US gun control

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      I’m a Black gun owner. I have mixed feelings about gun control | Akin Olla

      by

      I’m a Black gun owner. I have mixed feelings about gun controlAkin OllaI don’t have much faith that the state will protect me from violence – and I know that gun control laws have historically been used to target Black people, socialists and people who challenge the status quo The mass murder of elementary school students in Uvalde, Texas, and a white supremacist attack on Black residents of Buffalo, New York, have reignited the American gun control debate. Both atrocities have left me feeling more broken than I thought possible. As a Black, leftwing gun owner, however, I’m also struck by a feeling of unease.I believe in many forms of gun control, but the conversation about guns on the left often lacks complexity as we scramble for a simple answer to an extremely complicated problem. I don’t have much faith that the government will protect me or other minority Americans from the kind of violence that the police ostensibly exist to combat, and I know that gun control laws have historically been used to target Black people, particularly Black socialists like myself.I’m also not convinced that most current gun control proposals will even solve the problem. Consider the country’s deadliest school shooting, the Virginia Tech murders of 2007. The perpetrator passed his background check and used weapons that most gun control bans wouldn’t affect. A waiting period might have delayed his attack but his level of premeditation implies it was nearly inevitable. I feel sorrow for what happened. Yet I feel that as a society we tend to fight over specific gun control policies – some effective, some not – while ignoring the violent nature of the country we live in and the culture that drives almost exclusively men to commit mass murder.I never thought I’d be a gun owner. I’m not particularly fond of guns. If anything, they terrify me. I’ve generally hoped my charming personality and acumen at fisticuffs would be enough to deter would-be aggressors; it wasn’t until the terror that I experienced during the George Floyd uprising that I, like many Black Americans, was moved to become a first-time gun owner.I’d participated in protests and witnessed the sheer brutality of the Philadelphia police as they attacked my partner, threatened an elderly woman, and enveloped the entirety of my neighborhood in teargas. I watched Black parents flee their homes, gagging, eyes red, small children in tow. When I and others working as medical volunteers tried to evacuate the injured and elderly, we were met with pepper spray, rubber bullets, and batons. On the other side of the city, police officers let white vigilantes with baseball bats patrol the streets. None of this buttressed my belief that the police existed to protect me from violence.Around this time I, like other socialist organizers, received written threats. After a series of them, as well as a direct, in-person threat to my life made in front of my home, I buckled and decided I needed a weapon, and soon. Even without the specific threats, I was wrestling with a sense that society was on the brink. It may sound paranoid now, but to be Black in the midst of the George Floyd uprising and the tail end of the Trump presidency was a time to be paranoid. Guns and ammunition were sold out across the country. More than 5 million new gun owners purchased weapons in 2020, a more than 100% increase from the previous year. After a background check and a few days for the order to be processed, I picked up a gun from a store located in a man’s home in a dreamlike suburban cul-de-sac.America is steeped in violence. And the roots of that violence go deep | Moustafa BayoumiRead moreDespite owning a gun, I do think gun control is overdue and necessary. But I also can’t ignore the history of American gun control. Much of the modern debate around gun control began in the 1960s, after the state of California – with support, ironically enough, from the NRA – pushed through legislation in response to the Black Panther party and other armed militant groups. We must ensure that any new gun control laws do not disproportionately limit minority communities’ ability to own arms for reasons of legitimate self-defense, which may be impossible given that most laws in a country as steeped in racism as ours will inevitably be exploited to oppress the already oppressed.There are moments in US history when the right to own weapons made the difference between life and death for communities of color, such as the armed resistance against the Ku Klux Klan by the Lumbee Tribe in 1958. And despite the common perception of the civil rights movement, many activists kept guns in their homes or were protected by those who did. There was a time when Dr Martin Luther King Jr was described as having an arsenal in his home.To honestly address mass shootings, we must be willing to have difficult conversations about the complexity of all of this, and also accept that some solutions will involve restructuring our society. We have to accept that gun control may mean some people that reasonably fear for their lives will be left at the whim of fascists and police. We have to accept that mass shootings will absolutely still occur. We have to accept and analyze the reality that one of the most common denominators among shooters is their hate for women – as the Texas shooter, who shot his grandmother before carrying out his school massacre, sadly reminded us.And we have to realize the racist nature of this country and its violent roots. The founder of Uvalde, Texas, was shot and killed in 1867, probably not too far from where the elementary school shooting occurred. His alleged offense was opposing southern secession and supporting the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. His blood stains that town just as the blood of millions of Indigenous people and enslaved Africans stains the entirety of the United States.Gun control may be a good start to saving lives, but this country must be made new, and the lives of women, little children, and Black families made valuable. Until then, I sit uneasy.
      Akin Olla is a contributing opinion writer at the Guardian
      TopicsUS gun controlOpinionUS politicsGun crimeUS constitution and civil libertiesLaw (US)Texas school shootingBuffalo shootingcommentReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Uvalde native Matthew McConaughey says ‘real change can happen’ on gun reform – as it happened

      by

      The daily White House press briefing has started, and at the podium is actor and Uvalde native Matthew McConaughey, who is making his pitch for gun control.McConaughey said he’d spent the past week in his home town and was now in Washington to share stories of the victims and their families in hopes of swaying lawmakers skeptical of gun control legislation.“While we honor and acknowledge the victims, we need to recognize that this time seems that something is different,” McConaughey said, speaking from behind the White House podium. “There’s a sense that perhaps there’s a viable path forward. Responsible parties in this debate seem to at least be committed to sitting down and having a real conversation about a new and improved path forward.”“I’m here today in hopes of applying what energy, reason and passion that I have and to try to turn this moment into a reality. Because as I said, this moment is different. We are in a window of opportunity right now that we have not been in before. A window where it seems like real change. Real change can happen,” he continued.You can tune into the full briefing here.That’s it from us today. Here’s how the day unfolded in Washington, as voters in several states head to the polls:
      Primaries are being held in California, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota to choose candidates for the upcoming midterm elections in November. At the local level, voters in San Francisco are weighing whether to oust District Attorney Chesa Boudin amid rising concerns about crime and homelessness in the city.
      Actor Matthew McConaughey appeared at the White House press briefing to urge lawmakers to strengthen gun laws. McConaughey, who was born in Uvalde, recounted his experiences meeting with families who lost children in the massacre at Robb Elementary school last month. He told reporters, “We are in a window of opportunity right now that we have not been in before — a window where it seems like real change, real change can happen.”
      The Senate judiciary committee held a hearing on domestic terrorism in response to the racist shooting in Buffalo last month. Among those who testified was Garnell Whitfield Jr, whose mother was killed in the Buffalo attack. Whitfield said at the hearing, “I ask every one of you to imagine the faces of your mothers, as you look at mine and ask yourself, is there nothing that we can do? Is there nothing that you personally are willing to do to stop the cancer of white supremacy?”
      Joe Biden met with Democratic Senator Chris Murphy to discuss negotiations over a compromise gun-control bill. After the meeting, Murphy said he was optimistic about the progress being made in talks with his Republican colleagues. “I am encouraged by the discussions that we have had with Republicans over the course of the last week and a half,” Murphy told reporters on Capitol Hill. “Every day we get closer to an agreement, not further away.”
      Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer and House speaker Nancy Pelosi attended a memorial service for the victims of gun violence on the National Mall. At the memorial, Pelosi condemned Republicans for opposing gun-control legislation in the wake of tragedies like the Uvalde massacre and the shooting in Buffalo. She said, “Understand this: your political survival is nothing compared to the survival of our children.”
      The blog will be back tomorrow with more coverage of the Senate’s gun-control negotiations and the January 6 committee’s upcoming hearing. See you then.Further up the west coast, my colleague Hallie Golden has an article out today about how a recent study found the terrifying tsunami threat to the Pacific Northwest from the Cascadia fault may be even more scary than originally known:Scientists have long predicted a giant 9.0-magnitude earthquake that reverberates out from the Pacific north-west’s Cascadia fault and quickly triggers colossal waves barreling to shore.But what if these predictions were missing an important piece of information – one that, in certain scenarios, could tell an even more extreme story?A new study, published last month in the peer-reviewed journal Earth-Science Reviews, points toward such a missing piece. Researchers revealed a previously unknown relationship between the severity of a tsunami triggered by an earthquake and something known as “the outer wedge”, the area between the main earthquake fault and the seafloor.A mega-tsunami in the Pacific north-west? It could be worse than predicted, study saysRead moreThus far, Californians don’t seem particularly stoked on this election. While every registered voter was mailed a ballot, only 15% of them were returned early as of Monday evening, the Los Angeles Times reports.The piece chalks the lack of enthusiasm up to a variety of factors unique to the Golden State, including voters’ weariness following last year’s failed recall of Governor Gavin Newsom, the lack of high-profile races and the fact that the polls aren’t viewed as an opportunity to weigh in on the ever-controversial Donald Trump and his allies. From the piece:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} Election experts say the lackluster participation by Californians stems from a dearth of excitement over this year’s contests, which largely lack competitive races at the top of the ticket. It’s a stark contrast with some parts of the nation, where voter turnout is exceeding expectations.
      “It’s a boring election,” said Paul Mitchell, vice president of PDI. “It’s clear from what we’re seeing that we’re going to have a low-turnout election despite the fact the state has made it easier than ever to vote.”
      The Democratic consultant predicts primary turnout is likely to be under 30%. “Nothing puts this in better contrast than looking at Georgia right now: They’re doing everything they can, it seems, to make it harder to vote, yet they are having record turnout because voters there feel the future of the country is at stake.”
      Georgia’s May 24 primary came after a GOP-backed law imposed new voting requirements and restrictions.
      Some predicted that a leaked Supreme Court draft decision eliminating federal protection for abortion access as well as a spate of high-profile mass shootings could motivate voters. But in California, this does not appear to be the case.
      California’s early returns are a major drop off from the same period in September’s gubernatorial recall election, when nearly 38% of voters had voted as of election eve. Some 22% of voters had cast ballots at the same point before the last midterm primary election, in 2018, when ballots were not mailed to all California voters.Polls are open in California until 8pm.Meanwhile in California, polls are open in the state’s primary election, where voters will decide among a slew of candidates. Particularly closely watched will be the mayor’s race in Los Angeles and the petition to recall the prosecutor in San Francisco. The Guardian’s Lois Beckett dove into these issues and what they portend for politics in the country’s most-populous state.High stakes primary races taking place on Tuesday in California are expected to have major consequences for police reform, incarceration, and the state’s growing homelessness crisis.The most closely watched race is the mayor’s contest in Los Angeles, where voters are deciding between a tough-on-crime real estate developer, Rick Caruso, who has already poured nearly $40m of his own fortune into his primary campaign, and the former community organizer and Democratic congresswoman Karen Bass. In San Francisco, the city’s progressive prosecutor, Chesa Boudin, is facing a recall election that could have a major impact on movements for criminal justice reform across the US.High-stakes California races will decide LA mayor and San Francisco recall Read moreDemocratic Senator Chris Murphy, who is taking a leading role in crafting a compromise gun-control bill, said lawmakers are making progress in their negotiations.Speaking at a press conference on Capitol Hill, Murphy said this felt like “a moment where doing nothing is simply not an option,” in the wake of the massacre at Robb Elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.“I am encouraged by the discussions that we have had with Republicans over the course of the last week and a half,” Murphy told reporters. “Every day we get closer to an agreement, not further away.”Sen. Chris Murphy: “I am encouraged by the discussions that we have had with Republicans over the course of the last week and a half. Every day we get closer to an agreement, not further away.” pic.twitter.com/aR6wUHsjU1— CSPAN (@cspan) June 7, 2022
      Murphy acknowledged that a compromise bill would not encompass all of the gun-control proposals he would like to see enacted, but he emphasized the importance of reaching an agreement with his Republican colleagues.“The American people are looking for progress right now. They’re looking for action,” Murphy said. “And my hope is, in the coming days, we’ll be able to come together in a way that gets us 60-plus votes.”Noting that he is the father of a fourth-grader, Murphy expressed hope that Americans could soon live in a country where their children do not have to go through drills to prepare for a tragedy like the one seen in Uvalde.McConaughey is telling the story of slain 10-year-old Alithia Ramirez, describing how, due to the wounds inflicted on her by the AR-15 style weapon used in the Uvalde shooting, she was identified by the green Converse sneakers she wore to school that day.“Counselors are going to be needed in Uvalde for a long time. Counselors are needed,” McConaughey said. “I was told by many that takes a good year before people even understand what to do next … A lifetime is not going to heal those wounds.”“This gun responsibility issue is one that we agree on more than we don’t,” he continued. “But this should be a non-partisan issue. This should not be a partisan issue. There is not a Democratic or Republican value in one single act of the issue.”After wrapping up his speech, McConaughey left the room.The daily White House press briefing has started, and at the podium is actor and Uvalde native Matthew McConaughey, who is making his pitch for gun control.McConaughey said he’d spent the past week in his home town and was now in Washington to share stories of the victims and their families in hopes of swaying lawmakers skeptical of gun control legislation.“While we honor and acknowledge the victims, we need to recognize that this time seems that something is different,” McConaughey said, speaking from behind the White House podium. “There’s a sense that perhaps there’s a viable path forward. Responsible parties in this debate seem to at least be committed to sitting down and having a real conversation about a new and improved path forward.”“I’m here today in hopes of applying what energy, reason and passion that I have and to try to turn this moment into a reality. Because as I said, this moment is different. We are in a window of opportunity right now that we have not been in before. A window where it seems like real change. Real change can happen,” he continued.You can tune into the full briefing here.A package of legislation addressing gun violence will be introduced tomorrow in the House, its speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday:House update: Pelosi says gun package coming to the floor tomorrow: “Tomorrow, our Democratic Majority will bring the Protecting Our Kids Act to the Floor, under the leadership of Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler”— Jordain Carney (@jordainc) June 7, 2022
      It’s unclear if this proposal is related to the ongoing negotiations in the Senate, where Democrats and Republicans are trying to reach a bipartisan compromise that can clear the 60-vote bar needed for passage.Actor Matthew McConaughey will appear at the White House press briefing this afternoon, which is expected to begin at any moment.McConaughey was born in Uvalde, Texas, and he has voiced ardent support for strengthening America’s gun laws in the wake of the massacre at Robb Elementary school.In an op-ed published Monday, McConaughey wrote, “I believe that responsible, law-abiding Americans have a Second Amendment right, enshrined by our founders, to bear arms. I also believe we have a cultural obligation to take steps toward slowing down the senseless killing of our children.”In addition to his appearance at the White House, McConaughey met earlier today with House speaker Nancy Pelosi to discuss the ongoing negotiations over gun-control legislation.“After the recent tragedy in his hometown of Uvalde, we agreed on the need for urgent action to save lives — especially for the children,” Pelosi said on Twitter.Today, I had the privilege of welcoming @McConaughey to the US Capitol to discuss Congress’ efforts on gun violence prevention legislation. After the recent tragedy in his hometown of Uvalde, we agreed on the need for urgent action to save lives — especially for the children. pic.twitter.com/8eVpVDLUhJ— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) June 7, 2022
      The shooters in both Uvalde and Buffalo used an AR-15 style rifle, which many Democrats have said they would love to ban nationwide, while Republican have been more hesitant. CNN reporter Manu Raju has today been going around the Capitol asking Republican senators what people need AR-15s for.Here’s Missouri Senator Josh Hawley’s views:CNN’s @mkraju: “Why do people need [AR-15s]?”Sen. Hawley (R-MO): “That’s used for sporting events, for sporting activities all the time.”@mkraju: “People misuse them obviously.”Hawley: “People misuse handguns all the time. I think this [Uvalde] kid had a handgun as well.” pic.twitter.com/D9771zukF9— The Recount (@therecount) June 7, 2022
      And in this clip, John Thune of South Dakota and Texas’s John Cornyn, who has been negotiating with Democrat Chris Murphy on a potential gun deal, weigh in:Thune tells me on AR-15s: “In my state, they use them to shoot prairie dogs and other types of varmint”Cornyn: “You’re talking about a constitutional right to keep and bear arms — people who are law-abiding citizens are in good mental health and aren’t a threat to the public” pic.twitter.com/AffMpM7tQR— Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 7, 2022
      It’s worth pointing out that the AR-15 was not always available to American gun owners. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban specifically prohibited the Colt AR-15 and some similar weapons, though that measure lapsed in 2004. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Only cultural change will free America from its gun problem | Andrew Gawthorpe

      by

      Only cultural change will free America from its gun problemAndrew GawthorpeThe movement to protect innocent lives from gun violence is a multi-generational struggle akin to that which won African Americans civil rights or gay Americans the right to marry Some days it feels like guns are such a foundational part of American identity that the country would have to cease to be itself before it would give them up. When a gunman murdered dozens of elementary-age schoolchildren, leaving their bodies in such a state that parents had to give up DNA samples for them to be identified, it was one such day. What cultural value, what material interest, could be worth this? It must be something that its defenders consider supremely important.Guns – that’s what. Critics of the sickness which is America’s obsession with guns often focus their fire on the second amendment, or the perverse political influence of the National Rifle Association. But neither of these things really get to the root of the pathology. It’s true that gun-rights advocates rely on a surely mistaken reading of the constitution to justify arming themselves to the teeth. And it’s also true that the NRA is a malign force in American politics. But the constitution can be changed or reinterpreted, and special interest groups can be vanquished. What is at issue here is something more foundational, and more difficult to change: American culture itself.The gun is the great symbol, and poisonous offshoot, of American individualism. The country has long valorized masculine heroes – the cowboy, the frontiersman, the patriotic soldier – who impose their will on the community’s enemies with violence. It’s no coincidence that whenever a horrific mass shooting occurs, those in favor of guns respond by claiming that the solution to the guns of the bad guys is more guns in the hands of the good guys. Such reasoning responds to a deep-seated American historical myth, and allows the speaker to imagine themselves as the hero.But they are not heroes – far from it. Mass shooters may be, as the writer John Ganz put it, the “nightmare obverse” of the ideal of the lone frontiersman. But everyone else who defends their own right to possess a gun, who lauds guns as the bringers of peace and order, is guilty too. Their choices make society less safe, not more. The pleasure derived from guns, the sense of participation in America’s deepest myths about itself which they might foster, come at the expense of tens of thousands of lives a year. Sometimes, they are the lives of small children, innocent to the ways of a world which has allowed them to die.Men own guns at nearly twice the rate of women, and within all of this there is something deeply pathetic about the state of American manhood. American gun culture treats ownership of weapons of war as a sign of masculinity and virility, something that makes you more of a man. Almost anywhere else in the western world, a man seeking to demonstrate his masculinity in this way would be treated as an absurd and tragic poser. No doubt many gun owners tell themselves that they are better equipped to protect the innocent. But they are wrong. Rather, gun culture reveals the centrality of violence to American conceptions of manhood – a violence which ultimately harms rather than protects.If the problem is cultural, then what is the solution? There is no easy one. By now, the grooves of the debate are well-worn, and even a shocking event like the Uvalde massacre will not shake us out of it for long. Proposals to change the law or the constitution will be bitterly criticized, and gun-rights proponents will present the shooter as an anomaly who holds no lessons for “responsible” gun-owners. The supreme court is expected soon to loosen rather than tighten the law around carrying guns in public. Republicans will angrily decry attempts to “politicize” the massacre, as if the fact that innocent children are being brutally murdered due to the policies those very same Republicans support was not already a political issue of the highest order.But cultural change is not impossible. It has happened in recent decades on very important issues. America also contains within itself the will to self-improvement, and citizens who will give their all to achieve it. Sometimes it comes before political or legal change, and sometimes it comes after it. The only way to avoid despair is to see the struggle to protect innocent lives against the ravages of gun violence as a multi-generational struggle akin to that which won African Americans the right to vote, or that which won the right to gay marriage. Each of these required Americans in the grip of myths and pathologies to relinquish them, and each at one time seemed impossible. But change did eventually come.The path ahead will not be easy – and, as the supreme court’s expected ruling on Roe v Wade has shown, there will be setbacks along the way. Those who embody a pathological understanding of what America should be are currently ascendant, and there will be no easy victory over them. But despair would be surrender. That’s why for now there is the need to mourn the tiny lives which were extinguished. Remember them, and in doing so remember something else: America’s genius is that it can be changed, never quickly enough, but always in the end. It’s a slim hope to grasp onto in this moment of rage and sorrow, but it may be all that we have left.
      Andrew Gawthorpe is a historian of the United States and the host of the podcast America Explained
      TopicsUS gun controlOpinionNRAUS politicsGun crimeUS constitution and civil libertiesRepublicanscommentReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Gun crime victims are holding the firearms industry accountable – by taking them to court

      by

      Gun crime victims are holding the firearms industry accountable – by taking them to courtFollowing the strategy used in legal actions against cigarette and opioid firms, the lawsuits attempt to sidestep a law shielding gun makers With each slaughter of innocents, the gun industry offers its sympathy, argues that even more weapons will make America safer, and gives thanks for a two-decade-old law shielding the firearms makers from legal action by the victims.Mike Fifer, the chief executive of one of the US’s leading handgun manufacturers, Sturm Ruger, once described the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) as having saved the firearms industry because it stopped in its tracks a wave of lawsuits over the reckless marketing and sale of guns.But now victims of gun crime are following an alternative path forged by legal actions against cigarette makers, prescription opioid manufacturers and big oil in an attempt to work around PLCAA – and the lack of political will to act on gun control – to hold the firearms industry accountable for the bloody toll of its products.‘Significant’ consequences if lawmakers fail to act on gun control, Democrat warnsRead moreOn Tuesday, Ilene Steur, who was badly injured when a man fired 33 shots on the New York subway in April wounding 10 people, filed a lawsuit accusing the manufacturer of the semi-automatic pistol used in the attack, Glock, of breaching “public nuisance” laws.Steur’s lawsuit contends that Glock endangered public health and safety in breach of New York state law with an irresponsible marketing campaign to push its gun’s “high capacity and ease of concealment” in an “appeal to prospective purchasers with criminal intent”.It also accuses Glock of giving significant discounts to American police departments on weapons purchases to “give the gun credibility” in the larger and more lucrative civilian market.“Gun manufacturers do not live in a bubble,” said Mark Shirian, Steur’s lawyer. “They are aware that their marketing strategies are empowering purchasers with ill intent and endangering the lives of innocent people. This lawsuit seeks to hold the gun industry accountable.”The public nuisance strategy has been used against the tobacco industry for lying about the link between cigarettes and lung cancer, and with mixed success against pharmaceutical companies for creating the US opioid epidemic by recklessly pushing prescription opioids.Public nuisance claims are also at the heart of a series of lawsuits by states and municipalities accusing oil firms of covering up and lying about the part fossil fuels play in driving the climate crisis.Until recently, the gun industry thought PLCAA provided a shield from similar actions. The National Rifle Association persuaded a Republican-controlled Congress to pass the law after the families of people shot by the sniper who terrorised the Washington DC area for three weeks in 2002, killing 10 people, won a total of $2.5m from the gun manufacturer, Bushmaster, and the store that sold the weapon.But a lawsuit by the families of 20 young children and six staff murdered in the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre sought to exploit an exception in PLCAA if a firearm is sold in violation of “applicable” state or federal law, in this case public nuisance and consumer protection legislation.The Connecticut supreme court upheld the argument that PLCAA did not prevent the gun maker being sued for breach of state laws for irresponsibly militaristic marketing campaigns for its semi-automatic rifles aimed at young men. Remington appealed to the US supreme court which declined to take the case while it was still in litigation. In February, Remington settled for $73m.At about the time the Connecticut supreme court ruled in favour of the Sandy Hook families, New York introduced the law Steur is relying on that expands public nuisance legislation to cover gun crimes. On Wednesday, a federal district judge in New York dismissed an attempt by the gun industry to quash the law on the grounds that it pre-empted PLCAA.Timothy Lytton, a specialist in gun litigation at Georgia State University college of law and author of Suing the Gun Industry, expects the validity of the New York law, and the claim that public nuisance legislation is an exception to the protection given to the gun industry, to be appealed all the way to the US supreme court.“The most important thing that the supreme court needs to decide with regard to firearms litigation is probably the scope of the federal immunity law and whether or not the exception that was relied upon by the Sandy Hook plaintiffs is a viable legal theory. If it’s a viable legal theory, then I think you’re likely to see an upsurge in litigation,” he said.But, Lytton said, legal actions against the gun industry face an additional challenge because of the supreme court’s interpretation of the second amendment and the rights it gives to gun owners, a legal area that has also yet to be more widely tested.“There are limits on the ability to sue a newspaper for libel because of the first amendment. It may be the case that the second amendment has similar restrictions on the ability of individuals to hold the firearms manufacturer liable. But we don’t know what those restrictions might be because we have very little indication from the supreme court about what the second amendment actually protects other than a basic right for an individual to own a firearm that they can use for ordinary purposes,” he said.Still, as litigation against the tobacco, opioid and oil industries demonstrates, the point of lawsuits is not only to win in court. After each massacre, the gun industry usually seeks to blame the individual shooter and the failure of systems, such as mental health services. Lytton said lawsuits put the focus back on the actions of the firearms makers and forces public discussion of how they sell weapons.“The impact of litigation is not just about who wins and who loses. It’s about the framing, information disclosure and agenda-setting effects that the litigation process creates even if the plaintiffs lose. A great example of that is clergy sexual abuse.“Almost none of those suits have been won and almost none of them in front of a jury. But they’ve revolutionised the global church because of these three effects of the litigation,” he said.Two decades of litigation over the US opioid epidemic that has claimed more than 1 million lives has shifted the focus away from the drug industry’s attempt to blame the victims for their addiction to the big pharma’s responsibility for pushing the wide use of prescription narcotics despite the dangers. Highly embarrassing revelations in several court cases about the drug companies’ cynical marketing techniques helped pressure opioid makers and distributors into settling thousands of lawsuits over the opioid epidemic.Similarly, states and cities suing the oil industry for lying about the climate crisis hope that public disclosure of what fossil fuel companies knew and when they knew it will add to pressure on big oil to reach settlements.But Lytton warned that strategy may not have the same impact on the gunmakers.“There’s something very different about firearms. When it comes to tobacco or opioids or pretty much any other area of public policy in the United States, people tend to reconsider their views and start to rethink the problem,” he said.“The only place in American public policy where this is not true is in firearms violence. No matter how terrible the tragedy is, people tend to get even more committed to the views that they already have.”TopicsUS gun controlUS politicsLaw (US)Gun crimenewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Proud Boys leader charged with seditious conspiracy related to Capitol attack – as it happened

      by

      Former leader of the Proud Boys far-right nationalist group Enrique Tarrio and four of his closest associates have been charged with seditious conspiracy related to the January 6 attack, according to a Justice Department filing released Monday.The rare charge against Tarrio as well as Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, Charles Donohoe, and Dominic Pezzola builds on conspiracy charges filed by the government earlier this year.In January, the Justice Department leveled seditious conspiracy charges against 11 members of another far-right group, the Oath Keepers militia, over their involvement in the assault on the Capitol as lawmakers were meeting to certify Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.Tarrio, 38, is also facing counts of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and obstruction of an official proceeding, and two counts each of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers and destruction of government property.That’s it from us today. Here’s how another eventful day in Washington unfolded:
      The former leader of the Proud Boys, far-right nationalist group Enrique Tarrio, and four of his closest associates have been charged with seditious conspiracy related to the January 6 attack, according to a Justice Department filing released Monday. The rare charge against Tarrio as well as Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, Charles Donohoe and Dominic Pezzola builds on conspiracy charges filed by the government earlier this year.
      The January 6 committee is preparing to hold its first primetime hearing on Thursday. According to Axios, the committee has enlisted James Goldston, a former ABC News president who ran the shows “Nightline” and “Good Morning America,” to advise the committee on how to televise the hearing. The panel is expected to share never-before-seen photos taken inside the White House as the Capitol attack unfolded.
      A Democratic member of the January 6 committee said the panel’s hearings would demonstrate the extensive planning conducted by those who carried out the attack. “The committee has found evidence of concerted planning and premeditated activity,” Jamie Raskin said in a virtual discussion with the Washington Post today. “The idea that all of this was just a rowdy demonstration that spontaneously got a little out of control is absurd. You don’t almost knock over the US government by accident.”
      The Senate is trying to find a bipartisan compromise on gun-control legislation in the wake of the Uvalde massacre. Democratic senators are trying to find 10 Republicans to join them in supporting tougher gun laws, but that will be a heavy lift in the evenly divided chamber. Joe Manchin, the centrist Democrat who could play a key role in negotiations, said he would support raising the minimum age required to purchase semi-automatic weapons from 18 to 21. Manchin also signaled openness to an assault weapons ban, but that proposal is unlikely to win enough Republican support to be included in the final bill.
      The supreme court released more decisions this morning, but the country is still waiting to hear whether justices will move forward with their initial ruling to overturn Roe v Wade. The abortion case is one of dozens of decisions that the court still needs to release in the coming weeks. The court has announced that its next round of rulings will be released on Wednesday.
      Thanks for following along with our coverage today. The blog will be back tomorrow morning, with more updates on the January 6 committee and the Senate negotiations over gun-control. Back in Congress, a group of 10 “frontline” Democratic House lawmakers, who are considered the most vulnerable to getting ousted in the November midterms, have written a letter to the chamber’s leaders asking for votes on bills that would fight inflation.The letter reported by Punchbowl News comes as the country faces an ongoing wave of price increases for essentials like gasoline, as well as a shortage of baby formula that has rattled the Biden administration.Addressed to House speaker Nancy Pelosi and majority leader Steny Hoyer, the letter doesn’t name specific bills, and acknowledges that many proposals the chamber already passed haven’t been brought up in the Senate. The lawmakers nonetheless call for votes:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} With the time that remains in the 117th Congress after the important upcoming votes on gun violence prevention – and particularly in the few months that remain before the late summer district work period – we urge you to prioritize bills that would lower costs for working families, address rising inflation and resolve supply chain challenges. To be clear, we know that many such bills have already received affirmative votes in the House and now await Senate action. However, we believe that more must be done to ensure that this body remains laser focused on addressing the most urgent challenges that continue to impact our constituents.Consumer prices have been rising over the past year at rates not seen since the 1980s, fueling public discontent with the Biden administration. The Federal Reserve is hiking interest rates to tame the price increases, but much of the inflation has been caused by factors beyond their control such as global supply chain snarls and the war in Ukraine. Some economists fear the combination of higher rates and global supply shocks will put the economy into a recession — perhaps next year, just as campaign season for the 2024 presidential election kicks off.Meanwhile in the UK, members of parliament have spent the day voting on whether to boot Prime Minister Boris Johnson from office, and the verdict is in: Johnson survives his no-confidence vote, 211 to 148.That means he stays as prime minister, leader of the Conservatives and Joe Biden’s counterpart in one of America’s closest allies. The Guardian’s Andrew Sparrow has been keeping a meticulous live blog of the historic day.Former leader of the Proud Boys far-right nationalist group Enrique Tarrio and four of his closest associates have been charged with seditious conspiracy related to the January 6 attack, according to a Justice Department filing released Monday.The rare charge against Tarrio as well as Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, Charles Donohoe, and Dominic Pezzola builds on conspiracy charges filed by the government earlier this year.In January, the Justice Department leveled seditious conspiracy charges against 11 members of another far-right group, the Oath Keepers militia, over their involvement in the assault on the Capitol as lawmakers were meeting to certify Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.Tarrio, 38, is also facing counts of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and obstruction of an official proceeding, and two counts each of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers and destruction of government property.Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has signaled a deal between Democrat and Republican lawmakers on a new gun control bill could be reached this week.MCCONNELL on whether senate negotiators will strike a gun deal by the end of the week: “oh I hope so”— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) June 6, 2022
      More MCCONNELL on guns. “We’re trying to get a bipartisan outcome here that makes a difference. And hopefully, sometime this week, we’ll come together.”— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) June 6, 2022
      Republican Senator John Cornyn and Democratic Senator Chris Murphy have been leading negotiations in the evenly divided chamber to introduce some kind of legislation that could restrict gun purchases following a recent wave of mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, Uvalde, Texas and elsewhere.The January 6 committee will hold its second hearing on Monday, June 13, at 10am ET, the House panel has just announced.The first hearing is happening on Thursday at 8pm ET, and it is expected to attract worldwide news coverage, but the second hearing is not scheduled for the evening.The select committee has reportedly enlisted the help of James Goldston, a former ABC News president, to assist in the planning of the primetime event.Speaking to the Washington Post earlier today, a Democratic member of the committee, Jamie Raskin, said investigators had “found evidence of concerted planning and premeditated activity”.“The idea that all of this was just a rowdy demonstration that spontaneously got a little out of control is absurd,” Raskin said. “You don’t almost knock over the US government by accident.” The supreme court will now issue opinions on Wednesday, June 8, according to its website.The justice have 30 cases to release decisions on, with the workload possible extending into next month. Several of these may be extremely consequential, including an environmental case out of West Virginia, a gun rights case stemming from New York, an immigration case via Texas involving the US-Mexico border and the pivotal Mississippi abortion case that also includes the state authorities asking Scotus to overturn Roe v Wade.Nearly half of Republican voters think the US just has to live with mass shootings, according to a poll released in the aftermath of the Texas elementary school murders last month and as politicians in Washington negotiate for gun reform.The CBS and YouGov poll returned familiar results, including 62% support for a nationwide ban on semi-automatic rifles, the kind of gun used in Uvalde, Texas.Nineteen young children and two adults were killed at Robb elementary school on 24 May by an 18-year-old who bought his weapon legally.But clear national support for a ban on such rifles or changes to purchasing ages and background checks is not mirrored in Congress. Most Republicans, supported financially by the powerful gun lobby, remain implacably opposed to most gun reform.Read the Guardian’s full report:Nearly half of Republicans think US has to live with mass shootings, poll findsRead moreAn end to abortion rights would create yet another crisis for Biden, whose presidency has been increasingly defined by a list problems, annoyances and calamities that seems to only grow longer. From high inflation to the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan to nationwide mass shootings, my colleague Lauren Gambino has an excellent piece on how Biden has become a crisis president — whether he wants to or not:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}In his third run for president, Joe Biden’s pitch to Americans was simple: after half a century in elected office, including eight years as vice-president, he understood the demands of what is arguably the hardest job in the world. It was a point Biden stressed on the campaign trail, in his own folksy way: “Everything landed on the president’s desk but locusts.”
      Nearly a year and a half into his presidency, Biden now appraises his own fortunes differently. “I used to say in Barack’s administration: ‘Everything landed on his desk but locusts,’” he told Democratic donors in Oregon. “Well, they landed on my desk.”
      Successive mass shootings, including a racist attack at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, and a massacre at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, that left 19 elementary school students and their teachers dead, present just the latest test for a president desperate to act but constrained, once again, by the limits of his own power.Biden entered office facing daunting crises – only to be hit with more crises Read moreThe White House has released a statement condemning legislation introduced in Louisiana that would make abortion a crime of murder.“Louisiana’s extreme bill will criminalize abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest and punish reproductive healthcare professionals with up to ten years in prison,” said Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, in a statement.“The president is committed to protecting the constitutional rights of Americans afforded by Roe for nearly 50 years, and ensuring that women can make their own choices about their lives, bodies, and families. An overwhelming majority of the American people agree and reject these kinds of radical measures.”Louisiana Republicans advance bill to make abortion a crime of murderRead moreSupporters of the bill admit it’s unconstitutional, but only as long as the Roe v Wade decision that enshrines abortion rights in the United States remains law. That decision’s days appear to be numbered, according to a draft of a supreme court opinion that was leaked last month.Located just across the street from the Capitol, the supreme court has found itself sucked into the inquiry over January 6 as investigators eye the actions of Ginni Thomas, wife of conservative justice Clarence Thomas.In March, my colleague Ed Pilkington reported on the calls for conflict-of-interest rules that erupted after revelations that Ginni Thomas pressed then-president Donald Trump’s chief of staff to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election:Ginni Thomas texts spark ethical storm about husband’s supreme court roleRead moreThe Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reported later that month that committee members have weighed asking Thomas to cooperate either voluntarily or with a subpoena, but no decision has yet been made.House January 6 panel members weigh seeking cooperation from Ginni ThomasRead moreMore revelations about Thomas’s actions around the time of the insurrection have trickled out since then, including that she pressed Republicans in Arizona to overturn Biden’s victory there, as first reported in The Washington Post last month.January 6 committee member Jamie Raskin hinted to The Washington Post that lawmakers have discovered Donald Trump more than just incited the attack on the Capitol. Raskin did not elaborate on what the House committee found, but the actions of the former president have been at the center of the inquiry from the start.“The select committee has found evidence about a lot more than incitement here, and we’re gonna be laying out the evidence about all of the actors who were pivotal to what took place on Jan 6,” Raskin said.“Donald Trump and the White House were at the center of these events. That’s the only way really of making sense of them all,” the Democratic House representative added.Trump was impeached by the Democrat-controlled House immediately following the insurrection, but the Republican-led Senate decided not to convict and remove him from office, allowing Trump to remain in the White House for the final weeks of his term..@RepRaskin on Jan. 6: “Donald Trump and the White House were at the center of these events. That’s the only way really of making sense of them all.” #PostLive pic.twitter.com/gIJJxqPWsx— Washington Post Live (@PostLive) June 6, 2022
      A Democratic member of the January 6 committee, Jamie Raskin, said the panel’s hearings would demonstrate the extensive planning conducted by those who carried out the attack on the Capitol.“The committee has found evidence of concerted planning and premeditated activity,” Raskin said in a virtual discussion with the Washington Post today.“The idea that all of this was just a rowdy demonstration that spontaneously got a little out of control is absurd. You don’t almost knock over the US government by accident.” Rep. Liz Cheney talks about the GOP’s “cult of personality” around Trump, and what the hearings will reveal about the threat to democracy. https://t.co/kFhs30uzzC pic.twitter.com/TrqMfQ0Qjs— CBS Sunday Morning 🌞 (@CBSSunday) June 6, 2022
      Raskin said the committee would use the hearings to outline all the evidence it has collected and provide recommendations on how to avoid future coups that could threaten the security of the US government.Raskin’s comments echo those of Liz Cheney, the Republican vice-chair of the committee, who said yesterday that she considers the January 6 attack to be a conspiracy.“It is extremely broad,” Cheney told CBS News. “It’s extremely well-organized. It’s really chilling.”Warning of the danger of Trump’s hold on the Republican party, Cheney added, “I mean, it is fundamentally antithetical, it is contrary to everything conservatives believe, to embrace a personality cult. And yet, that is what so many in my party are doing today.”The January 6 committee has enlisted James Goldston, a former ABC News president who ran the shows “Nightline” and “Good Morning America,” to advise the committee on how to televise its hearings beginning Thursday, according to Axios.Axios reports:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} I’m told Goldston is busily producing Thursday’s 8 p.m. ET hearing as if it were a blockbuster investigative special.
      He plans to make it raw enough so that skeptical journalists will find the material fresh, and chew over the disclosures in future coverage.
      And he wants it to draw the eyeballs of Americans who haven’t followed the ins and outs of the Capitol riot probe.Goldston will apparently have a lot of material to work with. The committee reportedly plans to show never-before-seen photos from inside the White House on January 6, and new security-camera footage from the Capitol, taken as the insurrection occurred, will also be shared.The committee has already conducted more than 1,000 depositions and interviews as part of its investigation, and clips from those conversations are expected to be played during the hearing.Meanwhile, Republicans are busy planning a counter-messaging program to challenge the committee’s findings. According to Axios, House Republican leaders and outside conservative groups will paint the panel as hyperpartisan to try to discredit their conclusions.Joe Manchin, the centrist Democrat who could play a key role in reaching a Senate compromise on a gun-control bill, outlined what he would like to see in the legislation.The West Virginia senator told CNN that he would support raising the minimum age required to purchase semi-automatic weapons from 18 to 21. The gunman who carried out the Uvalde shooting was 18.Manchin also indicated he would support some version of a red-flag provision, as long as the policy allowed for due process for those blocked from purchasing guns.Manchin told me that a final deal should include two things: Raising the age to 21 for purchasing semi-automatic weapons and standards for state red flag laws. He’s also open to an assault weapons ban. On people needing AR-15s? “I never felt I needed something of that magnitude.” pic.twitter.com/GYUlx1Nhkp— Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 6, 2022
      “We know we can do something that would have prevented this — raising the age,” Manchin said of Uvalde. “And the second thing is that we know that the red-flag laws do work, as long as there’s due process.”On the question of enacting a ban on assault weapons, Manchin said he would be open to the idea, but that proposal faces stiff opposition from Senate Republicans.“I never thought I had a need for that type of high-capacity automatic weapon,” Manchin said. “I like to shoot. I like to go out and hunt. I like to go out sports shooting. I do all that. But I’ve never felt I needed something of that magnitude.”While there were no major decisions made by the supreme court today, the justices did opt not to review legal sanctions against Republican Senate candidate Mark McCloskey and his wife Patricia, who pointed guns at protesters during racial justice protesters in Missouri two years ago.CNN reports that the McCloskeys, both attorneys, pled guilty to misdemeanors over the incident, which were later pardoned by Missouri’s governor. However the state’s supreme court later sanctioned them, calling their actions “moral turpitude.”The McCloskeys contested the penalties, citing the constitution’s second amendment, but CNN reported the argument didn’t have much chance of success.Mark McCloskey is a candidate in the Republican senate primary in Missouri to succeed Roy Blunt, who is retiring, but a SurveyUSA poll released last month did not find him among the race’s frontrunners. As the Senate tries to find compromise on gun control, Joe Biden is using the presidential bully pulpit to urge Congress to take action to prevent more tragedies like Uvalde.“After Columbine, after Sandy Hook, after Charleston, after Orlando, after Las Vegas, after Parkland, nothing has been done,” Biden said on Twitter. “This time, that can’t be true. This time, we must actually do something.”Biden offered the same message to the nation last week, when he delivered a primetime address on the need to enact stricter gun laws.He proposed expanding background checks and banning assault weapons. If Congress cannot approve an assault weapons ban, which seems unlikely given Republicans’ opposition to the idea, then the minimum age required to purchase those guns should be raised from 18 to 21, Biden said.After Columbine,after Sandy Hook,after Charleston,after Orlando,after Las Vegas,after Parkland,nothing has been done.This time, that can’t be true. This time, we must actually do something.— President Biden (@POTUS) June 6, 2022
      The House has already passed several gun-control bills, and Biden called on the Senate to act as well in the wake of the Uvalde massacre. However, that will be difficult when the upper chamber is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, and the filibuster rules requires 60 votes to advance most legislation.“I support the bipartisan efforts that include a small group of Democrats and Republican senators trying to find a way,” Biden said last Thursday. “But my God, the fact that the majority of the Senate Republicans don’t want any of these proposals even to be debated or come up for a vote, I find unconscionable. We can’t fail the American people again.”This week will provide some key clues as to whether any gun-control bill can pass the Senate. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Bipartisan US lawmakers ramp up gun control talks amid crisis of violence – live

      by

      The US Senate is back in session today after its latest recess and there will be close attention on a bipartisan group of senators that is exuding increased confidence that a package of gun control measures can advance and make it into law.Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy is fond of the word significant. Just days ago, less than a week after the mass shooting at Robb elementary school in Uvalde, Texas that killed 19 young children and two teachers, he talked of “an opportunity right now to pass something significant”. Murphy yesterday added: “The possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.”Murphy believes measures passed in Florida following the 2018 high school shooting in Parkland could attract Republican support and provide a workable template for action in Congress.Chris Murphy of Connecticut, speaking on CNN’s State of the Union, said he was optimistic that recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, could finally prompt enough bipartisan support for legislation that has previously proven elusive.Florida, a Republican-controlled state, acted swiftly after the murders of 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in February 2018, passing red flag laws and raising the age requirement for buying, but not owning, firearms from 18 to 21, among other steps. The Parkland gunman was 19.In his address to the nation last week, Joe Biden called for a federal ban on semi-automatic weapons, and raising the age requirement if that couldn’t be done.Murphy acknowledged the Florida actions and said “there is interest in taking a look at that age range, 18 to 21” during bipartisan discussions about possible legislation, led on the Republican side by Texas senator John Cornyn.Read more here.The founder of the People of Praise, a secretive charismatic Christian group that counts supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett as a member, was described in a sworn affidavit filed in the 1990s as exerting almost total control over one of the group’s female members, including making all decisions about her finances and dating relationships.The court documents also described alleged instances of a sexualized atmosphere in the home of the founder, Kevin Ranaghan, and his wife, Dorothy Ranaghan.The description of the Ranaghans and accusations involving their intimate behavior were contained in a 1993 proceeding in which a woman, Cynthia Carnick, said that she did not want her five minor children to have visitations with their father, John Roger Carnick, who was then a member of the People of Praise, in the Ranaghan household or in their presence, because she believed it was not in her children’s “best interest”. Cynthia Carnick also described inappropriate incidents involving the couple and the Ranaghan children. The matter was eventually settled between the parties.Read the Guardian’s full report:Legal claims shed light on founder of faith group tied to Amy Coney BarrettRead moreNo more opinions are due today from the US Supreme Court, with all the biggest decisions still awaited. We’ll be keeping an eye on the court’s calendar and on the indispensable Scotusblog for upcoming dates and the rulings issued on those dates. For anyone curious to know a bit more about how this works, the Scotusblog FAQ page is handy, here. The court doesn’t give lots of notice about which will be opinion days in June and, likely, edging into July with such a big caseload. And the public isn’t told what opinions are coming down until they land. However, of course there was the early May bombshell leak of the draft opinion in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization case out of Mississippi, which explicitly includes a request from the state authorities to the court to overturn the pivotal 1973 Roe v Wade decision that afforded the constitutional right to an abortion in the US.The final opinion is awaited… US shaken to its core by supreme court draft that would overturn Roe v WadeRead moreThis blog is now handing over to the Guardian’s new US politics blogger Chris Stein, based in Washington, and our colleague there Joanie Greve, who was at the helm of the blog but in recent months took on her new role as one of our senior politics reporters. They’ll take you through the rest of today’s politics news. For all the breaking news on UK politics today involving a no-confidence vote in prime minister Boris Johnson, please follow our London team here as they bring you the events as they happen there, in the UK politics live blog.Here’s Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas again, this time putting his name to a decision in the case of Southwest Airlines v Saxon.In an eight to zero opinion (Amy Coney Barrett was recused from this case), Thomas issued the decision that the court essentially said an airline worker is not required to go to arbitration over her pay dispute with Southwest and can fight her case in the courts.The Supreme Court adopts a broad interpretation of an important exception in the Federal Arbitration Act. The upshot of the 8-0 ruling is that an airport worker (and others similarly situated) can bring a claim for overtime pay in court, rather than being forced into arbitration.— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2022
      The Bloomberg Law site notes that the case could have a wide impact on worker arbitration rights. It explained that Latrice Saxon:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Sued the airline in 2019, alleging it failed to pay her and hundreds of current and former ramp supervisors time-and-a-half earned for their overtime work. The Dallas-based carrier countered that its employee was contractually bound to bring the claim in arbitration, rather than in court. While a federal district judge agreed with the airline, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit did not. The supreme court took up the case.The US supreme court has issued three opinions today, moments ago, although they are not the cases the nation is on the edge of its proverbial seat about – abortion and gun rights.The court just ruled that the Florida authorities can recoup $300,000 in medical expenses out of a settlement paid in the case of Gianinna Gallardo, who suffered appalling injuries at 13, in 2008, when she was hit by a truck after getting off a school bus. A 7-2 majority, with the opinion written by Clarence Thomas and joined by liberal-leaning Elena Kagan, opined for the state over the Gallardo family.A few minutes prior, the court ruled in a case, Siegel v Fitzgerald, about the constitutionality of increased US Trustee’s fees charged to companies in chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.Details on the third ruling in a tick.The Supreme Court strikes down Congress’ decision to increase bankruptcy fees in most states while leaving a different system in place in two states. SCOTUS unanimously holds that the two different fee systems violates the Constitution’s requirement of “uniform” bankruptcy laws.— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2022
      The US supreme court is about to issue ruling(s) on cases decided in the current term.We’ll keep you up to date on what happens, when the opinion(s) are handed down at 10am ET.As Scotusblog notes, there’s a lot for the bench to get to:We’re live now:https://t.co/S5A4KeL5nQ https://t.co/ddml8iKgtC— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2022
      The four big cases we at the Guardian are watching most closely are an environmental case out of West Virginia, a gun rights case stemming from New York, an immigration case via Texas involving the US-Mexico border and the pivotal Mississippi abortion case that also includes the state authorities asking Scotus to overturn Roe v Wade.The US Senate is back in session today after its latest recess and there will be close attention on a bipartisan group of senators that is exuding increased confidence that a package of gun control measures can advance and make it into law.Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy is fond of the word significant. Just days ago, less than a week after the mass shooting at Robb elementary school in Uvalde, Texas that killed 19 young children and two teachers, he talked of “an opportunity right now to pass something significant”. Murphy yesterday added: “The possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.”Murphy believes measures passed in Florida following the 2018 high school shooting in Parkland could attract Republican support and provide a workable template for action in Congress.Chris Murphy of Connecticut, speaking on CNN’s State of the Union, said he was optimistic that recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, could finally prompt enough bipartisan support for legislation that has previously proven elusive.Florida, a Republican-controlled state, acted swiftly after the murders of 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in February 2018, passing red flag laws and raising the age requirement for buying, but not owning, firearms from 18 to 21, among other steps. The Parkland gunman was 19.In his address to the nation last week, Joe Biden called for a federal ban on semi-automatic weapons, and raising the age requirement if that couldn’t be done.Murphy acknowledged the Florida actions and said “there is interest in taking a look at that age range, 18 to 21” during bipartisan discussions about possible legislation, led on the Republican side by Texas senator John Cornyn.Read more here.Good morning, US politics blog readers, it’s going to be an exceptionally busy, high-stakes week in Washington with Americans’ constitutional rights and democracy itself under the spotlight.Here’s what’s on the agenda.
      The US Senate is back in session on the Hill today after its latest recess and a bipartisan group of senators is exuding confidence that a package of gun control measures can make progress, while the leading lawmaker in talks warns of “significant” consequences of failure.
      Talks continue amid another series of deadly shootings at the weekend, following grotesquely on the heels of the school massacre in Uvalde, Texas and the racist killing of Black Americans in a supermarket in Buffalo.
      New measures under discussion do not include the demands of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for a ban on assault weapons, following the recent carnage, but there is more progress being made right now on legislative talks than there has been for years.
      The US Supreme Court is due to issue opinions today and Thursday, June being the crunch month for decisions arising in cases from the current term and with more than 30 decision to be declared. The public (and press) are not party to which cases will be announced until the bench speaks up.
      Last but not least for this briefing note: the special House committee investigating events on and around the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol by extremist supporters of then-president Donald Trump is in final preparations for its first public hearing, this Thursday in prime time – and the right is already revving up its riposte. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      How Texas punishes companies who ‘discriminate’ against gun manufacturers | Robert Reich

      by

      How Texas punishes companies who ‘discriminate’ against gun manufacturersRobert ReichA Texas law dictates which firms state agencies can do business with and requires written affirmations to the attorney general After a 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 people dead, JPMorgan Chase, America’s largest bank, publicly distanced itself from the firearms industry. Its chief financial officer reassured the media that the bank’s relationships with gunmakers “have come down significantly and are pretty limited”.That was then. This past September, a new Texas law went into effect that bans state agencies from working with any firm that “discriminates” against companies or individuals in the gun industry.Texas’s new pro-gun industry law requires banks and other professional service firms submit written affirmations to the Texas attorney general that they comply with it.What was JPMorgan to do? Sticking with its high-minded policy of “significantly” reducing business with gun manufacturers would result in exclusion from Texas’s lucrative bond market. Texas sold more than $58bn of bonds in 2020, and is currently the second largest bond market after California. (I’ll come back to California in a moment.)JPMorgan Chase had been among the top bond underwriters for Texas. Between 2015 and 2020, the bank underwrote 138 Texas bond deals, raising $19bn for the state, and generating nearly $80m in fees for JPMorgan, according to Bloomberg. Yet since the new Texas law went into effect in September, the bank has been shut out of working for the state.JPMorgan’s dilemma since Texas enacted its law has been particularly delicate because Jamie Dimon, its chairman and CEO, has been preaching the doctrine of corporate social responsibility: repeatedly telling the media that big banks like JPMorgan Chase have social duties to the communities they serve. (On Wednesday, Dimon dismissed claims that such an approach is “woke.”)So what did JPMorgan decide to do about financing gun manufacturers, in light of the new Texas law?It caved to Texas. (Never mind that last year, the bank’s board granted Dimon a special $52.6m award – which is almost three-quarters of the fees the bank received from underwriting Texas bonds between 2015 and 2020.)On May 13, one day before the Buffalo mass shooting and less than two weeks before the Texas shooting, JPMorgan sent a letter to the attorney general of Texas, declaring that the bank’s policy “does not discriminate against or prevent” it from doing business “with any firearm entity or firearm trade association based solely on its status as a firearm entity or firearm trade association,” adding that “these commercial relationships are important and valuable”.The Texas law barring the state from doing business with any firm that discriminates against the gun industry is the first of its kind in the country. But similar laws, described by gun industry lobbyists as “Find” laws, or firearm industry nondiscriminatory legislation, are now working their way through at least 10 statehouses, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. This year, Wyoming passed a law that allows gun companies to sue banks and other firms that refuse to do business with them.The lesson here is twofold.First, pay no attention to assertions by big banks or any other large corporations about their “social responsibilities” to their communities. When corporate social responsibility requires sacrificing profits, it magically disappears – even when it entails financing gunmakers.But secondly, no firm should be penalized by pro-gun states like Texas for trying to be socially responsible.How to counter Texas’s law, and other Find laws in the pipeline? Lawmakers in progressive states such as California (whose bond market is even larger than Texas’s) should immediately enact legislation that bars the state from dealing with any firm that finances the gun industry.In other words, big banks like JPMorgan should have to choose: either finance gunmakers and get access to the Texas bond market. Or don’t finance them and gain access to the even larger California bond market.Bonus that comes with the second option: you get to claim you’re being socially responsible.
      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
      TopicsUS newsOpinionUS politicsUS gun controlcommentReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Significant’ consequences if lawmakers fail to act on gun control, Democrat warns

      by

      ‘Significant’ consequences if lawmakers fail to act on gun control, Democrat warnsSenator Chris Murphy says measures passed in Florida after Parkland shooting could attract Republican support The Democratic senator leading his party’s push for stronger gun laws said on Sunday he believed measures passed in Florida following the 2018 high school shooting in Parkland could attract Republican support and provide a workable template for action in Congress.Chris Murphy of Connecticut, speaking on CNN’s State of the Union, said he was optimistic that recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, could finally prompt enough bipartisan support for legislation that has previously proven elusive.But he also warned of “significant” consequences if lawmakers failed to act.“I’m more confident than ever that we’re gonna get there,” Murphy said. “But I’m also more anxious about failure this time around.“In Connecticut last week I’ve never seen the look in parents’ faces that I did. It was just a deep, deep fear for our children. And also a fear that things in our country are so fundamentally broken that you can’t put politics aside to guarantee the one thing that matters most to adults: the safety of their children.”Murphy added: “The possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.”Florida, a Republican-controlled state, acted swiftly after the murders of 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in February 2018, passing red flag laws and raising the age requirement for buying, but not owning, firearms from 18 to 21, among other steps. The Parkland gunman was 19.In his address to the nation last week, Joe Biden called for a federal ban on semi-automatic weapons, and raising the age requirement if that couldn’t be done.Murphy acknowledged the Florida actions and said “there is interest in taking a look at that age range, 18 to 21” during bipartisan discussions about possible legislation, led on the Republican side by Texas senator John Cornyn.“Right now we’re trying to discover what can get to 60 votes [in the Senate],” Murphy said.“But I think the template for Florida is the right one, which is some significant amount of investment in school safety and some modest but impactful changes in gun laws. That’s the kind of package we’re putting together right now.“As Senator Cornyn said, there is interest in looking at that age range … and doing what is necessary to make sure that we aren’t giving weapons to anybody that has, during their younger years, a mental health history, a juvenile record.“Often those juvenile records aren’t accessible when they walk into the store buying as an adult. So we’re having a conversation about that specific population, 18 to 21 and how to make sure that only the right people, law abiding citizens, are getting their hands on weapons.”With a handful of exceptions, Republican politicians have remained resolutely opposed to any kind of gun reforms, despite polls showing overwhelming public support for “common sense” measures including red flag laws and expanded background checks.In an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Republican House minority whip Steve Scalise, who was shot by a gunman in a 2017 attack during practice for the congressional baseball game, attempted to paint soaring gun crime in the US as solely a mental health issue.“We are not focusing on the root cause of the problem,” Scalise said.“The immediate visceral reaction of Democrats in Washington is to go after the rights of gun owners in America. We need to be focused more on stopping things before they happen.”Murphy said he hoped the negotiations, which have been ongoing during the Senate’s Memorial Day recess, will lead to a vote that could finally pass the chamber.“This time we have far more Republicans,” he said. “We don’t need to have competing proposals on the Senate floor. We need one proposal that can get 60 to 70 votes from both parties.”Democratic senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said on CBS’ Face the Nation he hoped any proposal would include an expansion of background checks, at least for commercial sales of guns.“We all agree violent criminals and deranged, dangerously mentally ill people shouldn’t have firearms,” he said, noting that lawmakers “not engaged on this in the past” have been involved now in negotiations.TopicsUS gun controlUS politicsDemocratsnewsReuse this content More