Last Thursday, a story out of Ohio revealed that a 13-year-old boy was arrested, accused of planning a mass shooting at a Canton synagogue. The suspect shared a “detailed plan to complete a mass shooting” on the online platform Discord, which has been used by mass shooters in the past to discuss their plans and extremist ideologies before carrying out their attacks. The posts were reported to law enforcement, triggering an investigation by the Stark County Sheriff's Office. The boy has been charged with inducing panic and disorderly conduct.
Thankfully, in this case, a catastrophe was averted. That’s how it’s supposed to work. Too often, it does not. Too often, laws aren’t enforced. Dangerous people fall through the cracks. Warning signs are ignored or downplayed. But as we approach the end of a tragic year for gun violence in the U.S., we’d like to take a hopeful look at those occasions when, as in Canton, the system worked.
While incidents in which red flag laws weren’t properly used or enforced rightfully get a lot of attention, it’s critical to acknowledge the wins. Red flag laws prevented 58 mass shootings in California from 2016-2018. And of the 40% of red flags issued for fear of suicide, all suicides were prevented.
According to PBS Newshour, in 2020, police seized 59 guns from a Colorado man who complained of hitmen coming to get him, bragged about shooting someone, and repeatedly threatened his ex-wife. In New Jersey in 2019, police took seven guns from a man threatening on Facebook to attack a Walmart. And in Washington state in 2018, police removed 12 guns from the home of a man who posted on social media about killing Jews in a synagogue and kids in a school. “None of those shootings happened,” the report says. And there are plenty of other examples, too.
Here’s the rub: Research indicates that red flag laws work—but only if people know about them. In a 2021 cross-sectional survey study, more than 2,000 Californians were polled on their awareness of Extreme Risk Protection Order laws or ERPOs, their willingness to use them, and their concerns if unwilling. The findings were that awareness is low (though less so among gun owners), willingness is high, and of those who were unwilling: “Approximately two-thirds of respondents cited a lack of awareness of ERPOs as a reason why they were unwilling to use an EPRO.”
It all comes down to awareness, and that’s why we’re here. It will take every one of us to make 2024 a safer year. Thanks for being part of the solution.
Ed. Note: Wishing you all a safe, relaxing holiday season and a very happy new year! Beyond Thoughts & Prayers will return on Jan. 9, 2024.
On the Hill
In our last issue, we wrote about the Gas-Operated Semi-automatic Firearm Exclusion (GOSAFE) Act, which was introduced in the Senate a few weeks ago by a group of independents and moderate Democrats. The bill had gained some political momentum, so it was a bit of a surprise when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer instead brought to the floor a bill that would ban assault weapons and institute universal background checks. None of the bans Schumer proposed had been through the normal legislative process, and the GOSAFE Act had a slightly better chance of getting at least a majority of the Senate on board. Not surprisingly, Senate Republicans blocked the effort.
We say: While we don’t support the GOSAFE Act in full, we appreciate that it focuses on the lethality of a weapon—and the features that make it more dangerous—rather than merely its appearance. That’s a much better place to begin a policy debate than an outright ban that is very unlikely to pass.
More on the Hill:
Women Testify at House Subcommittee Hearing on Second Amendment —NSSF
Susan Collins Drafting Bill Directing Military to Use Intervention Laws to Seize Guns —Maine Public
Senators Blackburn, Cramer Lead Bicameral Amicus Brief to Support the Second Amendment —Lewis County Herald
In the Courts
For the second time, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday declined to block Illinois’ ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. There were no dissents. The 7th District U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago and the Illinois Supreme Court also have voted to uphold the law, which is set to take effect on Jan. 1. The law bans the sale of dozens of assault weapons, including the AR-15 style weapon used by the Highland Park gunman last year; restricts high-capacity magazines; requires current owners of the prohibited weapons to register them with state police; and expedites universal background checks.
We say: We’re all for universal background checks, because our research demonstrates that measures that limit who rather than what are more effective and more widely accepted by gun owners and non-gun owners.
More in the courts:
New Ruling from 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Regarding New York Gun Laws —Rockland Daily
West Virginia Federal Judge Rules Law Banning 18-20-Year-Olds from Purchasing Guns Is Unconstitutional —WTRF
Nuns Who Own Shares of Smith & Wesson Sue Over AR-15 Deaths —The New York Times
In the States
Vice President Kamala Harris hosted a gathering of 100 state legislators at the White House last week to roll out the Biden administration’s new “Safer States Initiative.” An initiative of the two-month-old White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, it will provide states with additional resources and support to reduce gun violence, including the encouragement to establish their own State Office of Gun Violence Prevention. A set of related guidelines developed by the Department of Justice will help states take action across six areas, including strengthening support for survivors and families of victims, and reinforcing responsible gun ownership.
We say: We support the plan to help enact sensible gun safety laws at the state level. We’re particularly fans of the directives for securing firearms kept in residences and vehicles, and for reporting lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement.
More in the states:
New California Gun Law Aims to Restrict Concealed Carry. Here’s How Getting a License Changes —The Sacramento Bee
Minnesota Passed a Red Flag Gun Law. How Will It Work? —The Trace
Nebraska AG Opinion Calls Omaha and Lincoln Gun Executive Orders Illegal —1011 Now
Governor Wants New Mexico Legislators to Debate New Approach to Regulating Assault-Style Weapons —AP News
Ohio Lawmakers Introduce Multiple Bills Tackling Gun Safety —WFMJ
Pennsylvania Lawmakers Pushing to Require Gun Owners to Lock up Firearms —CBS News
Poll of Wisconsin Gun Owners Shows Storage Habits, Reasons for Buying —Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Could the Second Amendment be altered or even appealed?
California Governor Gavin Newsom has been among those backing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to restrict gun ownership. The amendment would introduce universal background checks, raise the firearm purchase age to 21, institute a firearm purchase waiting period, and bar the civilian purchase of assault weapons.
Though Newsom says his proposal would leave the Second Amendment unchanged, some in very powerful quarters have called for its appeal in recent years. Writing in The New York Times in March 2018, the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for the complete repeal of the Second Amendment via a constitutional amendment, saying it would be “simple.”
Don’t hold your breath—or panic. “An amendment clarifying the range of permissible reasonable regulation would have a lot of popular support,” says Peter Shane, a New York University constitutional law professor. “Of course, translating even huge majority support into congressional votes can prove absurdly difficult, but might be worth the effort to try.” However, he adds, “an amendment requires a vote of 2/3 of both Houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states, i.e., 37 [states]. I cannot imagine outright repeal.” In other words, guns aren’t going anywhere. (Source: Newsweek)
Better policies offer real hope
“Whatever we have been doing to prevent gun violence in the past is no longer working. We need to think differently and come up with some new approaches. … One of the most promising new tools is the Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO). States should enact and widely implement ERPO laws that enable police officers or, in some states, concerned family members and healthcare providers to seek a civil restraining order to temporarily remove firearms from a person who is behaving dangerously, threatening to kill themselves or another. … This is no time for denial or fatalism over gun violence. We can solve this problem by coming together to find new approaches and putting them to work.” —Mark Rosenberg, M.D., former assistant U.S. Surgeon General and founding director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, and Jeffrey Swanson, Ph.D., of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University Law School
Do you have a comment about any of these critical issues? Do you have a story to share? We’d love to hear from you. Please include your first name and state, and we may publish it in a future issue. Thank you for reading!
For more information about 97Percent, please visit our website at 97Percent.us.
Join our growing community of gun owners and non-gun owners united to reduce gun deaths in America.