CARSON CITY, Nev. – Democrats in the U.S. Senate are trying again to tighten up gun laws by bringing back the federal assault weapons ban and expanding federal background checks to include private and unlicensed sales.

The issue has particular resonance in Nevada, where a gunman used AR-15s to kill 58 people and injure 422 more at a concert in Las Vegas in October 2017, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

Maria-Teresa Liebermann, deputy director of the advocacy group Battle Born Progress, says she appreciates the renewed focus on gun violence prevention.

"There really is a gun violence epidemic in this country that has not been addressed, so the fact that it is a priority in the first week is welcome and has been needed for years," she states.

The new assault weapons ban would allow owners to keep existing weapons and contains exemptions for 2,200 specific guns used for hunting, recreation and household defense.

It also requires existing weapons to be stored in a safe or with a trigger lock.

Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, who has the power to bring the bill up for a vote, has opposed similar bills in the past.

In 2016, Nevadans narrowly passed a ballot measure requiring use of the federal background check system rather than the state system, but former Attorney General Adam Laxalt said it was unenforceable and a district court judge agreed.

Liebermann notes that the new attorney general, Aaron Ford, a Democrat, has said he'll try to implement that policy nonetheless.

"I think, at the end of the day, it was pure politics, especially from Laxalt's side, and now here in Nevada with a new governor and attorney general, it's going to be a lot different," Liebermann states.

In the upcoming session of the Nevada Legislature, lawmakers are expected to consider bills to require safe storage of weapons and restrict gun possession by people convicted of domestic violence.

There also are discussions about repealing parts of SB 175, an existing law that expanded the "castle doctrine" to expand the "stand your ground" defense to situations where people may feel unsafe while in their car.


get more stories like this via email

Connecticut is one state not affected by a recent Supreme Court ruling.

In Garland v. Cargill, the Court overturned a federal bump-stock ban the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives implemented after a 2017 mass shooting. Authorities found most of the shooter's weapons had a bump stock, which enables someone to fire multiple rounds at a rapid pace.

Melissa Kane, board chair and interim executive director of the group Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said federal action must follow the ruling.

"Legislation to ban bump stocks has already been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate," Kane pointed out. "Congress has the power to change the law and ban bump stocks now to keep these kinds of weapons off of our streets and out of our communities but it has to happen."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has signaled he'll call for a vote on legislation banning bump stocks. The big challenge Kane sees for implementing such a ban is political gridlock. Senate Democrats support Schumer's proposal but GOP senators said they will block the legislation.

Polls from just before the ban was implemented show most Americans support it and attorneys general from numerous states say a federal bump-stock ban is necessary. Although federal gun safety bills often face an uphill battle, some states have not had the same issue.

Kane argued Connecticut can be a model for other states and the federal government.

"Connecticut's is ironclad and I'd like other states to look at the wording of our legislation and know that if your state doesn't have a ban on bump stocks, you can ban bump stocks," Kane contended. "That's important for people to see. They will be able to uphold those in case there are cases that come against them."

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have bump-stock bans which remain in effect since the ruling covers the ATF rule, not the constitutionality of state bans.

If two Michigan lawmakers have their way, there will be fewer locations in the state where people are allowed to carry firearms.

State Sen. Dayna Polehanki, D-Livonia, and state Sen. Rosemary Bayer, D-Beverly Hills, have introduced bills that would expand gun-free zones within the State Capitol complex.

Both have advocated for stricter gun laws in Michigan.

Senate Bills 857 and 858 would make it illegal to carry a firearm in the State Capitol building, the Binsfeld Senate Office Building, and the Anderson House Office Building - with an exception for legislators.

Ryan Bates, executive director of the group End Gun Violence Michigan, said he believes these proposals are much needed.

"We cannot have a functioning democracy at the barrel of a gun," said Bates. "So, it's incredibly important that we protect our legislators and protect our democracy from people who want to do it harm by bringing guns into the places where our laws are made."

If the gun-free zone bills become law, violators could face up to 90 days in jail, and or be fined.

During the highly publicized Oxford High School shooter trial, Polehanki took to social media to warn parents that if their child discharges a firearm and causes harm to themselves or others, the parent is going to jail.

Longtime firearms instructor and gun-rights advocate Rick Ector said he's all for responsible gun ownership - but not gun-free zones.

He argued that having law-abiding citizens carrying firearms in more places would inherently make these areas safer.

"People who have a concealed pistol license, who are primarily the people we're talking about," said Ector, "they are statistically more law-abiding than the law enforcement community, and they've gone through all the required, statutorily specified training."

Both bills have been assigned to the Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety.




get more stories like this via email

Two years ago today, a teenager killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde. The families of those shot and killed have agreed to a $2 million settlement with the city, which equals the entire amount of the town's insurance policy.

Attorneys for the group say they worked with city officials for more than a year after leaders reached out and asked what could be done to ease the families' pain.

Javier Cazares, who lost his daughter in the shooting, said justice and accountability are his main concerns.

"It's been an unbearable two years," he said. "We all know who took our children's lives, but there was an obvious failure out there on May 24. The whole world saw that. We've been let down so many times. The time has come to do the right thing."

The mass shooting garnered international attention and questions after 376 law-enforcement officers waited 77 minutes before going into the classroom to stop the shooter. Family members are disappointed that no disciplinary action has been taken against any of the officers involved, although Uvalde Police Chief Daniel Rodriguez resigned amid questions over how the incident was handled.

In addition to the $2 million settlement, the city of Uvalde has agreed to "restorative justice" policy changes that include establishing an annual day of remembrance on May 24, mental-health services for all families in the community, and addressing public safety risks and the burden of gun violence on police officers.

Although families have settled with the city, said attorney Josh Koskoff, they are filing additional lawsuits including one against the state of Texas, "which has done nothing but burden this town before the shooting by not giving them the resources they need, preventing these families from getting the information they need, and then blaming the city, as if they didn't have how many police officers there? 98? As if they didn't know how to shoot somebody."


get more stories like this via email