By Lynne Peeples/Broadcast version by Mary Schuermann
Reporting for the FairWarning-Commonwealth News Service Collaboration

BOSTON – A conviction for domestic violence in the U.S. strips a person of the legal right to possess a gun. It doesn’t matter if the conviction is a misdemeanor or a felony. The rationale for the federal law: Domestic violence is a red flag for future violence — including potentially deadly violence with a firearm.

Scientific and anecdotal evidence suggests that a person who abuses animals also has a higher likelihood of hurting other people. And that insight has begun fueling a push, at the state and federal levels, to slap a no-gun penalty on anyone convicted of animal cruelty.

“As we look at some of the recent mass shootings from Columbine to Parkland to Sutherland Springs, these perpetrators had a history of animal abuse. Addressing this pattern of behavior is a part of the solution for preventing gun violence and hopefully saving lives,” said U.S. Rep. Katherine M. Clark, D-Mass., who in July introduced bill (HR 6278) introduced focusing on the issue.

Local officials also are recognizing animal abuse as a human safety issue. A partnership between the New York City Police Department and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has more than tripled arrests for animal abuse in New York City since its 2014 launch.

Around the country, at least 75 state and local prosecuting offices have personnel specializing in animal abuse, according to a list provided by the National Link Coalition, an advocacy group formed a decade ago by activists concerned about the apparent connection between animal abuse and family violence. In May, for example, the San Diego District Attorney’s Office began rolling out its Animal Cruelty Prosecution Unit. Tracy Prior, deputy district attorney and chief of the office’s Family Protection Division, which is overseeing the new unit, plans to work more closely with law enforcement partners to try to prosecute more animal cruelty crimes.

The logic of such initiatives, as National Link Coalition coordinator Phil Arkow put it, is that “investigating animal cruelty cases aggressively … can also stop other violence including child abuse, domestic violence and elder abuse.”

Current federal law already bars felons from having a firearm, but many animal cruelty crimes — even those that involve torture and mutilation — are prosecuted as misdemeanors. Clark’s bill would step up enforcement by forbidding anyone with a misdemeanor conviction for animal cruelty from possessing a gun. Clark is favored to win reelection on Nov. 6, and, if the bill doesn’t pass this year, she plans to reintroduce it in the next Congress.

Similar legislation was introduced earlier this year in New Jersey, and the Illinois State Crime Commission has recommended a state ban on gun ownership by all convicted animal abusers.

The federal and state bills face uphill battles, say law enforcement and public policy experts. Gun rights and farm industry groups have frequently fought animal cruelty legislation. Representatives of Gun Owners of America have registered to lobby on the Clark bill.

Jerry Elsner, executive director of the crime commission in Illinois, said he also expects to encounter strong opposition by gun rights groups. His agency will seek sponsors after next month’s elections for a bill to bar gun possession by convicted animal abusers.

The Illinois State Rifle Association and the National Rifle Association fought bills to require the surrender of firearms in domestic violence cases before state and federal bans were adopted. “People didn’t want guns taken away from wife beaters. That wasn’t popular at all,” said Elsner, a registered Republican. But on the animal abuse legislation, he frames his personal position another way: “I’m not anti-gun, I’m anti-animal abuse.”

Neither rifle association responded to requests for comment on calls to bar gun possession by people convicted of animal cruelty.

Federal law enforcement authorities have started to embrace the notion that animal abuse could presage other crimes. In a July report, the FBI, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the National Counterterrorism Center declared animal abuse a warning sign for “terrorism and other premeditated violence against humans.” They cited research by the FBI, which found that among adults arrested between 2004 and 2009 for committing acts of animal cruelty, about half were subsequently arrested for another crime.

The FBI also began formally tracking animal abuse crimes in 2016 via a new national data collection system.

“It’s going to take three-to-five years, as they collect this new data, to really reveal the clear patterns,” said Clark, the Massachusetts congresswoman. Even so, she said she is confident that existing studies demonstrate that her legislation is needed.

Research has produced some provocative statistics. Animal abusers are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people than non-abusers, according to a study published in 1997 by Northeastern University and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The Chicago Crime Commission reported in 2004 that 82 percent of offenders arrested for animal abuse had prior convictions for battery, weapons or drugs. Another study, in 1999, found that 63 percent of aggressive criminals incarcerated in South Africa had deliberately inflicted harm on animals in childhood. And in a study published in July, the FBI concluded that 60 percent of animal cruelty offenders had also engaged in intimate partner violence, with or without guns.

Before he began killing and dismantling humans, Jeffrey Dahmer did the same with animals, researchers found. According to published reports, other mass murderers, including the “Boston Strangler” Albert DeSalvo, and school shooters such as Kip Kinkel, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, also tortured and killed animals in the years prior to their killing sprees.

Of course, not every child who abuses an animal will go on to carry out heinous acts against people. Clifton Flynn, provost at the University of South Carolina Upstate and author of studies and a book on the topic, pointed to criteria that could identify those at greatest risk of committing violence, such as people with multiple episodes of abuse or who carried out more up-close-and-personal cruelty. “If a kid takes a cat and strangles it until it almost dies, then I’d be worried about that kid — more so than a kid who takes a rifle and shoots a squirrel in a tree 50 yards away,” he said.

John Thompson, deputy executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Association and a former police chief in Maryland, said that for 30 years in law enforcement, he was unaware of the link. “I would just call animal control. It wasn’t my problem,” he added. “Law enforcement just doesn’t get it. But that is changing.”

Joye Estes echoed Thompson’s sentiment. She used to investigate sex crimes, child abuse and domestic abuse as an officer with the Louisville Metro Police Department in Kentucky. “I wish I’d had the knowledge about the link back when I was a detective,” said Estes, now a law enforcement investigator for the Jefferson County, Kentucky, public schools.

For 11 consecutive years, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, an advocacy group, has ranked Kentucky last among U.S. states in the strength of its animal protection laws. Among the reasons: humane officers lack broad enforcement authority and it’s very difficult to bring felony charges against animal abusers. Kentucky is also one of the few states where veterinarians are actually prohibited from reporting abuse, according to Animal Defense Fund reports.

Estes, through a group she co-founded in September, the Kentucky Link Coalition, is seeking to raise awareness of the connection between animal abuse and interpersonal violence. “We need to break down silos — to share info between animal control and police and social services,” she said. “Animal cruelty is the most silent crime. Animals never learn to talk, never go to school, never have relatives come to visit or visit friends.”

Meanwhile, more states are passing bills that create — or stiffen — felony provisions for animal cruelty, which could make it easier to bar offenders from possessing guns. In August 2017, Pennsylvania enacted legislation that added felony-level penalties for first-time aggravated animal cruelty offenses, such as torture.

“Extreme risk protection order” laws are also emerging, which target the gun rights of animal abusers in much the same way as domestic violence offenders. The first such state law, passed in Connecticut in 1999, provides police officers the power to temporarily take away an individual’s guns based on a history of violent acts, drug abuse or animal cruelty. A bill that took effect in Oregon in January now gives a judge the power to weigh factors including convictions for domestic violence or animal cruelty in deciding whether to order a temporary surrender of firearms.

“Based on what we know about those who perpetrate animal cruelty,” said Flynn, “there are good reasons to keep guns out of their hands.”

The audio version of this story was produced with original reporting from Lynne Peeples for FairWarning.


get more stories like this via email

Grassroots organizations are sounding the alarm about Tennessee's new law allowing teachers and other school employees to carry guns.

Gov. Bill Lee signed Senate Bill 1325 Friday and it took effect immediately.

More than 450 children have lost their lives to gun violence in the U.S. this year.

Cathy Barnett, legislative lead for the Tennessee chapter of Moms Demand Action, predicted the new law will not enhance school safety. She noted the community worked to get an extreme-risk protection order passed after the Covenant School shooting but Republicans passed legislation this year blocking local governments from passing their own versions of such protection orders.

"Already, we have seen the largest counties say no, they are not going to implement it," Barnett pointed out. "They trust their law enforcement, they trust that they have SROs already in their schools. They feel like the dangers are just too much."

Barnett added even some smaller counties have said they will not implement it. Supporters of the new Tennessee law argued it will make schools safer.

Becky Hansen, a Covenant School parent who testified at a March 27 House hearing, cried when describing how her 5-year-old son's teacher saved her students, and said giving her a gun would have just made the situation worse.

"Our teacher had the wherewithal, when she realized that what they thought they needed to do for a fire alarm was actually an active shooter, to turn it into a race, to not scare my 5-year-old," Hansen recounted. "There is no way that my sweet teacher could have also held and properly ejected a weapon."

Barnett said more than 70% of the parents and teachers her group surveyed do not want the law. She added in the past 11 years of testifying before committees, some lawmakers still fail to adequately understand gun violence prevention measures.

"They're not listening to the research at all," Barnett contended. "The research shows normally, on the whole, a mass shooter, most of the time has some affiliation with that school in some way. They don't come because it's a 'gun-free zone,' which the Republicans like to say."

She pointed out concerns armed individuals may automatically resort to shooting, potentially harming people unintentionally and noted a student might also gain access to a gun if there are more firearms at schools.


get more stories like this via email

Well over three-fourths of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases, but federal law allows unlicensed people to sell guns at gun shows and online without one.

Sixteen states now require background checks for gun sales by licensed and unlicensed sellers but Nebraska is not one of them.

The Biden administration is taking a step to close the gun show loophole. By mid-May, a broader definition of who is a gun dealer, and thus required to conduct background checks, will go into effect.

Melody Vaccaro, executive director of Nebraskans Against Gun Violence, said the broadened definition will not affect true "hobbyists," such as antique gun collectors.

"The main way that it goes between a hobbyist and a gun dealer is if someone is selling guns regularly for money," Vaccaro explained. "If monetization is the driver of the gun sales."

Nearly a dozen different violations make people ineligible to purchase or possess a gun under federal law. And since the federal background check system was initiated in 1998, it has stopped nearly 5 million illegal gun purchases.

Those who oppose expanding background checks believe additional regulations burden law-abiding citizens and do not stop potentially dangerous people from getting firearms.

Vaccaro acknowledged it may be true, but is not a reason to stop trying. She hopes the change will help Nebraskans discover their common ground on this issue.

"Everybody is worried about gun violence. Everybody's worried about mass shootings. Everybody's wondering how we can do better; everybody's wondering that," Vaccaro emphasized. "That's not a political party conversation; that is actually something we all share."

And Vaccaro expects most Nebraskans will welcome an increase in the percentage of gun sales to include a background check.

"It is just so basic; it's so pragmatic," Vaccaro contended. "I really would be surprised if there was authentic pushback from everyday people, who are not lobbyists or directly profiting from the gun industry in some way."

Nebraska law regulates handgun sales by both licensed and unlicensed sellers, but private sellers can sell a long gun without a background check.


get more stories like this via email

Background checks on those who purchase firearms at gun shows may soon be expanded.

The Justice Department last week issued a directive to close the so-called "gun show loophole." A final rule submitted to the Federal Register changes the definition of firearm sellers, ultimately requiring they obtain a federal firearms license to sell guns at gun shows, flea markets and over the internet.

Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, welcomed the new rule.

"There is no reason why anybody should be able to walk into any gun show in the United States of America, if there's not a background check law at the state level, and be able to purchase firearms, no questions asked," Viscoli contended.

The new rule would classify around 23,000 vendors as licensed firearms dealers, making their gun sales subject to checks. The Biden administration has said the rule does not conflict with the Second Amendment, but two Republican senators have already announced plans to introduce a joint resolution to overturn the rule.

Earlier this year, New Mexico lawmakers approved, and the governor signed, several firearms-related bills. One prohibits guns within 100-feet of polling places during a state election. And Viscoli said another bill could reduce the number of sales at gun shows.

"In New Mexico, and this does pertain to gun shows, we just passed a seven-day hold on the sale of firearms," Viscoli noted. "That's going to make it very difficult for gun shows because they would have to mail those guns to people."

In starting her position in 2013, Viscoli attended gun shows to see how easy or difficult it was to buy guns. Despite telling dealers she had forgotten her driver's license and had no identification, she said she was assured it wouldn't be a problem. Ten years later, she believes the proliferation of guns is out of control.

"It's coming to define who we are both as a state in New Mexico and as a country," Viscoli observed. "I mean, when gun violence is a leading cause of death for young people, I don't know why we're not sitting at the table and figuring, 'What the heck do we do about this?'"


get more stories like this via email