Rights vs. rights
Every now and then, an intriguing news item pops up within the gun safety news ecosystem that begs for further exploration, because it impacts gun owners and non-gun owners in a unique way. A story by journalist Griffin Coop in the Arkansas Times this week is one such case.
A recent change in Arkansas state law means that holding a medical marijuana patient card is no longer a disqualifier for obtaining a gun permit in Arkansas. The change has raised concerns about public safety among federal firearms officials, and puts medical marijuana users who own guns in the middle of conflicting state and federal laws.
While permitless carry is the law of the land in Arkansas, concealed handgun carry licenses are available to those who want them so they can carry a gun in one of the states that do require permits. Act 757 of 2023 changed state law to prevent the Arkansas State Police from disqualifying medical marijuana cardholders from obtaining such a license, and to prevent the state Department of Health from telling State Police who the cardholders are.
The problem? The feds still consider marijuana to be a Schedule I controlled substance. Last October, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) weighed in on the Arkansas law in a letter, stating that anyone who uses marijuana, for medical reasons or otherwise, is “prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms and ammunition.”
The permit issue is especially difficult to navigate in Arkansas because the right to be a medical marijuana patient and to bear arms are both protected by the state Constitution. Such rights are considered to be on par with one another unless there is a specific exception in the law, according to Mary Claire McLaurin, a former regulatory counsel and legislative liaison for the Arkansas State Police.
As you can tell, it’s complicated. And it doesn’t only affect Arkansas. Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Oklahoma are in the same boat.
We want to hear from you. What do you think of Arkansas’ new law? Does it create a public safety concern? Is there a way to balance state and federal statutes affecting gun ownership? Let us know.
On the Hill
A federal judge in Texas has blocked a Biden administration rule that expanded the requirements for background checks when selling a firearm. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk granted an injunction against the ATF to prevent the federal government from fully implementing the rule in Texas. The rule closes the “gun show loophole” for firearms dealers, requiring all people who sell firearms for a profit to be licensed and require background checks of buyers.
Plaintiffs argued the rule violates the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which defines the categories of gun sellers, and the Second Amendment. Kacsmaryk did not rule on the constitutional claims, but agreed the rule violates the law. —The Hill
We say: We agree with the rule in theory, but it must conform to current law. This is a matter for Congress to address.
More on the Hill:
Gun safety group, U.S. Senate architects of 2022 law call for stricter measures —Michigan Advance
Two Wyoming senators join bill to repeal unnecessary tax on firearm purchases —Wyoming Tribute Eagle
Uvalde mass shooting anniversary: Biden writes letter to Robb Elementary School families —Axios
In the Courts
In the coming weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will make a ruling in the case of U.S. vs. Rahimi, which will determine whether a federal law barring firearm possession by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVPOs) violates the Second Amendment. Victims of domestic abuse rely on the law to survive. “As one study found, the risk of intimate-partner homicide increases 500% when abusers have access to a firearm,” an amicus brief submitted by domestic violence prevention groups states. “Another determined that an average of 70 women are shot and killed by intimate partners per month.”
When Congress decided to ban gun possession by abusers in 1994, it had found that domestic violence was “the leading cause of injury to women in the United States between the ages of 15 and 44,” and that “firearms are used by the abuser in 7% of domestic violence incidents.” —Mother Jones
We say: The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Rahimi, which declared unconstitutional a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to DVPOs from possessing firearms, should be reversed because:
Temporarily disarming individuals subject to DVPOs is consistent with historic restrictions on Second Amendment rights.
The challenged law guarantees the core due process requirements: notice and an opportunity to be heard in a court of law, which gives the accused a chance to refute allegations before the order is issued.
Modern threats to public and individual safety demand modern solutions that are in keeping with the Founders’ intentions.
Read 97Percent’s amicus brief in full here.
More in the courts:
Supreme Court clears way for NRA to pursue First Amendment challenge —The New York Times
Supreme Court rejects challenge to Maryland ‘assault weapon’ ban —NBC News
Uvalde families sue gun manufacturer, Instagram, Activision —The Texas Tribune
In the States
The Rhode Island House of Representatives voted on Tuesday 45-to-23 for legislation requiring firearms be placed in locked storage while not in use. It now heads to the state Senate for final votes. It took years for the legislation to get this far. A safe-storage requirement was recommended by a 2018 gun safety task force and then introduced, year after year, since at least 2021.
South Kingstown Councilwoman Patti Alley said passage of mandate would bring something good out of her sister’s suicide by gun, in 2020, with her partner’s unlocked gun. “A combination of more access to mental health services and an overall stricter climate for gun control laws correlates with a particularly lower rate of gun deaths,” says Jacob Smith, assistant professor of political science at Fordham University. —The Providence Journal
We say: Kudos to the RI House. For more on this topic, we encourage you to watch At the Intersection of Firearms and Mental Health, a recent presentation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. (Please note that there is some sensitive content regarding suicide.)
More in the states:
California: California is about to tax guns more like alcohol and tobacco − and that could put a dent in gun violence —Longmont Leader
Delaware: Gov. John Carney signs permit-to-purchase into law, legal challenges ensue —Delaware Public Media
Florida: What to know about airman Roger Fortson’s fatal shooting by a Florida sheriff’s deputy —Associated Press
Maine: Mass shooting panel to examine police response —NBC News
New Hampshire: Tempers flare after House passes gun background check bill again —New Hampshire Bulletin
Pennsylvania: 17 Philly children and teens shot themselves last year. CHOP’s new gun lock program aims to reverse the trend —The Philadelphia Inquirer
Tennessee: Governor signs bill preventing local government from enacting red flag laws —WKRN
Texas: NRA could get $1 million in state, local money for hosting annual meeting in Dallas —The Dallas Morning News
Vermont: Republican governor allows ghost gun bill to become law without his signature —ABC News
Virginia: Richmond putting money toward youth violence prevention programs —ABC News
Here’s what some of our readers are saying…
Responding to your request for our thoughts on the bill allowing teachers to be armed in school, I am 100% in agreement with the concept. As a combat veteran who would have loved to have gone into teaching (if the requirements weren’t so stringent in my state), I know how to safely carry, store, and handle a firearm. During deployments to Kosovo and Iraq, I carried weapons in classrooms while working with school children.
Schools that allow teachers to carry/store weapons on campus can certainly set high standards that those teachers must meet for safety. They should have required range training in shoot/no-shoot scenarios to keep their skills current.
My last point is that the current policy for 99% of schools that they are ‘gun free’ does allow school shooters to plan their attack, knowing that they will not face any serious resistance until the police arrive. —Dave T.
It is nice to see a change in the position of teaching kids firearm safety. It is really important to safeguard them inside of the home. —Kids S.A.F.E. Foundation
How about adding that such products [gun safes and gun locks] be exempt from local and state sales taxes? —Jeff F.
The statistics you shared about firearm theft from motor vehicles are very alarming. Unfortunately, my understanding from my network and some research is that there is NO safe way to secure firearms in your vehicle. Most, if not all, the options available to the average citizen can be overcome by a well-equipped and experienced thief. So, in my opinion, the better answer is, don't leave firearms in your vehicle. I never do, even though this sometimes limits my ability to carry. —Andre A.
Gun owners need to be held accountable for not securing guns they carry in their vehicles. One would not leave their keys in the ignition overnight and expect the vehicle to be there in the morning; they should expect the same with a weapon.
Laws need to be passed that hold gun owners responsible if their unsecured weapon is stolen and used later in a criminal act. Gun dealers that currently don’t have to do background checks should be made to, as it is just a back door for people that can’t buy legally. —Don S.
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.