The scene that played out at the Minnesota State Fair on a Saturday night this past September was an all too common one. Gunshots ringing out. Crowds stampeding towards the nearest exit. Chaos spiraling into panic and fear.
Threatened mass shootings are bad enough, the horror eclipsed only by mass shootings that come to pass.
Daniel Skripka and I both know the pain of gun violence firsthand. I was shot in the head while meeting with constituents in Tucson in 2011. I’ve spent the past 12 years relearning how to walk and talk. Both of Daniel’s sons, born here in Minnesota, survived the shooting at the Walmart in El Paso, Texas, in 2019 when 23 people were murdered and 23 more were injured.
This tragedy in El Paso was not only heartbreaking, but also preventable. Weeks before the shooting, the gunman’s mother called police and expressed concern about her son having an “AK-style” weapon.
Nineteen states currently have extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws, which allows law enforcement or family members to petition a court to temporarily remove access to guns from someone who poses a risk to themselves or others. Texas and Minnesota are not among them.
An ERPO law, also known as a red flag law, uses due process to temporarily hold any weapons an individual may possess, and to prevent them from buying firearms for the duration of the order. It’s not an infringement on Second Amendment rights or unreasonable search/seizure. It is a commonsense tool that has already been used to prevent mass shootings and firearm suicide in red and blue states across the country.
Most mass shooters exhibit warning signs. An FBI study found the average shooter displayed four to five “observable and concerning behaviors” before their attacks. People who intend to take their own lives also often display observable warning signs.
Though guns are used in just 5% of suicide attempts, they account for more than half of suicide deaths. Removing a gun from someone in an acute crisis may very well save their lives.
Daniel and I are both gun owners. After the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, I founded an organization, GIFFORDS, to advocate for safer gun laws. But we also believe in the Second Amendment right to bear arms, which is why we organize gun owners who believe that rights come with responsibilities.
Gun owners like Daniel, a former member of the military and sworn law enforcement officer, who has been a pistol carry permit holder in Minnesota for more than a decade. Daniel joined Minnesota Gun Owners for Safety because he understands that enacting common sense gun laws will keep us safe. Rights come with responsibilities.
Responsible gun owners know that these responsibilities include commonsense gun safety laws. Because people should be able to go to the Minnesota State Fair without fear of gunfire and a stampede.
The solution is clear. Minnesota needs to enact extreme risk protection order legislation, a policy supported by 76% of residents, and close dangerous loopholes that currently allow people who buy guns in unlicensed, private sales to do so without undergoing a background check. These policy changes won’t prevent every firearm suicide, and they aren’t a failsafe against all mass shootings. But they would be huge steps in the right direction.
For us, this is personal. And given that nearly every American will know a victim of gun violence in their lifetime, it’s personal for us all.
Gabby Giffords is a former United States Representative, gun violence survivor and founder of Giffords, Gun Owners for Safety. Daniel Skripka is a member of the Minnesota chapter from Eden Prairie.
If a state can’t enact this mild approach to reining in the endemic gun mayhem in America, it can’t enact anything. That red flag laws are seen as remotely “controversial” just shows how far off the rails the “conservative” movement has gone in enabling and inflaming gun-nuttery.
It has never been a legal gun ownership issue as far as total gun crime statistics go. You can put in as many gun laws as you like and criminals will not follow one of them. Until you get as many illegally owned guns off the streets nothing will change. As far as AK-47 long guns go, out of 10,368 murders in America in 2020, 364 were committed with long guns. The average amount of arrests, before the criminal was arrested for murder in NYC is 11. That is 11 times the DA could put a person behind bars so they couldn’t hurt fellow citizens but failed to protect their people.
Lefties love to plead for “more gun laws” but never actually address the real problem with gun violence. Criminals with guns is the problem, DA’s having a revolving door for criminals is the problem, lack of valuing human life is the problem. More gun laws is not the answer.
All this statistical blather has nothing to do with the efficacy of a red flag law. A “legal” gun owner is “law abiding” until the instant he decides not to be. And why do you think “illegal” gun owners would be somehow exempt from the operation of a red flag law?
The red flag law presupposes that this (always existing) risk to use one’s gun(s) to violently harm others can be spotted and prevented by intervention. Opposing such a (minor) gun reform measure is just Second Amendment absolutism. Which is what the “gun rights” movement is all about, ultimately.
Really, so you think his gang buddies are going to turn a guy in for being irresponsible with a gun. Red flag laws will have zero impact on criminals. To think otherwise is just foolish
“Red flag laws will have zero impact on criminals. To think otherwise is just foolish”
It seems you’re only considering one kind of criminal. A perpetrator of domestic violence is also a criminal. Keeping guns from such creeps can save lives. Similarly, suicide is against the law. Keeping guns away from people intending self harm will save lives. Animal abuse is a crime, and is an indicator of likely violence towards others. Taking their guns away can save lives. What’s so controversal about that?
Joe’s argument appears to revolve entirely around a special class of criminals, gang members. (And do we even know they are illegal gun owners?) He apparently believes that the only people who exist in the life of every gang member are other gang members. No parents, siblings, relatives, etc.
“It has never been a legal gun ownership issue as far as total gun crime statistics go. You can put in as many gun laws as you like and criminals will not follow one of them. Until you get as many illegally owned guns off the streets nothing will change.”
Your comment is totally disproven by the record of other counties in the world which have strict regulation of gun ownership. Maybe gun regulation will not completely prevent gun violence but the record gun regulation in other liberal democracies in the world disprove that “nothing will change.”
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons
If gun regulations are ineffective, how is it that there have been zero deaths by people using Thompson submachine guns since they were made illegal to own or possess in the 1930’s? Like other submachine guns, AR-15’s are manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people. Compare that record with the 364 murders (in one year!) from AR-15’s which are legal submachine guns. There are 364 people who would be alive today because some individual had or could get one of these evil devices and start killing. How many of those murderers were “criminals with guns” before they committed these murders? How is 364 murders by a firearm which most people in this country believe should be completely illegal not 364 murders too many?
It’s true that “Criminals with guns is the problem” but you falsely blame DA’s, or judges or other people who have to deal with the aftermath of a split-second decision of any gun owner who decides to use their firearm to kill another human whether or not they believe it in self -defense. Every gun owner and possessor is a latent “criminal with a gun” which is the problem the country has and must deal with by regulation of gun ownership and possession as strict as we can make it.
Totally wrong, look up violent gun crime and legal gun ownership. Your logic that legal gun owners are potential criminals just waiting to happen is illogical. That would be like saying everyone who owns a hammer is a potential murderer.
It is absolutely frightening that people think this way.
It is like when Pelosi said President Trump has the right to prove himself innocent. That is not the way it works. Your fear of legal gun ownership is a sad commentary on our right as Americans to legally own guns.
The are no reliable stats on crime and legal gun ownership, they are not kept because a huge number of crimes go unsolved. As for what’s truly “frightening”, I’d suggest the rightwing nut governor of Texas promising to immediately release a “legal” gun owner a day after his conviction for murdering a BLM protester qualifies. And at the behest of the loathsome Tucker Carlson, no less!
At least I find open fascism frightening….
“Your logic that legal gun owners are potential criminals just waiting to happen is illogical.”
Stephan Paddock was a legal gun owner until he killed 60 people & injured hundreds more in Las Vegas in 2017. Wasn’t the recent Nashville shooter a ‘legal’ gun owner? There are innumerable examples to disprove your point. Sure, it’s true that not all gun owners are criminals, or potential criminals. But it’s also true that any gun owner is one trigger pull from being a criminal and perhaps murderer.
Joe, I’m always open to be proved wrong but as far as my being illogical, consider this: who is a “legal gun owner”? A: anyone who is in possession of a gun is a “legal owner” by virtue of being in lawful possession of that gun. Gabby Gifford’s post we’re debating here is about creating some process to divest such possession of certain individuals whose behavior creates a reasonable suspicion that they’re not to be trusted with a gun.There is no coherent system of gun titling and registration in the US comparable to the titling and ownership of motor vehicles.
It’s true that in some sense all human beings have the potential to commit homicide or murder and a hammer is as good as a gun for that purpose. The difference is that, unlike hammers, guns are specifically designed to kill and are used mostly to kill other human beings. By the way, it turns out that someone at a 2022 NRA convention tried to claim that hammers kill more people than guns in the US and was quickly proved wrong on that claim:
https://www.newsweek.com/good-liars-nra-hammers-gun-violence-death-viral-video-1711952
I’d point out too that the gun lobby has suppressed research into gun violence since 1993 under the “Dickey Amendment” that prohibited the CDC from doing research on this topic. A lot of the “research” I’ve read on gun violence is by authors, like John Lott, have been discredited. I did find a 2017 Stanford study that found increased gun possession does increase gun violence.
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/12/07/new-study-analyzes-recent-gun-violence-research/
I can’t add much to BK Anderson’s and Brian Simon’s replies except to point out that “self-defense” on which the Supreme Court bases its free-floating “right to bear arms” interpretation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendment is what’s known as an affirmative defense to a criminal charge of homicide. That means the accused has the burden of proving that a homicide committed by that person was justifiable by self defense. So that “right” is a very qualified one in which one of the main witnesses is always guaranteed to be dead. Whatever Nancy Pelosi said about the former President have the right to prove his innocence would be true if the former President was accused of murder.
Yeah Joe, “It has never been a legal gun ownership issue”
“Chief Jacquelyn Gwinn-Villaroel also confirmed that the shooter was a bank employee and that he legally purchased the gun – an AR-15 assault weapon – at a local gun dealer on April 4.”
In 2020, over 11,000 people died as a result of alcohol-related auto accidents. Imagine if someone proposed a “red flag” law to temporarily confiscate an individual’s motor vehicle and to prevent them from driving any motor vehicle for the duration of the order. This would allow law enforcement or family members to petition a court to temporarily remove access to a vehicle from someone who’s history of heavy drinking or drug abuse poses an immediate risk to themselves or others if allowed to operate a motor vehicle.
You and I both know that such a law would have no chance of passing and owning a motor vehicle isn’t even protected by the constitution. Consistency in the law is fundamental to a free society.
To be clear, I’m not talking about suspending someone’s drivers license after a DUI, I’m talking about confiscating the person’s vehicle before he/she’s even broken a law.
Crime prevention, so to speak, which is what Gabby Giffords’ proposal is all about. Denying someone’s constitutional rights in the name of crime prevention.
Well, if you are going to rely on analogies to motor vehicles and guns, then you need to acknowledge that ownership of vehicles comes heavily laden with restrictions and requirements for operation, such as possessing adequate insurance and competency of use. The very sort of things that Second Amendment absolutists (such as yourself) immediately decry as “unconstitutional” when applied to high-powered weaponry. So spare us the appeals to driving.
Further, the entire purpose of owning a motor vehicle and a home arsenal are quite different (routine transportation v. immediate deadly harming of others), rendering your analogy incoherent and inherently unreasonable.
Finally, I am quite uncertain that the motor vehicle law you hypothesize would be considered unconstitutional, or even politically imprudent. There are too many multiple DUI drunks on the road.
Uh, you’ve actually never heard of interlocks? I mean, is the car confiscated (which happens too), but it’s rendered pretty much inoperable if drunk. I mean a buddy of mine had his for the length of his 10 year probation, so…
Well, I’m still waiting for all these “legal gun owners” to join “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” its “textual” should be a no brainer for all those ultra-right wing Supreme Court justices. Its always been a legal gun owner problem, and will continue to be, guess, a couple commenters conveniently missed the part that the Nashville shooter was a legal gun owner, the Nevada shooter was and on and on and on, and of course they conveniently omit the “well regulated militia” requirement from all discussions.
In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court struck down a citywide handgun ban, ruling that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government.
In the majority ruling in that case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: “Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”
Yes, thanks for pointing out that the “reasoning” of the Repub Supreme Court majority in the “gun rights” cases is completely unmoored from the text of the Amendment itself, and that this constitutional “right” is entirely made-up by conservative activists masquerading as “justices”.
I’ll second BK’s reply that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment was “unmoored” from the words of that Amendment. It was also “unmoored” from the “right of self-defense”, because self-defense has never been a “right” at all but an affirmative defense to the charge of homicide. And it was “unmoored” from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Possessing a gun has nothing to do with due process. The Supreme Court’s elastic interpretation of that clause to include a “substantive right” which it made up to hold unconstitutional laws and regulations individual justices feel disagree with or feel are unwise are just another abuse of judicial power. It’s a return to the Court which used to hold laws regulating child labor or hours of work unconstitutional as a violation of the “freedom of contract.”
Thanks. Good point, Dennis.
What happens when red flag laws cause a disparate impact? How will these laws be enforced, Transit ambassadors?
All well and good,but who will bell the cat?
Greg Smith wrote: What happens when red flag laws cause a disparate impact?
You mean like too many living breathing people that would have been innocently mowed down in the next gun rampage, however instead, are still breathing people?
Or one less Walter Mitty cosplaying as Charles Bronson while fearlessly navigating through Walmart veggie aisles?
Or stripping away the facade, are you arguing that: we need to start accepting innocent deaths as part of your gun ownership fetish?
How will the war on guns.be mor successful than the war on drugs? Poverty? Prohibition?
Other countries do not suffer the level of gun mayhem that is a daily occurrence in America, so it is not impossible to have a society (and nation) that doesn’t include massive levels of guns and gun ownership. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be more of a challenge here, especially considering the willfully incorrect gun rulings of the “conservative” Repub Supreme Court.
And despite what “conservative” news media tells you, the war on poverty was quite successful; and prohibition was stupid because the focus of its concern was not actually dangerous, and people knew that.
After the latest school shooting I did a little reading about Columbine. There was a ridiculous number of signs going back years that something bad was eventually going to happen. Students, parents, teachers and even the sheriff’s department knew about them. They were posting videos on AOL (Eek!). Law enforcement knew the videos existed, but couldn’t find them.
Are things better 20 years later (cough…cough…Uvalde…cough)
Despite incoherent and emotional pleas from 2nd Amendment absolutists, Jon Kingstad comes closer, in my view, to the truth. The central issue is not so much use by criminals, or the lack thereof (a sizable portion of gun deaths in the U.S. each year are suicides – is suicide a crime?), it’s the unfettered *availability* of guns. As he points out, the inconvenient truth for 2nd Amendment disciples in the U.S. is that societies with strict gun control laws do not have to deal with the bloody carnage that takes place annually in this country.
As Dennis Wagner suggested, most of the gun murderers were “legal” gun owners until the instant they pulled the trigger to murder someone, so that NRA shibboleth about “legal” vs. “illegal” gun ownership doesn’t hold water in this household. Moreover, gun rights absolutists virtually never deal with the other issue Wagner raises: the “well-regulated militia” part of the 2nd Amendment that so many absolutists ignore.
In many, many other areas of life, thoughtful human beings recognize that societies and governments (and firearms) have evolved and changed in the centuries since the Constitution was adopted. Except as an expensive hobby, no member of a modern military organization plans to use a Brown Bess flintlock musket as his/her primary weapon going into combat. Signers of the original document never envisioned an AR-15, just as they never envisioned air travel or the germ theory of disease, yet we don’t have absolutists insisting that commercial air travel should operate without licenses and regulation, and only similarly absolutist religious zealots insist that modern medicine is somehow an immoral intrusion on their right to watch their children and loved ones die from disease and infection that was fatal in the 18th century, but is easily curable in the 21st.
I’ve yet to see a serious proposal to confiscate the firearms of the citizenry in this country, so we can properly label denunciation of this nonexistent practice by 2nd Amendment absolutists as the hysteria it actually is. I’ll argue that “red flag” laws are well-intended, but unlikely to be effective. We can’t read minds yet, and perhaps it’s just as well. Much better for public safety, in my view, would be renewable – perhaps annual – license standards and requirements for potential gun owners, and liability insurance requirements to match.
And another nut with a gun enjoyed his 2nd amendment rights today, with 5 dead at a bank in Louisville. But for Republicans & conservatives, there’s not a problem we should be solving. How many will die in the next 24 hours?
I certainly hope that our pal Joe is properly characterizing the Louisville mass murderer as a “legal” gun owner gone criminal as he compiles his stats Every data point matters!
Here’s what concerns me: A judge in Hennepin County saying someone wearing a MAGA hat has a mental health problem and, therefore, has her gun taken away. (Or a judge in Redwood County saying someone wearing an Antifa hoodie has a mental health problem and has his gun taken away.)
Even if you believe that the 2nd amendment is all about arming a “well-regulated militia,” the purpose of which is to defend the nation against enemies, foreign and domestic, then it would make sense that to do so effectively would require modern weaponry like the AR-15 or other semi-automatic rifle. And then the only argument would be where they would be stored … in an armory, or at home like they do in Taiwan. I saw on the news this weekend that the citizens of Taiwan are armed and ready in anticipation of an attack by mainland China. They intend to fight back house to house if necessary. So ask yourself, why would a political party oppose the 2nd amendment? Why would a political party want to disarm the American people unless they didn’t want this nation to survive an attack on its soil?
Seriously, Dennis? A bunch of disorganized gun “enthusiasts” owning AR-15s does not remotely constitute “a well regulated militia, [ ] necessary to the security of a free state…” Add in the fact that the National Guard obviously now performs whatever state security function was contemplated by the Framers in 1789.
As for the idea that citizens with even high-powered firearms would be some sort of match for a 21st Century invading army, that’s just a Second Amendment fantasy world, Taiwan included. The Taiwanese government will be depending entirely upon the US Navy, not a small arms fire citizen “militia”. Although American gun dealers probably are enjoying the Taiwan sales! And remember: the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
“So ask yourself, why would a political party oppose the 2nd amendment?”
Again, I think you mischaracterize the position. So far as I’m aware the Democratic party has never proposed repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Instead the criticism is of the misguided interpretation that extends gun rights to overbroad notions of guns for self-protection.
What I can say personally, is I have no problem with sportsmen keeping a variety of hunting weapons. I do not see the point, however, of keeping assault rifles in the home. I think the lack of training or certification requirements is ridiculous & frankly contrary to the constitution itself, in that, as you acknowledge, the current interpretation completely ignores the requirement of being part of a well regulated militia.
Well DT, looks like another ya-but, kind of sort of, but not really!
https://althistory.fandom.com/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Taiwan_(Right_to_Bear_Arms)
US Murder rate ~ 6.52/100K, Taiwan murder rate ~ .8/100k , US is 8X more murderous than Taiwan, so I suspect you are all in to look at firearm registration and restrictions like Taiwan?
According to one of my Taiwan friends ” We can’t have guns for any personal purposes, except some aboriginal people , they can hunt legally, But ! As said , if great invasion started ! We know where to get one for homeland resistance, most of man were served in military as obligation in Taiwan”
That looks like a well regulated militia!
And how would anyone in the USA know you are in the militia? And how would they know you aren’t keeping those weapons because you are actually fighting for the other side? “It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave”
If red flag laws are worrisome for you, Sig Sauer has a product that can – you won’t believe this – fire without the legal owner even touching it. What could offer better self-defense than a weapon you don’t even have to unholster for it to fire?
The washington post has a piece on a firearm, the P320, that’s developing a reputation for discharging without a trigger pull. “The injured included both casual and expert firearm owners whose guns fired in their homes and offices and in busy public places such as casinos and parking lots. In two cases, the guns went off on school grounds.” Yikes! That sounds serious!
What’s amazing to this reader is that these machines, whose intended design is essentially to kill, and purpose is purportedly to keep us safe from bad guys, are effectively unregulated. I’m not talking about gun control laws, I’m talking gun quality control laws. The Post says “Firearms are one of the few products that are exempt from federal consumer product safety regulations. No regulatory body has the power to investigate alleged defects or impose a mandatory recall of guns.” Wait, what?
So, keep that in mind before running off to the gun store. And know that Sig Sauer says “unintentional discharges occur with several types of firearms and are not unique to the P320.” Wow. Perhaps the best advice is to choose wisely when selecting your personal protection. And consider asking yourself, “do you feel lucky… punk?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/04/11/sig-sauer-p320-fires-on-own/
The “conservative” Repub Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Heller (which Mr Tester lauds above) is an egregiously wrong decision on the level of Dred Scott and Plessey v. Ferguson. That is already quite clear. It was conservative judicial activism at its worst and should be denounced as such.
When will conservatives stop attacking Justice Antonin Scalia:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Heller decision, written by Justice Scalia.
Yes, the made-up gun right is “not unlimited”; it’s just that the rightwing judicial activists following dearly-departed Godfather Scalia haven’t yet found a limit!
To say that a right is “not unlimited” without expressing some standard for determining the theoretical “limit” is meaningless. It’s just a sop thrown out to pretend the activist judge is being “reasonable”.
Scalia passed what he could given the makeup of the court at the time. He’s now gone & the court is further right, with an activist majority willing to legislate from the bench. Given their lack of respect for precedent, Scalia’s writing in Heller is largely irrelevant, other than as a former limit past which they are now willing to leap.
I agree totally with this observation, well put.