By Kevin Barlow | kbarlow@pantagraph.com | Posted: Sunday, May 16, 2010 7:00 am |

.
BLOOMINGTON — McLean County Sheriff Mike Emery has plenty to do.

“As sheriff, if you find yourself with a couple of minutes to sit down and return phone calls, that’s a slow day,” said Emery. “Most of the time, I am returning phone calls on my way to my next appointment.”

But as a supporter of pending legislation that would give Illinois residents the right to carry concealed weapons, Emery would not complain if some of the workload, as a byproduct of new laws, falls on his department.

Carry and conceal, or CCW, refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one’s person or in close proximity.

“There are 48 states that currently have carry and conceal laws in place,” Emery said. “At this point, we can pick and choose what works best for the state of Illinois. You must have strict training certifications and adequate background checks. But at some point, the county sheriff departments would have to have some percentage of control to ensure it works for the benefit of everyone.”

Wisconsin is the only other state without a carry and conceal law on the books.

Earlier this month, an Illinois House committee pushed through three pieces of gun legislation, sending them to the full House for consideration. If approved, the package of laws would allow gun owners to have a proper, portable gun carrying case in which to transport their weapon. Opponents such as State Rep. Ed Sullivan, R-Mundelein, said the legislation is too vague.

“Judges all over the state would each make their own ruling on what is considered a proper, portable gun carrying case,” he said.

“One of the problems we have always had with proposed carry and conceal legislation is making it specific enough so there is no confusion about interpretation of the law,” said Jared Shoffner, a Dewitt County deputy who is running unopposed in the November election for DeWitt County sheriff. “I would support carry and concealed legislation, but part of the problem is how it is written and interpreted. We want to make sure that any legislation is the right step for law-abiding citizens and doesn’t allow criminals easier access.”

The bill’s sponsor, State Rep. Harry Osterman, D-Chicago, said that won’t happen — that measure would still prevent people with criminal records from owning firearms.

The Illinois Sheriff’s Association has endorsed carry and concealed legislation, even though specifics have yet to be ironed out.

“One of the main sticking points about the legislation is how it affects Cook County,” Emery said. “My thinking is that if that’s the case, then let’s write different legislation for Cook County. It seems to me, it’s that simple.”

Adding to the debate is a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court on a challenge to Chicago’s existing ban on handguns. The court is expected to rule by late June.

Annual consideration

Carry and concealed weapons legislation is annually submitted and considered in Springfield. The current proposal is called the Family and Personal Protection Act and would allow the state to issue permits to carry concealed firearms after approval from a thorough application process. While the issue of CCW has been gaining more media attention, the bill isn’t expected to be considered in Illinois until at least November — if then.

Under the legislation, extensive background checks and mental evaluations would be required of every applicant seeking permit. There would be registration fees and gun owners would be required to attend training courses.

Ron Darnell, owner of Darnell Gun Works & Ranges just west of Bloomington, teaches such courses and said his clients are always asking about potential changes to the law.

“I wouldn’t know why anyone wouldn’t want a law to allow responsible citizens the right to carry a weapon,” Darnell said. “Statistics indicate the crime rate drops in states that enact carry and conceal laws. Who wants to start trouble with someone who might be carrying a weapon?”

Opponents argue the opposite and contend that even with safeguards in place, there simply is no reason for allowing more guns in public. Under the proposed legislation, guns would not be allowed in churches, schools, airports, stadiums and events where large crowds gather.

“The vast majority of Illinois residents feel that guns are OK to own and keep in your home, but not in public areas,” said Tom Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. “People won’t feel comfortable walking around in the business districts of Bloomington and Normal or near the ISU and Wesleyan campuses and on the same sidewalks as people with loaded guns.”

Mannard also argues any legislation that allows weapons in public places would not have a positive impact on safety.

“Bloomington-Normal has one of the fastest-growing populations in the state,” he said. “Do you really want to see more guns in that kind of environment?”

One of these days

Two years ago, the McLean County Board, along with dozens of others across the state, passed a resolution favoring protection of gun ownership rights under the Second Amendment. Normal resident Walter Biesiada helped organize the effort to get the resolution approved.

“Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states where you can’t carry a gun,” Biesiada said. “Every other state that has approved legislation on this has continued to move forward and allow more freedom. None of them have moved backwards and restricted the rights after passage. That tells you that the proper legislation works.”

Darnell feels the time is approaching where Illinois citizens will be allowed to carry guns — after the proper background checks and training procedures are in place.

“One of these days we will get it,” he said. “The politicians in Chicago control a lot of votes and they don’t want it up there. But I think there will come a day when the citizens downstate get their way.”
Carry and conceal

House Bill 5221 calls for the creation of the Family and Personal Protection Act. It would:

* Allow State Police to issue permits to carry concealed firearms to persons at least 21 years of age who meet certain requirements;

* Authorize the county sheriff to evaluate the application and accompanying material, and within 30 calendar days transmit the application, accompanying material, and any objections to the application, and application fees to State Police.

* Require an applicant to have completed specified training requirements developed by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board consisting of classroom instruction and live firing exercises.

ICHV Insights Column by Mark Walsh

A number of years ago, I was working for an alderman in Chicago’s Back of the Yards neighborhood. At the time, there was an increase in all kinds of violence in this community. I used to get phone calls from two police districts with updates on shootings and gang crimes. What they told me would spin your head, and the experience put the issue of gun violence on my radar screen.

I sometimes think about those days, now that I am campaign director for the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The campaign’s focus is to build up grassroots support on this issue — and also focus on research-based policy. We have a statewide advisory group that includes members of faith, law enforcement, elected officials, members of the victim’s community and medical community — all of whom understand that this is a common sense issue.

We know that there is statewide support to prevent gun violence. Before the start of the legislative cycles in 2007 and 2009, we conducted statewide polling on gun laws and various common sense initiatives related to this issue. For example, we learned that there was statewide support for keeping bulk purchases of guns from happening and requiring safe storage of guns.

This year, our main focus has been on universal background checks. The goal is to ensure that there is one universal background check for any handgun purchase. There is an exemption in the bill for guns that are passed on in the family, since a lot of people consider their handguns to be family heirlooms.

We also strongly support a bill that would increase the penalty to someone who gives a handgun to a gang member. We believe there is a good chance that this legislation will be passed in the Senate.

My role, however, is not just to deal with legislators in Springfield on these issues — it’s to reach out to communities around the state. For example, we organize support for meetings at district offices of legislators. Our reasoning is basic: We want to bring local constituents into these meetings — legislators want to hear from their own constituents. In addition, in many cases you have more time to meet with legislators in their district offices.

I also try to go to at least a couple of community meetings a week in Illinois and educate people on this issue. We have found, over and over, that people are willing to hear our side.

In truth, gun violence can happen everywhere. One of our biggest problems is that some people think this is a Chicago or big city issue — or that it’s racial. That’s just not true.

If there is a face to this issue — a survivor of gun violence, or someone related to a victim, for instance — that can open up people’s minds and eyes and show them that preventing gun violence makes sense. It also shows them that there are just too many guns in our communities. Just consider how many times you hear about accidental shootings, suicides and young people who decide to settle disputes with guns.

A large part of the problem is something we already know, but it bears repeating: there is a lack of desire among politicians to challenge the NRA. Part of the issue is that there is a perception — an incorrect one — that the NRA will come in and be able to beat you in an election or make your life miserable. However, when you talk to NRA members, many are more supportive of common sense solutions than we are led to believe. Many, many law-abiding folks — including NRA members — understand, for example, that limiting handgun purchases is not about infringing civil rights. It’s about keeping people safe.

The NRA higher-ups say “you can’t take my gun away.” The NRA’s rank-and-file, though, is giving voice to a different message, one that is more supportive of gun violence prevention efforts. We see what they are saying in polling data. We have learned through our polling that many NRA members support what we are doing. They know we are not out to take away people’s right to hunt or shoot for sport.

Meanwhile, we know that in these times, the focus of elected officials is often going to be on the economy. Are they really going to consider the gun issue? Well, I like to remember a saying: “Nothing stops a bullet like a job.” Focusing on employment opportunities is another key way to promote gun violence prevention.

We can’t afford to have people all across the state dying from gun shots. My attitude is that if we do something that keeps one person from being injured or killed, it’s worth that time or effort. If that one person is your husband, wife, friend, child, or anyone else close to you, it means a lot more. There’s always a reason not to do something. But if it’s the right thing to do, it’s the right time to do it.

Mark Walsh is campaign director for the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The Campaign is a project of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

She said a loophole in Illinois law allows private gun sellers to skip the background check when selling a gun, which can allow people who wouldn’t otherwise qualify to get guns. Roughly 40 percent of gun sales in Illinois are private sales.

.

When the massacre at Virginia Tech happened on Monday, April 16, 2007, I knew nothing about gun control. But this tragedy overwhelmed and outraged me. I was just overcome with grief and heartbreak, as all Americans were. As a mother I just had tremendous grief for other parents whose children had been murdered and taken away from their lives forever. As a fellow Virginian, I was heartbroken that this would happen in our state.

Then, I learned that the shooter at Virginia Tech had a long history of mental illness, and a judge had determined that he was a threat to himself and others. And yet, he had such easy access to guns, and was able to buy them in a matter of minutes.

Within twenty-four hours of the shootings at Virginia Tech, I realized I had to take it on in some small fashion. On the Wednesday after the shooting, it just descended on me that I was going to do a protest. I wanted to get together thirty-two people to lie down – one person for everyone who was killed at Virginia Tech before the gunman killed himself.

There were some people who said it’s too “early” – but I said we are going to do this protest – or “lie-in” –  right away. We can’t let our fellow Americans die in such a manner. I emailed friends that day or the next, and worked day and night. Within a few hours, friends wrote me back and said “I’m in.”

We held the protest in Alexandria, Virginia, the following Sunday, April 22. Everyone was dressed in black. For us, it was really about getting friends together and expressing outrage. We knew nothing about the media before this lie-in – I didn’t even know what a press release was. But we got the word out about it and got a ton of attention. The Washington Post, CNN and other news outlets showed up.

Afterwards, my conscience propelled me forward. I thought, “Let’s see if we can get others to speak out with a protest.” We helped organize other protests – the fourth one was in Times Square. On the first anniversary of Virginia Tech, there were 70 lie-ins around the country. We have held lie-ins in 31 states and Washington D.C. Lie-ins are typically only a three-minute long protest – representing the mere minutes it takes for dangerous individuals, like the Virginia Tech shooter, to buy his gun. We are confident that these lie-ins are helping to educate thousands of people about gun violence through media coverage of these events.

This is a true grassroots social movement, and nobody gets paid one penny. We all contribute what we can – like the graphic artists and web experts who have emerged to design our website. In addition, we are very involved with families of people who have been injured and killed by gun violence – they are very active in this movement.

To help protesters, we developed what we call “Protest in a Box.” Through this tool, people can easily access a range of documents that can help them develop a protest (for more information, just go to our website, protesteasyguns.com). Key documents include letters or emails to mobilize protesters, sample flyers, information on how to contact elected officials, a handout about what is wrong with current U.S. gun policy, and more.

One key issue we are focusing on is the gun show loophole, which enables so many people in this country to purchase guns regardless of whether they should legally be able to purchase them or not (for more information, go to campaigntoclosethegunshowloophole.org). Most Americans don’t realize that a felon could have left jail yesterday – and walked into a gun show today in 33 states to buy a gun as easily as you might buy a Butterfinger candy bar. That’s because there are no background checks by private and unlicensed sellers at these gun shows. Domestic abusers, felons, gang members, people who are mentally ill – all can access guns. What do we want in this situation? We just want background checks to be required when a person tries to purchase guns (by the way, background checks take a matter of minutes to complete). We don’t think that’s too much to ask to save American lives. We are resentful of people who think it is too much to ask.

There’s so much work to do. Most Americans believe in tighter gun restrictions, and yet our voices are not being heard by our legislators. Look at any poll, and you’ll see that even many NRA members and other gun owners support stricter gun laws to protect American lives. For example, a survey conducted late last year by Republican pollster Frank Luntz showed that  “it is perfectly consistent to support the Second Amendment and still support background checks at gun shows and greater efforts to keep terrorists from buying guns” (the survey was performed on behalf of Mayors Against Illegal Guns).

This Friday, April 16, marks the third anniversary of Virginia Tech. This weekend, we will be holding protests at Starbucks in Blacksburg, Virginia and Denver. In recent weeks, “open carry” gun advocates have brought their guns to Starbucks in a number of states. The double Starbucks protest we are holding will be attended by families of the victims of the Virginia Tech and Columbine massacres. Our issue with the coffee giant is basic — none of us wants children to be staring down the barrel of a gun when they walk into a Starbucks.

Meanwhile, next Tuesday, April 20, is the 11^th anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School.

Through these protests, average Americans are rising up in compassion for the lives of our fellow citizens. What’s at stake? We want more and more people to realize that every year, 30,000 Americans die from gun violence – and do something about it. Thirty-thousand people — think about what that means: Every two years, more Americans die from gun violence than died in the Vietnam War. This is completely unacceptable. It’s also preventable, and we are learning through our protests that collective action works.

Abby Spangler launched Protest Easy Guns, a social movement of Americans protesting lax gun laws.  She also has a PhD in political science from Columbia University, where her research focused on social movements.

When I was seventeen years old, I was a victim of gun violence. I was on a date on the east side of Cleveland, and my car was carjacked. I was held at gunpoint. I still remember a lot of the details — like the fact that the car was a 1983 Nissan Centra.

I had just been accepted to college, and was thinking of what the headline could have been: Student Killed in Ghetto. Then I thought about the overall impact of gun violence and how serious a problem it is in communities.

My father was a police officer in Cleveland for twenty-five years. I was always worried about my dad, and heard stories about cops being shot. Fortunately, he was never shot, and both of my parents discouraged the use of guns in the house. My mother wouldn’t even allow me to play with cap guns.

When I came to Chicago, I went to school at the University of Chicago. One night I got held up at gunpoint in a convenience store. The guy with the gun was really jittery and didn’t shoot me. The university police drove me around to help find the guy. We couldn’t find him.

These experiences solidified my belief that as a matter of public policy, we have to strengthen gun control laws. We have to make it harder for criminals to get hold of guns.

As I got more involved in public life, I was at one point asked by several people, including Toni Preckwinkle (who is now running for president of the Cook County Board) to run for state representative on Chicago’s south side. I agreed to run, and ran against Elga Jefferies, the incumbent. My opponent had voted against a bill supporting a universal background check on handguns. She claims that she made a mistake, and pressed the wrong button.

That bill needed 60 votes, and there were two members of the city’s delegation in Springfield that voted against it — including Jefferies. Their votes were crucial. Meanwhile, the community I wanted to represent was clearly behind gun control legislation. I simply thought that we are struggling with gun violence and the incumbent had an opportunity to vote for gun control legislation that would have kept guns out of the hands of criminals. We need someone who will vote for laws that are in the interest of the community. I won that election, and the gun issue clearly played a big role.

Today, it’s clear that elected officials have many priorities, especially those related to the economy. Nevertheless, we have to keep pressing on gun issues. The status quo is the way it is — but it will remain the status quo if you do nothing. Politics is a fluid system, and something could change.

Another issue, of course, is the misconception that gun violence is “just a Chicago issue.” When I hear that, I explain to people that Northern Illinois University is in DeKalb. Gun violence affects people throughout the state.

Another misconception is that gun control advocates somehow want to stop people from hunting. That’s not true at all. What we want to do is stop the straw purchaser who buys twenty guns at a time. The NRA does a very good job of scaring people, but we have to build support for sensible legislation. We have to keep pushing.

I do think that with the Supreme Court looking at the Chicago gun ordinance, that puts increased pressure on states to pass good gun control bills. It’s important for us to carry on, so courts know that we have the constitutional right to bear arms — but with sensible restrictions on their use. We ought to be able to control access to guns from those who shouldn’t have them.

To control gun violence, we have to take a two-prong approach. First, we have to stem the flow of guns into our communities. Second, we must address structural forces that make crime and criminality popular to young people. We can do that by making sure there are supervised after-school programs for youth — keeping in mind that after school is when a lot of violence occurs. We also must work to get youth jobs.

In addition, we must create comprehensive early childhood education programs, assist at-risk mothers in pregnancies and fund public schools.

My hope is that we can create systems and opportunities so that children don’t make the wrong choices. In addition, if a kid wants to get a gun, we need to make that really expensive and difficult to do. When there’s an opportunity to pass a bill for universal background checks, we must take it.

We know this is a big challenge. At the same time, it’s important to remember what they say in Springfield: No bill ever dies. There’s always an opportunity, and we must keep pushing until we get to the finish line.

Will Burns is Illinois State Representative in Will Burns is Illinois State Representative in the state’s 26th District, which stretches from the South Shore to the Gold Coast in Chicago.

To download the Second City invite and RSVP CLICK HERE.

.

The federal court indictment states, “The HUTAREE’s enemies include state and local law enforcement, which are deemed ‘foot soldiers’ of the Federal government, Federal law enforcement agencies and employees, participants in the ‘New World Order,’ and anyone who does not share in the HUTAREE’s beliefs. Since at least 2008, the HUTAREE has been meeting regularly to conduct military-style training in Lenawee County….The purpose of this training has been to plan and prepare for the impending war with the HUTAREE’s enemies.”

The militia’s grisly plans are noted on page 4 of the federal court indictment: “The general concept of operations provided that the HUTAREE would commit some violent act to draw the attention of law enforcement or government officials and which would prompt a response by law enforcement. Possible such acts which were discussed including killing a member of law enforcement after a traffic stop, killing a member of law enforcement and his or her family at home, ambushing a member of law enforcement in rural communities, luring a member of law enforcement with a false 911 emergency call and then killing him or her, and killing a member of law enforcement and then attacking the funeral procession motorcade with weapons of mass destruction. These acts would intimidate and demoralize law enforcement diminishing their ranks and rendering them ineffective.”

In response, Thom Mannard, Executive Director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV), issued the following statement:

“It is disturbing to read today that a Christian cult and militia sought to arm themselves with deadly weapons and to train its members to kill other people, including law enforcement officials, based on a sick and twisted interpretation of the Christian faith. This FBI raid is yet more proof that hate groups, cults and militias in our nation can easily arm themselves with some of the most deadly weapons available, such as military-style assault weapons, powerful handguns and other dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

“Congress and the Obama administration must act to address the terrorism threat enabled by America’s weak gun laws. America’s safety and security continues to be at grave risk until we ban the sale of all military-style assault weapons, such as AK-47s and .50 caliber sniper rifles, and require criminal background checks on every firearm sold. Ultimately, comprehensive federal legislation must be enacted to address this danger and improve homeland security.

“Illinois state lawmakers do not have to wait for Congress to act to limit the access and threat of deadly assault weapons. Pending legislation SB 3036 sponsored by Senator Antonio Munoz, and HB 5751 sponsored by Representative Edward Acevedo should be acted on immediately.

“ICHV believes it is imperative to protect our communities from the proliferation of these deadly weapons into our communities. The easy access to military-style assault weapons undermines our public safety and our personal security. This FBI raid against a well-armed militia should act as a wake-up to lawmakers to take action to prevent a potential domestic terrorist attack.

“Finally, we urge all members of the faith community to speak out more fervently against any group that uses religion to justify acts of violence.”

The report is informational and is not meant for publication.  Selected research summaries are posted to the Brady website.  All the studies have links to the abstract or full text version of the article, where available.

For past studies and all kinds of useful factual information, go to: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts

Questions or comments can be directed to Becca Knox at bknox@bradymail.org.

Title: Women with Protective Orders Report Failure to Remove Firearms from Their Abusive Partners: Results from an Exploratory Study

Brady URL: http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/161

Publication Date: January 20, 2010

What Does It Say? Researchers interviewed 782 victims of intimate partner violence about: 1) their experiences seeking protection orders from courts, 2) judges ordering the removal of firearms from defendants and 3) if firearms were actually surrendered or confiscated. All of the women lived in either New York City or Los Angeles, states that allow or mandate that judges issuing protective orders require abusers to surrender their firearms.

Of the 82 victims who obtained a protection order and knew if their abuser owned a firearm, only 12 percent (10/82) reported that their abuser had either surrendered all of his firearms or had the firearms seized. This finding is consistent with other studies showing significant gaps in the enforcement of laws to disarm batterers. In addition to the main findings, this study provides a helpful overview of the myriad ways that enforcement breaks down and therefore how it can be improved.

How Can I Use It? The information in this study can help to inform the work of domestic violence advocates, law enforcement, and legislators.

Citation: Webster, DW, Frattaroli, S, Vernick, JS, O’Sullivan C, Roehl J, Campbell, JC, “Women with Protective Orders Report Failure to Remove Firearms from Their Abusive Partners: Results from an Exploratory Study,” Journal of Women’s Health 19(1)(2010): 93-98

******************

Title: Attitudes and Beliefs of Adolescents and Parents Regarding Adolescent Suicide

URL: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/125/2/221

Publication Date: January 11, 2010

What Does It Say? Researchers convened focus groups with urban black, urban Hispanic, suburban white and rural white parents and teenagers from the Midwest to explore their beliefs and attitudes about adolescent suicide. Both the adolescents and the parents suggested that guns be secured or removed if an adolescent is known to be suicidal. However, parents in all groups acknowledged that they might not be able to identify a suicidal teen.

How Can I Use It? This exploratory study provides qualitative data consistent with previous quantitative research that the best way to protect teens from a potential suicide attempt with a gun is to remove guns from the home.

Citation: Schwartz, KA, Pyle, S, Dowd, D, and Sheehan, K, “Attitudes and Beliefs of Adolescents and Parents Regarding Adolescent Suicide,” Pediatrics 125(2) February 2010:221-227

******************

Title: Black Homicide Victimization in the United States: An Analysis of 2007 Homicide Data

Brady URL: http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/164/

Publication Date: January 2010

What Does It Say? The Violence Policy Center analyzed detailed police reports (known as the Supplementary Homicide Reports of the Uniform Crime Report system) to document black homicide victimization for the most recent year available (2007). The detailed police reports allow analysis, by race, of the relationships between victim and offender and by circumstances.

VPC ranked states by black homicide victimization rates and provided detailed statistics for the worst five states: Pennsylvania, Missouri, Indiana, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

For the year 2007, blacks represented 13 percent of the population yet accounted for 49 percent of all homicide victims. Eighty-two percent of the 7,387 black homicide victims were killed with guns. The homicide rate among black male victims is 37.59 per 100,000, while the rate for white male homicide victims is 4.63 per 100,000.

How Can I Use It? The Obama Administration has declined to take action to curb gun access by dangerous people ostensibly because national violent crime is at historically low levels. Use this study to document that gun crime remains a crisis in the black community.

Citation: Langley, Marty, Black Homicide Victimization in the United States: An Analysis of 2007 Homicide Data, Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center, January 2010

******************

Title: Federal Firearms Cases, FY2008

URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/229420.pdf

Publication Date: January 2010

What Does It Say? This is the third annual report from the Regional Justice Information Service summarizing prosecutions under federal firearms laws. A total of 8,595 defendants were charged with federal firearms offenses in fiscal year 2008, compared to 8,935 defendants in 2007 and 9,238 in 2006.

How Can I Use It? Prosecutions for federal firearm offenses appear to be going down. I don’t see an immediate way to use these facts, but I wanted to pass it along in case someone else does. Please let me know if you think of a good use.

Citation: Frandsen, Ronald J., and Bowling, M., Federal Firearms Cases, FY2008, St. Louis, MO: Regional Justice Information Service, January 2010

******************

Title: Do Guns Provide Safety? At What Cost?

URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20065902?log$=activity

Publication Date: February 2010

What Does It Say? Based on data from the Gun Shot Wound Registry at the University of Louisville’s School of Medicine, researchers were able to document local information about the insurance status of gun violence patients and the costs of treatment.

In Kentucky, 73 percent of gunshot victims were uninsured, 10 percent were covered by government plans, and 17 percent were insured. At a major Kentucky trauma center, medical care for gunshot victims in 2008 cost over $18 million and charges for those needing admission averaged $43,000 a patient. In Louisville, KY, expenses for the uninsured gun-injury victims alone exceeded the allotment of moneys allocated for all indigent care medical costs for the entire community.

How Can I Use It? This study shows the potential of a local gunshot registry to document the costs of gunshot injuries and deaths and provide powerful arguments for prevention in a time of tight state and local budgets.

Citation: Narang, Puneet, et al, “Do Guns Provide Safety? At What Cost?” Southern Medical Journal 103(2) February 2010:1-3

******************

Title: Clinical Psychologists’ Firearm Risk Management Perceptions and Practices

URL: http://springerlink.com/content/k43765185lp54p82/fulltext.pdf [open access]

Publication Date: February 2010

What Does It Say? Researchers generated a national random sample of 600 clinical psychologists from the membership of the American Psychological Association and surveyed them about how they handle the dangers of gun ownership with clients. The survey had a response rate of 62 percent. One quarter of the responding psychologists owned a firearm.

The majority of clinical psychologists (78.0 percent) did not have a routine system for identifying patients with firearms, despite 78.5 percent perceiving firearm safety issues as greater in those with mental health problems compared to the general population.

About half (51.6 percent) of the psychologists reported that they initiate firearm safety counseling with patients assessed as at risk for self-harm or harm to others. This compares with 38 percent of physicians and 15.7 percent of pediatricians. Thirty-seven percent never discussed with their patients the dangers of keeping loaded firearms in the home.

Only 16.5 percent of the psychologists reported counseling all or most of their alcohol/substance abuse patients about firearm safety issues even though substance abuse disorders increase the risk of suicide among attempters.

Only 12.1 percent of the respondents reported receiving graduate level training in providing anticipatory guidance on firearm safety.

How Can I Use It? Much work remains to institutionalize firearm risk assessment by clinical psychologists and other health and mental health providers to protect patient and public safety.

Citation: Traylor, Andrea, Price, J, Tell Johann, S, King, K, Thompson, A, “Clinical Psychologists’ Firearm Risk Management Perceptions and Practices,” Journal of Community Health (2010)35:60-67

******************

Title: Target: Law Enforcement, Assault Weapons in the News, March 1, 2005 -February 28, 2007

Brady URL: http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/165/

Publication Date: February 2010

What Does It Say? Based on an analysis of media reports of assault weapons incidents from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2007, this researcher documented that more than one out of four (27.2 percent) assault weapons incidents involved police.

While the number of assault weapon incidents stayed roughly the same from 2005/6 to 2006/7, the percent of incidents involving law enforcement increased by 20.7 percent. The report also documents at least one law enforcement non-fatal injury in 12 of the 64 law enforcement cases and one fatal injury in 4 of the 64 reported incidents involving law enforcement.

The study also provides a brief overview of the history of assault weapon regulation in the U.S.

How Can I Use It? Use the data in this report to advocate that the Obama Administration once again prohibit the importation of assault weapons via application of the “sporting purposes” test and that Congress enact a federal assault weapon ban modeled on the California assault weapon ban.

Citation: Diaz, Tom, Target: Law Enforcement, Assault Weapons in the News, March 1, 2005 -February 28, 2007, Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center, February 2010

Research Resources

* The Harvard School of Public Health, with Joyce Foundation funding, has launched its Firearms Research Digest (see: http://www.firearmsresearch.org/). This searchable database provides summaries of studies from social science and economics, criminology, medicine, public health, and public policy.
* The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has created a mapping tool for mortality statistics. You can create maps of firearm death rates by state, with county information. The maps include data on medical costs and work loss costs. Check it out at: http://wisqars.cdc.gov:8080/cdcMapFramework/
* ATF has posted lists of federally licensed dealers by state, updated monthly. You can find the lists here: http://www.atf.gov/statistics/ffl-list.html or on the Brady website under Guns in America here: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/researchresources?s=1

* CDC death data for 2007 is scheduled to be released in April. The most recent data available as of March 12, 2010 is: CDC deaths – 2006; CDC injuries – 2008; FBI police reports – 2008.

Upcoming Research/Research in Progress

* Opposition research: John Lott’s book More Guns, Less Crime is coming out in its third edition May 15, 2010, see: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226493660/ref=nosim/?tag=johnrlotttrip-20

Opposition Research

Title: The State of the Castle: An Overview of Recent Trends in State Castle Doctrine Legislation and Public Policy

URL: http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/4/515

Publication Date: December 1, 2009

What Does It Say? Under the guise of conducting research, the authors essentially have written and published a piece of NRA propaganda on expanded castle doctrine bills. Expanded castle doctrine laws eliminate the duty to retreat in your home, and sometimes your vehicle, business, or other places.

The authors claim, based on a poorly defined search and a muddy analysis, that the passage of expanded castle doctrine laws in 23 of the 50 states from 2005 to 2008 signals a bipartisan interest in gun rights, resulted from the ability of the NRA to use consensus-building strategies in state legislatures, and indicates that state legislatures were focused on a crime control agenda in the 1990s.

The authors applaud the inclusion of civil immunity for gun owners in these bills, characterizing them this way: “These civil immunity provisions nestled within statutes provide vast civil liability protections and are a key legislative component sought after in the NRA’s national lobbying efforts.”

How Can I Use It? Take note of the names of the researchers and their affiliations, as you can expect them to toe the NRA line in testimony and in the media. All three are from the University of Texas at Dallas.

Citation: Boots, Denise Paquette, Bihari, Jayshree, and Elliott, Euel, ” The State of the Castle: An Overview of Recent Trends in State Castle Doctrine Legislation and Public Policy,” Criminal Justice Review 34(4), December 2009: 515-535

******************

Title: “Gun Ownership As Disease” Reaches Fever Pitch/How Your Tax Dollars Are Used to Demonize Your Guns

Publication Date: January 2010

What Does It Say? The January edition of the NRA’s newsletter attacks a recent study on the risks of gun possession (Branas et al, “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault,” American Journal of Public Health 99(11)(2009)). Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre pens a column, and gun rights think-tanker Dave Kopel writes an article.

Perhaps most obnoxiously, Kopel insinuates that gun owners should be concerned about the study because it might convince a spouse to veto a gun purchase. Those pesky spouses and their safety concerns.

Kopel attacks the study in part by using quotes from a Philadelphia Inquirer story of researchers questioning the methodology. Kopel fails to include a quote from the same article by criminologist Charles Wellford, the chairman of the panel that wrote the 2004 review of gun violence research.

Wellford commends the study and states, “This is a good paper. [T]his is the kind of work we were hoping…would be done. This is a good first step to try to understand better what role guns play in self-defense.”

How Can I Use It? This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which Kopel points out very prominently in his article. We can expect attacks on the NIH’s funding of gun research.

Citation: National Rifle Association, “’Gun Ownership As Disease’ Reaches Fever Pitch/How Your Tax Dollars Are Used to Demonize Your Guns,” America’s First Freedom, January 2010

Elmhurst, IL —

In light of an upcoming Supreme Court decision that might overturn the Chicago handgun ban, a gun-rights group stopped in Elmhurst last week to tell residents that allowing concealed carry of firearms in Illinois would be a proper next step.

Illinois Carry, a southern Illinois-based offshoot of the Illinois State Rifle Association that since 2004 has advocated for statewide permission of concealed carry of firearms, hosted about 300 guests March 4 at the Diplomat West Banquet Halls.

“We just want to get people informed,” Illinois Carry member Greg Powell of Hanover Park said. “We want to get some elected officials that will fight for our rights and want some good Second Amendment people down in Springfield.”

For Powell, it’s a matter of protection and reason, as Illinois is one of two states that do not allow some form of concealed carry.

“My biggest problem is I got a son who’s a junior in high school, he’s going to college here in another year and a half, and I don’t want to send him to a school in Illinois because he’s unprotected,” Powell said. “All the hoodlums, gang bangers, they just carry guns anyway. Why can’t we protect ourselves too?”

Powell said the McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court case is the catalyst for activity in the Chicago area. IllinoisCarry will appear next at the Pheasant Run Resort in St. Charles in April.

“This gun case is going to be one of the biggest deals in the United States,” Powell said. “I think the Chicago politicians are really running scared.”

IllinoisCarry participated with about 6,000 gun rights activists Wednesday for Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day in Springfield.

State Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-24th District, of Hinsdale introduced legislation in 1995 that would have allowed concealed carry with background check safeguards, but the measure failed in the Senate by two votes. However, he said the attitude toward concealed carry since has changed.

“Public opinion in the last decade or so has clearly shifted to an understanding of the need for self-defense and the experience is that crime goes down,” Dillard said. “We all benefit from concealed carry because criminals are always apprehensive that someone might be armed … concealed (carry) is a deterrent to crime but most importantly, it is a basic constitutional right.”

Despite support, Dillard said it’s not likely a concealed carry bill will pass through the state Senate.

“There’s nothing pending in the senate, and as long as you have Chicago machine Democrats in charge of both legislative chambers and Pat Quinn, the likelihood of having concealed carry in Illinois is rough,” he said.

Thom Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, disagrees.

“It’s one thing for people to say they have a right to have a gun in their home, we don’t disagree with that,” Mannard said. “But when you bring (guns) out on the street that becomes the community’s business. … I got a brother-in-law in Elmhurst, it’s not too dangerous in Elmhurst. If I went down his block, most people wouldn’t feel too comfortable with me carrying a 9mm with a 30-round magazine.”

Mannard disputes Dillard’s claims that there is growing support for concealed carry and that such a law reduces crime.

“It wasn’t because of a groundswell of support in any of these states,” Mannard said. “… Most of the people who get the permits are men who live in rural or suburban areas, it’s not like they’re major targets of crime. … There’s no proof that concealed carry has had a negative impact or positive impact on crime.”

Mannard also said suburban Republicans often join Chicago Democrats in their opposition to concealed carry.

“If they had the votes to pass the concealed carry bill last year, they would have called the bill in the House,” Mannard said. “People in the suburbs know generally they’re more than safe and don’t see more guns, particularly guns on the street, (improving) the safety of our suburbs.”

A state House bill that would allow state police to issue concealed carry permits to 21-year-olds who meet certain requirements passed a House committee this week.