The news is here.

And more on the NRA protection racket here.

It does not matter than an overwhelming majority of voters -- including many Republican voters -- support requiring sanity and criminal background checks on people purchasing guns over the Internet and at gun shows. It does not matter that mothers and fathers of children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School strenuously lobbied for the bill. It does not matter that the bill had the support of the president of the United States. The president -- who makes promises of campaign finance reform while raising money for his own independent political expenditures -- is no match for gun manufacturers and dealers backing the NRA. The mothers and fathers of the Sandy Hook victims have no experience with political fundraising, so one wonders why they even went to Washington.

The NRA is happy with this state of affairs. The president says he is unhappy, but perhaps this loss will rejuvenate his own fundraising endeavors.

Many taxpayers are tired of supporting a government that spends enormous amounts of money but can't take the most basic steps to protect them and their children from harm. Voters should insist that a small portion what each taxpayer sends to the government (the first few hundred dollars for each taxpayer) be used to support campaigns of candidates chosen by the taxpayer (with or without prior approval of the NRA or other big money groups). Meaningful citizen participation in campaign finance is needed for a representative democracy to work. As they said in Boston back in the 1770's, "taxation without representation" is no way to run a government.

I am pleased to join Lawrence Lessig, Trevor Potter and other concerned citizens to discuss these issues at a conference in San Francisco this Saturday (open to the public).

WASHINGTON -- The Democratic sponsor of the defeated gun-control plan says it would have passed easily, if not for the National Rifle Association.

Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia says there would have been 70 votes for the plan to expand background checks for gun buyers. But the NRA said it would include the gun vote on report cards that show whether candidates support gun rights.

Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) ripped senators who "gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation" on background checks in a New York Times op-ed published Wednesday evening.

"Speaking is physically difficult for me. But my feelings are clear: I’m furious," Giffords wrote. "I will not rest until we have righted the wrong these senators have done, and until we have changed our laws so we can look parents in the face and say: We are trying to keep your children safe."

Giffords' op-ed echoed the sentiment of President Barack Obama, who was visibly angry while giving remarks in the White House rose garden after the amendment was defeated.

"There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this," Obama said as Giffords and others affected by gun violence stood behind him. "It came down to politics -- the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment."

The op-ed wasn't Giffords' first takedown of the senators for the gun vote. Seconds after the amendment was defeated, Giffords sent a fundraising email skewering the lawmakers for doing "the unthinkable."

"Over two years ago, when I was shot point-blank in the head, the U.S. Senate chose to do nothing. Four months ago, 20 first-graders lost their lives in a brutal attack on their school, and the U.S. Senate chose to do nothing," Giffords wrote. "It's clear to me that if members of the U.S. Senate refuse to change the laws to reduce gun violence, then we need to change the members of the U.S. Senate."

Giffords and her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, have formed a political committee that supports candidates who back gun restrictions. The couple met with senators -- including Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.), who crafted the background check measure -- ahead of Wednesday's vote.

Click here to read Giffords' full piece in the New York Times.

CORRECTION: This post originally identified Giffords as a Republican. It has been corrected.

I have often used what I consider a classic argument in favor of more thorough federal regulation of fire-arms. The "how many gun deaths per country" statistics that I imagine most of you can see in your mind's eyes. The list of other countries that have annual gun-related deaths in the tens or hundreds vs. the U.S. with deaths in the tens of thousands. My spin has been "so... either it is the guns... or people who live in the USA are way more violent than people in other parts of the developed world." It has proven to be a tidy way to make the point that "it's the guns".

Before going further I want to be clear that I continue to believe we need more and better Federal regulation of guns. I believe such laws would significantly reduce gun violence in this country. With a little filibuster reform, a lot of money for political campaigns, even more feet on the ground, and a supportive executive branch, we might even get there between February and July of 2015.

I wonder, however, if that proposition I have offered so many times is as purely rhetorical as I have thought it was. We have a military budget and war capabilities that are at least as proportionately bigger than those same other countries and their gun death rates. None of those countries have the death penalty... we do.

I am not headed for "it's the mental illness we have to work on" conclusion: I think we line up quite evenly with those other countries in that regard. We do have a lot of work to do on understanding, taking the stigma away from, and treating mental illness. I don't think that it has much to do with differential in rates of gun violence.

I don't buy the whole movie/video game/rap argument either. Those are shown and played all over the world. Even if it turns out they are more popular here, it would be due to market demand. Just ask any studio executive -- much as they'd love to manipulate their markets, some action-adventure movies make it, some don't. It is the ticket buyers, kinda like voters, who make or break them in the end.

Geo-politically we see our affinity for violence all the time. We have been at deadly war for a dozen years. For decades, Democrats, especially would-be and actual Presidents, have worked hard at proving that they are just as tough as Republicans when it comes to the neatly framed homeland security and national defense. President Obama and Secretary Clinton are great examples. Taking out the evil guys with drones or arguing that we should make it easier for weapons to reach rebels in the Middle East. They make sure we know what it means when they say "all options are on the table." Maybe they believe it, maybe they think it is an image they need to present to get elected, but it doesn't much matter what that mix is. Tough gals 'n guys are who we agree we want picking up the phone at 3AM.

Fight for more sensible laws regulating firearms we must. We may also need to accept the possibility that we people in the U.S. like to kill each other with guns more than people in many other parts of the world do.

As Walt Kelly's Pogo used to say "We have met the enemy... and he is us.'

On the same day that the U.S. Senate failed to muster enough votes for increased background checks, Florida's State Legislature generated its own message in favor of Second Amendment rights.

House Memorial 545 was adopted late Wednesday afternoon with an 81-36 vote in favor of passage. Sponsored by Rep. Neil Combee (R-Polk City), the "Right To Keep And Bear Arms" initiative urges Congress and the president to protect Second Amendment rights.

The vote appears to have come with some fanfare, as The Miami Herald reported that one legislator used sound effects to get his point across, yelling "let liberty ring!" while making a gun noise.

The U.S. Senate's bipartisan background check measure fell six votes shy of the 60 necessary to break a filibuster. Florida's senators voted along the overall partisan trend lines, with Sen. Bill Nelson (D) turning in a yes, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R) going with a no.

Earlier this month, the Tampa Bay Times reported that a handful of Florida counties have similar checks in place, but they are largely unenforced. Back in July 2012, the Sunshine State was the first to surpass one million concealed weapons permits.

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Emotionally drained and weary family members of the Newtown shooting victims, thrust into a new role as gun control lobbyists, said they're disappointed but undaunted by the U.S. Senate's rejection Wednesday of an amendment expanding background checks for gun purchases.

Neil Heslin, whose 6-year-old son Jesse Lewis was among the 20 first graders and six educators killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, said he has spent the past two weeks in Washington, D.C. trying to persuade senators to pass the compromise legislation.

WASHINGTON -- SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) on Tuesday signed what is being called the nation's most pro-Second Amendment law, but one that could face constitutional challenges. The Second Amendment Protection Act exempts all guns that were made in Kansas and have not left the state from all federal gun control laws.

Last week, Brownback had signed a law to expand concealed carry of guns in public buildings in the state. Both measures had been sought by pro-gun lawmakers as a way to promote and expand the firearms industry in Kansas.

"My understanding is, it is the strictest Second Amendment protection law in the nation," state Rep. Brett Hildabrand (R-Shawnee), a co-sponsor of the exemption legislation, told The Huffington Post. "That is really great news. It creates a stark contrast with our neighbors in Colorado. I consider it a pro-job growth bill because of it encouraging the large gun manufacturers or those who make gun components to move to Kansas."

Hildabrand said he would like to see Kansas recruit gun manufacturers from those states enacting strict gun control laws -- like Colorado and Maryland -- to set up shop in the Sunflower State. He added that he has heard several gun manufacturers in such states have been looking for new homes.

"This sends a signal to the industry that Kansas is a pro-Second Amendment state," Hildabrand said. "We are open for business in Kansas."

Six Oklahoma lawmakers made a similar argument in February as a push for their state to adopt pro-gun legislation. Due to New Jersey's existing gun control laws, a pro-Second Amendment activist contended that he cannot fill computer programming jobs in the state because gun owners do not want to move there.

Kansas is one of several conservative-leaning states that been debating ways to exempt themselves from federal gun laws. Some other states are considering versions of the Kansas law, and several have already considered and voted down bills that would have banned enforcement of all federal firearms laws regardless of where the gun was made.

Hildabrand argued that Kansas' new statute should survive a constitutional challenge that a state cannot overrule the federal government, because it only covers guns that stay in Kansas and therefore, he said, are not covered by the Constitution's commerce clause.

Robert Cottrol, a law professor at George Washington University, disagreed with Hildabrand, saying that the commerce clause would apply to the Kansas law. According to Cottrol, Supreme Court precedent says that generally trade within a single state that affects trade in a given industry nationwide is covered under the commerce clause, even if a particular transaction occurs entirely in one state.

At the same time, Cottrol suggested there are other ways for states to override federal gun laws. Since those federal laws largely exempt agents of law enforcement, he said, it might be possible for a state to get around federal restrictions by declaring all gun owners to be police officers.

"That might be one way to shield a large section of the population," Cottrol told HuffPost. "Declare a large number of citizens deputies. That would be in the power of state government."

The Kansas exemption measure attracted bipartisan support in the state Legislature, with several Democratic lawmakers included as co-sponsors. A similar bill was considered last year but fell victim to a bitter GOP civil war between moderate and conservative Republicans in the state. Then, conservatives seized control of the Legislature in the 2012 election, leading one moderate Republican to accuse them of wanting to turn Kansas into an "ultraconservative utopia."

President Barack Obama's push on gun control suffered a major blow Wednesday when the senate defeated a gun-buyer background check bill put together by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).

The amendment failed 54 to 46, falling short of the 60-vote threshold needed to break a filibuster of the measure.

Obama spoke on the failed measure Wednesday evening in the White House rose garden. He took to the podium after Mark Barden, the father of a Newtown victim.

"Our hearts are broken, our spirit is not," Barden said.

Obama placed blame on the gun lobby during his remarks.

"The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill," Obama said.

The president said the failure of the background check bill "came down to politics."

"There are no coherent arguments for why we didn't do this," Obama said.

Obama's anger was apparent during his remarks, which were given as families of shooting victims and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) -- a shooting survivor -- stood behind him.

"All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington," Obama said.

More from the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says the Senate's opposition to a bill that would have expanded background checks for gun buyers marks a "shameful day for Washington." He says a minority of senators decided "it wasn't worth it" to protect the nation's children.

Obama spoke in the Rose Garden shortly after the Senate vote. It marked a major blow to the gun control push Obama started in the wake of December's shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.

The president pinned the blame for the measures' failure on Republicans, though five Democrats also opposed the plan.

Obama was introduced by the father of a 7-year-old killed in the shooting. Other families joined him in the Rose Garden, along with former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head in 2011.

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ~ Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Following the Sandy Hook massacre, gun rights, gun laws and the Second Amendment have been the subject of a national dialogue. Any discussion of these topics is severely tainted by calculated messaging by the NRA to deceive and mislead our citizens to believe that the Second Amendment grants far reaching gun rights which have not and do not exist.

The Second Amendment became part of our constitution in 1791. For well over two centuries the Supreme Court never decided that the Amendment granted a constitutional right to individuals to bear arms. The widely held notion that such a right existed was a myth fabricated by the NRA for its own self interest and for the corporate profits of gun manufacturers. This fabrication altered the mindset of most Americans to accept fictional Second Amendment rights that permitted the proliferation of all manner and kind of dangerous weapons. We became a gun culture run rampant. The gun manufacturers reaped enormous profits as gun sales soared. In 2011 industry wide gun sales were $4.3 billion. Misconceptions generated by the NRA created a warped interpretation of Second Amendment that generated these sales.

The fraud perpetrated by the NRA is patent. We do not heed the warnings of prominent citizens such as former attorneys general Nicholas Katzenbach, Ramsey Clark, Elliot L. Richardson, Edward Levi, Griffin B. Bell and Benjamin R. Civiletti. The joint statement in the Washington Post of these former attorneys general in 1992 reads as follows:

"For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state Militia: it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobbies' distortion of the constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy towards guns and crime."

In a PBS News Hour interview in 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the NRA Second Amendment myth as "one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by any special interest group that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

The opinions of these distinguished legal scholars had no bearing on NRA propaganda that continued unabated. During the weeks before the 2000 general election, a self-anointed constitution "scholar," Charleton Heston, ceremonial president of the NRA, flooded the airways to urge voters to support candidates who would protect and preserve Second Amendment rights. Little did most Americans realize that such rights did not exist. The NRA's reading of the Second Amendment was purely fictional and unsupported by the law of the land.

Candidates for public office both state and federal reaped in political contributions from the NRA. These elected officials feared the wrath of the NRA should they stray from the NRA's Second Amendment myth.

A norm evolved offering sanctity to gun owners and manufacturers. Gun manufacturers and the NRA prospered and profited. As one gun manufacturing executive states the equation, the NRA "protects our Second Amendment rights and those rights protect the ability to buy our products." Elected officials stand idly by while gun deaths and massacres escalate without lasting public outcry or meaningful legislative efforts.

The statistics are staggering. The depth of lost life is evident by comparing deaths in foreign wars and firearm deaths of citizens within our borders. In all foreign wars during our history about 650,000 soldiers died. In the 45 years since Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated in 1968, there have been over 1.3 million deaths in our country caused by firearms. The fraud perpetrated by the NRA as recognized by former Chief Justice Burger is linked to these deaths. The blood of thousands upon thousands of Americans permanently stain the hands of NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre.

How did the NRA gain such power and influence on our citizenry? For the first century of its existence beginning in 1871, the NRA primarily devoted its efforts to gun safety. Following enactment of new restrictive gun laws requiring gun licensing and taxes, a 1977 coup within the NRA membership led by militants resulted in a new harder edged and more aggressive NRA. The truth mattered not. The edifice of the NRA headquarters would now bear an abbreviated version of the Second Amendment: "The Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms Shall not be infringed." The NRA amended the Constitution unilaterally to avoid even a hint that the language pertaining to a Militia had any meaning. The law of the land spoke otherwise.

In 1939 the Supreme Court issued the Miller decision. The justices ruled that "the Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with the view of its purpose of rendering effective Militia." That was the state of Second Amendment law until the 2008 Heller decision. Prior to Heller, the Supreme Court never recognized that individuals had an individual right to keep and bear arms. It was the NRA propaganda, not the law of the land, that led the cry for unlimited gun ownership and protection of gun owner rights. The NRA myths allowed the cycle of expanded gun sales and NRA power to purchase political influence. Democrats and Republican alike announced their allegiance to the Second Amendment and the public grew to believe that the NRA view of the Second Amendment was consistent with constitutional law. The NRA controlled too many elected officials to allow for protection of our citizens from gun violence, gun deaths and unspeakable gun horrors in schools and public places.

The NRA myths were disseminated on other fronts. Articles appeared in NRA publications and rewrote history by declaring that "Armed citizens [were] unregulated except by his own ability to buy a gun at whatever price he could afford." This credo became an NRA rallying cry.

The NRA poured millions upon millions of dollars into congressional and state legislative campaigns. Gun owners and manufacturers poured more money into the NRA. The revisionist view of Second Amendment rights gained momentum in 1982 when a Senate judiciary subcommittee issued a report about the discovery of "long lost proof" of an individual's constitutional right to bear arms. The chair of the subcommittee was Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. The "proof" has never surfaced.

For over three decades the NRA funded legal research, legal seminars and pushed for law review articles supporting individual rights to bear arms. This and the NRA persuasion of elected officials led to a dramatic shift in Second Amendment legal views. In 2003 the NRA established a $1 million chair at George Mason University law school. The views of NRA supported professors and legal scholars were relied on in the 2008 Supreme Court decision finding an individual right to bear arms for the first time.

What did the Supreme Court say in the 2008 Heller decision? The Court held that there existed an individual right to bear arms only for traditional purposes such as self-defense in the home. The Court declared that the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a "right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court gave examples of firearms laws presumed to be lawful. These included laws prohibiting firearm possession by felons, mentally ill persons and possession of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. The Court found that conditions on the commercial sale of firearms were presumptively lawful. The Court said this list was not exhaustive; and found that the Second Amendment is consistent with laws banning firearms that are "dangerous and unusual."

The ruling in Heller was a departure from the 1939 decision in the Miller case where the court stated that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to ensure effectiveness of the stated Militia. However, even with this departure the decision in Heller is limited in its scope. The only right specifically mentioned in the Supreme Court's opinion is the right of an individual to possess a gun for self-defense in the home.

Did this limited decision stop the NRA from its propaganda campaign? Of course not. On Meet the Press on March 24, 2013, Wayne LaPierre declared to the nation that under the Heller decision it would be an "absolute abridgement" of constitutional rights to regulate assault weapons. That myth, heard by millions, was intended to again mislead the country into believing that there are sweeping Second Amendment rights that cannot be regulated. Nonsense. The very language of the Supreme Court opinion in Heller calls out LaPierre as a liar.

How can the American people be educated to understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of that Amendment? Such an education process could lead to sweeping reform of state and federal regulation of firearms. But how is the mindset of the American people to be changed? The same way our mindset about drunk driving and smoking changed over time. Let's take a look at the circumstances involved in smoking. Smokers 35 years ago would never have believed there would be no public smoking. When harms caused by drunk drivers and tobacco users were known in clear terms, the mindset of the public changed. New reforms, enforcement of laws and demands for a safer society became reachable goals. The change in that mindset did not take place in a day a week or a year. Nor will the change in the mindset regarding Second Amendment rights change overnight. But it is the education of the citizenry and the education of our lawmakers that is necessary in order for the calculated messaging of the NRA to be known for what it is: Lies, myths and fictions that have harmed and killed our citizens and will continue to do so until an enlightened view of the very limited scope of Second Amendment rights is known, understood and acted upon.

The defense rested its case in the murder trial of Jodi Arias Tuesday, and the prosecution began their rebuttal case.

The defense team in the Phoenix courtroom rested at the start of the day without calling any additional witnesses to testify.

"At this point, the defense rests," attorney Kirk Nurmi told the judge.

The decision came after about 2 1/2 months of testimony.

Prosecutor Juan Martinez started the states rebuttal by calling Arizona clinical psychologist Janeen DeMarte.

DeMarte testified she conducted an evaluation of Arias and administered several tests on reading, intelligence and memory.

"She performed well on it," DeMarte said of the memory test she gave Arias.

In regard to the IQ test, DeMarte said Arias scored a 119.

• Jodi Arias Crime Scene Photos (GRAPHIC)
• Who's Who In The Jodi Arias Case (PHOTOS)
• Jodi Arias Personal Photos
• Jodi Arias Timeline: Key Dates In The Case
• More Jodi Arias Coverage

Arias, a 32-year-old photographer, is accused of shooting Alexander in the face, stabbing him 27 times, and slitting his throat from ear to ear in the shower of his Mesa apartment on June 4, 2008. She has pleaded not guilty to murder, contending that she killed Alexander in self-defense.

Prosecutors allege Arias was jealous and did not want Alexander to see other women.

DeMarte said she reviewed an evaluation of Arias by Dr. Cheryl L. Karp, the Vice-Chairperson for the State of Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners. DeMarte said Arias indicated more episodes of alleged abuse to Dr. Karp than she did to herself and the other defense experts.

"She told me there were four distinct episodes of alleged abuse," Demarte said of her evaluation of Arias.

Martinez then asked DeMarte how many incidents of alleged abuse Arias recounted to Dr. Karp.

"I can't even count [them] ... there was numerous reports of frequent abuse and threatening behavior," DeMarte said.

DeMarte said she diagnosed Arias with borderline personality disorder. She also testified she found no evidence to believe Arias' claims about her memory problems or that she was a victim of domestic violence and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.

"There wasn't symptoms that were consistent with that diagnosis," she said of the PTSD.

During cross-examination by defense attorney Jennifer Willmott, DeMarte stood her ground. She did not flinch when the attorney suggested she was too young or lacked experience. At one point Willmott asked DeMarte about her knowledge of Alyce LaViolette, the defense teams domestic violence expert.

Willmott pointed out that DeMarte had not been born when LaViolette got her Masters degree in 1980.

Willmott is expected to continue her redirect of DeMarte on Wednesday, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern time.

TUESDAYS LIVE BLOG:

(Adds details on the process)

By Olivia Oran, Greg Roumeliotis and Martinne Geller

April 17 (Reuters) - Private equity mogul Stephen Feinberg may bid for the Bushmaster rifle maker that his firm Cerberus Capital Management LP put up for sale after one of its guns was used in a Connecticut school shooting, three sources familiar with the situation said.

Feinberg, along with other senior Cerberus partners, is putting together a consortium to make a "stalking horse" offer designed to spur competition for Freedom Group, which makes the Bushmaster rifle, the sources said on Tuesday.

Cerberus is under pressure from the public as well as investors in its funds to sell Freedom Group following the massacre that took place in December in Newtown, Connecticut.

A bid by Feinberg for a company that his own firm owns would be a rare move in the private equity industry. The move raises potential conflict of interest issues, as it could pit the founder's interest against those of the investors in Cerberus funds, known as limited partners. It may also indicate Cerberus may be having problems in selling the company. Banking sources have said that major Wall Street firms have been unwilling to finance a bid for Freedom Group.

Feinberg has approached other wealthy individuals to join him in the bid, the sources said, who declined to be identified because the auction is private. He has not made a bid and may yet decide against it, they said.

Cerberus declined to comment and declined to make Feinberg available for an interview, while representatives of Freedom Group could not be reached for comment.

Freedom Group's AR-15 type Bushmaster rifle was used in the December shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, which left 20 children and six adults dead.

University of California is among Cerberus investors that have been putting pressure on the private equity firm to quickly sell Freedom Group.

"We do not want to have investments in companies that sell, manufacturer or distribute firearms," spokeswoman Dianne Klein said in an email on Tuesday. The university has a $1 million indirect investment in Bushmaster through a Cerberus private equity fund.

Cerberus' fund investors also include some of the largest U.S. public pension funds. CalSTRS, the California State Teachers' Retirement System, said in December it was reviewing its investment with Cerberus in the wake of the shooting. CalSTRS could not immediately be reached for comment.

Soon after the shootings, Cerberus said it would look for a buyer and hired investment bank Lazard Ltd to help sell the business.

Lazard declined to comment.

The stocks of publicly traded gunmakers such as Smith & Wesson Holding Corp and Sturm Ruger & Co, which fell after the shooting, have since recovered.

Proposed gun control legislation in U.S. Congress since the shootings has made only modest progress and has been heavily watered down.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST

One of the sources familiar with the auction said Cerberus is planning to prevent conflicts of interests through measures including setting up an independent committee of Freedom Group's board of directors as well as a special shareholders committee.

Under the plan, the independent board committee would include former generals and industry experts, while the shareholders committee would include investors in Cerberus' funds whose capital was committed for the Freedom Group investment, the source said.

These two committees would then negotiate with Feinberg's consortium and decide on the eventual sale, the source said.

Cerberus has also designed other measures to make sure the auction is fair if Feinberg decides to bid, the source said. If another buyer bids 10 percent or more above the stalking horse bid, Feinberg would be forced to drop out of the auction, the source said.

There also would not be any break-up fee or other expenses paid by the company if Feinberg's bid is topped by another party, the source added.

Feinberg and other senior Cerberus partners plan to invest their own money as well as roll over any existing stakes in the company to fund the bid, the source said.

Under the bid being contemplated, Feinberg plans to be a minority investor, but he and his Cerberus partners could end up controlling the company, the source added.

Cerberus bought firearms maker Bushmaster in 2006 and later merged it with other gun companies to create Freedom Group. The company's sales rose about 20 percent to $931.9 million in 2012.

Feinberg worked at investment banks Drexel Burnham Lambert and Gruntal & Co before co-founding Cerberus in 1992 along with William Richter. Cerberus has more than $20 billion under management.

Feinberg's father, Martin Feinberg, is a resident of Newtown, public records showed last year. (Additional reporting by Peter Henderson in San Francisco; Editing by Soyoung Kim, Paritosh Bansal, Chris Gallagher and Ryan Woo)

My father-in-law, Wilbert Knop, is a gun owner. A Southern Illinois farmer, "Grandpa Wib" owns a shotgun and two rifles that he uses rarely and stores in a safe place.

Pam Bosley lost her son to gun violence. A Chicago banker, Pam's son was killed in a drive-by shooting while helping a friend carry a drum set into a church concert. She wants her community to be a safe place.

Both Grandpa Wib and Pam must abide by the same gun laws. But they come at the issue from different perspectives.

These regional differences are on display in Springfield right now as the Illinois Legislature faces a court-ordered deadline. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit gave us until June to pass a law enabling some people to carry concealed, loaded firearms outside of their homes.

Because the state needs to get this law enacted quickly, and because opinions on firearms often differ based on where we live, I organized the Firearms Working Group for new members of the Illinois Legislature.

The members came from urban, suburban and rural parts of the state to listen and learn. We met with firearms owners, families of shooting victims, state and local law enforcement officials, advocates for the mentally ill, advocates for survivors of domestic violence, and many others.

Several working group members and I found common ground in a set of principles legislators should use to evaluate legislation.

For example, local input. Much attention is focused on whether our state will be a "shall issue" or a "may issue" state, a way of describing whether there is any discretion in the issuing of concealed carry permits. I agree with St. Clair State's Attorney Brendan Kelly who told us that the distinction is not as critical as it may seem.

A Maryland court recently upheld a law that requires applicants to demonstrate a specific need to receive a permit. The law blurs the line between permits that are automatically issued and permits issued on a discretionary basis. Illinois should also allow local sheriffs and police chiefs to provide input on applicants before the state issues a permit. The bottom line is that we need to focus less on labels and more on the content of the law.

Cost is another real consideration. The Illinois State Police administers Firearm Owner Identification cards to make sure that only those who are qualified can purchase guns in Illinois. Issuing concealed carry permits will require even more work, since permit holders will be able to take their loaded firearms beyond their homes and property. We need to make sure that those who seek a permit pay for the safety checks that protect us.

Finally, our group learned that for many residents of our state, safety and constitutionality are important, but they are not mutually exclusive ideas. From gun owners to grieving parents, Illinoisans respect our constitution and our deeply held desire for safety. They agree that we should conduct comprehensive background checks and deny permits to people with mental illness or histories of domestic abuse.

We must respect our constitutional rights to firearms in the same way we respect our constitutional right to freedom of speech. We guard our freedoms in this country, and often that means balancing competing freedoms. It's not easy, but we have a track record of making it work.

Let's use our freedom of speech to not just speak, but to listen. Let's listen to the realities of our rural relatives and grieving parents. Let's listen to Illinoisans who want a smart, safe, constitutional law for our state.