Gun Control

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares99 Views

    In Maine Battleground, Democrat Golden Grasps to Win Over Trump Voters

    by

    To win his toughest re-election bid yet, Representative Jared Golden needs Trump voters to back him over a young Republican prospect, a former NASCAR driver.On a recent Sunday morning, Representative Jared Golden sat perched atop a bar stool inside a small-town Maine brewery, greeting supporters who had gathered to watch the New England Patriots game and meet their congressman.Wearing his Julian Edelman jersey, Mr. Golden, one of Democrats’ most battle-tested and vulnerable incumbents, sipped a stein of dark lager and waited calmly for people to approach him. He did not work the room, no campaign signs adorned the walls, and his staff did not foist yard signs or buttons on attendees as they left.Even with the election less than two weeks away, Mainers won’t find Mr. Golden making his closing argument at what he calls “big rah-rah rallies,” or appearing alongside high-profile Democratic Party figures.Instead, as he seeks a fourth term in a district that Donald J. Trump won handily in 2016 and 2020, Mr. Golden is going to great lengths to distance himself from his own party. He has declined to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris and not only refrained from attacking Mr. Trump but gone out of his way to pitch himself as a potential governing partner with the former president.As a conservative-leaning Democrat in a swing district, Mr. Golden, 42, has always had an uphill battle to election. But this year he is facing perhaps his most formidable challenger yet: Austin Theriault, 30, a former NASCAR driver and northern Maine native who was recruited by House Republicans.Austin Theriault, a former NASCAR driver recruited by the Republican Party to run for the House, preparing his car before a charity race in Lewiston, Maine, earlier this month.Ryan David Brown for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court to Decide Whether Mexico Can Sue U.S. Gun Makers

      by

      The justices will consider whether a 2005 law that gives gun makers broad immunity applies in the case, which accuses them of complicity in supplying cartels with weapons.The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether Mexico may sue gun manufacturers in the United States for aiding in the trafficking of weapons used by drug cartels.Mexico sued seven gun makers and one distributor in 2021, blaming them for rampant violence caused by illegal gun trafficking from the United States spurred by the demand of Mexican drug cartels for military-style weapons.Mexico has strict gun control laws that it says make it virtually impossible for criminals to obtain firearms legally. Indeed, the suit said, its single gun store issues fewer than 50 permits a year. But gun violence is rampant.The lawsuit, which seeks billions of dollars in damages, said that 70 to 90 percent of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico came from the United States and that gun dealers in border states sell twice as many firearms as dealers in other parts of the country.Judge Dennis F. Saylor, of the Federal District Court in Boston, dismissed Mexico’s lawsuit, saying it was barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law that prohibits many kinds of suits against makers and distributors of firearms. The law, Judge Saylor wrote, “bars exactly this type of action from being brought in federal and state courts.”But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, revived the suit, saying that it qualified for an exception to the law, which authorizes claims for knowing violations of firearms laws that are a direct cause of the plaintiff’s injuriesIn urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, the gun makers said that “Mexico’s suit has no business in an American court.” Mexico’s legal theory, they added, was an “eight-step Rube Goldberg, starting with the lawful production and sale of firearms in the United States and ending with the harms that drug cartels inflict on the Mexican government.”“Absent this court’s intervention,” the gun makers’ petition continued, “Mexico’s multi-billion-dollar suit will hang over the American firearms industry for years, inflicting costly and intrusive discovery at the hands of a foreign sovereign that is trying to bully the industry into adopting a host of gun-control measures that have been repeatedly rejected by American voters.”In response, Mexico said the defendants were complicit in mass violence.“The flood of petitioners’ firearms from sources in the United States to cartels in Mexico is no accident,” Mexico’s brief said. “It results from petitioners’ knowing and deliberate choice to supply their products to bad actors, to allow reckless and unlawful practices that feed the crime-gun pipeline, and to design and market their products in ways that petitioners intend will drive up demand among the cartels.” More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Biden, Eyeing His Legacy, Signs Executive Orders on Gun Safety

      by

      The president used a poignant White House ceremony to pass the baton to Vice President Kamala Harris, who has made gun safety an issue in her campaign.President Biden, frustrated with congressional inaction on gun violence and seeking to secure the issue as part of his legacy, said on Thursday that he was using his executive authority to improve school preparedness and to stem the tide of untraceable weapons and devices that make firearms more deadly.Mr. Biden made the announcement at a packed and poignant ceremony in the East Room of the White House, where he was introduced by the mayor of Birmingham, Ala., Randall Woodfin. Mr. Woodfin’s brother was killed by gun violence, and his city has been grieving after a mass shooting left four people dead last week. Scores of activists and gun violence survivors attended.The event was timed to the first anniversary of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which Mr. Biden created last year after signing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the first major gun safety bill in nearly 30 years. It was also a chance for Mr. Biden to pass the baton to the official who heads that office: Vice President Kamala Harris, who is leaning into gun violence prevention as an issue as she campaigns to succeed Mr. Biden.“We know how to stop these tragedies, and it is a false choice to suggest you are either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away,” said Ms. Harris, who spoke before Mr. Biden and who has said while campaigning that she owns a firearm for self-protection. “I am in favor of the Second Amendment, and I believe we need to reinstate the assault weapons ban.”She was referring to a provision in the 1994 crime bill, spearheaded by Mr. Biden when he was a senator, that banned certain types of military-style assault weapons for 10 years. The ban expired in 2004, when Congress refused to renew it.The executive orders, which Mr. Biden signed at the conclusion of the ceremony, do not have the force of law. Should former President Donald J. Trump win the White House in November, he could easily reverse them.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      California Can Ban Guns in Parks and Bars, but Not Hospitals, Court Says

      by

      California and Hawaii banned guns from various public venues. A federal appeals court dusted off the history books to help determine where to allow prohibitions.A federal appeals court on Friday partly reinstated firearm bans in California and Hawaii, finding that California could, for example, prohibit guns in parks, playgrounds and bars but not in banks or hospitals.The 3-0 ruling, by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, said that the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of gun rights was “seemingly arbitrary” and “hard to explain” at the moment. The court’s findings applied only to laws in those two states.The judges found that most of the prohibitions enacted last year by California and Hawaii met the constitutional standards set in a 2022 Supreme Court decision that drastically narrowed the legal standard for restrictions on firearms.That decision struck down a New York law that had strictly limited the carrying of guns outside homes. The Supreme Court found that restrictions on guns are constitutional only if courts can find an analogue “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” But, the court added, states could ban guns in “sensitive places” such as schools and courthouses.Democratic-led states rushed to rewrite laws to comply with the new interpretation, in some cases banning guns in dozens of specific locations. But federal judges last year struck down new laws in California and Hawaii.The Ninth Circuit judges ruled on Friday that California could prohibit guns in libraries, sports arenas, casinos, museums and restaurants that serve alcohol, in addition to parks, playgrounds and bars. Hawaii can ban guns on parks and beaches and in establishments serving alcohol.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia to Put School Shooting Suspect’s Parent on Trial, Testing a Novel Tactic

      by

      After four people were killed at Apalachee High School, prosecutors charged a student and his father, who officials say had given the boy the gun as a gift.In a landmark criminal case in Michigan earlier this year, James and Jennifer Crumbley became the first parents convicted in connection with killings carried out by their child in a mass shooting.Now, in the first mass school shooting in the United States since those convictions, Georgia officials appear poised to try the same tactic. On Thursday, prosecutors filed charges, including two counts of second-degree murder, against the father of the suspected gunman, saying he had provided a gun to his son “with knowledge that he was a threat to himself and others.”Such charges were all but unheard of before the Michigan case, and the Georgia prosecution will test the emerging push to hold parents responsible for mass shootings by young people.The bigger test may be whether the prospect of criminal prosecution spurs parents to do more to seek help for troubled children and to keep them away from guns in a country awash in firearms.Proponents of such prosecutions have said that charging parents can help prevent young people from carrying out such shootings. But critics say it’s a misguided effort that scapegoats parents while lawmakers fail to act to reduce gun violence. And its effectiveness as a deterrent may be limited by the deep dysfunction already at play in the families of some of the young people implicated in mass shootings.The prosecution of the Crumbleys, after their 15-year-old son killed four people in 2021 at a high school outside Detroit, was seen as a long shot. But in separate trials, the Crumbleys were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and were sentenced to 10 years in prison.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Walz’s Pennsylvania Campaign Swing Underscores Challenges in the Battleground

      by

      Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota on Thursday capped two days of crisscrossing Pennsylvania, talking up Vice President Kamala Harris’s experience, taking shots at former President Donald J. Trump and making his now familiar pleas to voters that they fight for freedom with optimism.“Look, it would be easier if we didn’t have to do this. It would be easier if these guys wouldn’t undermine our system, if they wouldn’t lie about elections, if they wouldn’t put women’s health at risk. But they are, so it’s a privilege for us to do the fight,” he said in Erie, Pa., where he stumped from a stage at the edge of Presque Isle Bay before hundreds of cheering supporters waving “Coach” and “Kamala” signs.The appearance was one of several events that Mr. Walz used to blitz the local media airwaves and fire up Democratic volunteers with the Midwestern dad charm that his party is banking on to help draw white working-class voters. Mr. Walz, and his daughter, Hope, hit several cities in counties that went for Mr. Trump in 2016 — stung by fading American manufacturing and a difficult economy.The shooting this week at Apalachee High School in Winder, Ga., added urgency to his message at the Erie rally and at local Democratic offices, where he stressed it was in voters’ power to elect leaders willing to pass gun-safety laws, tackle climate change and ensure freedom in health decisions.“I say it as a gun owner; I say it as a veteran; I say it as a hunter: none of the things we’re proposing infringes on your Second Amendment right. But what does infringe upon this is our children going to school and being killed,” he said at a Harris-Walz field office in Erie. “It is unacceptable, and it doesn’t have to be this way. So we end that with our votes. We end it with a vision of a better America.”Onstage later, he recalled sitting with the parents of children killed in the Sandy Hook shooting in Connecticut when he was still a member of Congress and a cardholder of the National Rifle Association. “I think about it — today, my son, this week, started his senior year of high school,” Mr. Walz said. “And it’s bittersweet for me because those killed at Sandy Hook would have been entering their senior year, too.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Thomas Crooks, Donald Trump, and the Banality of Gun Violence

      by

      Eleven of the last 12 American presidents have endured an assassination attempt or a plot against their lives. The same is true for 20 of the country’s 45.Most of the recent plots have been foiled early, making the indelible image of Donald Trump fist-pumping in Pennsylvania seem like an atavistic monument or an ominous portent, or perhaps both. In the bedtime-story version of our national mythology, the country left behind the violence and disorder of the 1960s decades ago, for what turned out to be a wobbly but enduring peaceful equilibrium, one whose veneer began to crack only recently, with violent rhetoric rekindling over the last decade especially prominently on the right. But as David Dayen noted in The American Prospect the day after the shooting, in the 1970s Gerald Ford was shot at, and in the 1980s Ronald Reagan was actually shot; in both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama’s presidencies, shots were fired at the White House.Not all of these attempts were serious, but if amateur marksmanship and a chance gust of wind are what spared Donald Trump’s life last Saturday, similar vicissitudes might have ended Ford’s or Reagan’s, as well, in which case we would all be telling very different stories about the last 50 years of American history. And though we may describe the stochastic terror of the last decade in terms of ugly bumper stickers and reckless speeches, there has been real violence, not just incitement. Gabrielle Giffords was in fact shot, and almost killed; Steve Scalise, too.“America is staring into the abyss,” The Financial Times declared in the aftermath of Saturday’s shooting, but often we see chaos around the corner as a way of telling ourselves it hasn’t already arrived. “No political party, movement, ideology or manner of thinking has had an absolute monopoly on this violence, and it really hasn’t mattered whether the surrounding political atmosphere was aggressive or docile,” Dayen wrote. “In our messy reality, political violence exists as a background hum.” Already, it seems, the assassination attempt has faded from the news, having hardly made a mark on the shape of the presidential race or, beyond a few ear bandages worn in showy solidarity, on the Republican National Convention which almost immediately followed.It’s not even clear whether it is right to call last weekend’s shooting an act of political violence. The attempted assassination produced only a brief flare of partisan meaning, though the motive was never clear. The gunman was a registered Republican and recognizably a conservative to classmates but not, it seems, an especially active or outraged political actor, and had not left much of a memorable ideological impression on those who knew him. He apparently donated $15 to a progressive organization in 2021, and as OSINT sleuths and self-deputized detectives argued about it over the weekend, it was striking to think how much meaning seemed to hang on a donation the size of a trip to Starbucks. When no obvious partisan explanation was immediately found, we simply moved on.Perhaps a motive will become clearer in the days ahead. But for now, there is not much more to go on, and it seems likeliest that the would-be assassin remains a kind of cipher. Like the Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock before him, Thomas Crooks briefly tore a rupture in the fabric of American reality only to fill the space with a kind of silence, a mute biography and an unstated philosophy — a peculiarly American kind of terrorism in which the act of violence does not call attention to a cause greater than the shooter or generate a politically strategic backlash. Instead, it briefly elevates the profile of the man with the gun.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Upholds Law Prohibiting Domestic Abusers From Owning Guns

      by

      The justices rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a federal law that makes it a crime for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess a gun.The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the government may disarm a Texas man subject to a domestic violence order, limiting the sweep of its earlier blockbuster decision that vastly expanded gun rights.That decision, issued in 2022, struck down a New York law that put strict limits on carrying guns outside the home. It also established a new legal standard for assessing laws limiting the possession of firearms, one whose reliance on historical practices has sown confusion as courts have struggled to apply it, with some judges sweeping aside gun control laws that have been on the books for decades.The new case, United States v. Rahimi, explored the scope of that new test. Only Justice Clarence Thomas, the author of the majority opinion in the 2022 decision, dissented.Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that Second Amendment rights had limits.“When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may — consistent with the Second Amendment — be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect,” he wrote. “Since the founding, our nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.”The case started in 2019 when Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer in Texas, assaulted his girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone, leading her to obtain a restraining order. The order suspended Mr. Rahimi’s handgun license and prohibited him from possessing firearms.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      It’s Unanimous: In the Senate, Neither Party Consents to the Other’s Ideas

      by

      Democrats sought to quickly reinstate a ban on gun bump stocks after a Supreme Court ruling. It was the latest Senate floor fight to end in a predictable stalemate.In the Senate, the term “U.C.” stands for “unanimous consent” — usually verbal shorthand for an agreement by all senators to quickly take up and pass a bill. But with the November elections just months away, it might as well stand for: “You see? Our political opponents are dead wrong on this issue.”With the focus of the political universe turning to the upcoming fight for control of Congress and the White House, lawmakers are spending most of their time not on real legislative work but in trying to corner their rivals on hot-button issues.On the Senate floor in recent days, those efforts have often taken the form of unanimous consent requests that are designed to fail, thus spotlighting one party or another’s refusal to agree to a policy proposal.Such procedural skirmishes provide a shortcut to Senate showdowns on wedge issues or subjects on which one party believes it has the upper hand. That was the case on Tuesday, when Democrats attempted to quickly bring up and pass a bill that would outlaw gun bump stocks after the Supreme Court last week struck down a ban on the devices.Like similar recent maneuvers, Democrats knew the U.C. attempt would fail because of a Republican objection, but they tried anyway in a bid to give themselves a talking point against the G.O.P.“What today’s bill does is return things to the status quo set by Donald Trump, saying bump stocks are dangerous and should be prohibited,” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said on Tuesday. “Senate Republicans by and large supported Donald Trump’s ban on bump stocks back then, so they should support this bill today.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More