The gravity of the moment that comes with holding your child for the first time -- looking into their eyes, rocking them to sleep, allowing their breath to fill your heart, marveling at how nature has taken a part of you and a part of your husband to create someone uniquely beautiful -- the seriousness of that moment, is only eclipsed by the moment you discover your little boy or little girl is forever gone, just a few hours after watching them wave back at you from the school bus window.

Mothers are not supposed to outlive their children. It is against the natural order of things. Having endured tragedy of a particularly cruel and violent sort less than five months ago, we continue to live in a state of shock and horror. But through our pain, we are trying to gain some perspective.

In the weeks and months after the December 14th shooting at Newtown, we clung to every picture, video, article of clothing -- the Superman shirt he practically lived in, her favorite flower headband, his proud Cub Scout uniform, the T-shirt he wore when he sang "Mr. Golden Sun" in front of an entire restaurant -- any shred of physical evidence of our children's time on earth. It is a rare minute when their loss isn't ever-present. Our children fill our dreams. We speak to them in the hopes they can hear us in the heavens. We have our own moments of grief and guilt where we question whether or not we treasured every precious second with our sons and daughters.

We see the deep mourning in our husbands' eyes, as they do their best to hold us up. We feel the confusion that interrupts our children's daily routines as they wrestle with the violence that cut short the life of their brother or sister. We feel it in the hearts of an astonishing community and country that has wrapped its arms around us in our time of need. There are days when things seem normal, and then something as trivial as a kitchen appliance breaking sends us sputtering.

We are constantly asked, "How do you go on?" The answer lies in the promise we made to our children when they were born, and perhaps more importantly, the promise we made when they were so senselessly taken from us.

When Dylan, Daniel, Ana and Ben came into this world, each of us, in our own way, promised to prepare them for life as best we could. Every day, approximately 11,000 new American moms will make that same loving promise as they meet their babies for the first time. Within a blink of an eye, these women will become intimately familiar with things like bath time, sunscreen, chocolate chip pancakes, and the healing power of multi-colored band-aids. And with each new moment shared, something magical will happen. These new moms will get to experience life when it is lived for others. They will learn more about themselves than they ever imagined. The sacrifices are immeasurable. But so is the joy. Hearts melt with every "Mommy, will you please read me another story?" "Mommy, will you give me another kiss good-night?" "Mommy, I love you."

In the wake of their deaths, we made a final promise to Dylan, Daniel, Ana and Ben: to celebrate their lives by turning this tragedy into a moment of transformation. We are determined to honor the 26 lives lost at Sandy Hook Elementary School by advocating common sense solutions -- solutions that address the issues that result in gun violence, including mental health policy, school safety solutions, addressing the isolation in our communities and, yes, gun safety and responsibility. Over the long term, we are committed to this holistic approach to gun violence and supporting new ideas, innovations, legislation and individual action.

We are very proud of the Connecticut legislature and Governor Malloy for the bipartisan approach they took in passing one of the most sensible gun laws in the country. While we were certainly disappointed by the outcome of the U.S. Senate's recent vote on background checks, please know -- we are not going away.

There have been nearly four thousand gun related deaths since Newtown. Too many mothers are spending too much time talking to their children in heaven instead of across the kitchen table. We draw support from the tens of thousands of letters and cards we've received from those of you who stand with us. We are emboldened by the courage of victims like Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who have committed their lives to achieve meaningful change. We soldier on, because like all movements, there are tipping points, and we believe this is ours. It is time, as six-year-old Ana Marquez-Greene once said, to "let love win." There are 150 million parents in this country and it's our goal to unite them in a place of common ground. This is the Sandy Hook Promise.

This Mother's Day, we encourage you to make the Sandy Hook Promise with us. Today is not about guns, laws or politics; it is about mothers and love. As "Sandy Hook Moms," we often hear the phrase "I can't imagine what you are going through." Well, please imagine it. Imagine what it's like to lose a son or daughter to gun violence and encourage your elected officials to do the same. We never thought our school, our community or these innocent children would ever face the unspeakable. The more we as parents expand the boundaries of our love beyond our family and to all children, the more likely a tragedy like the one that broke our hearts will never happen again.

To all the moms reading this, Happy Mother's Day, and thank you. Many of you wrote moving letters to us as we faced our darkest moments. You'll never know how much your kindness helped us face the day ahead. In return, we remind you to cherish every moment. Hold your children extra close every chance you get. Bask in their smiles. The dishes, or anything else, can wait. We promise.

To join us in making the Sandy Hook Promise, please visit: http://www.sandyhookpromise.org/.

KUTZTOWN, Pa. -- Students on some of Pennsylvania's college campuses might be carrying more than books.

At least five Pennsylvania state-owned universities are now allowing guns on campus after the state's lawyers concluded that an outright ban on weapons was likely unconstitutional.

The first time I illegally downloaded anything, I was nine. I was sitting with my father in his office on the 102nd floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center. It was bring your child to work day, and having heard some of the hype from my elementary school classmates, I convinced my dad to download Napster to his work laptop. I asked him what his favorite song was; he answered, I searched, and pressed the download button.

A few moments later, we sat there listening to "Sugar Magnolia" by The Grateful Dead. The guitar came in, then the lyrics, and as words passed over us - "Sometimes when the night is dying, I take me out and wander round" - I never thought of what we were doing as stealing. It was instantaneous appreciation: the chance to share an experience without discs or hard copies or having to walk to a store. Though I would lose him, that file, and that building a short time later, the memory stayed with me. When I was thirteen, I bought the album "American Beauty" and played it over and over again on my Walkman as I lay in bed at night, trying in vain to recapture that lost, shared moment. It was resplendent, and no one can tell me it was wrong.

I have only a few strong political beliefs. Chief among these is my personal dedication to the dream of a free-information society. I'm a digital native - it's in my upbringing. Before I ever had independent buying power, I had been taught to pirate. Any media I have ever been able to buy, I have been able to steal just as easily. In my mind, the options are essentially interchangeable. While I do occasionally dwell upon the fact that I may be robbing an employee within the film or music industry of a needed paycheck, it seems to me that it's the business model that needs revision - not my methods. You can't fight the future, and no one wants to be on the wrong side of history.

Though sometimes I download a movie or an album from The Pirate Bay, these are the exceptions and not the rule. By and large I download books, most of them philosophy. When I finish reading the works of Ken Wilbur or Robert Anton Wilson, if I decide I like the content, I purchase the title in paperback to add to my bookshelf. Until that point, I see it as no different from checking a book out of the library. My ability to be exposed to these thinkers, to develop my own opinions and curate my thinking in the same way I curate my book collection, is a privilege. But access to such information shouldn't be.

I am no utopian, but I do believe that instead of being prohibited by the prices of tuition and textbooks, all students should be entitled to an open-source, open-access curriculum. I envision a world in which impoverished children can read The Odyssey on a computer, while listening to selections from Wagner - for free. I hope one day to live in a world where culture is not mediated by capitalist institutions. While copyright laws are extended seemingly indefinitely to keep Mickey Mouse in the hands of the Disney Corporation, I imagine a world in which we are all autodidacts - self-made and self-taught individuals, granted the access to the well of collective human experience and information that is our birthright.

Most days, my belief extends not just to our cultural heritage but to all information. In the landmark 1971 Supreme Court case The New York Times Co. vs United States, Justice Potter Stewart ruled in favor of the newspaper's decision to print the controversial Watergate papers, saying, "In the absence of governmental checks and balances, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power may be an enlightened citizenry - in an informed and critical public opinion..." Though his decision would seem to establish the free press as a public service, serving an essential function in democratic government by assuring that the electorate is informed of all the facts, his words have not stood the test of time. And though I would like to think that our betrayal by mainstream corporate media is recent - its descent into cheap entertainment and thrills - if I'm being honest, it began years ago. Take, for example, that during the first Gulf War, CNN ran footage from cameras mounted on the cones of missiles claiming it was live, despite it having been prescreened and edited for broadcast by the Pentagon. When the news service becomes a simulacrum of itself, serving the interest of powers that be over its stated goal to inform the public, drastic measures are necessary.

For the last few years, Wikileaks has been exactly that sort of drastic measure. First rising to prominence in 2010 with their video "Collateral Murder" - depicting a US helicopter killing two civilian journalists in Iraq - the open-source news organization has become a center of global attention and controversy. Despite being labeled a terrorist organization by even some high-ranking members of our government, the site's only crime has been releasing to the public the documents leaders and officials pass among themselves. When the reasons for our involvement in overseas wars that kill our fellow citizens, defame our nation's status in the international community, cause us to spend trillions of our tax dollars become murky, leaks like the so-called Iraq and Afghanistan War Diaries become necessary. When stations like CNN resign themselves to interviewing celebrities on Piers Morgan instead of reporting the news, something like Wikileaks becomes inevitable to balance the scales.

To date, Wikileaks itself has been directly responsible for no deaths, but I concede that its own internal ethics are questionable. Make no mistake, information can be dangerous. If the identities of undercover CIA operatives were leaked, they'd certainly be killed. The problem becomes, who decides what information we have access to, and who could possibly be trusted with that responsibility without ulterior motives? But information alone is not enough to kill people. You need an angry person with a gun.

And here's the gun.

In the past week, the previously fringe technology of 3D Printing has entered into the public eye and the mainstream media with the announcement of a completely self-manufactured firearm - the Liberator. The weapon itself looks more like a Nerf toy than a service revolver, its body a mix of blue and white plastic resin. For some this is a novelty straight from science fiction, not unlike the promise of a flying car. For me, it's the climax of a story I've been following for months, the saga of the Liberator's inventor, Cody Wilson - twenty-five-year-old self-described crypto-anarchist, and founder of the Austin-based company Defense Distributed.

Wilson is an enigma. Somewhat boyishly handsome, at face value he looks like he should be in a frat house or climbing the ranks of a law firm rather than being interviewed on national news. When he speaks about politics, his only clear stance is on the protection of the right to bear arms, though some of his more colorful comments - like his belief that Mitt Romney and President Obama are two faces for the ruling class of the banking elite - make me think he'd be best described as a Libertarian. Interviewed on Glenn Beck this fall, Wilson's response to a simple question - "Are you a hero or a villain?" - was as playful as it was worrisome: "That is the question, isn't it?"

According to national firearm regulations, only the lower receiver of a gun is technically a firearm. This is the central section of the weapon that holds the trigger and attaches to an ammunition magazine. It is also the only portion of a gun that bears a serial number, the only portion that can be tracked, and the only part not available for purchase over the Internet. It is exactly this part that Wilson and Defense Distributed have dedicated themselves to manufacturing with 3D printers. Until the Liberator.

3D printing, or additive manufacturing, acts like a normal desktop printer would, except that it lays down plastic resins and not inks. Using a computer-aided design (or CAD) file, the printer places layer upon layer of plastic, building a three-dimensional object from the bottom up. While its inventors originally conceived of its usefulness in purely artistic and practical terms - creating sculptures, figurines, clothes hangers, plates and coffee mugs - in the hands of Cody Wilson the technology has been made to manufacture uncontrollable munitions. The Liberator, the most advanced printed gun to date, has only two metal components: a firing pin made from a scrap nail, and a metal bar inserted into the receiver to comply with gun legislation necessitating that all sold firearms must set off a metal detector. Defense Distributed has also moved into making fifty round magazines - exactly the sort that would be targeted by new gun control legislation.

In one of his Youtube videos, Wilson holds a modified AR-15 - the same gun used in the Sandy Hook shooting - with a transparent plastic receiver, and fires off a few rounds before turning to the camera to ask, "How's that national conversation going?" Though he has recently received a firearms manufacturing license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms allowing him to sell his products, Wilson is more interested in making his CAD file blueprints available for free online through his website DefCad.com, so that fellow 3D printing enthusiasts can follow his example and make their own weapons. Now there is no difference between downloading an album and burning a CD and downloading a CAD file and printing a gun. On top of which, other pirates using Wilson's blueprints are not required to make their home-printed guns identifiable by a metal detector.

Critics claim Cody Wilson is in it for the attention. Well, he's got mine.

I believe in gun control. I believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution has been misinterpreted, extending the right for states to create armed defensive militias to the personal right to own semi-automatic weapons. I do not understand why a civilian could require access to armor-piercing bullets and weapons that fire up to 800 rounds a minute for hunting even the largest moose. I believe that background checks on firearms sales - keeping potentially deadly weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable, and those with criminal records - is plain common sense. But how do you even begin to implement gun control in an era of 3D printing? And how can I stand by my belief in the freedom of information, when extending my own logic means there is nothing wrong with downloading a gun?

There is a snake in my Eden, and it's not even the second day.

The same day that Defense Distributed announced the Liberator, office-supply giant Staples announced it would start carrying 3D printers. Since the release of the Liberator's CAD files to the Internet, the blueprints have been downloaded over 100,000 times. The government has attempted to step in: just this Thursday, the Department of Defense took down the Liberator CAD files from the DefCad.com website, but within a matter of hours the plans were back online with web hosting from New Zealand. Today, The Pirate Bay, the same BitTorrent search engine where I download books and films, has come out in support of providing the public with a place to download the CAD file. Copies of the 2mb file already have over 5000 seeders. As the cyber-activist group Anonymous likes to say, "We are legion." Cody Wilson is correct about one thing: it is too late to be having "the same gun control conversation we had in 1994." Ultimately, this isn't even a conversation about gun control.

In my mind, completely open access to information would allow the children of the developing world to learn programming along with reading and writing. If the fate of 3D printing is any barometer, how soon does this curriculum turn violent in the wrong hands? The current line we have drawn on this issue is flawed - the same sort of protectorate policies that cripple game play on Sim City V and keep HIV retro-viral medication prohibitively expensive due to patents, not production costs. We need to level the playing field, and to do that we need to open the door and let everyone into the library. The question becomes how far to open that door, and where to draw the line on what is necessary and what is dangerous information. In my mind, the only acceptable boundary is the protection of human life.

Nearly a month removed from watching his background checks legislation fall flat on the Senate floor, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) revealed Thursday what still bothers him about that decision.

In an interview with MSNBC's "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell," Manchin said Washington must look itself in the mirror regarding the evidence between gun control and public opinion.

"What bothers me right now, if we are in such a state of influx if you will in this city of ours, of Washington, toward something that makes so much common sense," Manchin said. "And the facts are here to support what we're saying, and 80 percent of people support what we're trying to do, and we can't muster up the votes, something's wrong, and we've got to change."

Manchin leveled on Tuesday that the National Rifle Association has not helped matters, telling CBS that the group was "rattling the cage" by scaring gun owners to believe their 2nd amendment rights were in jeopardy. He reinforced that this is far from the case, telling O'Donnell how puzzled he was.

“I can’t understand why the leadership of organizations such as the NRA would think that we’re invading anybody,” he said. "If anything, this protects the 2nd Amendment. It expands it.”

Manchin added that the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. was a call for "gun sense" that changed his own thinking. Even after the mid-April defeat, he said Tuesday in New York that the background checks bill is "coming back," Yahoo! reported.

"I would like to think if you're an American, and you have a family, it had to change you," Manchin told O'Donnell Thursday. "Who would've ever thought that twenty babies, truly babies, 5, 6 years old, would've gone to school and not returned safe?"

The father of a Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victim has not forgotten the words of one GOP lawmaker.

Mark Barden appeared on Thursday's edition of MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show," singling out Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) for his April comments that Newtown, Conn. families have no business being a part of the gun control debate.

Barden, whose son Daniel was killed in the December 2012 shooting, was asked by Maddow about politicians who have criticized the families calls for action.

"[They're] calling you pawns or puppets, saying you're being used by Democrats or the president," Maddow said. "What's your reaction to that?"

"My reaction to that is, do you not think I have my own reasons for doing this?" Barden emphatically responded. "Here, let me show you," he added, before pulling out a picture of his deceased son.

Barden then turned his attention to Inhofe, who charged back in April that the Obama administration dragged the Newtown families into the matter.

"See, I think it's so unfair of the administration to hurt these families, to make them think this has something to do with them when, in fact, it doesn't," Inhofe said.

Barden told Maddow that he has called Inhofe's office and left his cell phone number, but is still waiting for a return call.

"I'd just like to ask him, what are you thinking?" Barden said. "Why wouldn't I want to do this?"

Controversial wiki-weapon venture Defense Distributed removed the blueprints for a 3D printable gun from its website on Thursday on the State Department's order.

"#DEFCAD is going dark at the request of the SOD Department of Defense Trade Controls," Defense Distributed's founder Cody Wilson Tweeted Thursday morning. "Some shapes are more dangerous than others."

The link to download the blueprint has been replaced with the following: "This file has been removed from public access at the request of the US Department of Defense Trade Controls. Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information." The state department said that the blueprints may violate U.S. export controls.

The government's move came just days after the "Liberator," as the gun is known, was first successfully fired on Sunday, and the video of someone shooting the gun quickly went viral.

And the order may have come too late. The blueprints for the gun were downloaded about 100,000 times, according to Forbes. And there's nothing to stop those files from being shared again and again.

Defcad had a little help from Kim Dotcom. All the downloads from defense distributed were hosted on a Kim Dot Com's new file-sharing web site Mega.

The government "controls exports of sensitive equipment, software and technology as a means to promote our national security interests and foreign policy objectives," the State Department's website explains. Since these guns could be downloaded and printed abroad, the government views them as a potential risk.

It's worth noting that most people who downloaded the blueprint probably don't have the capability of manufacturing the gun at home. As Forbes notes, Defense Distributed used an $8,000 printer to make their gun. That device is not widely available.

The Republican-controlled Missouri Legislature passed the nation's most extreme gun protection bill, along with bans on Islamic law and the United Nations sustainability agenda, during a late-night session Wednesday.

Under the gun measure, lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to nullify all federal gun laws in the state, while allowing some teachers to carry guns in schools. The bill also says some teachers who do not carry guns can be fired, while providing them with limited arrest powers.

The gun bill's passage followed passage of the sustainability and Sharia, or Islamic law, bans. All three bills now move to Gov. Jay Nixon (D) for his consideration. A Nixon spokesman said he did not have a comment until the governor reviewed the bills.

Senate Majority Whip Brian Nieves (R-Washington) trumpeted the bills on Facebook late Wednesday night, describing the gun bill as the "most hard core piece of Second Amendment legislation in the nation."

"Tonight (Wed) was an historic night for Missouri and her citizens," Nieves wrote. "Our private property rights, our court system, and the assertion of our 2nd amendment rights were all impacted positively by the final passage of three of my 2013 Bills!"

During the House debate, Rep. Doug Funderburk (R-St. Peters) stressed the need for the gun bill and said residents of Boston would have wanted to be armed during the manhunt for the marathon bombing suspects.

“I bet those folks in Boston wish they had guns in their home when terrorists were running around with bombs," he said.

Under the terms of the gun bill, all federal gun laws would be banned in Missouri; enforcing such laws would be a misdemeanor, a change from a previous provision that made enforcement a felony. The bill would allow for the open carry of all guns 16 inches or smaller in the state.

The legislation also has provisions to allow school districts to designate teachers and administrators as "school protection officers," with rights to carry guns and provide security services during the school day. Under the terms of the law, a teacher who is designated to carry a gun, but does not bring one, could be fired. School protection officers also could detain for up to four hours anyone they believe is violating the law, before turning the individual over to law enforcement.

The bill would make it illegal to require doctors to ask during exams about gun ownership. (The American Academy of Pediatrics urges the question to promote child safety.) Similar legislation passed in Florida, but was ruled unconstitutional.

Rep. Stacey Newman (D-St. Louis) told her colleagues they had turned Missouri into a "laughing stock."

“I’m surprised we went three whole days here without a gun bill. I take offense here at the bill sponsor’s remarks that what was added will improve the quality of life for those dealing with gun violence," she said. "I don’t know why this body continues to turn its back and make fun of gun violence victims. It’s not a funny matter. I don’t find it amusing.”

Rep. Paul Curtman (R-Pacific) said Republicans are not making fun of gun victims.

The gun bill passed with enough votes to override a veto by Nixon, but it could bring legal challenges. United States Attorney General Eric Holder last week warned Kansas officials that their new state law that says federal gun laws do not apply to guns within the state made in Kansas was unconstitutional, a charge Kansas officials deny.

The gun debate followed the passage of two bills banning Islamic law and the sustainability plan known as Agenda 21. Supporters said the sustainability ban was needed to prohibit the U.N. from seizing private property in the state, while the Islamic law bill is needed to prevent foreign laws in Missouri. Agenda 21 was signed in 1992 but has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate and is not law in the U.S.

Opponents of the Sharia bill noted that it could hurt international business deals and block residents from adopting children from foreign countries.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated the aspect of the gun bill pertaining to doctors. The bill would make it illegal to require doctors to ask patients about gun ownership.

For the last few weeks we have been at odds with the Mayor and the Department of Human Services (DHS) over the amendments to the Homeless Services Reform Act that were put into the Budget Support Act (BSA). Our position is that the changes are significant and far-reaching and that the thousands of D.C. residents who will be affected by them deserve to have their voices heard. Nearly 200 organizations signed on to a letter to the Mayor asking him to withdraw the amendments and introduce them as separate legislation so that the community has an opportunity for input via a public hearing. At the Legal Clinic, we've been openly critical of what feels like a very punitive approach to the crisis of family homelessness.

Meanwhile, the Mayor has not agreed to withdraw the amendments. Instead, he has responded that this law is necessary to reduce families' time in shelter and move them into housing faster, thus clearing the space to serve families year-round. His spokespeople say we're exaggerating the impact of the changes. We say we're reading and analyzing the plain language of the proposed law. (For instance, the Mayor says they have no intent to kick people out of housing when they're in the hospital, but the proposal allows terminations when a resident has left the unit due to "incarceration or institutionalization" for 60 days or more.) They say they don't really intend to implement it that way, so we shouldn't worry. We say that laws shouldn't be dependent on how a current agency staff or the Mayor says they'll use them -- laws needs to be written clearly so that their proper interpretation is not dependent on who is in power.

Then the Mayor escalated the conflict, claiming that the amendments will save DHS $5.3 million and that if the Council doesn't pass them right away as part of the BSA, DHS will close three shelters for singles on October 1.

Let's break this down.

1. Are the amendments necessary to move families into rapid rehousing or other housing programs? No. Current law authorizes placements in rapid rehousing and other housing programs, and it even authorizes providers to terminate shelter residents if they turn down more than two offers of appropriate permanent or supportive housing (of which rapid rehousing is a subset). The amendments do not create a guarantee of housing, nor do they remove any of the barriers to rapid rehousing that families assert make the program challenging to benefit from.
2. Is authorizing mandatory escrow necessary to allow shelter residents to save money and exit shelter more quickly? No. First, escrow is authorized under current law, it is just voluntary. Very few providers offer it now, but more certainly should, and they don't need a legal change to do so. Second, escrow will not significantly impact the length of time in shelter. According to DHS, a family's average length of stay in DC General is three months, nine months for temporary shelters. For families living in shelter between 2007 and 2012, the average monthly income was $430. That means that a family putting 30 percent of its income into savings would place $129 per month in the account. Not only would that make it difficult to meet the needs of their children each month, but it would take 22 months to save enough for a security deposit and first month's rent on a two-bedroom apartment. That's significantly longer than the average length of stay for either DC General or temporary shelters.
3. Is this provisional placement scheme the key to "preventing long-term shelter" and critical to being able to offer year-round shelter? No. Current law permits DHS to place a family in shelter pending a final eligibility and prioritization decision. In fact, a recent administrative court case held that DHS could even terminate a family from shelter without the right to a prior hearing where the family was determined to be ineligible after placement. The amendments, however, would go much further than this. They would allow DHS to deny due process to a provisionally placed family appealing a regular termination of benefits - e.g., for breaking program rules or failing to cooperate with the assessment process. A family could challenge the decision (for example by proving they didn't violate program rules), but they'd be on the streets during the appeal period. This is contrary to current law, which ensures families are safely housed or sheltered pending appeal unless there is an allegation of violence. We think the Mayor's changes would lead to more, not fewer, families on the streets.
4. Is there really a fiscal savings from these amendments and will DHS have to close shelters if the amendments are removed from the BSA? No and no. The homeless services budget for FY14 is the same as it was in FY13, and the Mayor is not committing to increasing services by creating a right to shelter for families year-round, nor has he suggested that demand will increase in FY 14. If the Mayor had included a right to shelter or housing in the amendments, he could then argue that he would have a commitment to a higher level of services this year and that commitment would have a certifiable fiscal impact. Not so here. Moreover, Councilmember Jim Graham has committed to introducing the amendments as stand-alone legislation and finalizing the legislation prior to October 1, so even if there were an uncertified fiscal impact, the Councilmember's commitment negates it. Finally, several of the amendments could cause a negative fiscal impact by cycling singles and families, especially vulnerable populations, out of housing and into more expensive emergency shelters.

We're in agreement with many of the policies that the Mayor says are motivating these changes. We agree that housing is better than shelter. (In fact, we're asking the Council to find money to house 300 additional families in FY14.) We agree that families should have access to shelter year-round when they have no safe place to go. (We'd like to see a legal right to shelter or housing.) We agree that shelter is no place for a kid to grow up. (Although it's certainly better than the street, or an abuser's home, or a bus station...)

Sadly, we don't think these amendments accomplish these goals. They have some consequences that we assume were unintended as well. For instance, the proposed law removes the ability of any site-based shelter or supportive housing provider to terminate residents who possess weapons, possess or sell illegal drugs, or assault other residents at the shelter, among other things. (It does this by adding a definition of "provider's premises" that is limited to "a publicly or privately-owned house or apartment unit in which a client resides and receives a rental subsidy or other services under a shelter or supportive housing program.") That's a pretty significant "oops," one that could have been avoided by having a more open community process.

That's why the legislative process is so important. We can work these kinks out if given an opportunity. What's the downside? The Mayor cannot be so entrenched in his position that he is willing to allow a bill to become law that would allow guns, drugs, and violence in shelters with no consequences. If he is, the Council will have to stand up to his pressure and support Councilmember Graham's efforts to remove the amendments from the BSA and reintroduce it as stand-alone legislation.

Cross-posted from Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless

This Mother's Day, I will go to church and spend time with my mother and my son, Calvin.

Calvin and I will reflect on the fun times he had my other son, Casson Xavier "Biscuit" Evans, who was killed in a drive-by shooting when he was only 3 years old. We will talk about how they interacted and what Casson would be doing if he were with us. We always conclude that, given the strength he demonstrated during his short life, Casson probably would have been in college with a full scholarship to play football.

And I will think about the man slated to spend the rest of his life in prison for Casson's death. He was a 14-year-old boy at the time of the crime. He recently asked if I will fill the role of mother in his life and I have agreed to do so.

Casson died on December 21, 1995. There had been shootings the night before in my niece's neighborhood in Denver and I had gone by to pick up her child. Casson was sleeping, so I left him and Calvin, who was 6, in the car with two older cousins -- one 17 and the other 22. I had been inside only briefly when I heard gunshots. Casson was shot in the crossfire. He was dead within minutes.

Three children were arrested and held responsible. Raymond and Paul were 14; the driver, Damien, was 15. Both Raymond and Paul were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Four years ago, Raymond sent me a Mother's Day card. That card included a letter in which Raymond apologized for what happened and asked me to take on a mother role in his life. It was years before I was able to respond to that most difficult request.

Nearly a year ago, Calvin and I met with Raymond, whom investigators concluded fired the shot that killed Casson. He is now 33. We were the first participants in the pilot restorative justice program at the Colorado Department of Corrections. Raymond had to demonstrate accountability for what happened, genuine remorse and a willingness to repair the harm that he has caused. For us, restoration could come only through him answering many of the questions that had haunted us for years.

As we prepared to meet, I was enveloped in anxiety. I froze at the threshold to the room where we were to speak. Raymond immediately stood to his feet and dropped his head. I could tell that he both wanted to show his respect for me and demonstrate that he realized how much pain he had caused. That gave me the courage to walk into the room.

During the difficult, hours-long conversation, we talked about Casson, Raymond's difficult childhood, our lives and what happened on that day nearly two decades ago. And I told him that I had forgiven him. It was during that conversation that I agreed to take on the role he had requested of me. I am certain it is what Casson would want me to do for Raymond and others like him. I cannot replace his family, but my answer was and is yes, I will be his mother in whatever capacity I can. I have requested permission to revisit him for his accountability and because of our mutual commitment.

I believe that Raymond deserves an opportunity to be considered for release. He is no longer the naïve teen, struggling to escape from a negative situation and trying to fit in in the wrong place. He is a young man who has taken responsibility for the harm he caused. He also has been rehabilitated. I think he is prepared to make a positive contribution to our community.

Although I initially supported the extreme sentences imposed on these young people, my perspective has changed dramatically in the years since. I am now committed to seeing our juvenile sentencing laws reformed. I have come to understand that because their brains are still developing, children are not as able as adults to assess risks and consider the long-term consequences of their actions. This can sometimes lead them to engage in behaviors that cause significant harm. And when children have been raised in situations that are less than ideal, the situation is compounded.

Colorado no longer sentences children to life in prison without parole. But children who were sentenced to die in prison before the law changed in 2006 were not included in the revised law. I don't think this punishment is appropriate in Colorado or anywhere else.

We can never bring back the lives that have been taken, and the young people responsible for these deaths must be held accountable. But we must balance the desire for retribution with our country's commitment to children. We must assure that even children who cause serious harm have an opportunity to demonstrate that they have changed and can be reintegrated into society.

This Mother's Day, I am focused on impacting the laws that fail to allow for a second chance for young people. I ask you to join with me. We must do it on behalf of Casson, Raymond and all of our children.

Most people aren't particularly familiar with 3D printers, but their potential to be used for sinister purposes has already prompted D.C. Councilmember Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) to introduce legislation restricting them.

In response to reports that a 3D printer was used to render a functioning handgun in Texas, Wells proposed the “Undetectable Firearms Act of 2013” on Tuesday. The bill would ban D.C. residents from creating weapons with 3D printers and emerging digital manufacturing technologies.

“Digital manufacturing technologies hold a lot of exciting potential to make manufacturing more affordable and more accessible," Wells said in a statement. "But in this respect, the technology is fast outpacing the laws. An undetectable firearm constructed on your computer may sound like science fiction, but unfortunately, it’s already here."

Pushing the envelope of 3D printer gun manufacturing is Cody Wilson. The University of Texas law student founded the nonprofit organization Defense Distributed. The self-proclaimed purpose of the group is to defend the Second Amendment by, "facilitating global access to, and the collaborative production of, information and knowledge related to the 3D printing of arms," according to its website.

See Cody Wilson fire a 3D printed hangun in the video above.

Enabling individuals to design and print functioning firearms raises some serious public safety and legal questions, said Wells' Chief of Staff, Charles Allen. First, 3D printed guns will not have serial numbers or a registration record, presenting an immediate threat to gun control efforts. Second, 3D printed guns could not be detected by a metal detector since they are made from plastics and other materials, Allen said.

The District of Columbia already has some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S., but "our laws have never contemplated this scenario," Wells said in a statement.

The federal government passed legislation in 1988 that made it illegal to produce, trade, own or possess a gun that would be undetectable to a metal detector or an X-ray machine, but that statute is scheduled to expire at the end of 2013.

"We certainly don't have a lot of confidence in Congress these days, when it comes to gun control," Allen told HuffPost, emphasizing that it was important for the D.C. Council to get ahead of the curve.

That may be a prudent approach, considering the nihilistic plan laid out on Defense Distributed's website. "This project might change the way we think about gun control and consumption," it reads. "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? Let’s find out."

Kingsley Rowe, 43, has both a bachelor's degree in information systems management and a masters in social work from New York University. He has a wife and a 1-year-old daughter. What he doesn’t tell people: He unintentionally killed his friend with a handgun in 1988. This is his story as told to HuffPost's Jason Cherkis.

When I got home for Thanksgiving holiday, my younger brother told me he had a handgun in the house. I don’t know how he got the gun. He was involved in the streets at the time and I suspect it was obtained through those circles. I was living in Washington, D.C., working for the FBI as a clerk. I just delivered mail around the FBI headquarters. I was in the midst of applying to Howard University.

It was a Raven MP-25.

I remember thinking how exciting it was: Wow, you have a gun. What are you doing with that? Where did you get that from? My brother didn’t really say anything much regarding how he obtained the gun. He just told me not to touch it. I had never touched a gun before. I didn’t have the friends who would normally carry around handguns.

I don’t remember if I knew where it was. He had it in his room. But I found it. I had no reason to take it out.

I was so impulsive at the time. I took medication most of my adolescence basically for ADHD. I still take medication now. When I saw the gun, I didn’t think about what could happen. None of those things entered my mind. If they did enter my mind, it was very fleeting. Wow, this is a real gun. That’s more of like what I was thinking when I saw it.

I put the Raven in my pocket. It was a pretty small handgun. There were bullets in the gun.

It felt like, you know, I don’t know how to describe it. You walk around the street and you have this sense that you are stronger than you actually are, tougher than you actually are.

I just turned 18 a couple months before that. I was 6’1, 6’2. At the time, I weighed 200 pounds, 220. I really didn’t fit well into my neighborhood. All the people in my South Philadelphia neighborhood felt like I was soft. I was good in school. I was always on South Street hanging out with skateboarder kids. I was a good writer -- my favorite subject. As a child, I always read Time, Newsweek, and The New York Times. I’m very big into The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Manchild in the Promised Land, and The Catcher in the Rye. My mom didn’t allow me to really hang out on the street.

Several people in the house knew there was a gun and didn’t say anything to my mother. My older sister, my younger sister, and my aunt. But nobody actually told my mom that it was actually in the house. I should have.

I met Raenelle Cerdan, 20, on the corner of my block. She was one of the first, like, girlfriends I had. She had a crush on me. I had a crush on her. It took like four or five weeks for me to say something to her. I worked at a variety store and she would come and buy stuff. She was in college going to Millersville. She was a sophomore or a junior. She wasn’t like the girls in my neighborhood. She was just really understanding. She was kind of shy, just like I was.

We never had sex or anything. We just hung out. I didn’t date much. I was just like a kid. I was pretty afraid of women actually. I don’t know if I was mature enough. She was not the first person I ever kissed, but she was like one of the first people I started dating when I was out of school. We would sit on her stoop and talk. We would take walks and go to the park. Her mother was on drugs at the time. We used to talk about that a lot. I talked about hopefully going to Howard University. She was positive, she had substance.

But our relationship never materialized as a couple. Raenelle only knew me since the summertime -- June of '88. We weren’t meant to be partners. I was living in D.C. She had other things she wanted to do -- in college, with her life. We just kept in touch when I moved away.

We went to her aunt’s house and hung out there. We just sat around. I talked about what I was doing at the FBI. It was Thanksgiving evening 1988. After about 20 minutes, I told her aunt that I had a gun. She said I should take it home immediately. That’s when I began to get a little afraid. She said “you really need to take that home. Someone can get hurt.” Those were her exact words to me as I remember them.

I should have known better. I knew people that were murdered in the street. I’ve known people who were shot and killed. Until she said that to me, I didn’t connect the dots. It connected back to my own experience -- what the hell am I really doing with this? I’m working for the FBI. The gravity of having a gun started to dawn on me.

I walked out the house. I knew the Raven was loaded. I fumbled with it to take the cartridge out. I don’t know anything about the bullet in the chamber. It was a few people on the street. Raenelle was walking in front of me. I didn’t have any awareness of her. I’m looking down at the gun. And it’s pointed sort of up. It’s in my hand sideways. I’m sweating.

Raenelle is saying “Come on Kingsley. Come.” That was the last thing she said to me.

Everything is happening and then all the sudden the gun goes off.

When it went off, all I saw was Raenelle fall backwards. Everything just froze. I was in shock, just in shock.

I dropped the gun.

I went over to Raenelle and she was unconscious then the family was over her. The aunt did come out –- I believe she was crying and screaming at me. It’s very painful to remember everything. When I say it out loud, "I shot her," it feels so callous -– like there’s intent there. I shot her. it’s hard to say that. It’s just hard to say.

Raenelle was hit behind her ear. The police came. They put handcuffs on me and they put me in the back of the car. Some stupid person at the scene of the crime took the gun, actually took the weapon.

I stayed in jail for approximately a week to two weeks. My father bailed me out. These were his exact words to my mother: “I cannot see him like this.”

I was praying for Raenelle not to die. She never came to. She died about nine or 10 days later. My attorney called me and told me that they were going to probably come and arrest me. I turned myself in. I went to the precinct and they took custody of me. I wanted to kill myself when she passed away.

When I was actually remanded, they put me on suicide watch. I didn’t eat much, I didn’t go out for activities. After I made bail, I was on the street for a year before the trial. When I would see Raenelle’s family in the street, I would get different responses. Sometimes the aunt would scream at me. Sometimes she would hug me. She would just be crying. I didn’t even know what to say.

I was really depressed for a long time. I began to take medicine. I was taking Prozac. I was on Klonopin. I take different ones now. It was just unbearable to deal with. I contemplated suicide all the time.

Maybe I could take some pills. I don’t know what really kept me from doing it. My mother was trying to be strong for me. I just thought if I killed myself it would be a double tragedy for everyone. People gave me books to help me through -– Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment. I found that book very helpful. My attitude at the time: If I don’t kill myself, anything that happens to me I deserve it.

Why did I pick up the gun? I think about that question every day.

I was charged with third-degree murder. I just pled guilty. I was guilty. I wasn’t offered no deal. There were no negotiations around what the sentence might be at all. I was completely guilty. I didn’t care about the punishment. I sat in the courtroom with a blank stare. I was just out of it. Everyone around you is looking at you. All fingers point at you. It’s really overwhelming. Your family is there, but they are so far away.

I was sentenced to 8 to 20 years.

In prison, you don’t really talk about your case to people. The people that heard about my case felt sorry for me. That was the most surprising thing. People who heard what happened -– felt sorry for me. The refrain I got was, "What are you doing here?”

Today I seen a psychologist about my depression. It was kind of awkward for me to express my feelings to a total stranger. She was a very understanding lady and her sincerity was felt. I talked about a great many things including my feelings of guilt and remorse, my feelings of having disappointed my mother and father, my inability to forgive myself, my rage and frustration, and my inability to get along with others including staff. -– Rowe writing in his prison journal on Oct. 2, 1995.

My psychologist in prison said I had hubris because I was too proud to forgive myself for what happened. I didn’t give myself permission to forgive myself because I felt like part of what I did was unforgivable. It’s very hard to see yourself in a positive light when you have this thing staring you in the face -– when you accidentally killed someone.

I was a block tutor. I actually made friends through tutoring. The guys that I tutored were some of the toughest guys in the prison, but several couldn't read a first-grade sentence. It was humbling for them.

“Every time I talk about R.S.C. [Raenelle] it never ceases to amaze how empty and sad it leaves me. It is still as painful as it was when it first happened six years ago. … I have never really resolved what happened that Thanksgiving night 6 years ago because I still live with those demons and they haunt me every day. -– Rowe writing in his prison journal on Oct. 2, 1995.

I would take computer classes over and over again. I dabbled in a lot of things. I was trying to find a way for me to explain the phenomena of what happened to me. I read a lot of books by the Dalai Lama: The Art of Happiness, Ethics for the New Millennium, Transforming the Mind, An Open Heart.

Kingsley Rowe in prison with his visiting mother.

Socrates and Plato –- I read all that stuff in there. The things that stuck -– I read a lot of self-help books -- Awaken The Giant Within by Anthony Robbins. I read about Nelson Mandela and how he dealt with being incarcerated, Letter From Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King Jr. l read a lot of African history books.

Today was history in the making a million man march of black men. It was beautiful to see so many black men standing strong in harmony and peace. I stayed in the whole day watching this beautiful happening. Farrakhan spoke masterfully about black unity, white supremacy, governmental hypocrisy and personal responsibility to ourselves, our women and our communities…I was definitely there in spirit -– Rowe writing in his prison journal on Oct. 16, 1995.

I was trying to find a spiritual chain to grab onto so I could understand what happened to me. In Days of Grace, Arthur Ashe said when he was winning he said he never asked, "Why me?" He never said, "Why is this happening to me?" He said when he was diagnosed with AIDS he never asked why. In his perspective, all things came through God. It really doesn’t matter why me.

I had my health. I was able to read. I was able to survive. That was something to be grateful for.

On March 28, 1999, I walked out of SCI Smithfield prison in Huntingdon, Pa. It had been 10 years. I had one change of clothes and like $100 and a chest full of books -– 300 books. I had done everything I was supposed to do as far as my self-development, even graduating with honors with an associate’s degree from Saint Francis University. I took a train right up to New York City.

Rowe on the day of his release from prison.

When I was paroled, my mother was living in Delaware. Her husband had issues with me living there. He didn’t want me to come back to the house. My mother and father had gotten together and talked and thought it would be better for me to go to New York. I lived with my father for like two months. I rented a room out and went from there.

I got out at 29. I felt like I was 20. I had to learn how to socialize in professional and social settings. I had to learn how to navigate the subway. I had to learn how to navigate the Web. My mother called me all the time to see if I was okay.

I got a job with Macy’s as a salesperson and I worked there for two years. They helped me survive. I worked in Macy’s sports. I sold athletic equipment. I preferred the stocking, because it was a more solitary job. I had time to myself. In prison, I had cellmates the whole time. You can hear your own thoughts. It’s your own space, all yours to yourself. It gave me a peace of mind. I worked at Macy’s full time and I started school. I was enrolled in New York University in September 1999.

At NYU, I never talked about it. I just went to school and did my work. I really didn’t speak too much about myself. I kept very superficial relationships. Being in prison for 10 years, I developed certain habits that were really hard to break. One thing that kept me safe inside, was staying to myself, never borrowing anything from anyone, keeping a surface relationship with people so I could protect myself. Outside, I never told people about myself, where I came from before I lived in New York City. I liked to go to the movies by myself. Friday nights, I studied. I felt like I had to catch up.

Trying to make a living, trying to meet my parole obligations, and trying to finish school -- that's the only three things I was concerned about.

I started learning with a rabbi in 2004. I converted that next year -– Sept. 28, 2005. I’m now Jewish. I used to go to a shul and it’s funny no one knew about my path. They treated me very special and very well, but at the same time they didn’t know where I came from. All of that is a part of me. I had to erase this other part. I had to be a half a person.

I went to Philadelphia in 2006. I passed by that street –- Emily Street between 7th and 6th streets. Horrifying. Super-anxious. Empty. It brought back all those feelings of being afraid, scared, of feeling helpless and not being in control of my own life. You know there are consequences coming, it’s impossible to stop those consequences coming.

I did not go on the street. I was not ready. I don’t know if I’m ready now. This stuff is lifelong.

My brother and I didn’t talk for like 10 years. I was really angry with him. I love my little brother. He was my first best friend. When the shooting happened -- that tore into our relationship. When we finally got a chance to sit down, I told him when I saw him last year: “I just want you to know that I love you and I don’t blame you at all for what happened. I should have told Mommy about the gun. You don’t have any responsibility.” He hugged me and said he felt like people thought it was his fault. I think he kind of felt responsible for our lives.

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) took his pro-gun beliefs to Twitter Wednesday, offering followers a rare opportunity.

Stockman informed the social media community that he is giving away a free Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle, pointing readers to a form on his website.

"Enter the drawing to win a FREE Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, almost impossible to find in stores and the number one firearm on the gun banners' wish list!," the post reads.

Within the tweet, Stockman also took a jab at President Barack Obama's efforts to enact gun control laws.

Want to win a FREE AR-15? Congressman Steve Stockman is giving one away!Sign up at stockman2014.com/ar15-entry/ Grab this gun before Obama does!

— Rep. Steve Stockman (@ReElectStockman) May 8, 2013

Stockman has been an outspoken proponent of protecting 2nd Amendment rights. One day after Connecticut signed its strict gun control laws into effect, he wrote an open letter inviting all gun owners to move to the Lone Star State.

“Come to Texas!!!” Stockman said. “Your rights will not be infringed upon here, unlike many local current regimes.”

Back in April, Stockman combined his pro-gun and pro-life beliefs, releasing a bumper sticker that left some scratching their heads.

Our campaign bumper sticker: If babies had guns, they wouldn't be aborted. stockman2014.com #gosnell #tcot twitter.com/ReElectStockma…

— Rep. Steve Stockman (@ReElectStockman) April 12, 2013

WASHINGTON — A House panel has approved legislation that would greatly curtail when veterans deemed mentally incompetent are reported to the FBI's background check system.

The move to winnow what records get placed into the database comes even as both sides of the gun-control debate have called for strengthening the background-check system.

After looking at the photos of the NRA convention, with all the talk about the sanctity of the Second Amendment, I think I just may revert to being a Justice William O. Douglas First Amendment absolutist. After all, the First Amendment of the Constitution does say:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I learned about the need to balance competing constitutional rights from Fred Friendly at Columbia, a hallmark of his academic teachings. But if the NRA is not going to give an inch on the Second Amendment, then let's invoke our absolute First Amendment rights to speak and assemble without restrictions. I'll take the pen over the gun any day.