It’s getting tougher for suspected terrorists to get on a plane, but their Second Amendment “gun rights” continue to trump our concerns for public safety.

The government is now making the so-called “No-Fly List” more comprehensive, adding an additional three thousand names to the list in response to the attempted Christmas airplane bombing.

It’s great they’re working hard to keep terrorists off planes. But these same people that the government has determined to be too dangerous to get on airplanes are not barred from buying firearms in the United States. Called the “Terror Gap”, the lists of those prohibited from purchasing guns from federally licensed dealers do not include known or suspected terrorists- an obvious loophole in federal law.

This is even more ludicrous when you realize that the only lethal terror attacks on United States soil last year were shootings. As the New York Times summed it up so well this January: “Exactly 14 of the approximately 14,000 murders in the United States last year resulted from allegedly jihadist attacks: 13 people shot at Fort Hood in Texas in November and one at a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark., in June.”

The government knew both shooters had some connections to foreign terrorists, yet both easily bought guns in the country with the intent to kill Americans. Let’s try to stop shootings like these before they happen: close the Terror Gap, stop terrorists and suspected terrorists from legally buying guns, and help make this country a safer place.

The bills in Congress dealing with this issue are all pretty reasonable. S.1317, sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg, and H.R.2159, sponsored by Representative Peter King, both give the U.S. Attorney General the ability to block specific individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist from securing firearms from a federally licensed gun dealer, while H.R.2401, sponsored by Representative Carolyn McCarthy, prevents anyone on the No-Fly List from purchasing guns from a federally licensed gun dealer.

There’s more we should do to keep dangerous guns out of the hands of dangerous people, but this one should be a no-brainer. I urge readers to call their Senators and Congressmen, and ask them to co-sponsor those bills.

As thousands of concerned citizens continue to sign the Brady Campaign’s petition calling on Starbucks to change its policy allowing customers with guns into its stores (as of this writing, up to 33,000 and counting), there have been two particularly revealing responses to the controversy: one from Starbucks and the other from leading “gun rights” supporters.

Starbucks became embroiled in the gun controversy when it responded to gatherings of “gun rights” activists in its stores, carrying highly visible guns strapped to their hips, by refusing to adopt a “no guns” policy, as had California Pizza Kitchen and other similarly targeted retail chains. Starbucks recently issued a statement defending its policy by citing concern for the safety of its employees. To prohibit the open carry of guns in its stores, says Starbucks, “we would be forced to require our partners [employees] to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.”

Of course, that raises this question: Why would it be “potentially unsafe” to ask “law abiding customers” to leave because they are violating company policy? Starbucks seems to be saying that, if its employees asked the gun-toters to leave, some of these “law abiding customers” would respond by creating a threat to employee safety. Is this not an admission by Starbucks that it currently is allowing armed and potentially dangerous people into its stores? Plus, it is surely self-contradictory to label the gun-toters “law abiding customers” while, in the same sentence, suggesting that, if asked to leave, some of these same customers would resist the request, thereby violating trespass laws? These “law abiding customers” don’t sound very law abiding to me.

Ironically, Starbucks’ management seems to share the safety concerns of its many customers who feel threatened by the well-armed people who now have a home in the company’s coffee houses. But the company has concluded that it must tolerate armed and potentially dangerous people in its stores because it would be more dangerous to ask them to leave. Does Starbucks really believe there is no way it can maintain a “no guns” policy without endangering its baristas?

I suggest that it take a page from its competitor, Peet’s Coffee & Tea. When Peet’s also was confronted with the prospect of meetings of the “open carry” crowd in its stores, it immediately announced a “no guns” policy, said it would post signs to that effect in its stores, and added that “in the event a customer enters the store displaying a firearm and is not a uniformed law enforcement officer, we have instructed our store management teams to immediately call their local police department for assistance.” Peet’s figured out a way to protect the comfort and safety of its customers without endangering its employees; that is, by relying on law enforcement. Why can’t Starbucks do the same?

The other revealing reaction – from leaders of the “gun rights” movement – is to suggest that the “open carry” people may be hurting the gun rights cause. For example, Bob Barr, my erstwhile debate opponent when he was in Congress, recently suggested that “firearms advocates might be better advised not to press the issue publicly by pointedly visiting Starbucks establishments with firearms openly displayed. Sometimes quiet advocacy speaks louder than waving a red flag in someone’s face.” Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (generally considered more extreme than the NRA) told the New York Times, “I’m all for open-carry laws. But I don’t think flaunting it is very productive for our cause. It just scares people.”

Both Barr and Gottlieb are strong proponents of the “more guns, less crime” ideology – the idea that the more guns there are in homes, and in public places, the safer those places will be because criminals will be deterred from attacking when armed, law abiding citizens are present to resist. It is, therefore, surprising for them to take a dim view of the open carrying of guns. According to their “more guns, less crime” logic, locations where open carry occurs should be the safest of all, because criminals will have no doubt that their attacks likely will be met by armed resistance. At the very least, the Barr/Gottlieb comments concede that other Starbucks customers do not share their confidence in the public safety benefits of open carry. Instead, as Gottlieb says, open carry “just scares people.”

Implicitly, Barr and Gottlieb are advising gun owners who want to carry guns in public to keep them concealed from view; that is, make sure the danger is hidden. Perhaps this exposes their real concern about the open carry movement – that it eventually will cause a surge in public concern about the far more prevalent concealed carrying of guns made possible by the gun lobby-supported “shall-issue” laws passed in most states during the last two decades making it far easier to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons. They also likely fear that open carry may intensify public opposition to recent efforts to gradually expand the locations in which concealed carry may occur –such as parks, bars, college campuses, even airports. After all, it’s not the “openness” of open carry that scares people – it’s the presence of the guns themselves and the inherent danger they entail. The only reason there is not an equivalent reaction to concealed carry is that the danger is, by definition, hidden from view.

The evidence is overwhelming that the “shall-issue” concealed carry laws have been a disaster for public safety. They have allowed dangerous people to obtain concealed carry licenses, those people have committed grievous crimes, and the scholarly research shows that the laws generally have been “associated with uniform increases in crime.” But the danger becomes evident to the public only episodically – when someone with a concealed carry license shoots someone accidentally or commits a violent act, such as the six multiple shootings committed by concealed carry licensees in 2009 alone. What if concealed carry licensees had to reveal they were packing whenever they entered Starbucks or other public places? The debate over guns in public would be far different.

“Gun rights” advocates like Barr and Gottlieb have good reason to fear that their “guns anywhere” agenda would be threatened if the open carry movement starts causing the public to understand the true danger of guns in public – the open danger, and the concealed danger as well.

What are state legislators across the country doing with concealed carry laws? They are making it easier for people to carry guns any and everywhere, including into restaurants and bars where alcohol is served. Two recent incidents of concealed carry permit holders killing inocent people highlight why pushing guns in every direction in our society is a dangerous and deadly idea.

Last week, in Houston a man fatally shot a middle schooler in the head during a road rage incident:

A man accused of killing a 13-year-old girl during a road rage incident is out of jail and has been given conditions for his release, KPRC Local 2 reported Friday.

Houston police said Richard Calderon, 24, hit the teen’s mother’s car at about 8:20 p.m. Wednesday and then left the scene.

The mother, a police officer at Texas Southern University, tried to catch up to the vehicle to get its license plate number. As she drove by the vehicle in the 14000 block of Fleetwell Drive, Calderon fired shots at her car, police said.

Alexis Wiley, 13, was shot in the head. She was taken to Memorial Hermann Hospital, where she died a few hours later.

Read more here.

And two weeks ago in Ohio, the Columbus Dispatch reported that a man whose “blood-alcohol level was above 0.08 percent” shot a 22-year-old woman in the abdomen, killing her:

Culbertson [the shooter] “went outside, loaded the weapon with a few rounds and fired them, then went back in the house,” the sheriff said.

When Vernon asked whether the gun was empty, Culbertson replied: “‘Let’s see.’ Then he pointed it at her, fired and hit her,” Kelly said.

Witnesses said Culbertson and Vernon did not argue before the shooting.

“I agree with that,” Kelly said. “I believe it was just carelessness with a firearm and alcohol. They do not mix.”

Read more here.

Despite stories like these, state legislators in Tennessee, Arizona, and now Virginia are expanding the places people can legally carry weapons. As we allow firearms to permeate our entire culture more and more, we can unfortunately expect to see more and more of these stories.

Learn more about concealed carry or look at other crimes by concealed carry permit holders.

Last Tuesday, I was in the courtroom as the Supreme Court heard argument in the Second Amendment challenge to Chicago’s handgun ban. As my report for Jurist says, although Chicago’s law likely will be struck down, the Justices’ comments and questions suggest it may prove to be a hollow victory for the gun lobby.

The Starbucks Coffee Company has become the subject of national media attention because some gun activists have decided to wear their guns openly, with loaded ammunition magazines close by, in Starbucks stores in California.

Starbucks says it doesn’t want to be embroiled in the gun laws debate. I don’t blame them for wanting to avoid controversy – but they can’t be left out of it. By choosing to appease these gun rights demonstrators – demonstrators whose antics make many gun owners in our country blush – they have put the concerns of the rest of their customers aside. By allowing guns in its stores, the company is jeopardizing the safety of its customers and employees.

That’s why we have asked concerned citizens to sign a petition urging Starbucks to change its policy. That’s why we’ve posted on our website a sample letter people can sign and give to the manager of their own local Starbucks, asking them to tell the company to change the policy. And we’re just getting started spreading the word about this issue. Sorry, Starbucks.

Starbucks says it is simply complying with the law. But it would also be complying with the law if it barred guns from its stores. Peet’s Coffee and Tea and California Pizza Kitchen, both of which banned guns after these demonstrations began, also are complying with the law. The law allows Starbucks to set the basic rules for its property. The issue is not the law. The issue is Starbucks’ choice to allow guns in its stores.

Starbucks says it does not want to have to bar customers who are abiding by the law. But when Starbucks bars someone who is not wearing a shirt or shoes from its stores, or ejects someone who is loud and offensive, it is barring a customer who is abiding by the law. It is not against the law to dress differently or to exercise free speech rights, but it may be against company policy.

Retail businesses have the right to set policies that go beyond the minimum requirements of the law in running their businesses. Starbucks has a policy that endangers its customers and employees, particularly since there are virtually no restrictions on who can openly carry guns – no permits, no training, no proficiency requirements and no knowledge of the laws is required. And since law-abiding gun owners can drop, lose or unintentionally misuse guns, allowing openly carried guns in Starbucks is bad policy. (Indeed, just this past September a gun activist at an “open carry” picnic was charged with reckless use of a firearm after his gun went off in a parking lot.) As long as it maintains that policy, we will be critical of that policy.

The gun extremist want an America where there are guns everywhere: not just in coffeehouses, but also in bars, churches, parks, banks and classrooms.

By capitulating to the gun extremists because they want this issue to “go away,” Starbucks has made a hazardous mistake. Having seen what the gun pushers demand when they are given an inch, I again urge the company to reconsider its policy.

Ralph Fascitelli of Washington CeaseFire and Heidi Yewman of the Vancouver, Washington Million Mom March Chapter talk to press after a March 3 press conference in Seattle asking Starbucks to prohibit guns in their stores.