Who could possibly be opposed to closing the “gun show loophole”?

What individual or group would try to stand in the way of legislation that would make it harder for convicted felons and other dangerous persons to obtain all sorts of dangerous weapons?

Whose interest does it serve to allow “private sellers” at gun shows to sell AK-47s, TEC-9’s, Mac-10s and other types of high-powered and semi-automatic guns to buyers, without requiring them to undergo a Brady background check?

These were the kinds of questions that House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), asked over and over at a Congressional forum on “The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act” in Chicago on August 19. Make no mistake. The NRA bosses and their allies oppose closing the “gun show loophole.” They have complained on their blogs and in press releases about it, while ignoring the testimony of law enforcement officials who report that huge caches of guns are bought by, or supplied to, criminals from gun shows.

The bill to close the “gun show loophole,” introduced by Representatives Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Michael Castle (R-DE), has more than 100 cosponsors, including U.S. Senate Candidate Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Last week’s forum was chaired by Bobby Scott (D-VA), Subcommittee Chairman on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and attended by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL.), and Rep. Conyers.

Fellow Judiciary Committee Member Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), convened the forum, which — like the one held in Washington, D.C. July 14 — was an opportunity for the public and congressional representatives to learn more about this huge threat to the safety of our families and communities.

Weeks before the Chicago forum, opponents to this commonsense legislation were contacted by House staff and invited to testify. Opponents had protested about not being invited to weigh in at the D.C. hearing. And yet, when extended the opportunity in Chicago, they and their protests suddenly evaporated. As Rep. Conyers pleaded for opponents of the legislation to speak up, a representative of the Illinois Rifle Association stood up. Rep. Conyers insisted he come forward and make his case. He declined to speak publicly, saying only that he would prefer to talk to the congressman in private.

I’m not surprised. After the testimonies of gun violence victims such as Colin Goddard, who was shot four times at Virginia Tech, and Annette Nance-Holt, whose 16-year-old son, Blair, was killed in Chicago while shielding a friend from gunfire, members of the Chicago and Illinois police departments, and Thomas Mannard of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, the IRA rep must have realized that the flagrant flaws in his logic would have been exposed.

It’s not easy to speak after hearing Colin Goddard talk about why he was there: “I learned that while I’m associated with the worst mass-shooting in U.S. history — 32 dead — there are, on average, another 32 people killed by gun violence every day in America. And last year, out of the 258 public school students who were shot in Chicago, 32 were killed. But more importantly, I’ve understood the hard way how even just one homicide, one dead family member, can change the life of that family forever. And this is why I do what I do: to give a voice to those who’ve already been silenced and to those family members who are still too overwhelmed to speak out.”

Congressman Quigley is to be commended for pursuing this forum. Although Illinois has effectively already taken sensible steps to close the “gun show loophole” problem, Rep. Quigley understands that residents of his state are affected by weak laws in neighboring states and that communities across our nation would be even better off if we made it harder on a federal level for dangerous people to stockpile guns.

Chicago has seen some of worst gun violence of any city in America in recent years. This July, according to a report from the Chicago Tribune, more than 300 people were shot, 33 of them killed. The easy access to guns by dangerous people continues to exist because of our nation’s weak gun laws and the weak guns laws of so many states. The anemic laws in neighboring jurisdictions make it hard for cities to see the kind of progress that they could be seeing. And these anemic laws make it hard for residents of those communities to experience the kind of safety that they deserve a right to.

Help us prevent more gun violence. Click here to find out how you can help us close the “gun show loophole,” and answer the closed-door arguments of those who would oppose it.

On Saturday, August 28, 2010, thousands of people are expected to rally and march on behalf of the dream that the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. shared so eloquently 47 years ago on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

Representatives of the Brady Campaign and Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence will be at the Reclaim the Dream rally at 11 a.m. at Dunbar High School in Northwest D.C., followed by a march to the site of the King Memorial along the Tidal Basin.

Our staff, supporters, and board members will listen to the inspirational words of every group that shares the podium with Rev. Al Sharpton – the organizer – and Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, Martin King, III, Bernice King, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Actor Danny Glover, and so many others.

We hope you’ll join us.

As King told us that day, the roots of his dream are intertwined with the roots of the American dream – a dream of justice, equality, freedom, and respect for people of all races, backgrounds, and religions.

The roots of King’s dream were planted in the soil of non-violence. They were nurtured by the soothing rains of brotherhood. They withstood battering by the bitter winds of hatred and ignorance. And ultimately, those roots helped catapult King’s dream closer to reality by the determination of his followers to, in his words, “hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope.”

These are not the best of times for racial harmony, or economic or social justice. These certainly are not the best of times for nonviolence. But the America of 2010 is a lot different from the America of 1963. Despite the challenge of slogging through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, life has improved for most Americans. Educational opportunities have expanded.

Despite a barrage of vitriol spewing from some talk show hosts and their followers, relationships between people of all races are not as divisive and caustic as they were some 50 years ago. With the vigilance and courage of conscientious civic, community, and political leaders, including gun violence prevention groups – and the enactment of commonsense gun laws — even violence in America has taken a dip.

But I am not satisfied with America’s progress on any of these fronts. We can do better.

As Rev. Sharpton’s National Action Network has pointed out, unemployment remains too high, particularly among African-Americans. So do high school drop-out rates. Women still face barriers in politics, employment, and other areas. Many Hispanics are the target of racially biased immigration policies that are ripping their families apart. Those who practice the Muslim faith are often regarded with unfounded suspicion and enmity. And when it comes to gun violence in America, we still are, shamefully and unnecessarily, burying thousands upon thousands too many men, women, and children of all races and backgrounds for any American to be satisfied.

Researchers at Harvard and UCLA recently released a study showing that U.S. homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries.

When the equivalent of a Virginia Tech tragedy – 32 murdered by guns — happens every day in America, we cannot be satisfied that we are honoring the movement for peace and social justice that Dr. King so courageously led.

When the NRA bosses and others push for an America that allows guns for anyone, anywhere, and any time, we can’t be satisfied that we are honoring Dr. King’s dream.

Our vision at Brady is of an America where people are safe from gun violence — safe at work, at home, and in their communities. We are proud to add our voice to the Reclaim the Dream rally for greater racial, economic, and social justice, and for a safer America.

Again, we hope you’ll join us and continue the hard work of reclaiming a dream that is worthy of all Americans.

For more information, click here.

When I was the Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana and we had a police-action shooting I would often be asked why the police officer didn’t shoot the weapon out of the assailants’ hand, or just wound them in the arm or leg, rather than shooting to kill.  I would have to point out that real life was not like the movies.

In a situation involving the exchange of gunfire with a criminal suspect, police officers generally hit their target only 20 percent of the time. The most critical decision a law enforcement officer makes is whether to shoot. When the decision is made to shoot, police are trained to shoot to kill, because even that is very difficult to do.

Given how difficult this is for law enforcement officers, who are regularly trained and tested, it seems clear that it is also very difficult for private individuals. And more guns, in more inexperienced hands, are likely to make tense situations worse. Just ask Phillip Van Cleave, an experienced gun owner, how hard it is to have a successful outcome.

Van Cleave is the President of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun organization that takes some positions with which I strongly disagree. But Van Cleave recently posted an account that I found very insightful, a cautionary tale about how hard it is to succeed at being a “hero.” His honest account deserves to be widely read.

Van Cleave took a “force-on-force” training course, and he wrote about the scenarios the class went through, and he pointed out that they mostly didn’t come out too well.  In the latest installment, Van Cleave wrote “gun fights tend to be very, very fast. They’re best avoided altogether. Even if you do everything right, you still might lose.”

Here is his tale of a simulated gunfight in a convenience store:

I slowly and quietly sliced to my left. The closet door was my safety shield.

Equally sobering: I hadn’t hit the bad guy even once.

I know Phillip Van Cleave is still a strong believer in gun rights.  But his story should be a cautionary lesson. After tragedies like the recent one in Manchester, Connecticut, when a disgruntled employee shot and killed eight coworkers, there are usually comments from the gun love community about how the tragedy could have been avoided if only someone else there had been armed.

Many of those who collect guns passionately, and wear them concealed wherever they can, think they are ready for a showdown, and ready to be a hero, if any criminal pulls out a gun.  To them I say read about Van Cleave’s experiences.

Like everything else in life, matters don’t always turn out as we’d like, or as we plan.  And sometimes, a would-be hero just makes matters worse.

Byron Williams

Ever heard of the Tides Foundation? Like most Americans, I wasn’t familiar with it, either. I only recently learned about Tide’s history of support for progressive causes, such as environmentalism, human rights, education, and combating the global AIDS crisis.

Sadly, I only got wind of what this foundation does because of what’s happened since Fox News Host Glenn Beck started to dishonestly attack the work of Tides as part of a plan to “seize power and destroy capitalism.”

Beck has used his TV show and his celebrity at least 29 times over 18 months to disparage this foundation with inflammatory rhetoric — rhetoric which recently inspired one of his California viewers to start a “revolution” against Tides’ leaders by attempting to kill them.

On the way to Tides, California Highway Patrol officers noticed Byron Williams’ erratic driving. When they intervened, Williams, who was twice convicted of bank robbery, shot his weapons — a 9mm handgun, a shotgun and a .308-caliber rifle with armor-piercing bullets. Thankfully, only bullet-shattered glass injured two officers.

As a lawyer who has practiced and taught First Amendment law, I appreciate Beck’s right to speak his mind on any issue. But as a former First Amendment lawyer and instructor, I also know that with this freedom comes responsibility, and just as important, consequences.

Williams (pictured above) pulled the trigger on those two officers, but Beck’s harsh rhetoric against Tides and other leaders of progressive groups, whom he identifies as “enemies,” have helped stoke the fires of outrage in a sector of the American public that is armed and eager to do battle with foes that they believe — or have been led to believe – are in some way destroying our country.

Beck acknowledges that he has viewers who are capable of responding violently to his hyperbolic accusations. He has warned, “it is only a matter of time before an actual crazy person really does something stupid.”

But this recognition of the power and consequences of his words have not dampened his enthusiasm for injecting them with violence to hammer home his perspective. According to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, some of Beck’s favorite phrases include: “The war is just beginning . . .. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government . . .. There is a coup going on . . .. Grab a torch! . . . Drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers . . .. They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered . . .. They are putting a gun to America’s head . . .. Hold these people responsible.”

As I pointed out in my blog last week, this is the same Beck who is planning a “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial on August 28 – the 47th anniversary of the March on Washington led by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Beck’s rally will prominently feature such divisive figures and gun-worshippers as Ted Nugent and Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association, and Sarah Palin.

Beck wants us to believe that his rally is blessed by “divine providence”, and is part of a transition to his picking up the mantle of King’s dream, which he claims has been “lost and distorted.”

I heard Dr. King speak back in the 1960’s and this Nobel Prize for Peace-winner’s dream looked nothing like the hate and blood–soaked imagery Beck conjures with his TV show rhetoric. When King used his preacher’s pulpit and international celebrity to speak to the “enemies” of social justice, he imagined an America where black and white children would play together, and where Jews, Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics would join hands in a fight for social justice. His dream, ultimately, was supported by “faith” that would “transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.”

In his biography, Strength to Love, King tells us that, “Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend.” Not incendiary language or armor-piercing bullets. Love. He further argued that, “Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon,” – one “which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it.” Non-violence is the just and ennobling weapon, not a 9 mm gun.

In his plea for a more just society through non-violent means, King urged us to remember the qualities that make us human and that allow us to exercise all of the privileges and rights that have accrued to us as Americans.

Man is “distinguished from animals by his freedom to do evil or to do good,” King said, “and to walk the high road of beauty or tread the low road of ugly degeneracy.”

Glenn Beck has a way with words. So did Martin Luther King, Jr. You decide whose words are most fitting for us, as Americans, to follow.

We now know that the National Rifle Association will be joining Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin for Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial on the 47th Anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Is it possible to imagine a greater offense to the legacy of Dr. King?

The NRA, the leading purveyor of the noxious notion that guns are legitimate tools of political dissent, will be standing in the historic shadow of Dr. King, the apostle of non-violent protest. Dr. King resisted calls to violence from within the civil rights movement with these words: “There is more power in socially organized masses on the march than there is in guns in the hands of a few desperate men. Our enemies would prefer to deal with a small armed group rather than with a huge, unarmed but resolute mass of people….” As history shows, the civil rights movement touched the moral conscience of our Nation, and ended the Jim Crow era, by pursuing Dr. King’s path of peaceful sit-ins and marches, rather than resisting Bull Connor’s water hoses with bullets.

What would Dr. King have thought of the wild cheers that greeted the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, when he said this at last year’s Conservative Political Action Conference: “Freedom is nothing but dust in the wind till it’s guarded by the blue steel and dry powder of a free and armed people . . . Our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules.” The noxious idea, long promoted by the NRA, that the Second Amendment is really about ensuring the threat of violence against the government as a legitimate strategy to achieve political change, is now an anthem of the Far Right. As Sharran Angle, the Tea Party candidate nominated by the Republicans to run for Harry Reid’s Nevada Senate seat, put it recently, “If Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.” In other words, if the Right cannot change the direction of the country through peaceful discussion and dissent, it will be time for the “guys with the guns” to “make the rules.” We have seen the words of political intimidation translate into action, as guns have been openly brandished at Tea Party events and town hall meetings.

What irony could be more cruel than the NRA’s presence on the steps of the Memorial to President Lincoln, on the Anniversary of Dr. King’s speech, a stark reminder that both these American icons were struck down by gunfire in acts of political violence? John Wilkes Booth and James Earl Ray were “guys with the guns” who sought to change the direction of our country through armed force. We need no more powerful demonstration of the horror that can be too easily justified by the insurrectionist ideas of the NRA and its Tea Party friends. And what could be uglier than the planned appearance of guitarist Ted Nugent, an NRA Board Member, who once said that “apartheid isn’t that cut and dry,” because “all men are not created equal”?

The “Restoring Honor” rally is being sold as an entirely “non-political” event that simply will pay tribute “to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.” But the ideological agenda is barely concealed. “Help us restore the values that founded this great nation,” says Beck’s promotional material. What values have been lost that must be restored? Who lost them? How should we restore them? The theme of “lost values that must be restored” is indistinguishable from the Tea Party demand, “We want our country back!” The NRA’s presence is an implicit statement that if our values cannot be restored throughout peaceful dissent, the “guys with the guns” will be there to restore them through other means.

In his “I Have a Dream” speech, Dr. King said this: “We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence.” The appearance of the NRA at the Lincoln Memorial on August 28 shows a shameful contempt for Dr. King’s memory and the principles of non-violent protest for which he lived, and died.

We must have faith that Dr. King’s legacy will remain strong enough to ensure that the guys with the guns do not make the rules.

For more information, see Dennis Henigan’s Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009)