Political Cartoons for the Trayvon Martin Shooting and Florida's "Shoot First" Bill

(UPDATED -- scroll to end for most recent)

With the outrage felt by the nation at the shooting of Trayvon Martin, and the potential that the shooter could get away with it because of Florida's "shoot first, ask questions later" law, political cartoonists have been busy trying to capture the issue.  Here are many of the political cartoons I have seen for this issue:

UPDATE (4/7/12):

UPDATE (4/9/12):  

UPDATE (4/12/12):

UPDATE (4/15/12):

UPDATE (4/17/12):  

UPDATE (4/23/12):

UPDATE (4/24/12):

UPDATE (4/25/12):

UPDATE (5/1/12):

 

UPDATE (5/10/12):

UPDATE 7/14/12:

UPDATED 7/9/13:

UPDATED 7/11/13:

UPDATED 7/14/13:

UPDATED (7/19/14):  HERE are 25 more examples of political cartoons, as well as works of art.
.

It's Just A "Hooded Sweatshirt," Right?

Trayvon Martin, age 17

The shooting of Trayvon Martin continues to polarize the nation.  Some critical questions about the case have yet to be answered.  Even though the shooter, George Zimmerman, feeling empowered by Florida's "shoot first" law, clearly stalked and chased the boy around the housing complex before shooting him to death, Zimmerman claims the boy was the attacker.  If the boy did throw the first blow, would the boy's attack have been justified, given he knew he was being followed and might have suspected that Zimmerman was armed?  We may never know the true story of who threw the first punch, since it is the shooter's word against that of a dead boy.  But even conceal carry gun owners are agreeing that Zimmerman's claim of self-defense won't justify the shooting.

"I'm a Florida deputy in a neighboring county. Zimmerman is guilty of 1^st-degree manslaughter at a minimum. I personally feel like this was an outright homicide!" wrote vkent718. "I feel for Trayvon's family."

And how much of Zimmerman's actions were motivated by racism?  Twice in the 911 call, Zimmerman describes the boy as black.  He then calls the boy a "fucking coon" under his breath.  When asked by the 911 operator, Zimmerman describes how the boy wore a hoodie.  
 

In case you've been living in the dark ages of fashion, a "hoodie" is a sweatshirt with a hood, harkening back to the 70's, like when Sylvester Stallone wore one in "Rocky."

It is an article of clothing worn by young people of every race all over our nation.  I own one, too.  To some people, it has become a symbol of hip-hop, urban style.  But for other people, the racist ones, it is a symbol of gangs and violence committed by black youths.  It's not acceptable to publicly accuse a black young man as a criminal simply due to the color of his skin, but somehow people can get away with using an article of clothing for the same purpose.  The hoodie becomes a stand-in for the skin color.  If a white boy were wearing the same garment, I doubt anyone would say anything.

Was Zimmerman one of those people?  Given his racist slur, I hazard to guess that he is. 

Listen as Geraldo Rivera apologizes for those people:  HERE.

“I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was,” Rivera explained.

“What’s the instant association? It’s crime scene surveillance tapes. Every time you see someone stick up a 7-11, the kid is wearing a hoodie. Every time you see a mugging on a surveillance camera or get the old lady in the alcove, it’s kid with a hoodie,” Rivera continued.

“When you see a Black or Latino youngster, particularly on the street, you walk to the other side of the street. You try to avoid that confrontation,” he said. “Trayvon Martin, god bless him, an innocent kid, a wonderful kid, a box of Skittles in his hands. He didn’t deserve to die. But I bet you money, if he didn’t have that hoodie on that, nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn’t have responded in that violent and aggressive way.”

“Stop wearing it! You know the old Johnny Cash song, don’t take your gun to town, son. Leave your gun at home,” Rivera said. “There is some things that are almost inevitable. I’m not suggesting that Trayvon Martin had any kind of weapon, but he wore an outfit that allowed someone to respond in this irrational, overzealous way and if he had been dressed more appropriately… I think unless it’s raining out, or if you’re at a track meet, leave the hoodie home, don’t let your children go out there.”

Apparently Rivera is afraid to walk past black or latino kids on the street, particularly if they are wearing a hoodie.  Does that make him racist?  Yes.  Yes it does. 

In light of Rivera's comments and Zimmerman's apparent stereotyping, people all over the nation are wearing hoodies as a symbol of the injustice of the shooting and the apparent racism that contributed to it.  A "Million Hoodie March" is being held across the nation.  HERE is one that is planned for Portland, Oregon.  Yesterday a Democratic Representative, Bobby Rush of Illinois, wore one in the nation's capitol and was escorted out as a result.

At this point in his remarks, Rush took off his jacket to reveal that he was wearing a hoodie underneath it. He covered his head with the hood, violating a rule in Congress that prohibits wearing hats on the House floor.

"Racial profiling has to stop, Mr. Speaker. Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum," Rush added, swapping his spectacles for a pair of sunglasses.

Gail Collins, an op-ed writer for the New York Times, had some good comments on this:

Congress, which never draws any serious conclusions from terrible tragedies involving gunplay, did have time on Wednesday to fight about whether Representative Bobby Rush of Chicago violated the House dress code when he took off his suit jacket, revealing a gray sweater he was wearing underneath, and pulled the hood up over his head. 

“Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum,” Congressman Rush said, before he was hustled off for violating the rule against wearing hats on the House floor. 

This is pretty much par for the course. Whenever there is a terrible shooting incident somewhere in America, our politicians talk about everything except whether the tragedy could have been avoided if the gunman had not been allowed to carry a firearm.

And what does the NRA have to say about the shooting?  Nothing.  Zilch.  Nada.  As usual, in the wake of an horrific shooting that grabs the nation's attention and highlights the dangers of lax gun regulation, the NRA has nothing to say.  They don't mourn the death of another child.  They don't condemn the shooter for stalking the boy or killing him.  They don't even examine the facts of the case.  Little wonder.  It was the NRA and their lobbyist, Marion Hammer, who crafted the "stand your ground" (a.k.a. "shoot first, ask questions later") bill that empowered Zimmerman and may let him get away with the shooting.  Since that bill was passed, "justifiable homicide" cases in Florida have tripled in number.

The NRA's new Concealed Carry Hooded Sweater

The NRA may be silent on the case, but that isn't stopping them from profiting from it.  They've now added a new item to their online store:  the NRAstore™ exclusive Concealed Carry Hooded Sweatshirt. 

That's right, coincident with the death of a boy who may have been targeted because he was black and wore a hoodie, and shot by a man with a violent history yet had a concealed handgun, the NRA is now releasing a hoodie that is specially-designed to conceal a handgun.  Should we be surprised at this arrogance?  Or is this just another example of how the NRA profits from the deaths of innocents?  From their ad:

Inside the sweatshirt you’ll find left and right concealment pockets. The included Velcro®-backed holster and double mag pouch can be repositioned inside the pockets for optimum draw. Ideal for carrying your favorite compact to mid-size pistol, the NRA Concealed Carry Hooded Sweatshirt gives you an extra tactical edge, because its unstructured, casual design appears incapable of concealing a heavy firearm – but it does so with ease!

I wonder, would George Zimmerman have wanted to wear one of these NRA "Conceal Carry Hooded Sweatshirts" as he stalked the young man he called a "fucking coon" and then shot him to death?




UPDATE (4/11/12):  Zimmerman has finally been taken into custody and will be charged: http://www.wtol.com/story/17386009/zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-death

The Dangers of Vigilante Justice

Not quite an hour south of me here in Oregon, down in the little town of Dorena, people are up in arms – literally – about lack of adequate sheriff’s patrols and the potential that more deputies will be laid off.  Last summer there was a crime spree in the area.  So now Dorena citizens are calling for their own sort of solution:

Minnick and his neighbors are not taking the news sitting down. 

"Talk to your neighbors, get to know your neighbors," he told KVAL News this week. "That's your best defense." 

Minnick said last summer's troubles united residents. They meet once a month to talk over home safety steps, like alarm systems. 

"Since it's been in, I sleep really good now," he said.

So far so good, I thought.  I’m a strong advocate of neighborhood watch programs and good relations with neighbors, for the sake of watching out for each other.

But then the article took a dark turn:

And when the alarm goes off, neighbors get the call - not the Sheriff's Office. 

Dorena residents have all received basic gun safety training.  

"They are the ones that get the call from the alarm system, if it goes off and we're not home," he said, "and they come armed." 

Minnick's message to would be thieves and burglars?  

"We know who you are," he said, "and if you start again, there will be some opposition." 

Excuse me?  Yes, I read it again.  They’re talking about forming posses.  In short, they are preparing for “vigilante justice.”

This is certainly nothing new in the world of conceal carry gun guys.  A common dream of theirs, which they repeat again and again as justification for carrying guns everywhere in public, from Starbucks to grade schools, is that, if they witness a crime (even just a theft), they’ll swoop in and save the day with guns drawn and blazing.  They imagine themselves playing “Wyatt Earp.”

Some gun guys will deny it.  I have no doubt that the majority of those who carry concealed handguns do it for self-protection out of a paranoid fear of their fellow man.  But a disturbing number of them also carry a gun with the notion that they can play the role of a freelance policeman, like those people in Dorena.

I’ve commented on this before, when a group of gun extremists in California hoped to incite a riot by the Occupy movement there and then use their weapons to “protect” their community.

HERE is a case from Minnesota where a man with a concealed gun witnessed a thief pistol-whip an old woman then steal her purse.  Instead of calling 911, he decided to play policeman by pulling his gun and chasing the pursesnatcher.  He confronted the thief in an alleyway and shot him dead, claiming that the thief had turned to shoot him.  At that point, it was his word against a dead man’s as to what had happened.  The old woman was only slightly injured.  Were the contents of the purse worth the thief’s life?  Was the crime worth it for the vigilante to risk his own life confronting the thief? 

HERE is a more recent case from just a few days ago, in Texas, where a customer with a concealed handgun witnessed the theft of a necklace at a pawn shop.  Instead of calling 911, the customer decided to pull his gun and chase down the suspect.  The suspect wasn’t armed, but at one point tried to get into a  car, making the vigilante think he was going for his gun.  The suspect eventually got away, after dropping the necklace.  Was the theft of a necklace from a pawn shop worth the vigilante risking his life for?  Was the thief’s life worth taking for it?

HERE is another recent case, where a man was in bed and heard a commotion from his neighbor, who had just been robbed at gunpoint.  He jumped out of bed, armed with a loaded handgun, and chased down the suspect.  He was thinking, according to the article, “OK, that’s not going to happen. Not on my watch.”  his watch?  Who appointed him as watchman?  The article makes him out as a hero, but he’s lucky he wasn’t shot by the suspect.  The robbery victim was apparently unharmed.  Was what was robbed worth the life of either the “hero” or the suspect?

There are many, many such cases as these.  They’re easy to find.

By now, if you’re even slightly in tune with issues of guns and gun violence, you also have heard a lot about the shooting of Trayvon Martin, the 17-year old boy who was innocently walking through his gated neighborhood when a self-appointed neighborhood watch man, George Zimmerman, armed with a concealed weapon and feeling empowered by Florida’s “shoot first” law, took it upon himself to trail and then accost Trayvon, against the advice of 911.  When the boy put up a fight, armed with nothing more than a can of tea and a bag of Skittles, Zimmerman shot Trayvon dead.

There are so many red flags with this case that it boggles the mind, such as the fact that Zimmerman had a violent past but was allowed to carry a concealed weapon anyway, the way Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator and felt obliged to get into an armed confrontation with the boy despite the fact that police were on their way, the assumption by the police of Zimmerman’s innocence, the assumption by the police of Trayvon’s guilt, the apparent stereotypes that Zimmerman had of Trayvon based on the boy’s clothing and skin color, and the lack of an arrest of the shooter.

But at least as disturbing to me as any of those things is the root of the issue, the one thing that led to the confrontation in the first place:  the desire by a man with a concealed weapon to play “Wyatt Earp” and be a freelance policeman.  People carry concealed handguns for two main reasons:  fear of others, and a sense of self-empowerment.  Fear of others can quickly become paranoia, and a feeling of self-empowerment can sometimes push people over the edge into irrational behavior in a crisis situation.  Both of these things likely happened in Trayvon’s situation.  Add to this the recent study that people who hold guns are more likely to imagine others being armed with guns.  This, too, apparently happened in Trayvon’s shooting, where Zimmerman is heard on the 911 call saying that he thought Trayvon was holding something suspicious, like a gun.

There is an irrefutable fact:  the average citizen with a conceal carry license is not even remotely trained like a policeman.  They aren’t as versed in the laws, they haven’t been trained in crisis intervention, negotiation tactics, or how to remain rational or steady in a shootout, and they likely haven’t had as much practice with their weapon.  Training requirements are little to none nearly anywhere in America for them, and they are less accountable to anyone for their potentially lethal decisions than law enforcement professionals.  So the pro-gun daydream of saving the day with their guns is a potentially lethal one, not just for the criminal or the gun owner, but also for anyone who happens to be around them when the shootout happens.

I can understand the frustration felt by the citizens of Dorena.  They just want to feel safe.  Sadly, bond measures intended to fund law enforcement in this area almost always fail, and they are particularly voted against by rural voters like those in Dorena.  If they want to improve their safety, arming everyone around and forming posses to come to the rescue of a victim isn’t the answer, as Trayvon’s family can now attest.  The answer is better funding to improve the number of deputy patrols, as well as the many non-armed options to hardening their homes against invaders. 

There are very good reasons why we have police forces instead of relying on vigilantes to protect our communities.  Let’s hope the citizens of Dorena don’t re-discover them.


Addendum (4/26/12):  Another recent case, where a man and his son "exercised their rights" by grabbing their AR-15 assault rifles and holding an interracial couple hostage, thinking they were breaking in next door.  Turns out they were the new neighbors.  So much for their vigilante "justice."  http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/04/24/second-amendment-is-not-an-excuse-for-vigilantes/?cp=14#comment-936862

Oregon Medical Marijuana and Gun Crimes -- Part II

(UPDATED -- see below)

Last month, in Part I of this two-part posting, I posted a blog highlighting the connection between marijuana, including medical marijuana, and gun crimes.  But shootings aren't just for illegal dealers, illegal users, or medical users; shootings happen to medical marijuana growers, too, and not all of them are innocent victims.  In fact, some are the criminals.

I ended the last post as follows:  "According to one article, 24,000 of Oregon's 38,000 medical marijuana card holders are growers of marijuana.  Are the growers any less likely to commit gun crimes or be attacked by shooters?"

First off, marijuana is an illegal drug for the vast majority of users, including in Oregon (where medicinal marijuana use is legalized).  At the federal level, marijuana is still considered illegal for everyone, setting up a problem with enforcement between state and federal authorities.  And though marijuana is less addictive for most people than most other drugs, including tobacco and alcohol, it has been shown to lead to addiction, particularly for long-time users.  Wherever you have an addiction, particularly with illegal usage, you have crime and shootings.

When most people around the nation think of marijuana growers, they think of shady characters with giant crops hidden in remote forests.  There was a case fairly recently, for instance, here in Oregon, where five men had an illegal "grow."  When they discovered that their plants had been harvested, they pinned it on another man, kidnapped him at gunpoint, tortured him, and left him to die.  The man escaped.  The five growers were captured.  And it turned out one of the gunmen had actually secretly harvested the crop without telling the others, preferring an innocent man take the fall.

But what about legal marijuana growers?  Surely they are above these crimes.  Immune from the illegality of the drug, shouldn't they be insulated from gun crimes?

Not at all.  As I mentioned, wherever you have an addiction, you have crimes, including gun crimes:

HERE is an example of one where two men invaded the Springfield, Oregon home of a medical marijuana grower, demanding drugs and money, and shot the family dog.

HERE is another example, where three men invaded the home of another medical marijuana grower in Oregon City, locked up the family's three children in a closet, and stole money and marijuana.  The invaders held a gun to the head of the grower while the children watched.

HERE is an example where three men tried to shoot and rob a medical marijuana grower in Springfield, Oregon.  Luckily, in that case, the men were fended off by the owner's dog.

HERE is a more recent case from Eugene, Oregon, where two armed suspects got into the back yard of a medical marijuana grower.  When the male homeowner went to investigate, the suspects shot him in the leg.  The grower's wife then came out with a shotgun and shot back, missing the suspects but scaring them off.  Said the neighbor, about the marijuana growing operation: "It's a risky business," he said. "There's lots of people that'll rip you off at gun point."

And that last quote is really the heart of the problem, isn't it?  Other high-risk commercial ventures, like banks, convenience stores, pawn shops, and gun shops, all have security features in place, like cameras, bars on windows, alarm systems, or even armed guards (for banks).  But this simply isn't the case for many marijuana growers.  Other than sometimes having a weapon of their own or, in one case, having a dog, none of these articles suggest any other sort of security.  No cameras, bars on windows, or even heavy-duty locks on the doors.  They don't seem to follow many of the alternatives to gun ownership that I espouse.  If you were growing a drug that is potentially addictive, prone to criminal activity, and considered illegal for the vast number of users, wouldn't you take security seriously?  If you don't, wouldn't you think it would attract criminals?  These are the growers' homes, for Christsake.  Hell, some of these growers have children living there, even. 

And it's not just the home of the grower that is in danger.  It's the homes and families living around them.  As one Eugene detective and a grower's neighbor commented:

Eugene police detective Matt Hervert did not say that the medical marijuana grow operation had anything to do with this crime, but he did bring up the danger of gunfire in residential areas.

"Certainly bullets flying around the neighborhood are dangerous to everybody, everybody around," he said.

Brooks agreed.

"Got to be careful where you're shooting a shotgun in a neighborhood," he said. "It's got to go somewhere."

Consider THIS case from Springfield, Oregon, where a legal grower and his friend had been "out on the town" and returned to the grower's apartment.  The friend left, but realized he had forgotten his keys.  When the friend knocked on the door and got no answer, he then foolishly went to a door or window where the grower's plants were located and helped himself in.  That's when the grower grabbed a gun, mistaking his friend for a burglar, and shot the guy.  The article didn't say if being "out on the town" had inebriated either man, but clearly things weren't right here.  Before you exclaim that this is a "simple" accident and that the grower was well within his rights (which he was, legally), remember the following:  why didn't he answer the door?  And why was his rear window or door left unlocked, or at least not fortified enough to stop a would-be robber?  For that matter, why choose an apartment complex to grow your plants in?  Is this really where such an operation should be undertaken, in close confines to young families, probably with children, as many apartment dwellers are?

But before you consider these legal growers to be mere victims, consider that some of them are criminals, too.

HERE is a case where a legal marijuana grower in Marion County, Oregon, was burglarized.  When deputies came to investigate, they found an illegal "spring gun" in his garden: a shotgun with a tripwire, ready to fire. The gun was loaded only with wadding, and meant only to scare criminals, but was still illegal.  A minor example, yes, but consider the following two cases...

HERE is a case where a medical marijuana advocate, legal grower, and card holder from Coos County, Oregon, Robert M. Walker, became angry at a man over a "long-simmering dispute stemming from marijuana issues."  Walker shot the man in the leg while the man was biking along a highway.  Scandalized by his misdeeds, Walker hung himself in jail.

Just a couple months ago, there was another shooting of a medical marijuana grower just south of Cottage Grove, Oregon.  At first glance, this appeared to be like the others, where the home invaders wanted to rob the man they had killed.  But it turns out that the grower, Terry Fruichantie, may not have been so innocent after all.  Rumors of illegal drug trafficking had plagued him before, as well as the arrest of two of his family members and four other people, some of whom were listed as legal growers, and the seizure of hundreds of marijuana plants and $20,000, after a raid by 50 officers from various law enforcement agencies, there on the property where he had been killed.

Then it was revealed that the deceased man's father, Jerry Fruichantie, accused his son and others of being "methamphetamine users who threatened several times last year to assault and kill him — in at least one instance while accompanied by “neo-Nazis.”

Terry Fruichantie was charged in August with growing and selling marijuana. Court records indicate he had been scheduled to plead guilty on Tuesday to one of the charges, although his father said his son had wanted to fight the charges at a trial.

The father was one of those accused in the previous raid.

Jerry Fruichantie alleged in a separate restraining order application filed against son-in-law Russell Nealey that the younger man has threatened to “put me away,” pushed him, destroyed his vehicles and stole his tools and guns.

“I cannot go on my property because of him and his affiliation with white supremacists,” Fruichantie wrote in the application.

In yet another application, Fruichantie alleged that Brian Nealey threatened to assault him with a steel pipe and once brought “neo-Nazis” to his boat to “cut the squealer’s throat.”

Not surprisingly, these allegations have caused a split in the family.

Wow.  Allegations of neo-Nazi affiliation and threats, illegal drug dealing and growing, and yet the victim was still growing medical marijuana and owning guns?

Don't get me wrong.  I'm a supporter of medical marijuana.  I believe it helps relieve suffering for many patients, and I voted for it.  But that doesn't mean that there can't be reasonable limits on who can grow marijuana and how it is distributed.  Certainly, mixing it with guns leads to a higher-than-normal chance of tragedy.  And, as I've shown, there is a greater-than-average need to have reasonable security precautions in place, beyond what one would expect for your average household.  It's a dangerous business, and as for all dangerous businesses, it is the role of our government to step in and mandate safety for the good of the community.  Gun crimes follow drugs, even the legal ones.

UPDATE (5/17/13):  A legal medical marijuana dispensary was robbed at gunpoint in Portland, the armed man threatening a number of volunteers before making off with marijuana and money.

UPDATE (9/25/13):  Another example of a shooting, this time in Springfield, Oregon, of a man shooting someone trying to steal his marijuana plants in his back yard.

UPDATE (5/29/14):  Five masked gunmen invaded a medical marijuana garden located in Linn County, tied up the owners, and stole plants, cash, and guns from the owners.

The Endless Cycle of School Shootings -- Let's Do Something About It!

It's been one week since the school shooting in Chardon, Ohio.  So where are we on the endless cycle of school shootings?  Chardon has now buried the three boys who were killed.  The talking continues in some circles, but the media has pretty much dropped the story outside of Ohio. 

Will there actually be action to prevent another Chardon shooting?  Or will we eventually forget it, as a nation?

Will there be serious consideration by the Ohio legislature to enact Child Access Protection laws to require gun owners to store their guns safely? 

Will parents and other family members realize that it's a bad idea to keep guns in the homes of at-risk children?

Will friends and relatives pay any more attention to the warning signs, like ominous Facebook or Twitter postings, radical and negative changes in behavior, or violent talk?

Or will we just shake our heads, blame the shooting on one child or his guardians, and go on about our lives without making changes that make it harder for disturbed children to get their hands on the family gun?

Understanding what makes troubled children act violently, and intervening before a tragedy can happen, is incredibly important.  But we must also take steps to minimize the chances in other ways, such as by removing the tools with which they can do harm.  A gun isn't just a lump of metal, it's a lethal weapon that even a four-year old can manipulate and cause to fire.

As Dennis Henigan wrote in his most recent blog posting at Huffington Post (I added the bolding):

Inevitably, the question on most people's minds is "Why?" What possibly could have caused 17-year-old T.J. Lane to turn a gun on his fellow students, killing three and wounding two more? There is talk of bullying. Of an abusive father. After all, he was attending a school for kids who have had trouble in traditional schools.

The "Why?" question is certainly important. If we are ever able to offer meaningful help to troubled kids, we must better understand the factors that cause teens to be so alienated and enraged that they would engage in violence. But the dominant focus on "Why?" often obscures the nature of the problem posed by tragedies like Chardon.

Let's face it. Chardon happened not because an Ohio teenager was so troubled that he became violent. Chardon happened because a troubled, violent Ohio teenager was able to get access to a gun.

Remove the gun from the equation and there may have been a violent incident involving T.J. Lane. But it is doubtful that three young people would have died and two been seriously injured. The nature and scope of the Chardon tragedy was determined by the nature and lethality of the weapon. It's not just a question of "Why?" It's also a question of "How?"

Pro-gun extremists like to rehash the old mantra, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."  It's their way of dodging the issue of easy access to the weapons they hold so dear.  Guns have as their main purpose, as a goal of their design, the ability to kill quickly and efficiently.  Just aim and twitch your finger. 

Henigen continues:

It's not just the mass killings where the gun makes the difference. In general, assaults with guns are 23 times more deadly than assaults with other weapons or bodily force. Suicide attempts with guns are far more likely to result in death than attempts using other means. Accidents with guns are more deadly than accidents with other dangerous objects.

While we are trying to figure out how a young heart could become so hardened that it would lead to an act of unspeakable violence, can we not also have sensible policies to prevent hardened and violent kids from getting access to guns? I have no doubt the gun lobby welcomes our obsession with the "Why?" question. It deflects attention from the deadly role of the guns.

Yes, this teen shooter needs to be held accountable for his actions, but so too must all those adults who allowed the weapon to fall into his hands:  his guardians, who failed to secure the weapon and ammo in the house with an at-risk teen; the Ohio legislators who failed to pass a Child Access Prevention law; and the people of Ohio and America who are willing to put up with tragedies like this one without calling for reform.

As we say over at the Kid Shootings blog:  "Every gun in the hands of a child must first pass through the hands of an adult."

When will the next horrible school shooting happen? 

When will we demand changes to keep it from happening again?  Or, rather....

When will YOU demand changes to keep it from happening again?

Guns Now Prohibited Again at Oregon Universities, Much To the Dismay of Extremists

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF YESTERDAY'S POST

For decades, guns were prohibited on the campuses of Oregon's university system.  The policy was widely popular among students and staff and the general public.  But the extremist pro-gun group, Oregon Firearms Federation, in their agenda to put more guns in more hands and more places, brought a lawsuit on behalf of a student.  After years in the courts and many tens of thousands of dollars from O.F.F., the Oregon Appeals Court last year ruled university system policy was preempted by a state statute. 

This extremist group and their pocket politician, Kim Thatcher, unhappy even with that ruling, then started pushing for guns in grade schools.  Their first target was the Newberg School System.  When the gun lobby threatened another costly lawsuit at the cost of student education, the Newberg School District caved into pressure and allowed concealed guns on their campuses, as quietly as possible.

Make no doubt about it:  they won't stop there.  When will extremists target your kid's school?

Only an extremist would want guns where our children study and congregate.  It's not enough that Oregon gun extremists from O.F.F. have written bills to arm felons, reduce background checks, destroy background check records, and allow concealed weapons permits for drug addicts; now they want armed people with hidden weapons around our youth -- people who can get their permits without ever having to fire a single bullet in training, who didn't need to have even a minute of training in crisis management, and who may have wanted a gun for questionable purposes (one purpose, often stated by these guys, is to "protect" other people as if they were the police).  Despite what the gun lobbies want you to think, people with concealed handguns do have accidents and do commit gun crimes, even murders.

HERE is a recent example of a conceal carry permit holder, a janitor at a Connecticut elementary school, who took off his gun belt while working in the school and accidentally left it there, in full reach of children, and left the building.  Luckily, a teacher found the loaded gun before children could get hold of it.

HERE is another recent example, from here in Oregon, where a school security guard accidentally left his loaded gun somewhere on his route, patrolling Salem's 14 schools.  He thought it might have been at a shopping mall, but there was no way to know for sure, and the school system had to call all 6000 parents.  As far as I know, it was never found.

As I pointed out in yesterday's post, O.F.F.'s lawsuit only succeeded in one thing:  bringing out into the open the extremism of the gun lobby.  Now the public knows how far they will go to put more guns in more hands and in more places, no matter what the consequences.

Well, students and faculty of Oregon universities are overwhelmingly against the idea of guns on campus, as they are at universities across the nation, and people with conceal carry permits represent only a small fraction of the general population.  There are good reasons why the overwhelming majority of the 4,314 colleges and universities in the United States prohibit students and faculty from carrying concealed handguns on campus.  Not a single student or faculty member I've talked to here has been supportive of guns on campus.

After last year's ruling, the Oregon University System began considering their options.  Today it was announced that concealed guns are once again prohibited at universities in Oregon. 

From today's article in Eugene's Register-Guard:

The new internal rules prohibit students, employees, vendors and people who use campus facilities or attend ticketed events from carrying concealed weapons on campus, even if they have a permit to do so. The new rules were approved unanimously and take effect immediately.

....

[A] different appellate ruling found that local governments and state agencies can enact internal rules restricting weapons. That’s because internal rules do not carry the force of state statutes and therefore don’t conflict with the Legislature’s exclusive authority over gun laws, officials have said.

....

The new policy isn’t quite as far-reaching as the earlier administrative rules, which flatly prohibited any guns anywhere on a campus. The new gun policy applies to campus buildings but not grounds and wouldn’t apply to visitors who don’t have a business relationship with a university, haven’t purchased a ticket to an event or aren’t visiting a campus building.

....

In response to a question about how the rules would be enforced, Oregon University System Chancellor George Pernsteiner said it would depend on who was found carrying a weapon. A student would face sanctions through the student code of conduct, an employee through the appropriate discipline and grievance procedures, and vendors through contract enforcement, he said. Visitors who violated the rules would be asked to leave campus and could face trespass charges, he said.

The new rules do have exceptions for law enforcement officers, ROTC programs and people living in family housing. They also allow campuses to permit unloaded firearms to be stored on campus by students or employees who use them for hunting or target shooting.

According to O.F.F.'s fringe executive director, Kevin Starrett, the students should be supportive of more guns around them, to fend off rape attempts:

“College campuses are, like, baby, that’s open season,” he said. “There’s a bunch of, like, 19-year-old girls walking around in the dark. You’ve got to be stupid to think those places are somehow safer than anywhere else.”

So you would expect the student body to decry this most recent attempt to adhere to the "guns are allowed" Appellate Court ruling, right?  Quite the opposite.  According to Ben Eckstein, the University of Oregon student body president:

“A college campus is statistically one of the safest places on the planet. There’s a reason for that. We have a culture of peaceful, informed, engaged activism. A deadly weapon of any kind runs counter to that culture,” he said.

Eckstein went on to say, in a different article:

“We cannot and must not go down a path that weaponizes our college campuses,” he said. “The sanctity of our learning environments and the safety of our campus communities are too important.”

So how did O.F.F.'s executive director respond to the new ruling?  He decided that the Oregon University System regulation, well-vetted by their lawyers, should be ignored and is, in his mind, "unlawful."  In a typical, pro-criminal manner,  he actually suggested that O.F.F. members rebel against the new no-guns-on-campus ruling by the Oregon University System and carry their guns anyway!  From their most recent alert:

We strongly recommend that if you have any reason to be on Oregon University property, you do what they have done: ignore regulations. If the OUS feels free to pay no attention to the clear direction of the Oregon Courts, any rational person would pay no attention to their unlawful regulations.

If you are a CHL holder, carry your self-defense tool.

What he is no doubt hoping for is another incident like the one that started their initial lawsuit so he can waste tens of thousands of more dollars of their donors' money (and fund his own paid position, while he's at it).  Let's hope no one is stupid enough to listen to him, but if they do, I urge O.F.F. to try another lawsuit.  It will be yet another tremendous waste of their resources for a policy which doesn't actually represent the views of students and faculty they purport to represent.

Don't let the gun extremists determine our legislative priorities!  This is a win for common sense gun regulation at Oregon universities, but there is so much more to do to protect our community.

I'll leave you with this revealing quote:

"First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."

--Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President, speech to their 1999 Annual Meeting

source: www.nrahq.org/transcripts/denver_wlp.asp

Gun Lobby Shoots Itself in Foot Regarding Guns in Schools and Universities

A few years ago, Oregon Firearm Federation gun lobbyist Kevin Starrett took shoddy aim when he targeted Oregon schools for a lawsuit. Starrett, apparently having decided to shoot first and think later, chose to sue the Oregon University System on behalf of Jeffrey Maxwell, a student at Western Oregon University. Maxwell, a concealed handgun license permit holder, was suspended by a student judicial panel under a student conduct rule banning the possession or use of firearms and other weapons.

Starrett took the case with the hopes of bringing in donations to his organizations. He also hoped to force all Oregon schools, including elementary schools, to accept loaded, hidden guns in schools.

What Starrett didn’t think about is that most Oregonians don’t want guns in their kids first grade class, or middle school or high school. And they don’t think that college campuses are a great place for hidden guns either. So many Oregonians are against hidden guns in schools that Senator Peter Courtney introduced SB 1594 last Monday to prohibit hidden guns in schools. But that wasn’t enough for the legislators who literally owe their legislative seats to OFF and the NRA. So an amendment was added to SB 1594 that would have provided schools with an “opt out” that allows schools to accept hidden guns on campuses if that’s what the school administration wants.

The bill was defeated by one vote. One small inch that was the difference between Starrett getting guns in all schools and Starrett blowing his entire agenda.  

Shame on those who voted against it for endangering our children!  Senators Atkinson; Boquist; Ferrioli; George; Girod; Johnson; Kruse; Morse; Nelson; Olsen; Telfer; Thomsen; Verger; Whitsett; and Winters.

Starrett didn’t shoot his dream in the head but he did damage it badly. Now, because of Starrett’s arrogance, many Oregonians know that hidden guns are allowed in schools. Now, because of Starrett’s terrible aim, Oregon University Systems has decided to take other avenues to keep guns of off campuses. Now, because Oregonians know which legislators are selling out their common sense and decency to OFF and the NRA, these legislators need to do a lot of explaining to a lot of angry parents.  I've talked to many of them. I AM one of them.

Well, I found out just now that the Oregon University System has just re-instated a prohibition against firearms (including concealed firearms) on their campuses, for anyone entering into a contract with them.  

From an earlier article:

The university system’s goal in placing the ban before the 12-member Higher Education Board today is to secure a safe learning environment free of the fear that a student at the next desk has a concealed gun, OUS spokeswoman Di Saunders said. 

“If somebody leaned over and their jacket opened, and somebody saw a weapon, they’d be nervous or scared or concerned,” she said. “That’s not another worry that you need when you’re trying to get a degree.” 

....
The new policy that the higher education board will consider today requires most people who have a relationship with a university to agree to leave their handguns at home. 

The fine print will apply to ticket buyers at sporting events, students signing up for dorm rooms, vendors doing business on campus, faculty and staff who draw a university paycheck, outside groups that lease university facilities and attendees at campus conferences. 

The proposal is close to but not as global as the previous ban because it doesn’t apply to people who are not under a contract with the university, Saunders said. 

“The old policy included facilities/buildings and adjacent grounds. This is more so the facilities themselves. There’s not as much coverage of adjacent grounds,” Saunders said. 

The new ban should pass legal muster, she said, because of a 2009 Court of Appeals ruling denying a Medford teacher the right to bring a concealed weapon to school. 

The court upheld the Medford School District’s employment policy prohibiting concealed weapons and, significantly, did not find that the policy ran afoul of the state’s pre-emptive rule. 

“The court distinguished between an internal policy and an attempt to regulate firearms,” Saunders said. 

Another shot in Starrett's foot by his own doing.

Oregonians are a smart bunch with a lot of common sense. Many are highly responsible gun owners and, as I've said many times before and will again, they know that kids and guns never mix.

That’s much more than the Oregon gun lobby knows.

UPDATE (3/3/12):  The Oregon university System has reinstated a ban on guns on campuses.  Check out the NEXT POST to find out more about it and how Starrett advocates his members disobey the regulation like criminals.