Saturday’s shooting was the second mass shooting in Texas in recent weeks, and the second high-profile shooting within the week, after a gunman opened fire in an Atlanta medical facility Wednesday, killing at least one and leaving four other people injured.
In March, the president attempted to bypass Congress to tighten gun control measures, signing an executive order aimed at expanding background checks during a visit to Monterey Park, Calif., where 11 people were gunned down in January.
Numerous gun control measures have repeatedly stalled in Congress in recent decades, though legislation was approved in June 2022 and signed by Biden that was intended to keep guns out of the hands of people experiencing mental health crises.
[ad_2]
#Biden #sign #gun #legislation #immediately
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
I run Nationhood Lab, a project at Salve Regina University’s Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy, which uses this regional framework to analyze all manner of phenomena where regionalism plays a critical role in understanding what’s going on in America and how one might go about responding to it. We knew decades of scholarship showed there were large regional variations in levels of violence and gun violence and that the dominant values in those regions, encoded in the norms of the region over many generations, likely played a significant role. But nobody had run the data using a meaningful, historically based model of U.S. regions and their boundaries. Working with our data partners Motivf, we used data on homicides and suicides from the Centers for Disease Control for the period 2010 to 2020 and have just released a detailed analysis of what we found. (The CDC data are “smoothed per capita rates,” meaning the CDC has averaged counties with their immediate neighbors to protect victims’ privacy. The data allows us to reliably depict geographical patterns but doesn’t allow us to say the precise rate of a given county.) As expected, the disparities between the regions are stark, but even I was shocked at just how wide the differences were and also by some unexpected revelations.
The Deep South is the most deadly of the large regions at 15.6 per 100,000 residents followed by Greater Appalachia at 13.5. That’s triple and quadruple the rate of New Netherland — the most densely populated part of the continent — which has a rate of 3.8, which is comparable to that of Switzerland. Yankeedom is the next safest at 8.6, which is about half that of Deep South, and Left Coast follows closely behind at 9. El Norte, the Midlands, Tidewater and Far West fall in between.
For gun suicides, which is the most common method, the pattern is similar: New Netherland is the safest big region with a rate of just 1.4 deaths per 100,000, which makes it safer in this respect than Canada, Sweden or Switzerland. Yankeedom and Left Coast are also relatively safe, but Greater Appalachia surges to be the most dangerous with a rate nearly seven times higher than the Big Apple. The Far West becomes a danger zone too, with a rate just slightly better than its libertarian-minded Appalachian counterpart.
When you look at gun homicides alone, the Far West goes from being the second worst of the large regions for suicides to the third safest for homicides, a disparity not seen anyplace else, except to a much lesser degree in Greater Appalachia. New Netherland is once again the safest large region, with a gun homicide rate about a third that of the deadliest region, the Deep South.
We also compared the death rates for all these categories for just white Americans — the only ethno-racial group tracked by the CDC whose numbers were large enough to get accurate results across all regions. (For privacy reasons the agency suppresses county data with low numbers, which wreaks havoc on efforts to calculate rates for less numerous ethno-racial groups.) The pattern was essentially the same, except that Greater Appalachia became a hot spot for homicides.
The data did allow us to do a comparison of white and Black rates among people living in the 466 most urbanized U.S. counties, where 55 percent of all Americans live. In these “big city” counties there was a racial divergence in the regional pattern for homicides, with several regions that are among the safest in the analyses we’ve discussed so far — Yankeedom, Left Coast and the Midlands — becoming the most dangerous for African-Americans. Big urban counties in these regions have Black gun homicide rates that are 23 to 58 percent greater than the big urban counties in the Deep South, 13 to 35 percent greater than those in Greater Appalachia. Propelled by a handful of large metro hot spots — California’s Bay Area, Chicagoland, Detroit and Baltimore metro areas among them — this is the closest the data comes to endorsing Republican talking points on urban gun violence, though other large metros in those same regions have relatively low rates, including Boston, Hartford, Minneapolis, Seattle and Portland. New Netherland, however, remained the safest region for both white and Black Americans.
The data suppression issue prevented us from calculating the regional rates for just rural counties, but a glance at a map of the CDC’s smoothed county rates indicates rural Yankeedom, El Norte and the Midlands are very safe (even in terms of suicide), while rural areas of Greater Appalachia, Tidewater and (especially) Deep South are quite dangerous.
So what’s behind the stark contrasts between the regions?
In a classic 1993 study of the geographic gap in violence, the social psychologist Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, noted the regions initially “settled by sober Puritans, Quakers and Dutch farmer-artisans” — that is, Yankeedom, the Midlands and New Netherland — were organized around a yeoman agricultural economy that rewarded “quiet, cooperative citizenship, with each individual being capable of uniting for the common good.”
Much of the South, he wrote, was settled by “swashbuckling Cavaliers of noble or landed gentry status, who took their values . . . from the knightly, medieval standards of manly honor and virtue” (by which he meant Tidewater and the Deep South) or by Scots and Scots-Irish borderlanders (the Greater Appalachian colonists) who hailed from one of the most lawless parts of Europe and relied on “an economy based on herding,” where one’s wealth is tied up in livestock, which are far more vulnerable to theft than grain crops.
These southern cultures developed what anthropologists call a “culture of honor tradition” in which males treasure their honor and believed it can be diminished if an insult, slight or wrong were ignored. “In an honor culture you have to be vigilant about people impugning your reputation and part of that is to show that you can’t be pushed around,” says University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign psychologist Dov Cohen, who conducted a series of experiments with Nisbett demonstrating the persistence of these quick-to-insult characteristics in university students. White male students from the southern regions lashed out in anger at insults and slights that those from northern ones ignored or laughed off. “Arguments over pocket change or popsicles in these Southern cultures can result in people getting killed, but what’s at stake isn’t the popsicle, it’s personal honor.”
Pauline Grosjean, an economist at Australia’s University of New South Wales, has found strong statistical relationships between the presence of Scots-Irish settlers in the 1790 census and contemporary homicide rates, but only in Southern areas “where the institutional environment was weak” — which is the case in almost the entirety of Greater Appalachia. She further noted that in areas where Scots-Irish were dominant, settlers of other ethnic origins — Dutch, French and German — were also more violent, suggesting that they had acculturated to Appalachian norms. The effect was strongest for white offenders and persisted even when controlling for poverty, inequality, demographics and education.
In these same regions this aggressive proclivity is coupled with the violent legacy of having been slave societies. Before 1865, enslaved people were kept in check through the threat and application of violence including whippings, torture and often gruesome executions. For nearly a century thereafter, similar measures were used by the Ku Klux Klan, off-duty law enforcement and thousands of ordinary white citizens to enforce a racial caste system. The Monroe and Florence Work Today project mapped every lynching and deadly race riot in the U.S. between 1848 and 1964 and found over 90 percent of the incidents occurred in those three regions or El Norte, where Deep Southern “Anglos” enforced a caste system on the region’s Hispanic majority. In places with a legacy of lynching — which is only now starting to pass out of living memory — University at Albany sociologist Steven Messner and two colleagues found a significant increase of one type of homicide for their 1986-1995 study period, the argument-related killing of Blacks by whites, that isn’t explained by other factors.
Those regions — plus Tidewater and the Far West — are also those where capital punishment is fully embraced. The states they control account for more than 95 percent of the 1,597 executions in the United States since 1976. And they’ve also most enthusiastically embraced “stand-your-ground” laws, which waive a person’s obligation to try and retreat from a threatening situation before resorting to deadly force. Of the 30 states that have such laws, only two, New Hampshire and Michigan, are within Yankeedom, and only two others — Pennsylvania and Illinois — are controlled by a Yankee-Midlands majority. By contrast, every one of the Deep South or Greater Appalachia-dominated states has passed such a law, and almost all the other states with similar laws are in the Far West.
By contrast, the Yankee and Midland cultural legacies featured factors that dampened deadly violence by individuals. The Puritan founders of Yankeedom promoted self-doubt and self-restraint, and their Unitarian and Congregational spiritual descendants believed vengeance would not receive the approval of an all-knowing God (though there were plenty of loopholes permitting the mistreatment of indigenous people and others regarded as being outside the community.) This region was the center of the 19th-century death penalty reform movement, which began eliminating capital punishment for burglary, robbery, sodomy and other nonlethal crimes, and today none of the states it controls permit executions save New Hampshire, which hasn’t killed a person since 1939. The Midlands were founded by pacifist Quakers and attracted likeminded emigrants who set the cultural tone. “Mennonites, Amish, the Harmonists of Western Pennsylvania, the Moravians in Bethlehem and a lot of German Lutheran pietists came who were part of a tradition which sees violence as being completely incompatible with Christian fellowship,” says Joseph Slaughter, an assistant professor at Wesleyan University’s religion department who co-directs the school’s Center for the Study of Guns and Society.
In rural parts of Yankeedom — like the northwestern foothills of Maine where I grew up — gun ownership is widespread and hunting with them is a habit and passion many parents instill in their children in childhood. But fetishizing guns is not a part of that tradition. “In Upstate New York where I live there can be a defensive element to having firearms, but the way it’s engrained culturally is as a tool for hunting and other purposes,” says Jaclyn Schildkraut, executive director of the Rockefeller Institute of Government’s Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium, who formerly lived in Florida. “There are definitely different cultural connotations and purposes for firearms depending on your location in the country.”
If herding and frontier-like environments with weak institutions create more violent societies, why is the Far West so safe with regard to gun homicide and so dangerous for gun suicides? Carolyn Pepper, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Wyoming, is one of the foremost experts on the region’s suicide problem. She says here too the root causes appear to be historical and cultural.
“If your economic development is based on boom-and-bust industries like mineral extraction and mining, people come and go and don’t put down ties,” she notes. “And there’s lower religiosity in most of the region, so that isn’t there to foster social ties or perhaps to provide a moral framework against suicide. Put that together and you have a climate of social isolation coupled with a culture of individualism and stoicism that leads to an inability to ask for help and a stigma against mental health treatment.”
Another association that can’t be dismissed: suicide rates in the region rise with altitude, even when you control for other factors, for reasons that are unclear. But while this pattern has been found in South Korea and Japan, Pepper notes, it doesn’t seem to exist in the Andes, Himalayas or the mountains of Australia, so it would appear unlikely to have a physiological explanation.
As for the Far West’s low gun homicide rate? “I don’t have data,” she says, “but firearms out here are seen as for recreation and defense, not for offense.”
You might wonder how these centuries-old settlement patterns could still be felt so clearly today, given the constant movement of people from one part of the country to another and waves of immigrants who did not arrive sharing the cultural mores of any of these regions. The answer is that these are the dominant cultures newcomers confronted, negotiated with and which their descendants grew up in, surrounded by institutions, laws, customs, symbols, and stories encoding the values of these would-be nations. On top of that, few of the immigrants arriving in the great and transformational late 19th and early 20th century went to the Deep South, Tidewater, or Greater Appalachia, which wound up increasing the differences between the regions on questions of American identity and belonging. And with more recent migration from one part of the country to another, social scientists have found the movers are more likely to share the political attitudes of their destination rather than their point of origin; as they do so they’re furthering what Bill Bishop called “the Big Sort,” whereby people are choosing to live among people who share their views. This also serves to increase the differences between the regions.
Gun policies, I argue, are downstream from culture, so it’s not surprising that the regions with the worst gun problems are the least supportive of restricting access to firearms. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey asked Americans what was more important, protecting gun ownership or controlling it. The Yankee states of New England went for gun control by a margin of 61 to 36, while those in the poll’s “southeast central” region — the Deep South states of Alabama and Mississippi and the Appalachian states of Tennessee and Kentucky — supported gun rights by exactly the same margin. Far Western states backed gun rights by a proportion of 59 to 38. After the Newtown school shooting in 2012, not only Connecticut but also neighboring New York and nearby New Jersey tightened gun laws. By contrast, after the recent shooting at a Nashville Christian school, Tennessee lawmakers ejected two of their (young black, male Democratic) colleagues for protesting for tighter gun controls on the chamber floor. Then the state senate passed a bill to shield gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits.
[ad_2]
#Gun #Violence #Worse #Red #States #Close
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Islamabad: Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said on Thursday that his party was trying to build consensus among the country’s political leadership on holding elections, but asserted that any dialogue would be futile if it is carried out “with a gun to your head”.
The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Chairman’s remarks came as the country’s Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial requested political leaders to hold negotiations earlier in the day after the Supreme Court resumed hearing a petition seeking to hold general elections for all national and provincial assemblies simultaneously.
Justice Bandial said that there could be no obstinacy in negotiations and that consensus could be built through bilateral talks, The Express Tribune newspaper reported.
He asked the political leaders to meet and negotiate on Thursday rather than after Eid. During the hearing, he said the elections could be held in July after Eid.
Despite Justice Bandial’s request, no dialogue was held between the highly-polarised political parties.
Later, the hearing was adjourned till April 27 after Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan and PPP lawyer Farooq H Naek met Justice Bandial in his chamber and sought more time to hold dialogue with the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party led by ousted prime minister Imran Khan to evolve consensus on the matter, the report said.
“We have made attempts in the past to unify the political leadership [on elections] and are willing to do that again, but dialogue cannot take place with a gun to your head as no one will agree,” Bilawal, 34, said.
He said the PPP supports holding elections on the same day and is prepared to talk to anyone to achieve this goal.
“Our efforts are aimed at saving democracy, which is currently in danger,” he said. Bilawal hoped that the CJP would establish consensus within his institution before leaving his post.
“Our history has never witnessed such fragmentation within the judiciary. The Supreme Court is currently undergoing a trial before the people,” he said.
Pakistan is currently in the grip of political and economic instability, compounded by the bitter tension between the judiciary and executive over the date of elections in the Punjab province.
Parliament and the judiciary are divided over the holding of elections in the two provinces as the former has refused to authorise the funds to meet the expenditures. The deadlock has increased political instability and with the economy already in freefall, the threat of default of the country has increased.
The federal government led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif asserts that it has the power to delay the polls and hold them after August.
However, Khan’s PTI party was pushing for early polls and demanding that instead of delaying the Punjab elections, the National Assembly should be dissolved and general elections called in the country.
Laws must be judged on the basis of results. The consequences of existing lax gun laws in the US are there for all to see. According to the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey (2018), with less than 5% of the world’s population, the United States has 46% of the world’s civilian ownership of guns.
It works out to 120.5 guns per hundred people for the United States, while in the case of Canada, it is 34.7, UK 4.6 and Japan 0.3. As for the gun-related homicides per 100,000 persons, it is 4.12 for the United States, while in the case of Canada, it is 0.5, UK 0.04, and Japan 0.02.
The total number of deaths from guns in the US, both homicide and suicide, in 2021 was about 48,000 which is 25% more than the deaths from car accidents.
The correlation between the scale of ownership of guns and gun deaths is glaringly obvious.
Moreover, because of the ease with which one can get any kind of gun, including rapid-firing automatic rifles, mass shootings are uniquely endemic in the US. Already there have been more than 100 mass shootings this year or more than one per day. Nearly 160 people have died in mass shootings, including 11 in Monterey Park California. Particularly tragic is the frequent mass shooting of schoolchildren and teachers. Only a few days ago three 9-year-old children and three adults were killed in a school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee.
To understand constitutional issues, one must start by studying and analyzing the text of the relevant articles. Here is how the Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The Second Amendment was not something new in the U.S. Constitution. More than 20 years before the U.S. Constitution was ratified and the Union formed, at least three states – North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia – had similar provisions in their constitutions.
The relevant clause in Pennsylvania’s Constitution (1776) reads as follows: “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to the liberty, they ought not to be kept up….”
North Carolina and Virginia had almost identical provisions in their constitutions.
A careful analytical reading of the Second Amendment clearly shows that the right to gun ownership was in the context of the need of the state to have “a well-regulated militia,” for their security. No other purpose or basis for owning guns, such as sports, clay pigeon shooting, hunting, or recreation has been mentioned.
Calamity Jane, notable pioneer frontierswoman and scout, at age 43. Photo by H.R. Locke.
An important point must be made here. For individuals in a democracy, a specific constitutional provision for ownership of guns is not necessary. For example, Canada does not have any article in its Constitution for individual ownership of a gun, and yet private ownership of guns in that country is the second highest after the United States. Indeed, it is interesting that there is hardly any democratic country in Western Europe that has a constitutional provision for the right of gun ownership, and yet people have guns. On the other hand, countries that like the US constitutionally guarantee the right to keep and bear arms include the Czech Republic, Guatemala, Ukraine, Mexico, and the Philippines, not the best examples of democracy and freedom.
In a democracy, specific sanction for each right in the Constitution is not necessary. As the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution makes clear: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Obviously, people have all rights flowing from their unalienable right to “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness,” as so eloquently put in the 1976 Declaration of Independence. For example, an individual has the right to own cars, planes, drones, and motorboats even though there is no specific provision in the Constitution for their possession. Indeed, like so many other things they simply did not then exist. The Constitution provides general guidance, but not all the specific details. The latter is achieved by tens of thousands of laws enacted and many more rules framed in pursuit of the goals laid down in the Constitution.
An individual can own and do anything in pursuit of his right to “life liberty and pursuit of happiness” so long as he does not adversely impact the similar rights of others.
How to interpret and implement the Second Amendment in today’s circumstances?
ATF inspector at a federally licensed gun dealer
At the time when the Second Amendment was adopted, there was no organized, standing professional army in the US for external defense. In fact, because of their oppressive experience of the British colonial soldiers, there was a deep distrust of the regular Army as the clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution shows. The war of American independence was fought and won by an assortment of hastily assembled state militias’ not a regular and professional standing army. Today for its defense the United States has the world’s most powerful army with an annual budget of $750 billion. The US Army is under full civilian control and there is no question of its oppressing the people.
So, from the point of view of external defense, the Second Amendment is an anachronism.
A Remington 20-gauge semi-automatic shotgun, a Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a Colt .45 semi-auto handgun, a Walther PK380 semi-auto handgun and ammunition set against an American flag.
Similarly, at the time of the drafting and adoption of the Constitution, there was no organized and elaborate National Guard, police force, FBI, or intelligence agencies for the internal security of the state, society, and the individual. Hence the emphasis on private ownership of guns for personal defense as well as the defense of the state as and when necessary.
Over the years many legal protections have been provided to the citizens against state high-handedness. Besides the right of habeas corpus, a citizen is protected against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, the duty on the part of the arresting authority to inform the accused of his ‘right to remain silent’ and the ‘right to an attorney’, (popularly known as the Miranda rights), the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, strict laws about the admissibility of evidence, etc. These protections are quite effective in safeguarding the individual’s rights.
Today, for internal security as well as personal safety and protection against state oppression, private ownership of guns is not only unnecessary but a problem. All around security will be enhanced by strengthening institutions, better training of state security personnel, improving accountability, not their distrust, and unchecked and unregulated proliferation of private ownership of guns. Though much is left to be desired, security is far better today than in the past. Attempts at constant improvements going on. In today’s urban life with large assemblies of people everywhere, offering easy targets for mass shootings, guns in everybody’s hands will make problems unmanageable.
The argument that personal safety is enhanced by the ownership of guns and carrying it everywhere is not consistent with logic or supported by facts. When people know that the others are carrying a gun the temptation is to pull out the gun and shoot the other person before he shoots you somewhat like what happens in a Wild West movie. With widespread gun ownership, instead of fistfights and injury, there is shooting and death.
This is borne out by the example of the British police. They do not carry weapons when on duty. Consequently, the criminal also does not carry a gun and shoot the policeman to avoid arrest and thus becomes guilty of homicide. He tries to run away often unsuccessfully but there is no exchange of gunfire and deaths.
So, from the point of view of internal security and personal safety also the Second Amendment is an anachronism.
It is common sense that to be effective laws must take into account the prevailing circumstances. These are quite different today from what they were more than 230 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted.
At that time the total number of guns in the US could probably be counted in thousands not millions. The assembly-line mass production techniques for anything had not yet been developed. Today in US the total number of guns in private hands is over 350 million.
Even more significant is the change in the lethality and firepower of the guns. At the time of Second Amendment, the guns were muzzle-loading. It would take some minutes to load a gun and fire it. So, to fire 10 shots in quick succession you would have to first load and keep ready 10 guns which would take perhaps 20 minutes or more. This completely ruled out mass shootings by an individual.
The first breach in loading guns using cartridges was invented around 1850. The first automatic pistol was invented in 1892 by Joseph Laumann. And then came the automatic pistol with a separate magazine in the grip and today we have an R – 15 which can file dozens of shots in a minute and mow down dozens of people in seconds.
There is simply no comparison between the muzzle-loading guns of 1791 firing one shot per two minutes or so and automatic rifles like AR-15 or AK-47 firing dozens of rounds per minute. One wonders what those who made the Constitution in the time of muzzle-loading guns would have to say about the freedom to own AR-15.
Laws about gun ownership and carrying it on the person must take into account this change in the firepower of weapons. No law, not even the Constitution is a law unto itself, unchanging and unchangeable. Constitution and laws have as their purpose the welfare of the people, and their right to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” They can be amended or even abrogated if, required for the good of the people. Considering the number of gun deaths especially mass shootings and deaths of innocent school children it is time to amend or reinterpret the implementation of the Second Amendment.
Regulating a right is not “infringing” it. Almost all rights of an individual including those under the First Amendment and can be regulated. No right is or can be absolute. The basic principle governing the exercise of rights is that an individual cannot pursue a right to the point where it infringes the similar right of another person. The way the right to gun ownership is being pursued is harming the Right to Life of many people as the frequent random deaths especially of innocent children testify.
An individual has the right to own and drive a car, but this right is regulated to ensure that the right of others to life and the pursuit of happiness is not endangered. The car must be registered and have an identification number plate. There must be third-party insurance coverage. The driver must achieve driving proficiency, pass a test, and have at all times a valid driving license. The car must have minimum safety standards. It must have seatbelts, and a collapsible steering column. It must meet emission standards, have good brakes and tires, and annual roadworthiness certificate. One cannot drive a car under the influence of liquor. The prescribed speed limit must be observed. One can be fined, have his license suspended, or even be imprisoned for not complying with rules.
Similarly, there are elaborate regulations about the ownership of planes, powerboats, etc.
An individual has the right to own a home; but again, there are codes and safety standards that must be followed.
One has a right to drink at the party but not drive back home under the influence of alcohol.
Such regulations are mainly for the protection of the rights of others. We live in a society with others and must respect other people’s rights.
Sick of daily mass shootings, a vast majority of Americans want to regulate gun ownership to check gun deaths. They must translate their vague sentiments into concrete action. Vote out those who oppose common sense gun possession regulations. It is time to discuss and develop a consensus on step-by-step measures to check gun violence. Second Amendment or no Second Amendment, people have a right to own guns but only with regulations to ensure everybody’s safety. It has been achieved by other free and democratic societies. There is no basis for gun exceptionalism in the US. We should stop making gun ownership a fetish. The gun culture in the US is a creation of Hollywood Westerns rather than a need or reality. There is nothing glamorous or macho about gun ownership. Nobody’s safety least of all that of the individual himself is enhanced. Rationally considered everybody’s safety including that of the gun owner is diminished. An arms race in gun ownership endangers everyone’s life in society the same way that the global arms race threatens the security of every nation.
The power to change in a democracy rests with the people. Gun freedom lobbies may have money but the people who believe in common sense gun regulations have the vote. They should go to the polling station at the next election and exercise it.
State Rep. Justin Jones was removed from office in a largely party-line vote, 72-25, that was led by the Republican supermajority. The votes for the other two targeted Democrats are expected to have similar results.
Republicans dominate both chambers in the state Legislature, and the GOP reinforced its supermajority in the midterms by picking up more seats in the House. Democrats hold just 23 seats to Republicans’ 75.
Dubbed “the Tennessee Three” by fellow Democrats, Jones, Johnson and Pearson represent the three largest cities in Tennessee.
Ahead of the vote, Jones, a freshman lawmaker and community organizer, admonished Republicans for not enacting gun reform laws after multiple tragedies — inaction he said has sparked a movement for change.
“Your flexing of false power has awakened a generation of people who will let you know your time is up,” Jones, 27, warned Republicans.
A number of Republicans questioned Jones over the order of events the day of the protests, trying to pin them down on rule violations. Republican Rep. Gino Bulso, a sponsor of the expulsion resolutions, said that Jones “shows no remorse” when addressing the chamber before the vote.
The move by Republicans is remarkable for its naked partisanship and the speed with which it was executed. The process of removing lawmakers is usually a bipartisan undertaking in most states, often involving internal investigations following criminal charges or ethical lapses. In Tennessee, only two other House members have been removed before today’s proceedings, both after criminal violations or sexual misconduct.
Should all three members be expelled, special elections will be held in the three districts encompassing Nashville, Knoxville and Memphis. Nothing would hold those members back from running again in those races. Johnson suggested in an interview with POLITICO that if she’s voted out, she would try to return to the statehouse if her constituents desired it. The state constitution forbids lawmakers from being removed from office twice for the same offense.
GOP leadership could also face a lawsuit from the members, although it’s unclear at this point what grounds they could sue on.
The drama has skyrocketed the three to the national stage as Democrats have rallied around them and tried to steer that attention toward enacting gun reform laws in Tennessee and beyond. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuesday that Tennessee Republicans are “shrugging in the face of yet another school shooting.”
The expulsion vote marks “just another anti-democratic effort to silence the American people for speaking out against the devastating consequences of gun violence,” Neha Patel, co-executive director of the State Innovation Exchange, a nonprofit supporting progressive state lawmakers, said in a letter released Thursday that was signed by hundreds of lawmakers from across the country.
Jones, talking with reporters after his expulsion, said the proceedings do “not seem like America.”
“To expel voices of opposition and dissent is a signal of authoritarianism and it is very dangerous,” he said.
[ad_2]
#Tennessee #House #expels #Dem #gun #protest #targets
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The Tennessee Legislature has captured national attention after three state lawmakers — Reps. Gloria Johnson of Knoxville, Justin Jones of Nashville and Justin Pearson of Memphis — used a bullhorn to amplify calls for gun policy reform as demonstrators at the state capitol called for lawmakers to take action last week. The lawmakers approached the lectern without being recognized, interrupting legislative business. House Speaker Cameron Sexton called the protests “an insurrection.”
The lawmakers were quickly stripped of their committee assignments, and GOP lawmakers filed three resolutions this week seeking the Democrats’ removal, in a rare and historic step that the state House has taken only twice since the 1860s. If the vote succeeds, it will mark an unprecedented use of power by Republicans who control both chambers of the Tennessee Legislature. The GOP holds 75 of the 99 seats in the House, and the three Democrats will be removed if the vote falls along party lines. The rare step typically occurs only when members are accused of crimes or ethics violations.
The White House has weighed in twice this week, criticizing the action for its partisan nature amid a national epidemic of gun violence that continues to rock the country. So far this year, the U.S. has seen 141 mass shootings and 65 children have been killed because of gun violence, according to the Gun Violence Archive.
The White House on Thursday repeated President Joe Biden’s futile pleas for Congress to reimplement an assault weapons ban. Jean-Pierre also said the president would continue his push for Congress to eliminate gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability and to implement universal background checks.
[ad_2]
#White #House #Tenn #Republicans #expected #vote #expel #Dems #gun #protests #undemocratic
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Ahead of Thursday’s vote, tensions appeared high among lawmakers as they debated separate legislation, including a school safety bill that would require every school to have a resource officer or security guard. Members of the public filled the galleries and hallways to observe the session.
If the vote is successful, it would mark an unprecedented wielding of power by the Republicans who control both chambers of the Legislature. Expelling members typically occurs when individuals are accused of crimes or ethics violations, a rare step that tends to follow an internal investigation that can span months or years and features bipartisan agreement.
In this case, however, Republicans angered by the trio’s actions moved swiftly and unilaterally.
“They have gone to extreme consequences for three members who spoke without permission,” said Johnson in an interview with POLITICO.
Removing Johnson and her colleagues would set a “terrible precedent,” she said. “You could be expelled for literally anything, the smallest infraction possible.”
The drama has skyrocketed the three to the national stage as Democrats have rallied around them and tried to steer that attention toward enacting gun reform laws in Tennessee and beyond. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuesday that Tennessee Republicans are “shrugging in the face of yet another school shooting.”
[ad_2]
#Tennessee #House #vote #expelling #Dems #gun #protest
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Republican Reps. Bud Hulsey, Gino Bulso, and Andrew Farmer filed the resolutions. They successfully requested Monday that the House expedite the process and vote on the resolutions Thursday.
Despite support from the Republican supermajority, their requests sparked outrage among supporters watching in the gallery. Their loud jeers led House Speaker Cameron Sexton to demand that they be removed by state troopers. Also during the turmoil, several lawmakers engaged in a confrontation on the House floor.
Jones later accused another member of stealing his phone and trying to “incite a riot with his fellow members.”
Sexton deemed Jones out of order and cut off Jones’ microphone.
Hundreds of protesters packed the Capitol last week calling for the Republican-led Statehouse to pass gun control measures in response to the Nashville school shooting that resulted in the deaths of six people. As the chants echoed throughout the Capitol, Jones, Johnson and Pearson approached the front of the House chamber with a bullhorn.
As the three shared the bullhorn and cheered on the crowd, Sexton, a Republican, quickly called for a recess. He later vowed the three would face consequences. Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Karen Camper described their actions as “good trouble,” a reference to the late U.S. Rep. John Lewis’ guiding principal.
By Monday, Sexton confirmed that the three lawmakers had been stripped of their committee assignments and said more punishments could be on the way. A few hours later, House Republican Caucus Chairman Jeremy Faison referred to Jones as the “former representative” during the evening session.
Pearson and Jones are both freshman lawmakers. Johnson has served in the House since 2019. All three have been highly critical of the Republican supermajority. Jones was temporarily banned from the Tennessee Capitol in 2019 after throwing a cup of liquid at former House Speaker Glen Casada and other lawmakers while protesting the bust of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest inside the Capitol.
Expelling lawmakers is an extraordinary action inside the Tennessee Capitol. Just two other House members have ever been ousted from the chamber since the Civil War.
[ad_2]
#Tennessee #GOP #members #move #oust #Dems #gun #protest
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Florida becomes the 26th state to allow residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit. The new legislation gives DeSantis another victory to tout as he gears up for an expected presidential campaign.
“Here in the free state of Florida, government will not get in the way of law-abiding Americans who want to defend themselves and their families,” said state Sen. Jay Collins, a Tampa Republican and sponsor of the legislation.
While DeSantis and other Republican backers have described the legislation as “constitutional carry,” supporters of gun rights have repeatedly called on GOP legislators to go further by allowing people to carry guns openly.
DeSantis has said he supports open carry, but top Republicans in the state Senate — including Senate President Kathleen Passidomo — oppose such a policy. Passidomo has cited the opposition of many of Florida’s sheriffs as a prime reason for her stance.
“The governor is weak if he cannot even get his own super majority legislature to add part of his agenda, which is open carry, to the permitless carry bill,” said Matt Collins, a gun rights supporter and former lobbyist for gun-rights groups. “It’s embarrassing for him. It’s failed leadership and it hurts his chances in the upcoming presidential primary.”
Democrats, meanwhile, sharply criticized the approval of the gun measure.
“Hiding behind closed doors and standing shoulder to shoulder with the NRA, Ron DeSantis just signed legislation that could make it easier for criminals to carry guns,” Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison said in a statement. “DeSantis knows this legislation could be dangerous for Florida families and that’s why he signed this bill with none of his usual produced fanfare.”
Florida law currently makes it a felony if someone carries a concealed weapon without a permit. There are more than 2.6 million people with concealed weapon licenses who must go through training and a background check first.
The new law, which takes effect on July 1, does not end the permitting program but instead makes it optional. Bill supporters contend many Floridians will go through the permitting process because other states recognize the licenses.
State Sen. Lauren Book, the Senate Democratic leader, also faulted Republicans for pushing ahead with what she called a “nonsensical, reckless policy” due to the “governor’s political ambition.”
[ad_2]
#DeSantis #signs #Florida #gun #bill #activists #demand
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s tweet is part of a broader push by Democrats nationwide to pass gun safety legislation. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
California Gov. Gavin Newsom slammed Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn on Twitter Monday night for voting against gun safety laws and accepting over $1 million in donations from the NRA over her career after the senator tweeted she was “ready to assist” in the wake of the deadly elementary school shooting in Nashville.
Blackburn, a Republican, tweeted on Monday, “Chuck & I are heartbroken to hear about the shooting at Covenant School in Nashville. My office is in contact with federal, state, & local officials, & we stand ready to assist. Thank you to the first responders working on site. Please join us in prayer for those affected.”
Later that night, Newsom responded with, “You received $1,306,130 in donations from the NRA. You voted against the most recent bipartisan gun package in June. If you’re so ‘ready to assist’ — start by doing your job and passing commonsense gun laws that will help prevent tragedies like the one today.”
[ad_2]
#Newsom #slams #Blackburn #voting #gun #control #bill #wake #Nashville #shooting
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
