Each year, the Law Center’s Anniversary Dinner brings together our community to honor the exceptional efforts of a few key individuals for their outstanding leadership in the gun violence prevention movement. The dinner, with an audience of 500–700 attorneys, business professionals, lawmakers, and advocates from all over the country, is a truly unique opportunity to recognize the movement’s champions, celebrate the Law Center’s remarkable achievements, and support the fight for smart gun laws that save lives.
This year, we were so proud to honor former US Attorney General Eric Holder, activists Pam and Tom Bosley, as well as the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, for their outstanding contributions to the gun violence prevention movement. Don’t miss this video of highlights from the 24th Anniversary Dinner—we hope it inspires you to continue standing with us in the fight for smart gun laws.
To see photos of the 24th Anniversary Dinner, view our Flickr slideshow:
With the first half of 2017 behind us, Americans have already experienced too many devastating losses to gun violence. The week of the one-year anniversary of the Pulse nightclub massacre, the deadliest shooting in our nation’s history, we endured two more media-grabbing mass shootings in a single day in Virginia and San Francisco—the 153rd and 154th mass shootings of the year. Urban gun violence continues to claim increasingly more lives—Chicago saw seven deaths and 50 more wounded in a single weekend this month. And, despite a mountain of evidence that deregulating silencers and forcing states with strong gun laws to recognize concealed carry permits issued in states with weak laws would make the public less safe, the gun lobby aggressively pursues bills in Congress to do just that.
But the gun violence prevention movement continues to make historic progress that began after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, notching critical victories in a time where the president has vowed to advance the gun lobby’s agenda to bring guns into every aspect of public life. This legislative cycle, states passed smart gun laws to improve background checks and suicide prevention. Several states also enacted laws strengthening efforts to prevent domestic abusers from accessing guns, and California restored funding to programs aimed at reducing urban gun violence.
So far in 2017, our attorneys have tracked, analyzed, and summarized more than 1,617 firearms bills, and will review many more during the remainder of the year in states that have yet to complete their legislative cycles. We’ve also worked with our partners at Americans for Responsible Solutions and other advocates in the gun violence prevention movement on gun safety legislation in 26 states.
In our special edition of Gun Law Trendwatch—2017 Mid-Year Review, we review the gun violence prevention movement’s progress so far this year. Some of the standout trends from 2017 include:
- Domestic violence: Every year, a number of states pass laws that make it harder for domestic abusers to access guns, and 2017 was no exception.
- Defensive victories: Legislators in 20 states rejected measures to allow guns in public without a permit, and guns on campus bills were defeated by 12 states—major setbacks to the gun lobby’s dangerous agenda.
- Extreme risk protection orders: Bills that would allow family members and law enforcement to petition courts to temporarily disarm individuals who pose a significant risk to themselves or others were introduced in 18 states, and are still pending in 10.
The year isn’t over yet, and we anticipate even more victories during the remainder of 2017. We’re waiting for Governor Jerry Brown’s signature on the state’s budget, which restores funding to CalVIP, a state-level grant program that provides funding for cities to implement violence prevention and intervention strategies. In California, the Law Center sponsored AB 785, a bill that would prohibit individuals convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. The bill is swiftly advancing through the legislature with bipartisan support. In Massachusetts, an extreme risk protection order bill is scheduled to be heard in committee on July 18. The Law Center will continue to update the movement on the outcome of these innovative efforts to prevent gun violence, and others, in future issues of Trendwatch.
Last month, a gun lobby group filed last-minute litigation to try to delay implementation of new limits on large-capacity magazines included in California’s Proposition 63, a package of lifesaving gun laws voters approved by a two-to-one margin this past November. The state’s NRA chapter, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, filed its lawsuit in Duncan v. Becerra at the 11th hour, mere weeks before Proposition 63’s LCM limitations were slated to go into effect on July 1. Unfortunately, yesterday a federal judge in San Diego temporarily sided with the gun lobby by issuing an injunction that delays implementation of Proposition 63’s commonsense restrictions on the possession of dangerous military-style magazines.
California’s magazine restrictions are one component of Proposition 63’s package of bold gun safety reforms, which the Law Center drafted in partnership with Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom. The measure closed several loopholes in California’s gun laws, and included a groundbreaking requirement for background checks on ammunition purchases and laws to ensure felons relinquish their firearms upon conviction. Yesterday’s opinion issuing an injunction only affects the ban on large-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The more than 60-page opinion, written by US District Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California, held that a temporary injunction was necessary to allow for further study of whether California’s magazine limitations violate the Second Amendment or are an unlawful government “taking” without compensation. His ruling was an extreme departure from settled law in this area. Every other court to have considered magazine regulations, including four federal appeals courts, have rejected similar constitutional arguments and upheld sensible restrictions on these deadly accessories, which have been used in major mass shootings like the massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary, San Bernardino, and the Pulse nightclub.
In fact, earlier in the day, a similar challenge to Proposition 63’s magazine law, Wiese v. Becerra, was heard by Senior District Judge William Shubb, a George H.W. Bush appointee, in California’s Eastern District. Judge Shubb ruled that the law does not violate the Second Amendment and is not a government “taking.” With a split in the courts, the gun lobby’s large-capacity magazine challenges will likely now head to the Ninth Circuit. That court previously affirmed a decision upholding the constitutionality of a local law prohibiting possession of large-capacity magazines—a decision a lot like Judge Shubb’s ruling in favor of Proposition 63.
For that reason, we are confident that yesterday’s flawed decision to block California’s new limits on large capacity magazines will be quickly overturned. As other courts have determined, restrictions on such magazines are lawful because these exceedingly dangerous accessories, so often selected by mass shooters for their lethal efficiency, are better suited for military applications than civilian self-defense. The gun lobby’s position that these magazines enjoy absolute Second Amendment protections contradicts the words of late Justice Scalia, who wrote in Heller that the Second Amendment is “not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatsoever purpose.”
It’s not surprising that when the gun lobby lost at the ballot box, their next move was to turn to the courts. Fortunately, the clock can’t be turned back on progress forever. Proposition 63 is just one reason why California leads our nation in the enactment of lifesaving gun policy reforms. The state has had remarkable success – in the past two decades, California has comprehensively strengthened its gun laws and cut the state’s gun death rate by nearly 60%, transforming California from one of the most violent states in the nation to one of the safest. We expect these remarkable gains will continue when Proposition 63 is fully implemented.
There’s good news today in a critical Second Amendment case out of California. The Supreme Court denied review in Peruta v. California, leaving in place a decision upholding the state law that requires concealed carry permit applicants to show good cause to local law enforcement before carrying a hidden, loaded weapon in public. Today’s news demonstrates that the courts remain unmoved by the gun lobby’s dangerous agenda to lower safety standards and force guns into more public spaces. And it shows that the Second Amendment permits reasonable firearm safety legislation, like California’s smart gun laws.
California is one of several states that has “good cause” policies on the books, while other states impose basic minimum qualifications on concealed carry applicants through other types of “may issue” permitting laws. These policies protect public safety by ensuring that local law enforcement officers are empowered to determine the qualifications for issuing permits to carry loaded, concealed guns on public streets and sidewalks. By leaving the Ninth Circuit’s decision undisturbed, the Supreme Court ensured that California and other states may continue to regulate the public carry of firearms based on the safety needs of local communities.
The Law Center has been involved in the Peruta case for more than five years, since the beginning of the litigation process, and filed two amicus briefs urging the Ninth Circuit to uphold California’s concealed carry permitting system—the position later adopted in the Ninth Circuit’s en banc opinion. The Law Center’s briefs were joined by leading national law enforcement officials, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.
Fighting for commonsense gun laws in the courts is an essential part of our mission, and we’re winning—more than 94% of Second Amendment challenges to smart gun laws have been rejected since the landmark Heller decision in 2008. And the Supreme Court has denied review in more than 70 cases involving a Second Amendment challenge, leaving in place lower court decisions—like Peruta—that uphold lifesaving gun safety measures. Additionally, lawmakers in 45 states and DC have passed 198 new smart gun laws since the tragic gun massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Today, we are left reeling by the news of two more disturbing mass shootings, both with echoes of our organizations’ founding. Incidents like this are a stark reminder of the relentless drumbeat of tragedy our nation is forced to endure because our leaders refuse to pass sensible gun legislation that keeps the public safe.
This morning, in Alexandria, Virginia, a shooter launched a heinous, deliberate attack on members of Congress and their staffers. Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana and at least four others were wounded while practicing for the annual Congressional baseball game. Scalise, who is now recovering from a gunshot to the hip, is the first member of Congress to be the victim of such an attack since our leader, former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot along with 18 others—six fatally—while meeting with constituents in January 2011.
The shooter in Alexandria was a 66-year-old man from Illinois with a violent history and radical views. During the chaos of this assault, two courageous Capitol Police officers were shot in an effort to neutralize the gunman, who was armed with a handgun and a military-style assault weapon. The perpetrator was later killed after a shootout with police.
Mere hours later, reports came in of an active shooter at a UPS facility across the country. In San Francisco, a gunman shot and killed three UPS employees and wounded two others. According to the city’s assistant police chief, the gunman was armed with an assault pistol which he then turned on himself when confronted by police.
The mass shooting at UPS took place a short distance from 101 California Street, the site of the 1993 massacre that led to the Law Center’s founding. The tragic incident is a reminder of the all-too frequent occurrences of workplace violence that plague our nation. Businesses should be peaceful environments where people can feel safe, but they are frequent targets for deadly attacks. Following the murder of five warehouse workers in Orlando earlier this month, the tragedy in San Francisco underscores just how common shootings like this are—according to an FBI analysis, acts of violence in places of business like this one are the most common type of active shooter situations.
Today’s shooting in the Potrero neighborhood of San Francisco marks the 154th mass shooting of 2017, and while no lives were lost in Alexandria, both of these assaults are a painful reminder of 114,000 Americans shot every year. We are deeply saddened by both of these tragedies and send our sincere and heartfelt sympathies to the victims and to their families. But we can and must do more to put a stop to these incidents of gun violence that shatter countless lives each year.
The gun lobby continues hold Congress in a tight grip, pushing for the total dismantling of our gun laws, including this year’s attempt to deregulate silencers, legislation that was scheduled to be debated in Congress today. It is terrifying to imagine how much more difficult it would be for law enforcement to respond to a mass shooting when a gunman has a silencer.
The parallels between the mass shootings that occurred today and those which launched the Law Center and our partner organization Americans for Responsible Solutions are striking, and remind us of how critical this fight truly is for the sake of our nation’s safety.
Today marks a year since a gunman entered Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, and carried out the deadliest mass shooting in US history, taking the lives of 49 people and injuring another 53 in a deeply disturbing act of terrorism and hate. Armed with military-style assault weapons, the shooter was able to fire hundreds of rounds into the crowd of clubgoers without pausing to reload, maximizing the carnage.
Last week, Orlando again was the site of another senseless shooting—a disgruntled former employee entered the warehouse where he used to work, singling out and killing five victims before turning the gun on himself. Yet again, the city was forced to mourn the tragic loss of life that happens far too often in our nation—the incident was the 144th mass shooting of 2017. According to The Trace’s analysis of data from the Gun Violence Archive, since the Pulse nightclub shooting, more than 250 people have been shot, 81 fatally, in Orlando, a small city of about 260,000.
Florida has incredibly weak gun laws, and as a result, it’s far too easy for guns to fall into the hands of dangerous people who want to carry out acts of violence. Weak concealed carry standards, onerous preemption laws, and a deadly stand your ground statute all contribute to Florida’s abysmally high gun death rate—about four times higher per capita than Massachusetts, a state with some of the nation’s strongest gun laws. Unfortunately, Florida isn’t alone when it comes to lax gun laws. It’s one of a shocking 25 states that earns an F on our annual Gun Law State Scorecard.
Last summer, in the aftermath of the Pulse shooting, dozens of senators and representatives bravely led filibusters and sit-ins to demand votes on universal background checks and other lifesaving policies. Yet congressional leadership has refused to act, even though more than 90% of Americans support expanding background checks to close the private sale loophole. In fact, the primary gun bills on Congress’s agenda in the current session are to deregulate silencers and to make it easier for untrained individuals to carry guns in public, both pieces of legislation backed by the gun lobby and designed to bring new profits to the gun industry at the expense of public safety.
As we honor the memory of those innocent Americans gunned down in the dark a year ago tonight, it’s essential that we also demand our leaders stand up to the gun lobby and pass the smart gun laws that save lives.
Visit the Gun Law State Scorecard to see how your state stacks up, and learn more about what lawmakers can do to safeguard communities from gun violence.
Like the rest of America, Ohio suffers from a gun death rate that dwarfs other developed nations, exacting a high physical and emotional toll on the state and its communities. But one aspect of the gun violence epidemic receives far less attention than it should: the overwhelming financial cost shootings inflict. Which is why today the Law Center and Americans for Responsible Solutions released the new report The Economic Cost of Gun Violence in Ohio: A Business Case for Action.
Ohio’s business community is severely impacted by the negative economic consequences of gun violence. Shootings incite fear in affected neighborhoods, keeping potential customers away, impeding tourism, and often forcing businesses to relocate or limit their hours of operation. Based on the expenses that can be directly measured, including healthcare costs, law enforcement and criminal justice expenses, employer costs, and lost income, the initial pricetag of gun violence in Ohio is $2.7 billion per year.
But the expenses don’t end there. When a reduced quality of life from pain and suffering is considered, the estimate for the economic cost of gun violence in Ohio rises to a staggering $7.3 billion per year.
Last year was Cleveland’s deadliest in a decade, and other communities have experienced similarly tragic upticks. Ohio scored a D on the 2016 Gun Law State Scorecard, leaving much room for improvement. Specifically, The Economic Cost of Gun Violence in Ohio lays out two primary policy areas that have been proven to dramatically reduce gun violence, especially when implemented together:
- Closing Background Check Loopholes: Ohio currently does not require criminal background checks on all gun sales. This deadly loophole allows felons, domestic abusers, and those experiencing a mental health crisis to purchase guns in the state in private sales without any oversight.
- Supporting Community-Based Violence Intervention Programs: Community-based intervention strategies can help drastically reduce gun violence in impacted urban areas. By establishing programs that connect at-risk youth to badly needed social services and creating hospital-based intervention programs, Ohio could see a steep decline in gun violence. (Learn more about these solutions in our report on urban gun violence, Healing Communities in Crisis.)
This comprehensive review of the billions of dollars gun violence costs Ohio’s economy and business community each year reveals the massive scope of the problem and provides lawmakers with the essential legislative solutions they need to protect communities from needless tragedies and the unacceptable human and financial toll they exact on Ohio each year.
The Buckeye State is hardly unique when it comes to this problem. Our report on Minnesota’s gun violence last year revealed a similarly staggering economic cost, and in 2015 a national analysis by Mother Jones estimated the taxpayer burden gun violence presents annually across America reaches over $299 billion.
A significant part of the work we do at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence involves defending smart gun laws from Second Amendment challenges in the court system. Our expertise can help judges understand the critical importance of these laws, how they protect public safety, and their constitutionality. Challenges to smart gun laws fail at a remarkable rate—since the landmark Heller decision in 2008, courts have rejected an overwhelming 94% of Second Amendment challenges.
One way we work to ensure these important laws are upheld is by filing amicus briefs in key cases nationwide. Our latest brief, filed this week in the Delaware case Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club v. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, sheds light on the importance of regulating firearms in public parks and forests.
The Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club, the appellant in this case, claims that regulations prohibiting the possession of firearms in Delaware state parks and forests violate the right to bear arms afforded by the Delaware constitution. But public parks and forests have consistently been found to constitute sensitive areas that have long been subject to increased government regulation, and the agencies charged with maintaining these government-run lands have a legitimate need to protect the safety of visitors to such areas.
Our brief presents current and reputable research demonstrating that allowing broader concealed carry of firearms has resulted in an increase in violent crime and accidents—not a decrease. Research also shows that firearms are rarely used in self-defense and disproves claims put forward by the Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club and opposing briefs in the case that concealed-carry licensees themselves are inherently more law-abiding than the regular population.
The Law Center’s Second Amendment experts have tracked and analyzed over 1,150 cases challenging smart gun laws since the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller opinion in 2008. And in that time, we’ve observed a clear trend: in 94% of these cases, courts have rejected constitutional challenges to gun laws. Why? Because the Constitution and precedent are clear: lifesaving, commonsense policies like background checks are fully consistent with the Second Amendment.
We round up and evaluate these Second Amendment cases in our biannual Post-Heller Litigation Summary—the most comprehensive, up-to-date survey of developments in firearm-related litigation over the last decade. Today, we’re releasing our spring update of the summary, which takes a look at Second Amendment decisions on topics like guns in public, particularly dangerous weapons, and restrictions on gun possession by criminal offenders, domestic abusers, and those experiencing a mental health crisis.
National attention turned to the Supreme Court recently when Neil Gorsuch was sworn in as the Court’s newest justice. Second Amendment issues cropped up throughout Gorsuch’s confirmation, from the gun lobby’s million dollar ad buy supporting Gorsuch, to Gorsuch’s dodge of a question on whether military-style assault weapons may be regulated consistently with the Constitution (see our litigation director Adam Skaggs’ analysis of this moment in US News and World Report). Intense focus on gun laws and the Second Amendment will undoubtedly continue in the current Supreme Court term, when the justices are scheduled to vote on whether to hear two cases explored in the newest Post-Heller Litigation Summary—Peruta and Binderup—both involving Second Amendment challenges to important state and federal firearm regulations.
In the last decade, gun lobby–backed plaintiffs have used the Heller decision to justify bringing hundreds of aggressive challenges to sensible gun policies, spending millions and millions of dollars in an attempt to reshape the Constitution. The Peruta and Binderup lawsuits are part of the pattern, challenging reasonable regulations on carrying hidden, loaded guns in public (Peruta) and gun possession by dangerous criminal offenders (Binderup). Thankfully, as the Law Center’s litigation tracking efforts have shown, lower courts have overwhelmingly rejected the gun lobby’s specious arguments and recognized that smart gun laws pose no threat to the Second Amendment, regardless of what the gun lobby’s lawyers would have you believe.
It’s notable that much of our post-Heller survey of Second Amendment jurisprudence focuses on decisions by state courts, federal district courts, and appellate courts. That’s because, with only one exception (a case involving stun guns rather than firearms), the US Supreme Court has declined to review any Second Amendment decisions by lower courts since 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago, the companion case to Heller. By denying review, the Court has left in place a growing body of precedent—from state and federal judges across the ideological spectrum—pointing to one conclusion: lawmakers are free to enact the lifesaving gun safety measures the public overwhelmingly supports without violating Second Amendment rights.
Once again, a senseless act of gun violence has left the California community of San Bernardino reeling. This morning, a gunman entered North Park Elementary School, made his way to the classroom where his estranged wife, Karen Elaine Smith, was teaching a class for students with special needs, and opened fire before turning the gun on himself.
Smith was killed, along with one of her eight-year-old students, and another student was critically wounded and remains hospitalized. The shooting is the 12th school shooting of 2017. America is averaging more than three incidents with guns in schools per month. Our nation simply cannot continue like this—it is far too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on guns in order to commit heartbreaking, irreversible damage to families and communities.
Police report this incident was an act of domestic violence. Armed domestic abusers, like the suspect in yesterday’s shooting, pose a particular risk to the public, law enforcement, and especially to their partners. Women are murdered with a gun once every five hours in the United States, often at the hands of an abusive spouse or domestic partner. Research shows:
- Over the past 25 years, more intimate partner homicides in the United States have been committed with guns than with all other weapons combined.
- More than three times as many women are murdered with guns used by their husbands or intimate partners than are killed by strangers’ weapons combined.
- Abusers are five times more likely to murder their intimate partners if a firearm is in the home than if no firearm is present.
- 57% of mass shootings begin as domestic violence incidents
Responding to domestic violence calls is a significant and often dangerous part of law enforcement officers’ duties as well. Nationally, 15% to 40% of all calls for police assistance are domestic disputes, and research has shown that family violence calls are “the most dangerous type of call for the responding officers.” In a 2016 report on officers who were killed responding to a family violence call, all but one of the officers examined was killed with a firearm.
Yesterday our nation was reminded, yet again, that a gun in the hands of a domestic abuser can wreak unspeakable terror on the most innocent of victims. It’s time our lawmakers have the courage to do more than offer their thoughts and prayers to those who survive terrible events like this—it is time to take action. We must demand that our elected leaders stand up for victims of domestic violence by passing the smart gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of abusers and keep our communities safe.