996.
11. Cook, PJ and Ludwig, J, Guns in America: National Survey on
Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, National Institute of Justice
Research in Brief,
May, 1997.
12. Broken Records: How America’s Faulty Background Check System
Allows Criminals to Get Guns, Americans for Gun Safety, Jan. 2002
|
12/16/02
|
Happy Holidays! and
www.gunloophole.com
Greetings First Monday Subscribers!
This will be the last edition of First Monday for 2002 as those
responsible will be busy celebrating the holidays, at home and abroad.
First Monday will be back full force on January 13th, and we look
forward to a successful and peaceful year.
In order to end the year on a good note, we would like to share one of
our biggest successes with you—the Campaign to Close the Newspaper
Loophole.
Since we began the campaign in the summer of 2001, we have seen
national coverage of the issue, discourse among newspaper advertising
professionals, and interest by citizens looking to participate by
raising the issue with their local papers. Most importantly, we
have seen several newspapers recognize the danger inherent in
unregulated firearms sales through classified advertising and change
their policies in order to do what they can to reduce the toll of gun
violence in this country.
In the New Year, we hope you will do your part by staying informed and
taking action on critical issues.
Have a wonderful holiday season!
John, Jeremy and Kirsten
IPGV
www.gunloophole.com
National campaign launches website to persuade newspapers to stop
taking classified ads for guns from unlicensed sellers
Do American newspapers allow the unregulated sales of guns through
classified advertising? You bet. That is why the National Campaign to
Close the Newspaper Loophole launched www.gunloophole.com on December
16th.
“Most Americans don’t know that criminals, the mentally ill, and even
terrorists can easily buy guns through newspaper classifieds,”
according to John Johnson, chair of the national campaign. “Our website
explains this threat to public safety and what can be done about it.
Newspapers can play an important role in reducing gun violence by
simply not permitting the sale of guns between unchecked parties
through classified ads.”
As a result of the campaign, just a year old, several major newspapers
have stopped accepting classified advertising for gun sales, including
the Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Denver Post,
and Rocky Mountain News. The Denver newspapers just recently announced
their decision to not take classified ads for firearms on Dec. 1, 2002.
Two Tucson, Arizona newspapers – the Arizona Daily Star and Tucson
Citizen – adopted a policy of refusing classified ads for gun sales in
early 2001.
The Wall Street journal ran a lengthy article on the newspaper loophole
in its Oct. 17, 2002 edition, “Gun Opponents Set Their Sights on
Classifieds,” The newspaper loophole has also been highlighted in
segments on the NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokow and NBC’s Today Show.
Other media throughout the country have covered the campaign.
The National Campaign to Close the Newspaper Loophole currently
consists of 26 gun violence prevention organizations in 16 states. The
participating organizations are working to close the newspaper loophole
in their respective states by asking newspapers that take classified
ads for firearms to voluntarily stop taking such ads in order to
protect public safety. Iowans for the
Prevention of Gun Violence is participating in the campaign.
What is the Newspaper Loophole?
Under the Brady Law, federally licensed gun dealers are required to
conduct criminal background checks on all buyers and keep records of
their transactions. However, unlicensed individuals who sell firearms
from a “personal collection” are not required to conduct background
checks. In the gun business, firearm sales by unlicensed sellers are
called “secondary sales.”
An estimated 40 percent of all firearm transfers occur on the secondary
market. Sources of secondary sales include gun shows, flea markets,
estate
sales, firearm sales over the Internet, and firearm sales through
classified
ads in newspapers.
“We call the sale of firearms through classified ads in newspapers the
newspaper loophole,” explained Johnson. “And just like the gun show
loophole, the newspaper loophole allows felons, domestic abusers,
minors, and other persons prohibited by law from possessing firearms,
to buy guns without a background check or record of sale. This puts all
Americans at increased risk of gun violence.”
Campaign Website Launched on December 16
The website (www.gunloophole.com)
contains general background information on the newspaper loophole, a
list of organizations participating in the campaign, and a partial list
of newspapers in 16 states that currently do not take classified ads
for firearms from unlicensed sellers. The campaign plans to expand this
list to all 50 states in the near future.
The website also details a shooting incident involving white
supremacist Benjamin Smith. In June of 1999, Smith attempted to
purchase two handguns and a shotgun from a federally licensed gun
dealer in Peoria Heights, Illinois. The purchase was denied when a
background check revealed that Smith was subject to a court restraining
order for domestic violence.
Three days later, Smith bought two handguns from Donald Fiessinger of
Pekin, Illinois from a classified ad Fiessinger placed in the Peoria
Journal Star newspaper. Over the following July Fourth weekend, Smith
went on a shooting spree that targeted African Americans, Jews, and
Asians, killing two and wounding
nine. The spree ended when Smith committed suicide following a police
chase
after his car was spotted in southern Illinois.
The website also includes:
· an open letter to newspaper publishers
· comments from newspaper people regarding the
newspaper loophole, and
· suggestions on what concerned individuals
can do to help close the newspaper loophole in their area.
“Closing the newspaper loophole is easy,” said Johnson, an Iowa
activist who founded the campaign. “It doesn’t take an act of Congress.
All it takes is a management decision that can be implemented with a
simple memo that says,
‘As of today this newspaper will no longer accept classified ads for
firearms
from unlicensed sellers.’”
|
|
|
