Josh Horwitz

The NRA's Perverted View of America

2013-05-20T06:54:40-04:00

"Universal access to firearms is indistinguishable from Emancipation." - Glenn Beck at the 2013 NRA Convention

Responding to the National Rifle Association's annual convention in Houston earlier this month, Connecticut's freshman Senator Chris Murphy noted, "The NRA kind of announced this weekend they're morphing into a paramilitary group, that essentially they're going to be advocating for armed resistance to the U.S. government." Law professor Stanley Fish mused, "The more militant members of the NRA and most of its leaders may be un-American ... [John Wilkes] Booth's modern successors are saying that a house in the hands of tyrants does not deserve to stand and they are ready to bring it down with their constitutionally protected guns." They weren't exaggerating.

The NRA didn't just throw down the gauntlet to our government in Houston. It also articulated a vision of America and its ideals that is the antithesis of what our Founders intended, and which would mean the absolution of our Constitution.

There can longer be any doubt that the NRA's leadership views our government as a dangerous enemy that must be defeated with violence and force of arms. The rhetoric at their convention was consistently apocalyptic. Keynote speaker Glenn Beck declared:

The freedom of all mankind, make no mistake, is at stake ... Our liberty, our way of life, is being legislated out of existence. Our rights are being diminished by a ruling class of powerful elites. They're growing out of control. We are in a precarious situation. We are. The hour grows late. We have a government that is now run by radical revolutionaries ... They know, if you lose the Second Amendment you certainly lose the First and the Fourth and the Fifth, the right to a grand jury, and the 10th and the 14th and the 19th...

NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre concurred, stating, "They're coming after us with a vengeance to destroy us. To destroy us and every ounce of our freedom."

Elaborating further on this conspiracy, Beck suggested that the modest effort in Congress to expand background checks to private sales of firearms conducted at commercial venues like gun shows was the pretext to the enslavement and mass murder of American civilians:

Believe me, President Obama, Michael Bloomberg, Joe Manchin, and even our beloved Pat Toomey... they sure the hell saw you coming. The Founders also warned about a time when the government would take the guns. They called that a "monopoly of violence." Because they knew that happens to governments and governments turn against their people because the people go to sleep. And if a government had a monopoly of violence, tyranny then would go undefeated. No one would be able to stop it. And if you think, "Oh, gee, there he goes again with his crazy ideas," ask the Japanese-Americans about the internment camps of World War II, done by the beloved progressive President FDR through executive order. If you don't believe that the government can do terrible things to its citizens, please explain to me the Lakota Indians ... What do you suppose the African-American in 1850 could have done with a gun? ... A lot of times people couldn't do anything about it because they didn't have a gun because their right had been taken away by the government ... Racists like James Earl Ray killed one. Disturbed killers like Adam Lanza killed 26. But history shows government kills millions.

In truth, our Founders understood full well that a "monopoly on force" is the fundamental organizing principle of any nation-state. As the man who drafted our Constitution and the Second Amendment, James Madison, told Patrick Henry at the Virginia ratification convention, "There never was a government without force. What is the meaning of government? An institution to make people do their duty. A government leaving it to a man to do his duty, or not, as he pleases, would be a new species of government, or rather no government at all." Madison also opined in a 1788 letter to Thomas Jefferson, "It has been remarked that there is a tendency in all Governments to an augmentation of power at the expense of liberty. But the remark, as usually understood, does not appear to me well founded."

Madison and the men who traveled to Philadelphia to draft our Constitution believed that the rule of law, as enshrined in the Constitution, would "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to...our Posterity."

Beck, LaPierre, and the NRA's leadership, however, have lost all faith in the rule of law. NRA International Affairs Subcommittee Chairman John Bolton made a very revealing remark at their convention when he said, "We have a President who seems determined some way or another to restrict our Second Amendment rights. He doesn't have adequate time to protect American interests and American citizens around the world. And I think these two phenomena are very close related because I think the President has a very different view of what security and freedom mean than we do." Put another way, "The government won't protect us because it wants to control us. Only privately held firearms protect us." Wayne LaPierre echoed this notion, stating, "No bill in Congress... will ever change that inescapable fact that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Beck even asserted that armed citizens -- and not police -- are America's "first responders."

If this is starting to sound a lot like vigilantism and anarchy to you, you're getting warm. And Beck pretty much spelled that out for the NRA faithful:

We fight against those who stand against what our Founders called "Nature's Law." Those who believe they are qualified to make the decisions for the collective. May I humbly, may I humbly remind them that God himself does not make decisions for the collective. God sent his only son to help individuals. God himself saves the individual thus saving the collective. While we have a responsibility to love and to cherish and to care and to feed one another, in the end it is only by each of us taking up that responsibility that we all progress as individuals and people. We stand and fight against those who deny the Creator, deny his power, and then have the audacity to grant to themselves the collective power that even God himself denies. Please hear me clearly. This is not about president or parties. We wrestle against those powers and principalities, against the rulers of this darkness in this world, we stand against spiritual wickedness in high places, and we will fight them with the eternal truths that man once felt were so obvious that he declared them "self-evident" ... Each of us will play an instrument in God's orchestra and it will ensure that the flame of man's liberty is not snuffed out. But it will be the people in this room and those anywhere upon the face of the earth who carry the understanding and can verbally defend Nature's God and Nature's Law, it is in the hands of those in this room and all with eyes and ears who can see and hear to protect liberty.

Beck has it backwards. Men form governments in the first place to remove themselves from the state of nature ("Nature's Law," or as it's more commonly known, "Survival of the Fittest"). Why? As John Locke put it, in his "Second Treatise of Civil Government":

Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it.

Our Founders, of course, consented to exactly such an agreement through the Constitution (and Locke's writings were a strong influence on Madison's thinking). Furthermore, they knew from firsthand experience that not all individuals were responsible citizens. As Madison famously said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

Additionally, Beck's spiritual proselytizing seems ignorant of one of the bedrock principles of our Constitution, the "wall of separation between Church and State." Standing on the NRA stage, he ranted about "Muslim extremists" and told their members, "Wear ['Christian'] as a badge of honor. It's the only thing that will save us now." "We will win by strapping on the full armor of God," he added. To my ears, that is a salvo against our most cherished value of political equality that derives not from our religion, but from our citizenship. Moreover, I find it deeply ironic that the NRA, which claims to be "the nation's oldest civil rights organization," would have a keynote speaker so deliberately exclusionary to millions of people in America.

When "the guys with the guns make the rules" in a society, the concept of "one person, one vote" goes out the window. And the NRA's leaders have made it patently clear that they will no longer abide by democratically-enacted laws. At the NRA convention, Beck warned outright, "They feel they must regulate us until we comply. I will not comply." LaPierre agreed, warning, "Without [the Second Amendment], we really aren't free at all ... We will never surrender our guns -- never." In Beck's mind, the NRA faithful has "the responsibility to throw off the chains of tyranny."

The great irony here is that the Second Amendment's author warned our nation about the danger of armed mobs taking the law into their own hands. Shays' Rebellion and similar uprisings were a major impetus behind the drafting our Constitution. They scared our Founders and made them realize that the federal government was too weak under the Articles of Confederation. It's no coincidence, too, that the Constitution states the one of the primary purposes of the Militia is to "suppress Insurrections," and defines the crime of Treason. In the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln, "It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination."

There are consequences to the NRA's perverse and dangerous ideology. Pulitzer Prize winner Charles Simic recently wrote at The New York Review of Books blog: "One doesn't need to be a prophet to predict that sooner or later [the 310 million firearms in private hands in the United States] will be used to settle political differences in our already extraordinarily polarized country. As someone who by the age of six was used to hearing gun shots, explosions, and screams and to seeing dead and wounded people during World War II, the German occupation, and the civil war in Yugoslavia, I learned early that the primary purpose of a weapon is to kill people. Anyone who tells you that having a lot of them around will make us safer is either out to make money out of dead children or living in a fool's paradise."

With the NRA, it's a little of both. But let's heed Simic's words and not forget what is at stake here. Our Founders drafted the Constitution to obviate the need for political violence, to allow us to settle our differences peacefully, democratically -- even in cases of obvious government overreach. The NRA has clearly reached a point where it has no faith whatsoever in our Founding documents or the men who drafted them. It's long past time for average Americans to stand up to the NRA's leadership and reclaim the values of freedom and liberty which they have so perverted. Failing to do so will send us on a path back to the future that Simic so vividly describes.

Boston Seen as Roadmap for 'Second Amendment Remedies' Crowd

2013-04-25T09:53:01-04:00

It made national headlines last week when 45 senators sided with the National Rifle Association and voted against a bill that would have significantly enhanced public safety in this country by requiring background checks on private sales of firearms at gun shows and other "commercial" venues. What escaped notice was a remarkable speech that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) gave that morning on the floor of the Senate.

Announcing that he would vote for a renewal of the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, Reid told a story about a conversation he had recently had with a friend in Nevada:

He asked me if the police have assault weapons. He asked me if United States military personnel have assault weapons. I said, "Yes, of course they do." And he said, and I quote, "If they have them, I want them." I thought about what this statement means. It means that there should be no limits on the kinds of weapons private citizens are allowed to own. I asked myself whether I believe that to be true. The police have riot gear and tear gas and battering rams. Should civilians have those, too? The military has rockets and machine guns and tanks and fighter jets. Should civilians have those, too? I decided the answer is no. In a civil society, where we have to balance individual rights with public safety, there should be limits on the kind of destructive weapons people are allowed to own ... The desire to arm ourselves against the young men and women who willingly risk their lives to defend our freedoms overseas is not a reason to oppose an assault weapons ban. The wish to arm ourselves against the police who keep our streets safe is not a reason to oppose an assault weapons ban ... The United States military is not out to get us. Federal law enforcement and local police departments are not out to get us. These conspiracy theories are dangerous and they should be put to rest ... I will vote for the ban because maintaining law and order is more important than satisfying conspiracy theorists who believe in black helicopters and false flags. And I will vote for the ban because saving the lives of young police officers and innocent civilians is more important than preventing imagined tyranny.

Senator Reid's friend is certainly not the only one who has bought into insurrectionist ideology, which is the cornerstone belief of the modern pro-gun movement. Just two days after Reid's speech -- and four days after the bombing in Boston -- the Republican Party of Benton County, Arkansas, published a newsletter featuring an editorial by Chris Nogy, the husband of Benton County GOP Secretary Leigh Nogy. In the editorial, Nogy addressed the adoption of Obamacare in Arkansas and wrote:

The 2nd amendment means nothing unless those in power believe you would have no problem simply walking up and shooting them if they got too far out of line and stopped responding as representatives ... If we can't shoot them, we have to at least be firm in our threat to take immediate action against them politically, socially, and civically if they screw up on something this big. Personally, I think a gun is quicker and more merciful, but hey, we can't.

The following day on April 20th former Alabama militia leader Mike Vanderboegh spoke at a pro-gun rally in Hartford, Connecticut. Vanderboegh gained infamy in May 2010 when he urged pro-gun activists to "break the windows" of Democratic Members of Congress who supported Obamacare. District offices across the country were vandalized, including the Tucson office of then-Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

In his Hartford speech, Vanderboegh focused not on health care, but on Connecticut's tough new gun laws, which include a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Vanderboegh's message for those attending the rally, which was organized by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, was, "Defy. Resist. Evade. Smuggle." Vanderboegh declared his intention to break the law by smuggling high-capacity ammunition magazines into Connecticut, cited my organization as one of his "despicable" enemies, and opined that "a civil war is staring us in the face." Most ominously, Vanderboegh stated, "When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote."

Vanderboegh also referred in his speech to his "friend" Kurt Hofmann. I posted here at Huffington Post about Hofmann just before the November 2012 elections after he wrote the following about the need for individuals to learn the art of making improvised explosive devices in his column at examiner.com:

I suggest that readers download Army Technical Manual 31-201, the Improvised Munitions Handbook. Other possibilities include Kitchen Improvised Explosives, Parts One and Two... The reality... is that the country is best served when oath-breaking public officials like [U.S. Senator Dianne] Feinstein are terrified of the wrath of the people. If knowledge of improvised explosives in the hands of every potential militiaman in the country helps foster that fear, so much the better.

[Nor is Hofmann the only pro-gun activist encouraging gun owners to build IEDs. Pro-gun blogger Miguel Gonzalez of Miami, Florida, for example, posts bomb-making information under the sarcastic heading, "The Josh Horwitz Insurrectionist Library."]

Following the recent terrorist attacks in Boston by the Tsarnaev brothers, who wreaked havoc with pressure cooker bombs and firearms, Hofmann was excited, writing in his column at examiner.com:

If one or two men can so thoroughly shake the security apparatus of the United States, the idea that the Second Amendment's protection against tyranny is outdated, because the U.S. is now a modern superpower, and therefore "resistance is futile," is simply not going to hold up. Imagine, after all, what even a small militia group of perhaps a dozen members could do, if the battle were not between terrorists and a country whose people can still convince themselves that they're relatively free; but between a determined and angry citizenry who will no longer submit to enduring a long train of abuses and usurpations, and the government perpetrating those abuses. Now imagine a couple dozen of those militia groups. Now imagine hundreds of them.

National tragedies like the Boston bombing are moments when all segments of American society come together to emphasize the values that we hold in common. Patriotic citizens from coast to coast rallied around our government after witnessing the courageous actions of first responders and law enforcement in Boston. The notion that some would see this instead as an opportunity to divide us -- to foment a civil war -- is deeply disturbing. Haven't we been visited by enough violence in recent months?

The irony also shouldn't be lost on us that the real "well regulated Militia," the National Guard, was deployed to Boston during the tragedy to protect Americans citizens and keep the peace. Indeed, the Second Amendment's author, James Madison, spoke eloquently about the threat posed to our nation by armed mobs and internal rebellions (i.e., Shays' Rebellion). As did the man who led our forces to victory in the Revolutionary War, George Washington, who told his fellow citizens, "Your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and ... the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other."

Those who tell us otherwise distort the meaning of our Constitution and intent of our Founders. More ominously, they create a climate which fosters acts of domestic terror. Like Harry Reid, we should all stand against the Insurrectionist Idea and embrace reforms which will make tragedies like Newtown and Boston things of the past.

Time for House Democrats to Unite on Guns

2013-02-11T06:42:09-05:00

Last week, Vice President Joe Biden stood before House Democrats at their annual retreat in Landsowne, Virginia and promised them that he would travel with President Obama to districts with high rates of firearm ownership to make the case for sensible gun laws. "You can go into areas where we're told you can't go and politically survive," he told them. "I'm telling you times have changed."

The next day, Democratic Leaders in the House of Representatives announced a comprehensive set of policy principles aimed at reducing gun violence in America. These principles were developed by the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and its chairman, Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA-5th). They include universal background checks on all gun sales, tough measures to curb illegal gun trafficking, and a renewal of the federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

The key now will be making sure the entire House Democratic Caucus is on board with these principles. And if past experience is a teacher, that's going to take some work. As Tim Dickinson recently pointed out in a revealing article in Rolling Stone, the Democrats largely abandoned the gun issue in the 2006 election cycle, recruiting a new generation of Blue Dog Democratic candidates who openly embrace the National Rifle Association (NRA). As one top Democrat told Dickinson, "[The party] didn't care about what your position was on guns."

That's going to have to change if we're going to prevent future tragedies like Newtown and the daily, gruesome toll of gun violence in this country. Let's not forget, it was just seven months ago that 17 House Democrats voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt of Congress in a partisan vote engineered by the NRA. These Democrats were apparently not satisfied with the thousands of documents that Holder released to Congress regarding the "Fast and Furious" operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on the southwest border (Holder was later exonerated of all wrong-doing in the operation by a Department of Justice Inspector General report). Of the 17, those who remain in the House after the last election cycle are Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI-13th), Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT-4th), Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC-7th), Rep. John Barrow (D-GA-12th), Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY-21st), Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN-7th), Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV-3rd), and Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN-1st).

Last month, my organization, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, released a hard-hitting video highlighting the pro-gun record of one of these Democrats, John Barrow of Georgia. The video was named one of "The Hippest, Coolest Gun Control Ads of the Last 15 Years" by Buzzfeed. Fox News saw it quite differently, however, and stirred up quite a bit of controversy with negative coverage (our staff received scores of emails from angry and exceptionally well-armed individuals after Fox aired the video). Fact-checkers like Eugene Kiely and Glenn Kessler also took exception to our selective editing of a Barrow campaign ad (in which he brandishes firearms and brags about his NRA endorsement), but curiously avoided examining the one fact that actually mattered: Namely, that John Barrow has consistently voted according to the dictates of the National Rifle Association's leadership, and against the interests of his constituents.

Like other Democrats who voted to hold Holder in contempt, Congressman Barrow has a record on the gun issue that is deplorable. His votes have weakened public safety not only in his district, but nationwide. Since entering the House of Representatives, Barrow has co-sponsored NRA-drafted legislation to: a) Grant the gun industry unprecedented legal immunity from civil lawsuits ("Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"); b) Roll back longstanding provisions safeguarding against the illegal trafficking of firearms ("Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act"), and; c) Force states to recognize concealed handgun permits from other states even if those individuals would not be cleared to carry guns in public under their own democratically-enacted laws ("National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act"). Following Barrow's vote to hold Holder in contempt, Democratic Party of Georgia State Delegation Chair (and civil rights icon) Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery said of him, "You are a Republican hiding in Democrat's clothing. He doesn't count in the Democratic column. He might as well go on and be a Republican."

Equally disturbing is the way Barrow has doubled down on his support of the NRA in the wake of the tragedy at Newtown, indicating that he would not support any new measures to prevent individuals like Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Wade Michael Page and Adam Lanza from gaining easy access to firearms. When asked by a reporter in Georgia "Why have your views [on guns] not changed?" Barrow responded, "Because the Constitution hasn't changed. I think there's a tendency on both parts of the side to react to an incident of this sort, and to overreact." He then preemptively declared in a town hall meeting, "No new [gun] laws will have a big chance of passing in the House." Finally, Barrow derided President Obama's package of gun policy reform proposals by stating, "We need to find practical solutions to gun violence that are consistent with the Second Amendment, rather than having another political debate in Washington that divides Americans."

Leaders in the House Democratic Caucus like Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Mike Thompson should take note of such statements. If they truly believe that Americans "deserve to be free from the threat of gun violence in their homes, their schools, and their neighborhoods," then a new message will have to be sent to John Barrow and the other "Contempt" Democrats in the House. And that message will have to be, "The party does care about what your position is on guns" -- to the point that it will affect important future decisions like committee assignments and fundraising assistance.

When that happens -- and when moderate Republicans are buoyed by seeing Democrats in rural and conservative districts taking tough, principled votes on the gun issue -- life-saving reforms will become reality, not aspiration.

LaPierre Reveals True Purpose Behind Assault Weapons

2013-02-04T08:58:38-05:00

Following last week's high-profile Senate Judiciary hearing in response to the tragedy at Newtown, the media paid extensive attention to National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre's flip-flop on the issue of closing the Gun Show Loophole and witness Gayle Trotter's ridiculous assertion that "guns make women safer."

What went largely unnoticed was perhaps the most telling moment of the hearing, which involved this exchange between LaPierre and Illinois Senator Dick Durbin:

DURBIN: Mr. LaPierre, I run into some of your members in Illinois and here's what they tell me, "Senator, you don't get the Second Amendment." Your NRA members say, "You just don't get it. It's not just about hunting. It's not just about sports. It's not just about shooting targets. It's not just about defending ourselves from criminals," as Ms. Trotter testified. "We need the firepower and the ability to protect ourselves from our government--from our government, from the police--if they knock on our doors and we need to fight back." Do you agree with that point of view?

LAPIERRE: Senator, I think without any doubt, if you look at why our founding fathers put it there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny.

During a hearing in which Republican Senators actively tried to portray assault weapons as merely "scary-looking" pieces of plastic with no real functional purpose, LaPierre's statement revealed that they are in fact weapons of choice for individuals ready to wage war on our government. This was certainly not the first time LaPierre had made such a declaration -- remember, this is the guy who told us "the guys with the guns make the rules" at a CPAC conference -- but his statement on Wednesday was nonetheless remarkable because it so clearly articulated the insurrectionist idea on a national stage, linking it directly to the need for unfettered access to assault weapons. Now, no doubt remains about the type of "firepower" citizens would need in order to fight LaPierre's "tyranny" ... The same type of firepower that Adam Lanza used to kill 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary.

And Baltimore Police Chief James Johnson, the Chair of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, who was sitting at the witness table with LaPierre, was more than happy to explain the true purpose of a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle:

We use that weapon in police because of its technical capability, it's ability to cool down and handle round after round after round ... It's rugged...it's meant for a combat or environment that one would be placed in facing adversaries, human beings, people. That weapon can be retrofitted with other devices to enhance your offensive capability. The weapon itself has features to adjust it -- optics sights, for example -- that can cost hundreds of dollars, and I've shot this weapon many times -- that would enhance our capability in various tactical maneuvers, whether [you're firing] from the shoulder or the hip or whether you choose to spray fire that weapon or individually shoot from the shoulder.

A cosmetically different version of Grandpa's hunting rifle? I don't think so. A vigorous public debate over the true purpose of assault weapons is one that the gun lobby wants to avoid at all costs. Such a debate would belie their claim that AR-15s are "modern sporting rifles" with no military application whatsoever and invigorate the push for a renewal of the assault weapons ban. Once average Americans understand the interplay between the militarization of civilian weaponry and the gun lobby's devotion to insurrectionist rhetoric, the gig is up for Wayne & Co.

That awakening is happening before our eyes, in large part because President Obama has begun to speak out strongly about how the NRA's radical reading of the Second Amendment threatens other basic American freedoms. During a White House press conference on January 16 announcing his new package of gun policy reforms, the president said this:

The right to worship freely and safely, that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The right to assemble peaceably, that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado. That most fundamental set of rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- fundamental rights that were denied to college students at Virginia Tech, and high school students at Columbine, and elementary school students in Newtown, and kids on street corners in Chicago on too frequent a basis to tolerate, and all the families who've never imagined that they'd lose a loved one to a bullet -- those rights are at stake. We're responsible.

These words were invoked with horror by NRA ally and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley at the Senate Judiciary hearing. Grassley, too, senses the potential power of this new, anti-insurrectionist idea and he countered aggressively:

I was taken aback when [President Obama] cited the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as sources of government power to restrict gun ownership rights ... The right to peacefully assemble protects individual rights to organize, to protest, and seek to change to government action. That right is trivialized and mischaracterized as protecting shopping and watching movies ... No wonder millions of Americans fear that the president might take executive action and Congress may enact legislation that could lead to tyrannical federal government. So, I cannot accept the president's claim that, quote, "There will be politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of tyrannical all-out assault on liberty, not because that's true, but because they want to gin up fear."

The senator is out of touch if he believes that gun policy proposals that enjoy overwhelming popular support (even among gun owners) constitute a "tyrannical all-out assault on liberty." He seems to personally validate the president's notion that the gun lobby (and its allies) will engage in fear mongering to protect industry profits.

Those whose families and lives were destroyed by the mass shooting in Newtown certainly aren't buying it. On the same day that LaPierre and Grassley were disseminating venomous falsehoods about the intent behind the Second Amendment, David Wheeler -- the father of 6 year-old Sandy Hook victim Benjamin Wheeler-- gave the following remarkable testimony in front of the Connecticut legislature's Bipartisan Task Force on Violence and Public Safety:

Thomas Jefferson described our inalienable rights as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness; the rights with which we are endowed for the protection of which we have instituted governments. I do not think the composition of that foundational phrase was an accident. I do not think the order of those important words was haphazard or casual. The liberty of any person to own a military-style assault weapon and a high-capacity magazine and keep them in their home is second to the right of my son to his life, his life, to the right to live of all of those children, and those teachers. To the right to the lives of your children, of you, of all of us, all of our lives, it is second. Let's honor the founding documents and get our priorities straight.

Indeed. And getting our priorities straight means rejecting the notion that we have some type of fundamental right to take up assault weapons against the government our Founders created.

NRA Sheriff Organizing Campaign to Take Down Federal Government

2013-01-29T11:20:52-05:00

Since the gruesome mass shooting at Newtown, Connecticut, there have been major developments in the campaign to bring sanity to our nation's gun laws. On January 16, President Obama announced a historic package of comprehensive gun reform proposals during a press conference at the White House. Vice President Joe Biden has launched a nationwide campaign to explain and promote these policies to the American public. Last Thursday, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced new legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons like the one used in the mass shooting in Newtown. On Saturday, thousands of Americans (including a group from Newtown) traveled to Washington, D.C. to participate in the March on Washington for Gun Control in the shadow of the U.S. Capitol.

In the midst of this robust national conversation about how we can use the power of the federal government to protect families and communities from violence, pro-gun extremists are increasingly asserting that they are above the law when it comes to firearms regulation. Case in point is a recent movement by a small group of sheriffs to assert "Posse Comitatus" theory and issue an open -- and sometimes violent -- challenge to the federal government.

The Posse Comitatus movement promotes the bizarre and flagrantly unconstitutional idea that county sheriffs are the only legitimate law enforcement authority. The movement derived in part from Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and was described in 1998 by hate group expert Daniel Levitas:

While the roots of the so-called Christian Patriot movement and the Posse Comitatus can be traced back to the 19th century and even earlier, the present trend really got its start nearly 30 years ago, in the early 1970s. The Posse Comitatus, which is Latin for "power of the county," was originally founded by William Potter Gale in 1970. But the movement did not gain significant momentum until Gale was able to join his Christian Identity beliefs [a racist theology identifying Jews as the literal progeny of Satan and blacks as subhuman] with the growing anti-tax movement in the United States ... In reality, Gale's ideas were really nothing more than verbal flourishes used to disguise old-fashioned vigilantism ... If you look at the philosophy of today's militias, common-law courts and county supremacy movement, it is absolutely inseparable from the original concepts set forth by Gale almost 30 years ago. What the Posse has done to survive between then and now has been to be very flexible and to inject those ideas into whatever social conditions exist and use those conditions opportunistically.

Indeed, Posse Comitatus acolytes are actively injecting themselves into today's gun violence prevention debate by fueling anti-government angst and racial prejudice. Nationwide, news accounts have reported on threatening letters and/or statements issued by individual sheriffs who believe they have no duty to abide by federal laws they don't approve of. At the center of his campaign is a former sheriff with close ties to the National Rifle Association (NRA), Richard Mack.

As documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Mack launched the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) in 2011. Its mission statement declares, "The county sheriff is the line in the sand. The county sheriff is the one who can say to the feds, 'Beyond these bounds you shall not pass.' This is not only within the scope of the sheriff's authority; it's the sheriff's sworn duty."

Mack has a long record of extremist activism and extensive ties to the National Rifle Association (NRA). After the Brady Bill was signed into law in 1993, the NRA funded lawsuits in nine different states attempting to have the law struck down as unconstitutional. Mack was one of the sheriffs the NRA picked as a plaintiff. Another was current NRA board member Jay Printz. The case of Printz v. United States eventually reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that the federal government could not compel local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks. This effort greatly weakened the nation's background check system (Printz is the primary reason the FBI's NICS database is missing millions of disqualifying records today), but for his role Mack was crowned NRA Law Officer of the Year and inducted into the NRA Hall of Fame.

Mack's role in the case wasn't so popular with voters, however. Two years later, he lost reelection and has never won elected office since. He did, however, quickly find a home in the anti-government Patriot Movement. Mack is a frequent speaker at far-right events and has made radio appearances on The Alex Jones Show as well as the white nationalist radio show, The Political Cesspool. Mack is also a board member of the Oath Keepers, which SPLC describes as "a conspiracy-mongering Patriot group comprising veterans and active-duty military and police personnel who vow to disobey orders they consider unconstitutional."

At the CSPOA website, Mack proudly touts a list of 90 sheriffs and two state sheriffs' associations as having taken up his call to resist enforcement of gun laws. The list includes the Utah Sheriffs' Association, which in a letter to President Obama envisioned a violent confrontation with federal authorities over guns laws, writing, "We are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of [the Second Amendment's] traditional interpretation." Regarding the president's newly-announced gun policy proposals, the Utah sheriffs said, "As you deliberate, please remember the Founders of this great nation created the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, in an effort to protect citizens from all forms of tyrannical subjugation... We pray the Almighty will guide the People's Representatives collectively."

Also listed is Linn County (Oregon) Sheriff Tim Mueller, who told the president, "We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws."

This campaign among sheriffs comes as many conservative legislators across the country are pushing bills asserting their legal supremacy over national gun laws, including efforts in Missouri, Wyoming, Arizona, Michigan and others. Montana's conservatives have in recent years been pushing the idea that they can nullify all manner of national law. The nullification debate has deep roots in American history, and was a central tactic of the Southern states that so vigorously defended slavery. But even the conservative Heritage Foundation has no desire to re-litigate the Civil War, stating that nullification is based on "bad history." In their words, "There is no clause or implied power in either the national or the various state constitutions that enables states to veto federal laws unilaterally."

The current crop of Posse Comitatus-style and state-level nullifiers are a key cog in what a recent report from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point calls the modern "Anti-Federalist" movement. The report classifies Anti-Federalist efforts to undermine the federal government through a range of ideas, including New World Order conspiracies, militia advocacy and fears of environmental and firearm regulation. Its authors warn, "In the last few years, especially since 2007, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating in the far-right of American politics." The insurrectionist implications and violent potential of nullification couldn't be clearer.

Meanwhile, threats of violence distract us from the conversation we should be having right now about how to best protect our children in the wake of a gruesome school shooting perpetrated by a dangerous, possibly mentally ill individual who never should have gotten anywhere near an AR-15.

That said, we ignore the threats of sheriffs and would-be sheriffs like Richard Mack at our own peril. Today it's an attack on gun laws. In the 1960s, it was Birmingham, Alabama Sheriff Eugene "Bull" Conner defying federal orders to desegregate public facilities. Tomorrow, it could be an attack on women's rights, LGBT rights, voting rights or labor laws. Let us not embolden extremists by shrinking from a debate about the supremacy of federal law and the government's role in vindicating and protecting individual rights. Out of this terrible tragedy in Newtown arises the potential to not only prevent the future loss of precious lives, but also to recommit to the pillars of democracy in our Constitution that form the basis of American freedom.

In Wake of Newtown, It's Time for America to Meet the NRA

2013-01-18T07:00:26-05:00

This week, America has been taken aback by the National Rifle Association's ad politicizing President Obama's daughters. With this latest episode, it's become patently obvious that unhinged attacks are the NRA leadership's calling card. As pundits cover the obstructionism and handwringing of high-profile NRA executives like David Keene, it's important to take a look at lesser-known NRA leaders and understand just how far to the fringe the organization has moved in recent decades.

New investigative reporting by Frank Smyth in Mother Jones -- that complements my organization's Meet the NRA website -- reveals the NRA's eerie connection to the Newtown tragedy. Smyth discovered that the NRA nominating committee that plays a key role in deciding who is on the NRA's board is run by Newtown resident Patricia Clark, and also includes George K. Kollitides II, the chief executive of the company that made the AR-15 used in the shooting.

Then there is board member and .50-caliber sniper rifle manufacturer Ronnie G. Barrett, who provides further evidence that the NRA's leadership is committed to pushing unrestricted civilian access to weapons that belong on the battlefield. Guys like Kollitides and Barrett split the money with the NRA and America gets homicidal killers armed to inflict maximum damage.

Beyond its financial links to makers of military-style weapons, the NRA's leadership is made up of the worst types of extremists that America's conservative movement has to offer.

The threatening personal attacks of long-time board member Ted Nugent are both shocking and well documented. Nugent's election year message to "ride into the battlefield and chop [Democrats'] heads off in November" earned him a visit from the Secret Service, but no condemnation whatsoever from the NRA. Nugent's violent vitriol has been coming nonstop for decades, yet there's every reason to believe he'll be singing his "I Am the NRA" anthem at their 2013 annual meeting.

NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, now nationally known for his surreal post-Newtown press conference, is little better than Nugent. LaPierre openly foments anger at federal officials, having once referred to law enforcement agents at "jack-booted thugs." He also accused former President Bill Clinton of having "blood on his hands" for signing important gun violence prevention legislation into law.
LaPierre's inflammatory rhetoric is also openly insurrectionist. "We will never surrender our guns," LaPierre told the NRA convention in 2012. "When all is said and done, we may have nothing left but our gun rights. But that's the one right that gives us a fighting chance to reclaim freedoms lost."

LaPierre, however, looks like milquetoast next to NRA board member Bob Brown. Brown is the editor, publisher, and founder of Soldier of Fortune magazine. From the early '80s to the early '90s, nearly half a dozen contract murders were linked to ads run in the magazine. During this period, Soldier of Fortune also published a newsletter called The Resister, which was inspired by the siege at Ruby Ridge (where federal officials shot and killed two members of a white separatist family and a U.S. Marshal was shot dead). Timothy McVeigh was carrying a copy of The Resister when he was arrested for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

If Brown doesn't scare you, NRA board member Wayne Anthony Ross will disgust you. Ross was once nominated by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be the state's attorney general, but the state's legislature rejected his nomination when past controversial statements by him were made public.

At a meeting of Dads Against Discrimination at a Denny's restaurant, Ross was allegedly overheard saying, "If a guy can't rape his wife, who's he gonna rape?" and "There wouldn't be an issue with domestic violence if women would learn to keep their mouth shut." Alaska's former Public Safety Commissioner called on Ross to withdraw his nomination for attorney general in a letter saying, "Ross speak[s] and act[s] like the kind of bully I met many times when responding to domestic violence calls."

Ross has also called gay Americans "degenerates." On a proposal to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, he commented, "This bill seems to give extra rights to a group whose lifestyle was a crime only a few years ago, and whose beliefs are certainly immoral in the eyes of anyone with some semblance of intelligence and moral character."

And remember Oliver North, the National Security Council employee who was convicted for illegally selling arms to the Iranians and funneling the money to the contra rebels in Nicaragua? Yep... he's an NRA board member, too.

You get the idea, and there's far more to be found at MeetTheNRA.org. The bottom line is that the leaders of today's NRA are about promoting gun industry profits and an insurrectionist ideology that would have made our Founders' toes curl. Meanwhile, polling shows that the NRA's members are overwhelmingly open to commonsense gun regulation.

With the public finally learning more about the gun lobby, legislators who stick with the NRA's extremist leadership need to see the writing on the wall: They will be judged by the company that they keep.

On Eve of Election, Pro-Gunners Suggest Building IEDs for War With U.S. Government

2012-11-05T06:45:21-05:00

With Election Day upon us, it is worth remembering that voting is one of the great freedoms we enjoy as Americans, a pillar of our democracy. Our Founders fought a Revolutionary War in order to gain legislative representation. Their sacrifices should never be forgotten.

We should also never forget another pillar of our democracy: The ability of the United States government to transfer power and negotiate legislative differences in a peaceful and orderly fashion (the one notable exception in our history being the bloody Civil War). Regardless of what happens tomorrow, once every vote gets counted we must all respect the results of our election, even if we wished things had turned out differently. That doesn't mean that the losing side has to sit idly by during the important policy debates to come -- far from it. But the "loyal opposition" must be just that. It must engage in the political process in a manner bound by laws and hopefully even respect. Americans saw a great example of that recently in the working relationship between President Barack Obama and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

Unfortunately, not all Americans accept these principles. Some insist they have a "right" to use political violence to influence public policy. Some openly scoff at George Washington's great declaration that:

The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government ... Let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

I was reminded of America's "disloyal opposition" two weeks ago when my organization, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, received a disturbing tweet from a pro-gun activist in Illinois by the name of Kurt Hofmann. Hofmann, a former member of the Army's 319th Field Artillery Regiment, was disabled after a serious automobile accident in 2002 and is now confined to a wheelchair. Since January 2009, he has been blogging as the "St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner" with Examiner.com. In his tweet, Hofmann directed us to a blog he published there in March entitled, "Perhaps There's Something to the Claim that Guns Alone Cannot Rein in Government."

In the piece, Hofmann pushes back against pundits who mock modern-day insurrectionists by pointing out that "against a military superpower such as the U.S. ...citizens with their private small arms would not stand a chance." For example, Hofmann quotes Jenna Myers Karvunidis, who opines, "If it just came down to a battle of arms between you and the government, you are not going to win that one. It would be like playing road chicken with a tank." Responding to these criticisms, Hofmann makes it clear that firearms are not the only weapon at the disposal of Americans who hate their government. "It cannot be denied that for some Constitutional militia applications, weapons heavier than those found in most gun safes would be very useful," he writes.

That's why I suggest that readers download Army Technical Manual 31-201, the Improvised Munitions Handbook. Other possibilities include Kitchen Improvised Explosives, Parts One and Two... The reality... is that the country is best served when oath-breaking public officials like [U.S. Senator Dianne] Feinstein are terrified of the wrath of the people. If knowledge of improvised explosives in the hands of every potential militiaman in the country helps foster that fear, so much the better.

Hofmann obviously forgot to read the Constitution, which states that the Militia's purpose is to "suppress Insurrections," not foment them.

It would be tempting to dismiss Hofmann as an aberration -- an isolated extremist with little ability to inspire actual acts of violence -- except for two important factors. The first is that Hofmann's disturbing call to use IEDs against American service members has been defended by a broad swath of the pro-gun movement. This includes statements of support from "The War on Guns" blogger David Codrea, "No Lawyers -- Only Guns and Money" blogger John Richardson, the pro-gun Calumet Foundation, "Gun Free Zone" blogger Miguel Gonzalez, "Guns Save Life" blogger John Boch, "Days of Our Trailers" blogger Roy Kubicek (AKA "Thirdpower"), "The View from North Central Idaho" blogger Joe Huffman, "Shall Not Be Questioned" blogger/NRA election volunteer coordinator Keith Milligan (AKA "Sebastian," "SnowflakesInHell") and "Of Arms & the Law" blogger David Hardy, among others.

Second, and more important, is the man that Hofmann himself cites in his blog (on four separate occasions) as the inspiration behind his scheme to empower "budding militia ordnance engineers": former Alabama militia leader Mike Vanderboegh.

By now, Mike Vanderboegh is a familiar name to many. He first appeared in national headlines in March 2010 when he called for the vandalism of Democratic offices during Congressional debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. On his blog "Sipsey Street Irregulars," Vanderboegh wrote:

Break their windows. Break them NOW. Break them and run to break again. Break them under cover of night. Break them in broad daylight. Break them and await arrest in willful, principled civil disobedience. Break them with rocks. Break them with slingshots. Break them with baseball bats. But BREAK THEM.

Sadly, some took his advice. Windows were indeed broken at Democratic offices, including that of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Ariz.

In early 2011, two disgruntled agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) put Vanderboegh in contact with whistleblowers from ATF's Phoenix field office who were concerned about investigative tactics used during "Operation Fast and Furious" on the southwest border. During this time, Vanderboegh was promoting a conspiracy theory that the government intentionally ran guns into Mexico so that the ensuing violence would justify additional gun control regulations. He began to correspond regularly with the offices of Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and California Congressman Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Government Oversight. Issa launched a full-scale investigation into "Fast and Furious" based on Vanderboegh's original "intelligence," and his staffers met personally with the former militia leader. The investigation ultimately resulted in a House vote to hold U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, despite the fact that there is no evidence to indicate he was personally aware of the operation's tactics.

Vanderboegh wasn't only being feted by Republican Members of Congress, though. His profile would heighten when Fox News hosts including William La Jeunesse and Lou Dobbs began having him on their programs as an "online journalist" and "authority on the Fast and Furious investigation" beginning in September 2011.

Not surprisingly, Vanderboegh's new benefactors in Congress and the national media have avoided discussion of an online novel he published entitled "Absolved." Vanderboegh proudly refers to the novel as "a cautionary tale for the out-of-control gun cops of the ATF" and "a combination field manual, technical manual and call to arms for my beloved gunnies of the armed citizenry." It begins with a group of law enforcement officials ("thugs") moving in to arrest a man who has stockpiled guns and rigged his property with explosives. The man kills a large group of them before they finally take him down. On his body, the remaining officers discover a piece of paper with the phrase "Molon Labe" written on it. From there, the well-armed "protagonists" in the book--an underground cabal of insurrectionists--move forward with plans to assassinate a wide range of government officials. Their motivation is explained by Vanderboegh as follows:

They believed in God, this half of America, and it was the God of Abraham and Isaac, of Moses and David. They didn't think that God was dead or irrelevant as many of their opponents did. They believed that almost 50 million abortions was state-sanctioned mass murder that put the German Nazis to shame. They believed that the Old and New Testaments were pretty explicit that homosexuality was an abomination, and they were universally certain that the federal government didn't have the right to prohibit either their public prayers or the display of the Ten Commandments. Nor, come to that, could it lawfully demand that their sons' Boy Scout troop leader be a member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association ... They resented the identity politics of their opponents, where one minority group or another got special consideration from the government. They were suspicious of anyone who considered themselves a "hyphenated American."

The specific "Absolved" chapter cited by Kurt Hofmann in his March blog involves a character building anti-personnel and anti-tank explosives.

It turns out that Hofmann is not the only extremist who idolizes "Absolved." On November 1, 2011, four Georgia men who were inspired by the online novel were arrested by FBI agents. Court documents accused the men of plotting to obtain firearms, explosives and ricin in order to carry out the assassinations of numerous government officials, including judges and employees of the Department of Justice and Internal Revenue Service. The men took several concrete steps in furtherance of the plot, including driving to Atlanta to scope out federal buildings. During one of these trips one of the accused, Frederick Thomas, told a confidential informant, "There's two schools of thought on this: Go for the feds or go for the locals. And I'm inclined to consider both. We'd have to blow the whole building like Timothy McVeigh." Thomas even commented on Vanderboegh's blog "Sipsey Street Irregulars" in October 2009 in response to "Absolved," writing:

I understand, indeed, that what you've written is a fictional account; however, it is far from fantasy. The likelihood a scenario like you've presented would come to pass is extremely high. There are more agencies that are thuggish in our government now than ever before, not just the ATF. How about the IRS? Are they not just as destructive of Americans and our prosperity as is the ATF destructive of our God given rights to life itself? There is no question that this Congress and this administration need replaced, en masse! If we rebell against them outside the ballot box, and we are successful, they will be hung from lamp posts up and down Constitution Avenue, which is proper for the wrongs they've committed against the people; but, who will guarantee we can roll back all the damage they've done, restore America to the Constitutional Republic that was founded with the signing in 1787? Will there be an America left when the blood stops running?

This is the type of dangerous political violence that has already been inspired by Vanderboegh and acolytes like Kurt Hofmann. And let's be clear. Learning to make IEDs does not earn you a merit badge with the Boy Scouts. Theirs is a treasonous call to action that will result in attacks against our armed forces and elected leaders.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban hate our system of government and way of life and, as a nation, we decry them as terrorists for using improvised explosive devices to kill and disfigure the brave men and women in our armed forces. IEDs have claimed the lives of 2,486 U.S. service members in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Thousands more are injured by IEDs each year. In this context, it is both horrific and unspeakable to see pro-gun activists advocating the same type of violence on our own soil. Republican Members of Congress like Chuck Grassley and Darrell Issa and the crew at Fox News, who have feted Mike Vanderboegh and treated him like some kind of celebrity, should be ashamed of themselves.

The good news is that tomorrow is a great opportunity for true patriots to reject this poisoned philosophy by voting and, if it comes to pass that your favored candidate loses, by joining the loyal -- and not the disloyal -- opposition. As a soon-to-be movie star once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." It's up to all of us to keep the foundation of our democracy unified and strong.

Will the Guys with the [Printed] Guns Make the Rules?

2012-10-10T06:52:48-04:00

"Insurrectionism is as American as apple pie."
"Obama and the UN don't stand a bloody chance now."
- Cody Wilson, founder of Defense Distributed and the "Wiki Weapon" project

The Huffington Post and other major media outlets have been abuzz lately with discussion of "3D printing's next frontier": guns. Specifically, the focus has been on a University of Texas law school student who had the 3D printer he leased reclaimed after announcing he would begin printing "Wiki weapons" (i.e., receivers for assault rifles and crude handguns) and freely distributing the plans for these firearms over the Internet. Desktop manufacturing company Stratsys felt that the student in question, Cody Wilson, was flouting existing federal firearms laws and stated that it is not its policy to "knowingly allow its printers to be used for illegal purposes." Wilson was also booted off Indiegogo, where he tried to fundraise for the project.

Much of the coverage focused on the aspect of the exciting new technology involved, which "promises to revolutionize manufacturing" in the United States. Less-discussed was the stated motivation behind the project and the radical political views of its founder.

To Cody Wilson's credit, he has not been secretive about what he believes and why he wants Americans to mass-produce firearms in their homes. The Defense Distributed Twitter feed and his personal Twitter feed are a screed of far-right-wing ideology. He calls President Obama a "bloodless sociopath" with a "Marxist Presidency," promotes Birtherism, criticizes Paul Ryan's budget as "a timid, 30 year project to barely blunt spending," embraces nullification legislation, endorses voter suppression laws, extols Ron Paul and Darrell Issa, mocks Sandra Fluke's sexual habits, rails against public schools, attacks the "Affordable Care Act," accuses Democrats of "laying waste to Detroit," disparages cops and defends George Zimmerman. He also runs Defending Liberty, a PAC that is working to eliminate state income tax laws.

Wilson is equally up-front about the purpose of his Wiki Weapon project. The website of his online collective for the project, "Defense Distributed," states that, "WikiWep is about challenging gun control and regulation." Or, as he put it to Slashdot: "This project really is about 'Fuck your laws.' You know what I'm saying? You know what? I don't like this legal regime."

Wilson's idea is in fact "Second Amendment remedies" taken to the extreme, and he makes no bones about it. "To be clear, the Second Amendment enshrines the right to bear arms with the understanding that a free people must ultimately remain able topple their own government," he writes on the Defending Liberty website. "If you believe in the American revolution DONATE NOW" its homepage exclaims. In a Tweet, Wilson playfully adds that the PAC is "working for strong laws to keep guns out of the hands of politicians" in order to maintain parity in civilian/military firepower.

Wilson sees gun regulation as "tyranny of the majority." In response, he hopes to create a not-so-subtle threat to our elected officials. "How do governments behave if they must one day operate on the assumption that any and every citizen has near instant access to a firearm through the Internet?" he asks. "Let's find out." This explicit threat of political violence is "the classic defense against Socialism." To "international kleptocrats" Wilson warns, "You want to announce treaties and new legal regimes announcing greater and greater eras and stratas of gun control, but listen it's over. You don't understand the world you're living in. We're bringing something else into being."

Indeed, if Wilson's vision is one day realized, a very different political system will come into being and it won't look anything like the constitutional republic our Founders worked a lifetime to bring about.

Certainly, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence had strong words to say about "tyranny" and "throwing off" despotic government. But in the wake of our successful Revolution, new challenges arose, and the thinking of our Founders changed dramatically. After seven years of war with England, the new government had no ability to pay or feed its troops. Mob violence ruled the streets in many American cities, with Daniel Shays and his armed followers closing local courts in Western Massachusetts. Pirates and the British Navy were inhibiting American commerce. The Founding Fathers who gathered in Philadelphia in May of 1787 to fashion a new system of government were more concerned about licentiousness and excesses in democracy than tyranny. This was reflected in the very first line of the Constitution: "To form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." This elegant statement of purpose confirms that our Founders saw a more energetic, more capable federal government as the best possible guarantor of individual rights.

In contrast, the radical libertarianism of Cody Wilson cares not at all about domestic tranquility or establishing a system of justice. He prefers an anarchical society where government lacks the ability not only to accomplish great things, but also to do the mundane, like ensuring that judgments are enforced and laws executed. In the resulting chaos, individuals with privately printed guns would fight it out to vindicate their rights. Might would make right and an arms race would ensue. To me, this idea has all the hallmarks of a failed state, not a model democracy. The concept of a government "monopoly on force" may sound inconsistent with the political traditions of a country steeped in stories of its own revolution, but it is the fundamental organizing principle of any nation-state. At the Virginia ratifying convention, Second Amendment author James Madison, responding to Patrick Henry's complaint that the new Constitution gave too much power over the states' militia to the federal Congress, said, "There never was a government without force. What is the meaning of government? An institution to make people do their duty. A government leaving it to a man to do his duty, or not, as he pleases, would be a new species of government, or rather no government at all."

Articulate and clean-cut, Wilson plays the part of the cultured intellectual, even when he is discussing the use of political violence. This is undoubtedly intended to make his message more palatable to those in the mainstream who would otherwise tune him out immediately. But he's also told his audience, point blank, "Don't print a gun unless you plan on using it." And sometimes he loses his cool altogether, such as when he Tweeted "Pull Obama out into the STREET for this TREASON!" in response to an executive order on "National Defense Resources Preparedness." Wilson believes that his capacity to do violence to others is the only thing undergirding his status as a citizen. And if he smells "tyranny" and decides to start shooting--killing someone's parent, or spouse, or child? Well, don't expect him to face a jury of his peers for his crimes. He's made it clear he wants a private court system, not the one designed by our Founders.

Let's be clear. The Wiki Weapon project is not the work of a dispassionate techie seeking to push the outer limits of modern technology. Instead it is a blatant, undisguised attempt to radically alter our system of government. We don't know if the project will be producing serviceable handguns and assault rifles anytime soon, but if it does--and if these weapons avoid regulation--political violence could one day replace political dialogue as the hallmark of our democratic system. For more than two centuries, the U.S. Constitution and its amendments have secured the blessings of liberty for Americans. If extremists like Cody Wilson have their way, "the guys with the [printed] guns" will make new rules for the future.

Oh Ye of Little Faith: The Pro-Gun Movement's Total Disregard for Our Constitution

2012-09-17T07:15:18-04:00

National Rifle Association (NRA) board member and aged rocker Ted Nugent made national headlines in April when his threats against President Obama and Democrats earned him a visit from the Secret Service. But he has taken recently to uttering another mantra that is equally disturbing and revealing. At a concert in Forth Worth on August 25, Nugent told the crowd, "The whole world sucks. America sucks less." It was at least the fourth time in the last year he's publicly shared this derogatory opinion about the United States.

Nugent's remarks got me thinking about a seldom discussed but critical aspect of the modern pro-gun movement: Its total lack of faith in the system of government established by our Founders in the U.S. Constitution. It is that profound lack of faith -- more than anything -- that is responsible for the insurrectionist ideology ("Second Amendment remedies") that fuels the movement.

Pro-gun leaders like NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre would have us believe that "the guys with the guns make the rules" in our democracy. But nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, our Founders ratified the Constitution to obviate the need for political violence. The very first line of the document reads as follows: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Founders were telling the world that this brilliant new system of government -- this social compact -- would secure individual rights on a scale previously unknown in the civilized world. They protected liberty not by creating a libertarian society where every citizen was in it solely for himself, but by establishing a strong, energetic government and stressing civic responsibility.

In the face of this history and the plain terms of the Constitution itself, it is amazing to see modern insurrectionists like Judge Roy Moore, the controversial former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, write things like, "Liberty and freedom are gifts of God, and not the government. The means by which we secure those gifts are ultimately in the hands and the 'arms' of the people." It's as if Moore is totally unaware of all the robust protections for individual rights spelled out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The idea of liberty may be a "gift of God," but the Framers knew it could only be safeguarded if a robust government was in place to arbitrate private disputes and guarantee that each citizen has an equal voice in the affairs of the nation. Furthermore, what spurred the drafting of the Constitution was a fear that "licentiousness" -- freedom taken to excess -- was the greatest threat to individual liberty!

Nonetheless, Moore is far from alone in his belief that only private violence can be trusted to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." At the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Wayne LaPierre told those in attendance:

Their laws don't work, their lies don't ring true ... Government has failed us with our money and our financial institutions. It has failed in running our post offices and trains. It has failed in enforcing our immigration laws, our drug laws, and our laws against violent criminals with guns. Heck, they can barely get the snow plowed ... By its lies and laws and lack of enforcement, government policies are getting us killed and imprisoning us in a society of terrifying violence.

In LaPierre's world, it's as if the U.S. government never fostered the most powerful economy in the world, or put Neil Armstrong on the moon, or won two world wars, or built a national system of highways, or prevented generations of senior citizens from living out their final years in poverty, etc., etc. And the system of justice spelled out in the Constitution? The NRA has completely given up on it. Bill of Rights protections? Worthless. The courts? Can't trust 'em. In Personal Firepower We Trust.

Perhaps most disturbing are the endless attempts to conflate our constitutional republic with some of the most brutal and inhumane dictatorships in human history (try Googling "gun control Hitler" sometime). Recently, when my organization, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, asked National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) General Counsel Larry Keane if he felt that individual Americans had a right to shoot and kill government officials in response to what they personally perceived as "tyranny," Keane tweeted back at us plaintively, "Just like the Jews in the ghettos of Warsaw? The South Sudanese? Kurds? The American colonists?"

Keane makes an important, but unintended, point. Countries that kill their own citizens are not democracies. As political scientist R.J. Rummel noted in his 1997 book, Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence, nations with strong democratic institutions do not murder their own citizens. A more recent study by Christian Davenport and David A. Armstrong II examined this conclusion statistically and found, "Democratic political systems have been found to decrease political bans, censorship, torture, disappearances and mass killing, doing so in a linear fashion across diverse measurements, methodologies, time periods, countries, and contexts." Well-developed democracies are the most effective means of preventing public and private violence, and the U.S. Constitution -- to this day -- remains the template for free societies.

Last year, the NRA criticized a blog I had written here at the Huffington Post in a column in their flagship magazine, America's 1st Freedom ("Fear and Loathing Post Tucson," May 2011). For believing in the system of government established by the Constitution, I was compared to Timothy Treadwell, who was killed by a grizzly bear after spending 13 summers around these creatures in Alaska. "Horwitz' fantasy that government can and will safeguard us from the brutal excesses of the state of nature reminds me of another individual who thought the designs of man -- in this case not the constructs of government, but the human values of compassion and fraternity -- could keep the brutality of the world at bay," wrote NRA editor Blaine Smith.

Except it wasn't my fantasy that the "constructs of government... could keep the brutality of the world at bay." It was the fantasy of our Founders who traveled to Philadelphia in May of 1787 to correct the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation and establish a new system of government that could "insure domestic tranquility" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty." And while the NRA and the pro-gun movement might have absolutely no faith in their wisdom and foresight, most Americans still do.

Aurora's Hard Truth: Mental Health Screening for Gun Buyers Is Nearly Non-Existent

2012-08-01T08:21:10-04:00

If you learn only one new thing about America's gun laws after the gruesome mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, learn this: Even when individuals do undergo a background check when buying a gun in this country, the screening for mental health history is cursory at best.

You don't need to submit to a background check to buy a gun, of course. Currently, Americans can buy firearms through "private sales" in more than 40 states without undergoing any type of screening at all. The law requires background checks only for guns sold by federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs), allowing those not "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms to do so without conducting background checks or maintaining any records of sale. How do we know who is "engaged in the business"? We don't (the IRS isn't looking at anyone's tax returns to find out), at least until guns start turning up at crime scenes and an investigation is opened by law enforcement. One study estimated that private sales account for 40% of all gun sales in the United States.

When an individual purchases a firearm from an FFL, however, he must undergo a criminal background check. First, the buyer fills out a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473 by hand, providing simple yes or no answers to a series of questions about criminal, mental health and substance abuse history. The dealer then queries the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database maintained by the FBI via a toll-free telephone number or through the NICS E-Check System online (in a handful of states the dealer contacts the state police who in turn contact NICS). This instant computer check searches the NICS database for any disqualifying records that would prohibit that individual from buying a gun. During the check, the system does not disclose to gun dealers any actual information about these records. Dealers are simply seeing one of three responses from NICS on their computer screen: proceed, denied or delayed. If a potential gun buyer is denied, the FFL is never informed of the reason.

The specific disqualifications related to mental health are quite narrow. Under federal law, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms if they have been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution." A person is "adjudicated as a mental defective" if a court -- or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications -- has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is "committed to a mental institution" if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment. If a person falls under one of these two categories, they are prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms for life -- although federal law now allows states to establish procedures for such individuals to restore their right to purchase or possess firearms. Many states have done so at the behest of the National Rifle Association, with questionable results.

There is no guarantee, however, that a formal record of adjudication or involuntary commitment will find its way into the NICS database. Often disqualifying mental health records go unreported by the states. In Colorado, for example, only about 1% of people who have disqualifying mental health histories have been reported to NICS.

Another problem is that few Americans suffering from serious mental illness ever come into contact with the "system" or receive treatment for their condition(s). According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), approximately 10% of children and adolescents suffer from mental illnesses. Yet only 20% of this group have been diagnosed and are receiving services. Looking at adults, approximately 1 in 17 live with a serious mental disorder such as schizophrenia, major depression, or bipolar disorder. Yet less than one third receive mental health services.

James Holmes, the gunman who allegedly killed 12 people and injured 58 others in just two minutes at a crowded midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, appears to possibly be one of those Americans suffering from serious mental illness. Holmes was seeing Dr. Lynne Fenton, a psychiatrist at the University of Colorado who specializes in schizophrenia. Prior to the shooting, he sent her a notebook detailing his plans for the massacre. In June, Holmes applied to join a gun range but was rejected because the range's owner was disturbed by the "weird and bizarre" behavior Holmes exhibited on his voicemail recording. Immediately after the shooting on July 20th, Holmes told police officers that he was The Joker, a villain from Batman comic books and movies. We will undoubtedly learn many additional details about Holmes' mental health history in the months ahead.

Almost all Americans would agree that dangerously mentally ill individuals, possibly like James Holmes, and like Tucson shooter Jared Loughner (who was found incompetent to stand trial because of paranoid schizophrenia) should not be able to legally purchase firearms. And it's not like this is a problem without a solution -- there is no other high-income nation on the face of the earth in which Holmes and Loughner could have legally purchased such weapons. So how can we provide for the public's safety while at the same refraining from the stigmatization of those suffering with mental illness (because, to be fair, research has made it clear that the vast majority of the mentally ill will never be violent)?

Several states have enacted laws that could serve as models for federal legislators. California, for example, takes a graduated approach to the problem, prohibiting the purchase and possession of firearms by individuals who:

• Have been voluntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility and are receiving inpatient treatment for a mental illness and the attending mental health professional states that the individual is a danger to self or others. Once an individual has been discharged from the facility, the prohibition no longer applies.

• Have communicated to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims. This prohibition applies for six months after the report of a threat is made. The subject of the prohibition may petition to have it removed.

• Are currently under a court-ordered conservatorship because they are "gravely disabled" as a result of a mental disorder. The prohibition expires when the conservatorship ends, though the subject of a conservatorship may ask the court for a hearing to contest the prohibition.

• Are receiving involuntary mental health treatment as part of a 72-hour hold (also known as a 5150) because they are a danger to themselves or others. The individual is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms while they are in the facility and for five years from the date of admission to the facility. The subject of the prohibition may go before a state court to petition for the restoration of their right to purchase and possess firearms.

New Jersey has created a model where any person seeking to purchase or possess a firearm must obtain either a permit to purchase a handgun or a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FPIC) to purchase a long gun. Applicants for a permit to purchase a handgun or FPIC are required to provide two character references and must agree to waive confidentiality and disclose their mental health records. No permits to purchase a handgun or FPICs are issued to individuals who:

• Have been confined for a mental disorder to a hospital, mental institution or sanitarium.

• Refuses to waive confidentiality and agree to disclosure of their mental health records.

In addition, the New Jersey state police can deny the issuance of handgun permits and FPICs when they feel it would not be "in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare." Individuals can appeal to a state court if they feel the state has abused its discretion in denying a permit or FPIC.

It's not difficult to see how such processes might have thwarted severely mentally ill individuals like Loughner and possibly Holmes. Would either have been able to provide character references? What would a careful and confidential analysis of their mental health records have uncovered?

The bottom line is that it's been almost 45 years since federal legislators defined mental health disqualifications for gun buyers in the Gun Control Act of 1968. It's time to see what else we can do to save lives. Providing law enforcement and mental health professionals with more tools won't stop every shooting, but -- combined with a policy of universal background checks on all gun sales -- could certainly lead to a future where grotesque acts of gun violence are not a daily feature of American life.

The Return of the Nullifiers

2012-07-12T07:40:23-04:00

"You don't have to accept the federalist laws." - Tucson mass shooter Jared Loughner

In this era of polarized politics, it is not surprising that the right is up in arms about the Supreme Court's recent decision on health care. And I do mean -- literally -- up in arms. The Court's ruling, of course, is not the first to be met with calls for nullification and violence. We would do well to remember the unfortunate and deadly consequences of past rhetoric.

Today the issue is health care. In 1954, it was public education when the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Brown v. Board of Education. Following that landmark decision, which called for the integration of public schools, 101 of 128 congressmen from the states of the former Confederacy signed "The Southern Manifesto," which asserted that states were free to ignore federal laws and directives. Eight Southern states passed nullification resolutions declaring the unconstitutionality of the Brown decision. Several of them borrowed language directly from Civil War era secessionist Senator John C. Calhoun in doing so. This demagoguery about "tyrannical" government was accompanied by violence. African-Americans were lynched. White protestors in the South hurled sticks, rocks, and racial epithets at black students attempting to attend integrated schools. They beat up journalists and white individuals who escorted African American students to class. Churches, synagogues and homes were bombed (the Ku Klux Klan bombed so many homes in Birmingham the city was nicknamed "Bombingham").

I am hearing uncomfortable echoes of the past with the response to the June 28, 2012, Supreme Court decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Immediately after the ruling, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint issued a press release in which he urged states to defy the federal government by refusing to implement the Act. Since the release of DeMint's statement, governors Rick Scott of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Perry of Texas and Scott Walker of Wisconsin have stated publicly they will not comply with Obama's health care law regardless of the Supreme Court's decision. The Tenth Amendment Center is distributing model legislation to state legislators that would nullify the law. The legislation would make it a crime for any federal or state official, agent or employee to enforce or attempt to enforce the law (they would also be subjected to civil liability). Missouri, Texas, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, Indiana, Maine, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Idaho, New Hampshire, South Dakota and North Dakota are currently considering such bills.

It is also disturbing to see calls for defiance to Obamacare referencing the "Second Amendment remedies" ideology of the modern pro-gun movement. Let me be clear. Violence in response to the Affordable Care Act is already more than theoretical. When the Act was being debated in the U.S. Congress, supporters of the legislation were subjected to threats and vandalism. Representatives Betsy Markey (D-CO), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Vic Snyder (D-AR), Harry Mitchell (D-AZ), Jean Schmidt (R-OH), Steve Kagen (D-WI), David Obey (D-WI), Bruce Braley (D-IA) and Dave Loebsack (D-IA) were among those who received threats of physical violence. Windows were broken at Rep. Gabrielle Gifford's (D-AZ) Tucson office, Rep. Louise Slaughter's (D-NY) district office, and Democratic Party offices in Ohio, western New York and Kansas. Pictures of nooses were faxed to Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI). Protestors showed up at Rep. Russ Carnahan's (D-MO) home with a coffin.

And it was Gabby Giffords, of course, who was targeted for "assassination" by deranged gunman Jared Loughner in the horrific mass shooting in Tucson on January 8, 2011. "You don't have to accept the federalist laws," Loughner wrote in his online political manifesto. "Nonetheless, read the United States of America's Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws." Loughner's ideology shouldn't be dismissed because he was severely mentally ill. In fact, it is just such a person who is most likely to fall under the spell of a charismatic leader spewing nullification rhetoric. When highly-placed public figures have no regard for the law, what does that say to the average citizen?

It is truly shocking, just a year and a half after the Tucson tragedy, to see continuing calls for violence in response to the Affordable Care Act. Matthew Davis, the former spokesman for the Michigan Republican Party, responded to the ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius by sending a blast email in which he wrote:

In 2008, we the people elected Barack Obama as president, and the 100-year progressive trek to tyranny begun in 1912 with Woodrow Wilson's election was complete ... If the Supreme Court's decision Thursday paves the way for unprecedented intrusion into personal decisions, then has the Republic all but ceased to exist? If so, then is armed rebellion today justified? God willing, this oppression will be lifted and America free again before the first shot is fired.

Mississippi Tea Party chairman Roy Nicholson issued the following statement:

When a gang of criminals subvert legitimate government offices and seize all power to themselves without the real consent of the governed their every act and edict is of itself illegal and is outside the bounds of the Rule of Law. In such cases submission is treason. Treason against the Constitution and the valid legitimate government of the nation to which we have pledged our allegiance for years. To resist by all means that are right in the eyes of God is not rebellion or insurrection, it is patriotic resistance to invasion. May all of us fall on our faces before the Heavenly Judge, repent of our sins, and humbly cry out to Him for mercy on our country. And, may godly courageous leaders rise up in His wisdom and power to lead us in displacing the criminal invaders from their seats and restore our constitutional republic.

Mike Vanderboegh, the former Alabama militia leader who inspired the vandalism of Democratic offices during Congressional debate over the Affordable Care Act, responded to the Supreme Court's ruling by writing:

You may call tyranny a mandate or you may call it a tax, but it still is tyranny and invites the same response ... If we refuse to obey, we will be fined. If we refuse to pay the fine, we will in time be jailed. If we refuse to report meekly to jail, we will be sent for by armed men. And if we refuse their violent invitation at the doorsteps of our own homes we will be killed--unless we kill them first.

And then there was National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent, who was recently visited by the Secret Service after threatening violence against President Obama and Democrats in general. In a July 5, 2012, op-ed in the Washington Times, Nugent decried "Chief Justice Roberts' traitor vote'" in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and wrote, "Because our legislative, judicial and executive branches of government hold the 10th Amendment in contempt, I'm beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War."

Nugent and his fellow insurrectionists are playing a dangerous game. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. It was enacted by duly constituted authority. It was passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It was signed by President Barack Obama. It was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court. There is only one place for frustrated citizens to pass judgment on the wisdom of the law; at the ballot box in November. Calls for nullification, as the Supreme Court noted in Cooper v. Aaron, render our Constitution a "solemn mockery." Such calls also embolden the actions of others who will throw the bricks, sticks, and rocks; issue the threats; and brandish the guns.

In 1958, after the Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple was bombed by several men associated with the National States' Rights Party, a white separatist group, then-Atlanta Journal editor Ralph McGill was furious and took pen to paper. "It is not possible to preach lawlessness and restrict it," he warned in an editorial that earned him a Pulitzer Prize. "Let it be understood that when leadership in high places in any degree fails to support constituted authority, it opens the gates to all those who wish to take the law into their hands." I have little hope that the new crop of nullifiers will heed this lesson, but for leaders of both parties who still love the Constitution and deplore violence, McGill's sage advice is an invitation to condemn those taking us to the precipice of disaster.

NRA, Not Obama, Is Real Threat to the Rule of Law

2012-06-18T07:04:12-04:00

With campaign season in full swing, movement conservatives are actively promoting a narrative about the Obama administration being a "threat to the rule of law." The lightning rod for much of this invective is U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who is facing a possible contempt of Congress citation for his refusal to turn over certain Department of Justice documents relating to the ATF's discontinued "Fast and Furious" operation on the southwest border. While Republicans' rift with Holder has been well chronicled, the architect of their messaging campaign has gone largely unnoticed.

When CBS News first broke the "Fast and Furious" story in February 2011, the National Rifle Association (NRA) wasted little time in spinning the ill-advised "gun-walking" strategy -- which actually began under the George W. Bush administration in 2006 -- as evidence that the Obama administration was a danger to "civil society" and "unprecedented in its arrogant disregard for the rule of law."

Give the NRA credit. It has mastered the art of projecting its biggest and most dangerous faults onto its political opponents. This is the organization, after all, that created "Stand Your Ground" laws, which allow gun-toters to shoot other Americans even when they could otherwise safely walk away from a public confrontation. This is also the organization that actively promotes the idea that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to shoot and kill their elected officials when they sense "tyranny." The NRA's accusations about the Obama administration amount to a staggering act of hypocrisy.

That hypocrisy was on full display in a series of speeches NRA leaders gave during the weekend of June 8-9. On June 8, at a CPAC event in Chicago, NRA President David Keene hosted two "Second Amendment" panels that had surprisingly little to do with guns. Keene used his remarks to launch a broad attack on the Obama administration, stating:

Sadly, he and his principal advisors seem to me to come from a generation that sincerely believes that the ends in almost all circumstances justify the means ... A government that has that power and is willing to use it, is willing to enforce laws selectively and let its friends off the hook, is a government that... is in essence going to do great damage to the rule of law and to the civil society in which we live.

Keene later expressed outrage over the administration's opposition to voter ID laws (and the purging of voter rolls in Florida), saying:

Just as the Supreme Court's ultimate authority lies in the opinions of the people, so, too, does the stability of a democracy rely on winners and losers accepting the outcome of democratic decision-making and if that is undermined that's more serious almost than anything.

The very next day, however, Keene's first vice-president, Jim Porter, reminded us that the NRA has no intention of accepting "democratic decision-making" when the votes don't go their way. Speaking to the New York Rifle and Pistol Association in Wallkill, Porter gave those in attendance the NRA's "insider" message:

NRA was started 1871 right here in New York state. It was started by some Yankee generals who didn't like the way my Southern boys had the ability to shoot in what we call the 'War of Northern Aggression.' Now y'all might call it the Civil War, but we call it the 'War of Northern Aggression' down south. But that was the very reason that they started the National Rifle Association, was to teach and train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm and I am one who still feel very strongly that that is one of our greatest charges that we can have today, is to train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm so when they have to fight for their country, they're ready to do it. Also, when they're ready to fight tyranny, they're ready to do it. Also, when they're ready to fight tyranny, they have the wherewithal and the weapons to do it. I charge you ladies and gentlemen that that is a very important charge for all of us to take up. It's a sacred duty for all of us to maintain. We've received it from our ancestors. You think about the War of Independence. You think about Valley Forge ... And they defeated the most powerful military force known to that time in civilization.

The "Southern boys" that Porter praises as straight-shooters believed that the democratic election of Abraham Lincoln constituted "tyranny." They engaged in the biggest act of armed insurrection in U.S. history, with disastrous results that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Apparently, Porter never got the memo from President Lincoln, who wrote, "Among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet."

NRA Board Member Ted Nugent never got the memo, either. Nugent, of course, recently earned a visit from the Secret Service after announcing that he would either "be dead or in jail" if President Obama was re-elected in November. On June 9th -- the same day that Jim Porter was ranting about the "War of Northern Aggression" -- Nugent attended a Republic of Texas Biker Rally in Austin, Tex., and declared:

NRA gun nut motherf--kers out there ... Put a f--king gun in your hand, Texas, stormtroopers [are] coming ... They, unfortunately, are the real enemies right now.

Two days later, the practical effect of decades of such rhetoric could be seen when pro-gun activists -- openly bearing loaded assault rifles and handguns -- crammed into the chambers of the Birmingham City Commission in Michigan to protest the arrest of a young man on charges of brandishing a weapon in public, disturbing the peace, and obstructing a police officer. Sean Michael Combs, 18, was arrested on April 13 for walking through downtown Birmingham with a battlefield rifle from World War II and refusing to show police identification to prove he was of legal age to "Open Carry." The show of force by his supporters at the city council meeting was straight out of the NRA playbook and sent the following message: "Make a law we don't like, enforce a law we don't like, and 'Second Amendment remedies' are always available to us."

Threat to the rule of law? It's not going to come from recess appointments, federal grants to community organizations, mandates for reproductive health care, relaxed deportation rules for young immigrants or a discontinued operation run out an ATF field office in Phoenix, as the right wing would like us to believe. The ATF and Justice Department clearly betrayed their own principles in allowing "Fast and Furious" (and the earlier "Wide Receiver" operation) to happen in the first place, but there is no evidence the "gun-walking" strategy was ever adopted on a national (or even statewide) scale. Furthermore, Attorney General Holder has made it clear the operation was "unacceptable" and will not be repeated under his watch.

But a powerful special interest group that continues to promote the "legitimacy" of political violence after the attempted assassination of a congresswoman in Tucson, without either shame or remorse? That is a very serious threat to the rule of law. As are NRA policies that promote the unnecessary use of lethal violence on our streets. As Trayvon Martin's mother recently noted, "There is something very wrong if there's a law that a person is using to defend himself for killing a kid."

The next time a Republican like Darryl Issa or fellow NRA Defender of Freedom Award winner Ken Cuccinelli rants about the Obama administration's "disregard for the law," someone might want to ask them about their steadfast support for an organization that believes chopping off the heads of Democrats is an acceptable way to resolve political differences.

Don't Care About Guns? You're Still in the NRA's Sights

2012-06-13T07:13:04-04:00

You might care about the environment. You might be an activist on women's issues. Maybe your passion is for LGBT rights, or labor issues, or K-12 education. And maybe you are sympathetic to those who suffer from gun violence in America... but feel the issue is simply too tough to take up. "The National Rifle Association is a powerful special interest," you think, "Why poke the beast? Let gun violence victims fight that battle." You wish them luck, but don't want to stick your neck out for fear that the NRA might retaliate and do damage to your cause if you do.

There was a time when that logic might have been sound, but it has long since passed. NRA President David Keene made it patently clear at Friday's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Chicago that guns are just one element of a broad, right-wing agenda that his organization is pushing, and pushing aggressively. Stay out of their sights? Not when they are actively gunning for any American seeking forward progress in our democracy.

The NRA is no longer about hunting or sport shooting. It is about a "Shoot First" vision of society, but that's not all. Under the leadership of Keene, the NRA speaks out on a range of issues that have absolutely nothing to do with guns or the Second Amendment. Keene, of course, used to host CPAC each year as the former chairman of the American Conservative Union (ACU), and elevated it to its current status as the premier gathering of movement conservatives. The NRA hosted two panels at CPAC's regional event in Chicago on June 8, and was a sponsor of the entire event. That should be the first clue that the NRA has a stake in the broader conservative agenda.

The second clue would be Keene's endorsement of voter suppression laws during his moderation of a CPAC Chicago panel entitled "President Obama's Fast and Furious Disregard for the Rule of Law." Attacking the Obama administration, Keene gave a vigorous defense of Republican Governor Rick Scott's effort to purge voters from the rolls in Florida: "It goes far beyond gun questions," Keene said. "Consider their current assault on the various states' attempts to protect the integrity of the democratic process itself. I think we'll have some discussion of what's going on in Florida right now where the Justice Department, without any basis that most experts can see, are trying to stop the state of Florida from purging non-citizens and the dead and others from their voting rolls prior to the next election on the ground that it's unfair I guess to the dead and the non-eligible voters." Keene did not seem to care that, one week prior to his panel, 67 Florida election supervisors stated they were going to stop removing names from county rolls because the state's data is flawed -- and because the U.S. Department of Justice says the process violates federal voting laws.

Keene also got in a dig on the administration's support for the "DISCLOSE Act," observing, "Consider the president's personal disdain for the democratic process. While spending more than any of his predecessors on fundraising and bragging that he's going to have a billion dollars in the upcoming campaign to bury his opponents, he publicly attacks his opponents because they spend money to get their message out to the public." The NRA has been a vocal supporter of the Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United decision, calling it "a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us; and for those who believed that speech had a dollar value and should be treated and regulated like currency, and not a freedom."

While introducing panelist Maureen Martin of the anti-environment Heartland Institute, Keene stood up for Big Oil, saying, "The government's picking of favorites doesn't just take place on Second Amendment questions. Maureen must have been a little taken aback when the government went after some oil companies because they said that two ducks died only to see a few weeks later the attempt by the government to publish rules which would allow people that produce wind power to be exempt from the laws that make it illegal to kill bald eagles. So that if you produce wind power, you can allow your machinery to eat up endangered species or threatened species or national symbols, but if you're an evil oil company you better be careful that a bird doesn't get sick anywhere within your area." It might seem odd that an organization that claims to represent hunters and sportsmen would be so quick to give energy companies free reign to destroy the habitat critical to those pastimes. But this just shows where the NRA's real priorities lie.

In the second panel Keene moderated at CPAC Chicago, "Defending Self-Defense: The Liberal's Shadow War on the Second Amendment," the multi-issue approach of the NRA came into even greater relief. Kim Simac, panelist and author of the children's book, With My Rifle by My Side: A Second Amendment Lesson, told those in attendance that kids are being indoctrinated by public schools. "So how do you change a culture, how do you obtain your objectives, if you've been unable to be successful through the normal channels of law?" she said. "If you're patient, disciplined, you have cause, you're determined, you change a culture by changing the youth and ladies and gentlemen that is exactly what is going on in this country right now in our public school systems. They go after our core family structure, our faith, our tradition, our values, and that's their battle plan of the liberal agenda and it's being waged very effectively. Our history books are being rewritten, our Constitution classes are overlooked, 'God' is a forbidden word replaced by 'tolerance,' 'acceptance,' all in any type of family structure, lifestyles, stripping our children of traditional values and knowledge of what freedom is and why freedom is even important. In Wisconsin, it's mandatory to teach about the history of collective bargaining, but the Second Amendment is taboo... Planned Parenthood is moving in." Simac added, "Why is this happening? Because we're letting it happen. You know, you can't keep calling 'foul' from the sideline forever. You have to get in the game and we got in the game in Wisconsin and look what we did. We beat them at their ground game possibly for the first time ever. One instance was we partnered with True the Vote and we attacked the voter fraud that we know is rampant in the state." If you parse the barely coded language used by Simac, it is clear that she sees guns as but one indicia of a "better" time when two dads or two moms were forbidden from forming a family and people of color were persecuted for exercising their right to vote.

Keene, by the way, was also giddy about the results of the recent recall election in Wisconsin. "We probably should have begun at the beginning of this by celebrating what happened in Wisconsin," he declared at the end of the first panel. "There were a lot of reasons to return [Governor] Scott Walker to office." Keene also painted an interesting conspiracy, claiming that "prosecutor's offices investigating the incumbent governor have teams of investigators all of whom had signed recall petitions and many of whom had contributed to his opponent, and had those cases referred to judges who had also signed recall petitions and were then asked to decide on questions involving the governor who they wanted to almost extralegally throw out of office."

The NRA is not just for the dangerous idea that anyone who wants guns should have them -- even when gun buyers have violent backgrounds or serious mental health issues (all gun sales are created equal, right?). That's scary enough, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. The NRA is also working to return America to a time when political equality was a distant dream, when big corporations could despoil the landscape with no consequences, and when innocent until proven guilty and the rule of law was a right for only the privileged classes.

Ignoring one of the biggest mouthpieces of the Conservative Movement because they happen to have the word "Rifle" in their name allows the NRA to turn the clock back on a host of important issues without accountability or challenge. It's time that progressives understand that and fight back.

The NRA's "Circus of Fear" Heads to Chicago

2012-06-06T12:52:01-04:00

On Friday, the American Conservative Union (ACU) will host its second-ever Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) regional event in Chicago to "take the fight for the future of America directly to President Barack Obama's backyard." Where CPAC is, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is never far behind. The NRA is not only a sponsor of the conference, but also hosting a panel entitled, "Defending Self-Defense: The Liberal's Shadow War on Second Amendment."

It must be a shadow war. Because even though Democrats control the White House and U.S. Senate (and the House as recently as 2010), the pro-gun crowd has done pretty well the past four years. In 2009, President Obama signed a provision into law that allows the carrying of firearms in National Parks. The five Justices on the Supreme Court's Conservative wing struck down handgun bans in D.C. and Chicago as unconstitutional and found -- for the first time in history -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. After the shooting of U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by a homicidal maniac who legally purchased the high-capacity handgun used in the shooting, the NRA successfully blocked any and all attempts to prevent the next Jared Loughner from arming up.

Setbacks for pro-gunners? They've been few and far between. The Obama administration issued a new regulation in 2011 requiring gun dealers in four Southwest border states to report (not stop, mind you, just report to ATF) multiple sales of high-caliber long guns. The requirement already existed for handgun sales. And an NRA bill that would force states to recognize other states' concealed handgun permits has stalled in the Senate.

Overall, you'd think that the gun lobby would be pretty happy with this record. And, in truth, they're probably ecstatic. But public displays of gratitude and balanced policy assessments? Well, those don't sit well with the millionaires calling the shots at the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia. Because there's always another buck to be made -- and if there's one thing the NRA trafficks in even more than guns, it's fear. As former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman famously put it, "They [aren't] interested in actually solving problems, only in fueling perpetual crisis and controversy. That [is] how they [make] their money."

And when it comes to perpetual crisis, "nobody does it better" than NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre. Today, my organization posted a brand-new video, "The NRA's Circus of Fear," which features multiple clips of LaPierre at his fearmongering best, including snippets from his (now infamous) CPAC speeches. "We have nothing to fear but the absence of fear," he announces to kick things off, and from there it's a bizarre collection of paranoia, conspiracy theories, and well, "S*** Wayne LaPierre Says."

Don't expect LaPierre and his fellow NRA leaders to let off the gas pedal anytime soon. With the November elections fast approaching, the NRA's "Circus of Fear" will be making appearances from coast to coast in an attempt to convince gun owners that "Gun Ban Obama" is out to get them. In reality, the NRA is using the gun issue to mobilize Libertarian-leaning voters to join with religious conservatives in the conservative movement. The true goal here is to "drown [government] in the bathtub," as NRA board member Grover Norquist said -- because it's hard to imagine any future president doing less to regulate the gun industry than Obama has.

The ringmaster at CPAC Chicago will be NRA president (and former ACU chairman) David Keene. Keene, like LaPierre, loves a good conspiracy. "Make no mistake about it. Barack Obama, his minions in the Justice Department, his allies in the Congress, and his friends in the media would take our guns if they could, and they will if they can," he told NRA members last year. One can only imagine what Keene's "shadow war" co-panelists at CPAC will come up with when prodded by him. They include:

• Maria Heil, National Spokesperson for the Second Amendment Sisters
* "I choose to own a gun because I am a good mother."
* "Showing children pictures of what a 9 mm round actually does to human flesh at point blank range is not the same as showing the mangled bodies of drunk drivers, or the lungs of smokers. Drinking and smoking are choices people make for themselves. Being a victim of a criminal is something that is done to you."

• Richard Pearson, the Executive Director of the Illinois State Rifle Association
* "Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal."
* "The goal of the UN is to strip our Second Amendment rights away, have all civilian owned firearms registered with a UN registry, and, ultimately, to confiscate our firearms."

• Kimberly Jo Simac, founder of Northwoods Patriots in Wisconsin and author of "With My Rifle By My Side: A Second Amendment Lesson"
* "'With My Rifle by My Side' is a story that conveys this right to children and teaches the honor and responsibility that come with the ownership and handling of guns. If America is to persist, we must stop indoctrination so contrary to the beliefs passed down to us."
* "There are definitely forces that want to get us, to get the guns out of our hands ... I think that there are people that would like to render us helpless ... We would be a lot easier to tackle if we did not have our arms."

Inquiring minds will also want to know just how much of this nonsense is endorsed by the vice-presidential hopefuls who will speak at CPAC Chicago, including governors Chris Christy and Robert McDonnell.

The NRA's "Circus of Fear" depends on misinformation and myths to generate attacks on politicians who have the gall to address the gun violence that continues to destroy families and communities every day in America. But like most demagogues, once exposed to sunlight, the power of NRA leaders to generate fear is drained. For those interested in taking a closer look at their motivations and records on a host of issues (guns being just one), please visit our website www.MeetTheNRA.org. Their war on American values is no "shadow war" -- it's being fought very much out in the open, even when NRA board member Ted Nugent isn't making headline news.

Protecting Marissa at the Expense of the Next Trayvon

2012-05-29T06:49:37-04:00

In recent weeks there has been an intense discussion across the nation about Marissa Alexander. Alexander is an African-American woman who shot at her abusive husband and was convicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Like George Zimmerman, Alexander discharged her weapon in the state of Florida. Unlike Zimmerman, she was immediately arrested at the scene of the shooting, despite the fact that she did not kill or injure anyone. Moreover, a judge and later a jury rejected Alexander's "Stand Your Ground" defense, while Zimmerman might never see trial because of it.

The discussion -- and a fair amount of outrage -- has focused on what to many seems like a discriminatory application of Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law, as well as the harsh effect of mandatory minimum sentences. It is an unfortunate truth that the administration of justice in this country is not yet 100% color blind. I also agree that Florida's mandatory minimum law, which was enacted in 1999, is a terrible system for sentencing offenders. It should be repealed.

I worry, however, that in their zeal to defend Marissa Alexander, her supporters are inadvertently bestowing legitimacy on NRA/ALEC "Stand Your Ground" laws. In effect, they are arguing that if Zimmerman gets away with murder because of "Stand Your Ground," then Marissa Alexander should certainly be excused for her "harmless" gunplay.

There are three serious problems with that analysis. First, whether or not Alexander was legally within her rights to shoot at her husband, hers was a poor decision that should not be glorified. In fact, if there are parallels in the two cases, it is that both Zimmerman and Alexander exhibited extremely poor judgment when they decided to use their firearms. Second, even prior to the enactment of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, Alexander would not have had any duty to retreat from her home if/when she reasonably feared "great bodily harm." Third, and most disturbing, the current debate over Marissa Alexander serves only to further the interests of the National Rifle Association. They must be sitting in their high-rise offices in Fairfax, Va., marveling at how they created a country where even political moderates are now arguing for a wider application of their "Kill at Will" philosophy.

Just the Facts, Please
Much of the commentary on Marissa Alexander to date has foregone a careful analysis of the sequence of events that led her to discharge her firearm on August 1, 2010. A careful reading of the record is crucial, however, to understanding her case. Here is what we know based on police reports, legal filings, and witness accounts.

Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, was originally married to Lincoln Alexander, with whom she has two children. The two eventually divorced. She met Rico Gray, Sr. in 2007. In 2009, Alexander sought and received a restraining order against Gray (who has admitted to hitting Alexander and abusing "all five of his babies' mamas except one"). After discovering she was pregnant, Alexander requested that the court remove the no-contact provision of the protective injunction, leaving the remainder intact. On May 14, 2010, while the restraining order was still in place, Alexander and Gray were married. According to court documents, Alexander ceased living with Gray in their marital home in Jacksonville, Fla., two weeks after getting married; and lived with her mother for the two months leading up to the shooting.

On July 31, 2010, Alexander drove to that home, parked her car in the garage, closed the garage door, and spent the night there. The next morning, Gray arrived at the home with his two sons (ages 9 and 13), also entering through the garage. The four ate breakfast together with no incident. After breakfast, Alexander went into the master bedroom and just before going into the bathroom, handed her phone to Gray to show him pictures of her newborn child, Rihanna N. Gray. According to a sworn deposition, Gray and Alexander began to fight when, looking through Alexander's phone, Gray discovered text messages to Alexander from her former husband. Gray opened the bathroom door to confront Alexander about the paternity of the baby and a verbal argument ensued. During the fight, Alexander alleged that Gray pushed her and the bathroom door hit her in the leg. She also claimed that Gray "put his hands around [her] neck." According to Alexander's own testimony, she did not suffer serious bodily harm as a result of this altercation.

Alexander eventually exited the bathroom and Gray moved downstairs to the living room where his children were. Shortly thereafter, Alexander came downstairs and bypassed them as she made her way to the garage. Alexander testified that she then tried to leave the house through the garage but could not get the garage door to open. Gray, however, claimed that before Alexander went into the garage, she told him, "I got something for your ass."

While in the garage, Alexander -- a concealed handgun permit holder in the state of Florida -- retrieved a handgun from the glove box of her car. She then returned to the living room. Alexander claimed that Gray then threatened to kill her. In a deposition, Gray initially backed up his wife's story, stating, "I told her if she ever cheated on me, I would kill her." Gray has since recanted, stating he lied during his deposition after conspiring with his wife in an effort to protect her. He now claims that when Alexander pointed the gun at him, "[he] begged and pleaded for [his] life." After Gray allegedly threatened her, Alexander fired a warning shot into the ceiling. This account, however, is disputed by Florida prosecutor Angela Corey, who has produced photographs showing bullet holes in the kitchen wall of the home (the living room is on the other side). Gray claims that his sons were next to him when the shot was fired, but Alexander says they had fled the room. Corey has stated, "[The bullet] happened to deflect up into the ceiling, but if it had deflected down it could have hit one of the children."

It is clear that after the shot was fired, Gray fled the home and called 911. He can be heard on a 911 recording telling a dispatcher, "She said she's sick of this shit. She came back with gun in hand and shot ... Please hurry up. She was shooting at me and my sons...Me and my two kids just ran out of the house." Alexander stayed inside the house and at no point called 911. She was arrested that same day and charged with three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Alexander posted bail prior to arraignment and was ordered by the court to have no contact with Gray or his two sons. Despite this agreement, Alexander went to Gray's home on December 30, 2010. Gray claimed it was to drop off Rihanna with him. Alexander's family states that she went to Gray's residence that evening to obtain his signature for medical insurance paperwork for Rihanna. Whatever the reason for the visit, Gray claimed that Alexander "became enraged and began striking him on the face with her fist." One of Gray's sons called 911 and an officer who responded to the complaint noted in his report that "underneath [Gray's] left eye was swollen and bloodied." Gray claimed he did not strike Alexander, a story which was corroborated separately by his two children.

The officer met with Alexander an hour later at a nearby location to get her side of the story. She contested Gray's account, stating that he was the one who became enraged and struck her. The officer, however, observed no visible injuries on Alexander. He arrested her on the spot for domestic battery, and on the way to jail Alexander stated that she felt lightheaded and became unresponsive. She was treated and deemed to be fine. At this point, the arresting officer observed a small cut under Alexander's eye that he stated had not been there prior to her entering his squad car. Alexander pled no contest to the charge of domestic battery and was sentenced to time served.

Meanwhile, in regards to the incident of August 1, 2010, Alexander filed a motion to dismiss the charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, citing Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which "allows an individual engaged in a lawful activity in a place where he or she has a right to be to meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another." On August 17, 2011, a Florida circuit court judge issued an order denying Alexander's motion to dismiss, finding that Alexander's actions were "inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life." The judge noted that Alexander did not leave, or attempt to leave, through the unobstructed back or front door of the home. She also speculated that the garage door may not have been jammed because Alexander entered the home through the garage the previous day and Gray entered through it earlier that morning with no incident.

After Alexander's motion was denied, prosecutor Angela Corey offered her a plea agreement for three years in prison. Alexander rejected this offer and took her chances at trial, where she again asserted "Stand Your Ground" as a defense. In March 2012, the jury rejected this defense and found Alexander guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in less than 15 minutes of deliberation. Because Alexander discharged a firearm during the crime, she fell under the state's mandatory minimum requirement. On May 11, 2012, a Florida judge sentenced Alexander to 20 years in prison.

Rolling the Dice
There are a couple of things we should all be able to agree on.

For starters, the mandatory punishment that Marissa Alexander received for her crime is outrageous. Her 20-year sentence was the result of a Florida law passed in 1999 which mandates a minimum 10-year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies, in which the offender possesses a firearm; a minimum 20-year prison term when the firearm is discharged, and; a minimum sentence of 25 years to life when the firearm is used to injure or kill someone. According to Greg Newburn, the Florida director of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), "The irony of the 10-20-life law is the people who actually think they're innocent of the crime, they roll the dice and take their chances, and they get the really harsh prison sentences. Whereas the people who think they are actually guilty of the crime take the plea deal and get out (of prison) well before. So it certainly isn't working the way it is intended."

It is also patently clear that Rico Gray, Sr. is a dangerous man who takes pride in abusing women. There may have been times when Alexander was within her rights to use lethal force against him. Whether or not the events of August 1, 2010 rise to that level is difficult to say because she suffered no injuries and there are contradictory versions of the facts. But it is clear this man presented a threat to her safety and well-being.

Better Options
Any reasonable person, however, must look critically at Alexander's decision to introduce a firearm into a situation in which two children were present. It is extremely fortunate that neither Rico Gray Jr. nor Pernell Gray were injured or killed that day. The outcome could easily have been different.

Domestic violence prevention advocates would also be the first to tell you that introducing a firearm into a domestic dispute exponentially increases the risk to the woman being abused. According to an amicus brief filed by the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) in United States v. Hayes -- which was joined by domestic violence prevention organizations from 41 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands -- the presence of a gun during an incident of domestic violence makes it 12 times more likely that the encounter will result in the murder of the abused party. Futures Without Violence, a national and international domestic violence prevention organization, has called guns and domestic violence a "lethal combination." By elevating Marissa Alexander to hero status, we send a very dangerous message to women in similar situations.

But even if you insist that Alexander was justified in discharging her handgun, it is important to recognize that she did not need the NRA's protection to claim that hers was a legitimate act of self-defense. Prior to the enactment of Florida's 2005 "Stand Your Ground" law, there existed a common law right to self-defense in the home: the "Castle Doctrine." The Castle Doctrine is based on the feudal maxim, "A man's home is his castle." It relieves individuals of the common law duty to retreat from their residence before resorting to deadly force in self-defense, so long as that deadly force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. The Florida Supreme Court, in its 1999 ruling in Weiand v. State, expanded the Castle Doctrine to include situations in which an individual is acting in self-defense against a home co-occupant.

The National Rifle Association's "Stand Your Ground" legislation changed Florida law by unnecessarily and dangerously expanding Castle Doctrine protections into public places where we all have a right to be. Had the "Stand Your Ground" law not been in place on the night of February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman would have been required to retreat from his public confrontation with Trayvon Martin, and would almost certainly have been arrested on the spot after killing him.

The bottom line is that Marissa Alexander did not need "Stand Your Ground" as a defense. If she had been able to prove her version of events to a jury, she would have been protected under the Castle Doctrine.

Conflicting Visions for America
The truth is there can be no real justice under the "Stand Your Ground" law. Equating someone who is protecting herself from domestic violence with a vigilante who arbitrarily metes out "street justice" only serves to embolden the next George Zimmerman. If our interest is in protecting women at risk, then the model articulated in the Weiand v. State case strikes a much better balance, giving abused partners the ability to "stand their ground" at home, without creating a society where lone wolves can provoke public conflicts and then settle them at gunpoint.

The NRA has furthered its goal of expanding the market for "carry" guns by enacting "Stand Your Ground" laws in 25 states. But they stand to achieve a far greater victory if our national dialogue shifts from sparing as many lives as possible while guaranteeing self-defense rights for those who have no other options, to expanding the ability to kill at will until the ancient injunction to respect human life becomes virtually meaningless.

In the end, how we view this case depends on the type of society we want to create for our kids. The NRA is perfectly content to arm everyone -- abusers and the abused alike -- and have them engage in shootouts in order to preserve their lives. What could be better for gun industry profits and the NRA's millionaire leaders, right? But shouldn't we be trying to dial down the violence and create peaceful communities? If that's the goal -- and it should be -- we need to put down the guns and come up with more serious, sustainable solutions.