Nevada Governor’s Veto Message on Expanded Background Checks for Gun Purchases

Nevada’s Republican Governor, Brian Sandoval, has vetoed SB 221 with the following rationale. (pdf)

(Oh, by the way — please be assured that the Governor really really does support expanded background checks — just not this form of expanded background checks…but notice that for all his generalized agreement in principle, his rationale for the veto is also quite generalized.)  Here goes:

(1) The bill is an “erosion” of 2nd Amendment rights, and “may subject otherwise law-abiding citizens to criminal prosecution.”  Sound familiar?  Of course, the problem with the “law-abiding citizen” argument is that everyone without an existing criminal background becomes a criminal when he or she first violates the law.  The first time a person robs a bank, the first time a person assaults another person, the first time a person embezzles, and so forth.  Or, the first time a person sells a firearm to a felon, a fugitive, a dangerously mentally unstable person, a child without parental supervision, or an undocumented person, or a person against whom there are outstanding restrictive orders pertaining to domestic abuse.

(2) The example cited by the Governor asserts that a “law-abiding” family member must request a background check for a gun sale to another family member, and a sale to a person who has a concealed carry permit must also be supervised by a licensed gun dealer.  The response to this so-called erosion is  a resounding So What?  There is NO prohibition of the sale, and there is NO prohibition of ownership — there is only the insertion of a federally licensed gun dealer who can provide a background check into the process.

(3)  The Governor finds it burdensome that the test for the prosecution for an unlawful transfer of a gun moves from “actual knowledge” that the buyer falls into a prohibited category to a “reasonable cause to believe” a person is included in the restrictions.  In short, what the Governor is saying is that it is perfectly OK by him if the seller only “suspects” the purchaser of being a felon, a fugitive, an undocumented person, a serious unstable individual, or a person on whom there are restrictions because of domestic abuse.  Go ahead, make the transaction even if the individual buyer is in the gun show parking lot wanting to purchase a crate of inexpensive hand guns — unless the seller has “actual knowledge” these are intended to arm local or regional drug gangs what the heck?

(4) The Governor calls the penalties for violations of the background check law “severe.”  A first offense would be a gross misdemeanor, and brings with it a restriction on firearms ownership for 2 years.  That’s it. No felony record, and 24 months later the miscreant seller can happily re-arm.  A second offense would be a Class E Felony and the “gun rights” will be lost.  Note that the bill in question, SB 221, does not prohibit firearms restrictions until after conviction for the second offense.  Another thing we might note before calling this penalty severe is that Class E is as low as you can go in this state and still be in the felony category. NRS 193.130 defines a Class E felony as follows:

A category E felony is a felony for which a court shall sentence a convicted person to imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 4 years. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 176A.100, upon sentencing a person who is found guilty of a category E felony, the court shall suspend the execution of the sentence and grant probation to the person upon such conditions as the court deems appropriate. Such conditions of probation may include, but are not limited to, requiring the person to serve a term of confinement of not more than 1 year in the county jail. In addition to any other penalty, the court may impose a fine of not more than $5,000, unless a greater penalty is authorized or required by statute.

A Class E felony maximum is four years, which can be suspended and the person granted probation “as the court deems appropriate,” and the maximum fine is $5,000.   This is hardly anywhere near the “severe” punishment level in terms of Nevada’s classifications of felonies.

(5) The Governor is hinting in his last verbiage at what might be called the Efficacy Argument. The bill is unenforceable and won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, at the expense of potentially making those law-abiding citizens criminals themselves.  Again, every law has the potential to make a citizen a criminal if the individual engages in proscribed acts.  Secondly, no one said the intent of the law was to prevent all criminals from getting firearms — the law already prohibits criminals from obtaining weapons — all the bill said was that we should CHECK TO MAKE SURE we aren’t selling guns to those to whom firearm ownership is already restricted.

The Governor’s veto is, indeed, a craven sop to the NRA and the gun enthusiasts who blindly believe that Everyone Everywhere should be armed, and that even requiring a quick background check to insure that guns aren’t sold to those who are already felons, fugitives, undocumented persons, juveniles, spousal abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill is unendurable.

What is unendurable is the list of shootings which since the beginning of 2012 includes Norcross GA, Jackson TN, Chardon HS OH, Pittsburgh PA, North Miami FL, Okios U Oakland CA, Tulsa OK, Seattle WA, Minneapolis MN, Oak Creek WI, Aurora CO,  Newtown CT, and most recently Santa Monica CA.

If we remember back to September 6, 2011 there were four people, law abiding citizens, killed in the Carson City IHOP by a person with a history of serious mental health issues who had modified an assault style rifle to make it fully automatic.  [MAIG]

What is unendurable is a veto message which regurgitates NRA talking points without taking even a small step toward ameliorating this situation.

AB 287: One Facet of Nevada’s Mental Health Services Problems

Nevada’s unfortunate tendency to ship psychiatric patients from the Rawson-Neal facility to parts unknown has drawn appropriate scrutiny from all manner of powers that be.  [full story Las Vegas Sun] By political lights it appears we can move toward solving the problem by adding 19 beds? No word yet on the 20 consultants recommended to resolve staffing problems.

It will probably take more than that. The 2009 grading of Nevada’s overall level of psychiatric services by the NAMI earned us a “D.” (pdf)  And, that “D” was a a ‘grading on the curve’ gift.  Nevada earned an “F” in category I which includes Health Promotion and Measurement.  We got a “D” in category II, financing and core treatment or recovery services.  The state received another “D” in consumer and family empowerment, category III.   Nevada flunked category IV, community integration and social inclusion.  As well we might have given the transportation policy?

One thing failing states are not doing in terms of category IV criteria is allocating resources for long term care and housing of mentally ill individuals.  Failing states also have difficulty extracting the mentally ill from the criminal justice system.  Nevada has mental health courts — which were in serious jeopardy under funding proposals in 2011. [LVSun]  By April 2013 not much had changed. The mental health courts are still not “up to speed,” still in makeshift accommodations, still overloaded. [LVRJ]

The Nevada Legislature has taken up one significant piece of legislation concerning the treatment of those individuals, often well known to local law enforcement, who are dangerous to themselves or to others when not taking their prescribed medication.

AB 287, a bill that “Authorizes the involuntary court-ordered admission of certain persons with mental illness to programs of community-based or outpatient services under certain circumstances,” passed the Nevada Assembly on May 24, 2013.  It has been referred to the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services.  Testimony in favor of AB 287 held in April noted:

“Currently in the state of Nevada, a person with severe mental illness is ten times more likely to be in one of your jails or prisons versus one of your psychiatric hospitals. This is a less restrictive alternative to hospitalization. While it will not solve all the issues with the mental health system in Nevada, it is a critical tool that the state is missing.” [Ragosta, TAC pdf]

One of the more insightful statements in opposition to AB 287 came from an individual who questioned the cost effectiveness of emergency treatment while the remainder of the mental health system in Nevada struggles with serious underfunding and consequent understaffing.

AB 287 will be heard in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee today. (May 28th)

Meanwhile, the funding issue continues for a state which has cut some $80 million for mental health services since 2007, and which has cut 19 staff positions by attrition.  There was some savings from pharmaceutical policy changes, but perhaps not quite enough to account for the total decrease in federal funding which dropped from $721.2 million for nationwide services in 2007-2009 to $631.2 million in 2011-2013.  [LVRJ]

Nevada’s own version of self-delusion includes visions of making a broken system work — without adequate personnel and staffing — in the interest of “saving money.”  This seems a classic case of penny wisdom and pound foolishness.

The well intentioned objections of the ACLU notwithstanding, there is a need for AB 287 to protect both the individuals who refuse treatment and  the communities in which they reside.  While we debate the finer points of civil liberties and the stigma attached to mental illness, there are still individuals who are experiencing auditory hallucinations, or who display other serious  symptoms, who “loop” through the mental health system, and who are in urgent need of assistance in some other location than a holding cell.

Nevada ranks 39th among the nation’s states in its funding for mental health care services. We can, and should do better.

Saturday Blog and News Roundup

It’s been a while since the last Round Up of good reading from the blogs, Nevada’s and from other parts of the country.  From the Nevada Progressive we learn that the radical fundies have put the kibosh on realistic sex education programs in the state of Nevada.  Heaven forefend we’d adopt curricula in this state which would alleviate the issue of unwanted pregnancies, provide accurate and adequate information about contraception, and prevent abortions….  There’s more on the topic from The Sin City Siren.

Looking for a concise summary of the tax issues before the Nevada legislature? Your first stop should be Sebelius’s “A Few Truths..” posting.   Hugh Jackson takes a gander at the Chamber of Commerce and its abiding love for education, just so long as it doesn’t cost them any coin of the realm — a taste of the full column.

“The chamber is “for” education. So a billionaire can sashay into a chamber gathering and win applause by saying that education needs more money — just so long as she qualifies her declaration as a “conceptual” need that merely requires the nodding of heads, as opposed to an actual need that demands businesses start paying some taxes.”

Add a bit of video to your news perusal by clicking over to Jon Ralston’s “Legislature poised to hide money and gifts.”   If all this is making you thirsty, click over to the Blue Nevadan for a list of Drinking Liberally sessions.   Another event worth noting is a rally for immigration justice in Reno on May 29th , details are available from the Nevada Rural Democratic Caucus.

Best of the Week

Speaking of Immigration — Crooks and Liars posts a good read on a federal judge’s ruling that “Sheriff Joe” has been engaging in good old fashioned racial profiling.  Surprised?

How many bridges have to collapse in this country before we get SERIOUS about funding infrastructure projects?  Add the I-5 bridge over Skagit River in Washington to the list of failed structures. There’s more on the story from Think Progress.  Click over to Demos for “The High Cost of Bad Infrastructure.”

I’d be much more in tune with the current Republican poutrage over the investigation of a Fox “news” reporter IF the network hadn’t called for a DoJ investigation of the New York Times beginning  in December 2005.  Perrspectives has a post devoted to this topic. “The next month, Deputy U.S. Attorney Matthew W. Friedrich told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Bush DOJ thought that journalists or “anyone” could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for publishing classified information.”   And, then:

“As it turned out, those words came as music to the ears of Fox News and the conservative commentariat. After all, they had been cheerleading for the Bush administration to prosecute the New York Times for months.”

The National Journal has an insightful piece about “How the GOP Will Keep Stirring the Scandal Stew Over Recess.”  Nomadic Politics asks “Why should Tea Party Groups have any tax exemptions?”  Good question!

Then we have the specter of the House Republicans imperiling the U.S. economy and governance in general by refusing to appoint their own conferees, as explained in Politicususa.   While you’re on the site, see how the GOP may not be a viable national party much longer if they keep putting the interests (read: profits) of the Big Banks over the needs of students.   Oh, for the Good Old Days of the Whigs?  The Booman Tribune takes a look at our dysfunctional Congress in “Talking to a Living Room Table.”  Well worth the click and read.

Have a Great Weekend!

A Little Insanity: Troll Time With Gun Enthusiasts!

There’s an comment on yesterday’s post about the efficacy of gun safety legislation in the Nevada Legislature, but since the comment is so wonderfully exemplary of Gun Nuttery let’s give it the full treatment — what the heck, it’s Friday, let’s have some fun:

“(1)Doesn’t matter lawsuits against the state are in progress right now against stupid liberals who think his sort of dumb legislation does anything to stop gun violence , (2) hello ” bozo who knows nothing about guns and is afraid of them”  (3) you idiots who live in Murder ,rape ,gang,carjacking ,central ,who have the strictest laws THAT DON’T WORK think restricting law abiding citizens and penalizing them does one thing to stop gun violence are deluted.  (4) Crooks don’t turn in their guns in your stupid buy backs,you only unarmed the public and crooks laugh at you better than thou’s. (5) They don’t BUY guns,they steal or buy stolen guns. (6) You stupid idios letthem out of jail on parole so the unarmed citizen gets killed in city’s like Chicago.,Wash DC,LA etc,and you want to pass that assinnty on to Nevada.”

Where to begin? (1) Actually, no it doesn’t matter if there is litigation in the offing testing the definitions and constitutionality of any legislation enacted by any legislative body.  Since the ruling in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the judicial branch has retained the authority to determine the constitutionality of legislation; and, the notion that a court might declare a statute unconstitutional doesn’t arbitrarily mean the statute should not have been enacted.  The courts could just as easily decide the statute IS constitutional — witness the Affordable Care Act decision by the current Supreme Court.

Further, if the intent of legislation is to reduce the level of gun violence in this country, especially violence associated with felons, fugitives, juveniles, undocumented aliens, and the dangerously mentally ill, then it would stand to reason that making firearm purchases by individuals falling into these categories more restricted would alleviate the problem.  The trap in this argument is the requirement that a single piece of legislation must solve the entire problem or be declared “ineffective” and less than useless.  Statutes against bank robbery aren’t 100% effective, but we still frown on felonious behavior in these instances.

(2) No, as a gun owner, I am not afraid of firearms.  However, I do respect them.  I know that the gun is statistically 22 times more likely to be the agent of a homicide or suicide than it is to be used in self defense.  That’s why it’s locked up.  Additionally, there are these cold statistics:

“Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005. Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force. Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.” [LCPGV]

Even in the absence of any domestic violence in this homestead, I’ve no desire to compound someone else’s drama by leaving a loaded firearm in an insecure place so a theft could end up being the opening act in a full blown tragedy.  That’s why the ammunition is secured separately from the firearm.

(3) Actually, I don’t live in Car-Jack Heights, nor do I reside in Murder Alley.  I conform to the general profile of gun owners — white, educated, rural, small town, American. [NJIS]  However, if I were a resident of one of the urban areas in this state, I’d still not be arming myself to the rafters.  While I do dearly love the scripted TV melodramas, I am also aware that the “murder rate” in Reno, Nevada is 0.06 per 1,000 residents; the “rape rate” in Reno, Nevada is 0.13 per 1,000 residents, [TNS]  and those statistics aren’t sufficiently elevated to make me do much more than be aware of my surroundings, and lock my vehicle.

The statistics for Las Vegas, Nevada (CSI not considered) are the same in the murder department, i.e. 6 per 1,000 residents, and the rape stats are 0.44 per 1,000.  [TNS] Again, these aren’t high enough to make me believe there is a rapist and murderer in all the shadows … much less that there’s someone out to make Las Vegas, Nevada a replication of Cabot Cove, Maine in the murder numbers.  The numbers are high enough to make me lock doors, but certainly not enough to make me want to bother with carrying a firearm.

By the way, I don’t think this is a “deluted” state of mind.  I trust you meant “deluded” but I’d also hasten to assure you that my sanity isn’t diluted by watching all those scripted TV shows.   There’s one more point in part 3 of the rant that deserves scrutiny — the “strict laws don’t work,” assertion.  Contra:

“We covered the fact that the likelihood of homicide increases with a gun in the home. It is true however that the majority of gun crime occurs with illegal guns, but that number, as established, speaks loudly to our weak national gun laws due to interstate gun trafficking. Guns become illegal when they are bought in an area with lax laws and sold in an area with tight laws on the black market. Even then, as the number of legal guns increases, so too does the likelihood of a gun falling into the wrong hands, as shown by the Sandy Hook shooting.” [HuffPo]

The New York Post, not exactly a bastion of liberal media and thinking, reports rather directly on the relationship between illegal gun trafficking and the law enforcement issues in states with restrictive measures in place on firearms:

“New York’s tough-as-nails gun laws aren’t doing much to stop illegal weapons purchased in other states from getting into criminal hands here, according to a federal analysis released yesterday. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives traced 8,793 guns seized in New York in 2011 and found that just 1,595 were bought in the state. The rest came from places with less restrictive gun laws — primarily Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida.” [NYP]

Thus, the assertion that strict gun laws in some areas are undermined by lax sales in others cuts both ways, as it could also be used to argue for more stringent restrictions nationwide to prevent the importation of illegal firearms into regions in which they are misused.

(4) True, most gun buy back programs end up with firearms people don’t want, not necessarily firearms criminals are willing to surrender.  However, that narrow point misses a larger one.  Buy back programs with their attendant publicity are an effective way to elevate  public awareness, and some neighborhoods have used the programs to attract more attention and resources for efforts that do work, like more overtime for police departments, or  protocols like  “focused intervention” policing. [USAT]  If the program makes a community more aware of gun violence problems, or a neighborhood more prone to support police operations — what’s the harm?

(5) “Criminals don’t buy guns…” I think we addressed that above, i.e. what they also do is buy guns from gun traffickers.  We do have a “stolen gun” problem:  “More than half a million firearms are stolen each year in the United States and more than half of stolen firearms are handguns, many of which are subsequently sold illegally.” [ATF] However, the notion that only stolen guns are involved in street crime misses another set of numbers:

“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) issued a comprehensive report in 2000 detailing firearms trafficking investigations involving more than 84,000 diverted firearms, finding that federally licensed firearms dealers were associated with the largest number of trafficked guns – over 40,000 – and concluded that the dealers’ “access to large numbers of firearms makes them a particular threat to public safety when they fail to comply with the law.”³

According to ATF, one percent of federally licensed firearms dealers are responsible for selling almost 60 percent of the guns that are found at crime scenes and traced to dealers.”  [LCPGV] (emphasis added)

Take the stolen firearm problem and add 1% of the federally licensed firearms dealers who are raking in revenue from selling 60% of the guns found at crime scenes and traced back to dealers, and we have a better picture of the overall problem.  This situation could substantiate a call for better statutes at the state and federal level than a concept supportive  of less restriction.

(6) Recidivism is a problem for our corrections institutions.  However, once more the statistics are insufficient incentive for me to demand full term incarceration, or to open my check book at the local gun dealer’s establishment.

“During 2007, a total of 1,180,469 persons on parole were at-risk of reincarceration.  This includes persons under parole supervision on January 1 or those entering parole during the year. Of these parolees, about 16% were returned to incarceration in 2007.” [BJS]

So, are these  felons out committing murders?  Rapes? That would be a general “no.”

“Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).”  [BJS]

What about the rapists and murderers?  Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. [BJS]  That’s correct — 2.5% of the released rapists, and 1.2% of those who committed homicide.   Yet again, these statistics aren’t going to induce me to spend any more money on arms and ammunition.   It might be “assinnty” to believe given the relatively low crime rates in Nevada, and the tendency of gun traffickers to be recidivists, that we don’t need better controls over who purchases firearms in the Silver State.

When all is said and done, the assumption that “law-abiding citizens” should be so fearful of their environment that unlimited access to all manner of firearms by all manner of people is disturbing in itself.  In recent years I’ve enjoyed the hospitality of cities like Washington, D.C. and ridden the Metro all over town — without feeling as though I should have added a firearm to my accessories.  I’ve spent weeks in San Antonio, Atlanta, and New Orleans — all the heat I felt I needed was from the climate.  I’ve spent time in Denver, St. Louis,  and Cleveland, and no, there was no reason in any of those cities to feel insecure without a lethal weapon.   In short, the author of the comment has my sympathy for his evident paranoia about residing in this country, but I can’t empathize with the debilitating fear which underpins the assumptions.

I’d like my fellow citizens to enjoy our hospitality in Reno, and in Las Vegas, feeling secure that we run background checks on everyone for every sale of a firearm, that we don’t countenance carrying assault style rifles with large capacity clips into our movie theaters or public spaces, and that we believe in keeping firearms out of the hands of those who are dangerously mentally ill, or who might be felons and fugitives.

I’d be pleased to see the day when it dawns on most sentient human beings that the  proliferation of firearms only serves to make us less safe, and less able to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, … insure domestic tranquility.”   We might be getting there:

“Both the Pew survey and a new Washington Post/ABC News poll found that support for the defeated Manchin-Toomey measure, which would have expanded background checks to all gun show and online purchases, is also widespread. In the Pew survey, 73 percent said the Manchin-Toomey proposal should be passed if reintroduced, while 67 percent of respondents to the Post/ABC poll said the Senate did the wrong thing in rejecting the legislation.” [HuffPo]

*Now that we’ve dispensed with the trolling, there is a troll notification test which should  have been inserted before all the text in this post. Enjoy.

A Little Gun Sanity in Nevada: SB 221 Passes Senate

 The Nevada Progressive has been following SB 221 (pdf) in the Nevada Legislature.  The bill to require background checks for gun purchases passed the State Senate on a party line 11-10 vote May 22, 2013.  The Legislative Counsel summarizes the core of the bill as follows:

 ”Existing law authorizes a private person who wishes to transfer a firearm to another person to request the Central Repository to perform a background check on the person who wishes to acquire the firearm. (NRS 202.254) Section 8 of this bill requires, with certain exceptions which are set forth in section 7.8 of this bill, that a private person who wishes to transfer a firearm to another person request that a federally licensed firearms dealer submit a request for a background check to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.”  (Abstract here)

This shouldn’t be too difficult a bill to comprehend. There are just a few categories of individuals who cannot legally obtain firearms in this state: Felons, Fugitives, Dangerously Mentally Ill, Undocumented Persons, and Minors.  Someone should probably add “individuals on the Terrorist Watch List?”  Be that as it may — these categories preclude gun ownership in the interest of public safety, except of course if these self-same individuals avail themselves of gun show parking lots, Internet sales, and other gun sellers and traffickers who don’t want to be bothered or inconvenienced with background checks.

Objections range from the bizarre to the banal.  Ammoland calls for opposition based on fearmongering:

“SB 221 will in effect create a registration system of all firearms transferred privately. This bill also makes revisions to Nevada law regarding mental health.  An individual who fails to comply with the new background check transfer requirements would be prohibited from possessing a firearm for a period of two years after being found guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”

Actually, that would be “no” — there is no registration system established in the bill.   Weasel words, like “in effect,” simply allow the writer latitude to assert — without substantiation — that any background check will start the rock rolling down the declivitous slope to Registration.

The Daily Caller is a bit more rabid on the subject:

“SB 221 carries severe penalties for violations that could result in a loss of Second Amendment rights. An individual who fails to comply with the new background check transfer requirements would be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and prohibited from possessing a firearm for a period of two years. The second offense would be a felony, resulting in loss of Second Amendment rights.”

Yes, people who violate the law, whether the statute refers to a misdemeanor or a felony, usually lose rights.  Commit a felony in Nevada and a person loses all manner of rights. For example, felons must follow the provisions of NRS 213.155 in order to vote.   There is a large difference between “losing a right” and common sense restrictions on “rights” such that liberty doesn’t devolve into license.   This concept is often missed on the radical right during discussions of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Flashback

There are no other rights specified in the U.S. Constitution which are not subject to common sense restrictions.   Free speech does not support slander. Free press does not allow libel.  Freedom of religion doesn’t allow a person to practice human sacrifice. Freedom of assembly doesn’t mean mobs can riot at will.  My home may be my castle — but if my neighbor sees stolen goods in my garage and calls the police none of my 4th Amendment rights are violated.  I can’t be tried twice for the same crime, but if I rob three different house the District Attorney may be pleased to try me for three separate crimes, and nothing in the 5th Amendment would prevent that.

The 8th Amendment says I can’t be subjected to “excessive bail,” but if I commit a truly heinous — Headline News worthy — crime of the century, nothing prevents the judge from assigning a bail for which I don’t have the funds in my checking account.

Even the 13th Amendment, the one prohibiting involuntary servitude, has limits.  Should I be convicted by a jury of my peers of my Headline News worthy crime of the month, then I can expect to be “serving” the state, if not breaking up rocks or making license plates, then in some other tasks assigned to me.

In short, as discussed previously,  there are no Constitutional rights which don’t require some level of personal responsibility.   Extrapolated to its conclusion the “Second Amendment” exceptionalism would reduce us to medieval entities, each armed to the maximum, each assured of perhaps not so much the righteousness of its cause but its efficacy in arms.  Even a rather conservative U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t taken the Second Amendment interpretation to these absurd extremes.

The Right Question

The essential question before the Nevada Legislature is whether or not we want  felons, fugitives, the dangerously mentally ill, undocumented persons, and juveniles to have convenient access to deadly weapons?

The sane answer would be NO.  The sane vote in the Nevada Assembly on SB 221 would be YES.

More News From Gun Land

Meanwhile the tragedies compound –

“The Lyon County sheriff’s office is investigating the shooting death of a juvenile in Dayton over the weekend.  Deputies say a preliminary investigation suggests it was an accidental shooting.  Officers say they were called to the scene on Riverpark Parkway about 11 a.m. Sunday. No other details have been released. The names of those involved are being withheld because of their ages.” [RGJ]

“Authorities were searching for at least two gunmen who walked up to the door of a Northern California home and opened fire, killing a 10-year-old girl and injuring her parents.

“Whoever these gunmen were, they were directly outside the front door,” Sacramento County sheriff’s spokesman Sgt. Jason Ramos said Sunday. “This was not a drive-by. These gunmen approached the house and shot inside.” [Las Vegas Sun]

New York Times columnist Joe Nocera has taken it upon himself to catalog incidents of gun violence in the U.S.  The entries are depressing, but informative.  If even a few of the tragic incidents logged in Nocera’s Gun Reports could have been prevented by expanding background checks then we would be able to reduce the level of the misery meter for families across this country.

Better still, if we could bring ourselves to (1) ban military style assault weapons, (2) limit ammunition capacity, (3) enact provisions in statute concerning the safe storage of firearms, and (4) prevent more gun trafficking from states with lenient to non-existent gun regulations to urban and suburban neighborhoods, then Nocera’s reports could be diminished significantly.  IF.

SEX and the Single Issue: AB 230 in the Nevada Legislature

Nevada’s legislature has taken up the Big Topic — sex education, and of course all the denizens of the belfry have taken flight.  Surely, if we give our progeny information about how they came into this world we’ll have kindergarteners watching sex tapes, fifth graders talking about abortions, and parents excluded from the moral education of their offspring and relegated to the sidelines while Planned Parenthood (the successor to ACORN as the prime target for the tin foil hatted) propagandizes their little angels.  Not. So. Fast.

The Las Vegas Sun sets the record straight on the actual contents of the bill under consideration — for those who are actually interested in what the bill would really do, and not primarily fascinated by projecting their fears on the canvas of someone else’s proposal for addressing the fact that Nevada has the 4th largest teen pregnancy rate in the country.

There is just about as much misinformation as any sentient human being could every aspire to amassing in the comments on AB 230 at the Legislature’s input site.

Those against the bill seem to track along various lines: Sex is icky and should not be discussed; Sex is sacred and should be theologically framed and not discussed as a biological feature associated with human behavior; and it’s OK to talk about sex and we’re doing enough already.  The last argument is at least a point we could discuss in rational terms.  The first two are essentially religious in nature, and emotional in character.

The unavoidable and uncomfortable fact that we have the fourth highest rate of teen pregnancy in the United States of America ought to be enough to convince the public we’re not doing something  effectively.

Those who advocate for total parental control over the content of sex education may want to remember that not all parents (or other family members) have accurate information.

For example, during a quiet conversation with an adolescent female a few years back, the youngster about floored me with the fervent assertion that “You can’t get pregnant if he’s drunk.”  That would be only if “he” were intoxicated to the point of dead to the world unconsciousness….

Or, there was the young lady who assured me her grandmother was correct when she said, “You can’t get pregnant if you do it standing up.”   Uh, that would be a “no.”  It doesn’t matter if the position you’ve assumed is the most uncomfortable imaginable — all the two little bits have to do is to get together and then the impossible becomes possible.   The NCBI did a study published in 2009 regarding the sources teens use to find information about sex. The results really shouldn’t be surprising:

“Consistent with previous research, adolescents in this sample rely heavily on friends, parents, teachers, and the media for sexual information. There were several differences in source use by race/ethnicity and gender, but the only difference by age group was with regards to media. The older the adolescents, the more they relied on media as a source of information. Among those who cited the media as an information source, television was the medium from which adolescents reported learning the most about sex, which is not surprising in light of research showing that 70% of television programs in 2005 contained some form of sexual content.” [NCBI]

There’s a reason for the order given in that summary paragraph.  Teens reported their sources of information as 74.9% from friends, 62.2% from teachers, 60.9% from mothers, 57% from the media, 41.4% from doctors, 32.8% from fathers, 29.3% from cousins, 18.1% from brothers, 17.7% from sisters, 13.5% from grandparents, and 12% from religious leaders.

If we adopt the policy that parents should be the only ones doing the sex education spiels with their youngsters then we’re accepting that the mothers are generally the ones doing the talking (at 60.9%) and only 32.8% of the fathers are involved in the “teachable moments.”  However, we still have to deal with the fact that nearly 75% of the information the kids are getting comes from outside the home — from friends who may be as informed or misinformed as the sources of their information.

One of the controversial provisions of AB 230 is the matter of passive or active parental consent — does the parent have to actively permit the child’s instruction, or does non-action constitute tacit approval?  Given the data indicating that 75% of the sexual information is passed along by friends — of possibly dubious veracity — if we truly want to educate children and empower them with the most accurate information possible then the tacit approval route would include more young people in the process.

If parents want control over the content of their child’s collection of information about human sexuality then the bill allows for that, parents can always opt out — and hope that the 75% outsourcing of education to “friends” works for them.  Fathers may wish to note that they are responsible for an average of only 32.8% of the information the child receives?

Religious leaders, no matter how well intended, aren’t getting their message across if only 12% of our teens are reporting that those leaders are the source of their sex education.

If parents are fearful about the intrusion of the right wing bogey of the day — Planned Parenthood — inserting its messages about contraception (and horror of horrors “abortion”) into public school instruction, then they ought to be assuaged by the bill’s language giving local districts control over curriculum content.  However much some parents may believe that Planned Parenthood and other health care providers are salivating at the prospect of propagandizing the progeny the statistics still indicate that information about the subject of contraception among teens who participated in sex education classes  tends to be “superficial and often limited to condoms.” [Guttmacher pdf]  This doesn’t speak well for the current curriculum or the level of instruction, whether parents opt in or out.  Or, as one 17 year old participant in the study told researchers, “My Dad said turn the lights out and use a condom.” In short, what teenagers may know about contraception, either to avoid impregnation or to minimize the prospects of a sexually transmitted disease, is limited to “safe sex sound bites.”  We could be doing better than this.

Further, if we truly want to prevent the possibility of abortions then the rate of teen abortions in Nevada could be reduced with more and better information about contraception.  Recent statistics show Teenage abortion rates were highest in New York (41 per 1,000), New Jersey, Nevada, Delaware and Connecticut. [Guttmacher 2010 pdf]  Someone isn’t “Just Saying No.”

Contraception, one the best ways to avoid unintended pregnancies, may not be on the educational agenda at all — only 14% of U.S. schools as late as 2002 had truly comprehensive sex education, 86% had policies on sex education curricula calling for the promotion of abstinence as a primary focus, 51% allowed the discussion of contraception as a way to avoid STDs, 35% required that abstinence be the only option.  [UC SF pdf]  The abstinence-only approach was effective in limited environments (religious schools, small groups) but there is little evidence that success rates can be replicated in larger, more diverse, groups such as public schools.  The 2002 report concluded that most of the abstinence-only research was not peer reviewed, and tended to be isolated.

What parents could hope for from the Nevada Legislature is a bill that expands the scope of comprehensive sex education for all Nevada youngsters, with instruction appropriate to the age level of the students, and with a curriculum which emphasizes information over exhortation.

If we truly don’t wish to have students dropping out then we need to have the parents opt in.

Guns and Numbers: Nevada Rankings

Before we get too comfortable with the idea that Nevada’s a safe place to live because we have lots and loads of guns, there are some numbers to consider.  {pdf}

There are some rankings in which we don’t look too bad.  For example, Nevada ranks 41st in the number of law enforcement personnel killed by firearms between 2002-2011; 2 or 0.08 per 100K population.  Granted that is two too many, but our ranking is certainly acceptable.

There are other rankings that aren’t so comforting.

Nevada ranked 25th in firearm homicides in 2010; 90 in 2010 or 3.3/100K population.  The ranking could be considered middling, but it’s still higher than should be considered acceptable.  Moreover, Nevada ranks 6th nationally in the number of firearm homicides among women from 2001 to 2010  with 214 or a 1.77/100k rate.

Nevada ranks 17th nationally in the number of aggravated assaults with a firearm in 2011.  1,301 or 53.30 per 100K population.  Again, this is a middle ranking, and we might speculate that it indicates a state with an essentially urban population, albeit with a relative small total population?

Nevada also ranks 17th in firearm deaths among children aged 0-17 between 2001 and 2010; 139 or 2.26/100k population.  A middle ranking among the 50 states doesn’t really cover this particular subtopic.  139 children lost in a ten year period means a statistical 13.9 lost each year.  Of course, these aren’t statistics — they were children with parents…

Now the rankings become more disturbing.  Nevada ranks 11th in the nation in the ATF “time to crime” statistics, or how short a time there is between the purchase of a firearm and its use in some criminal activity.   The assumption in their statistical model is that the shorter the time between the acquisition of a firearm and the time it is used in a crime suggests that there is gun trafficking going on. Or, as the ATF phrases it:

“Time-to-crime is the period of time (measured in days) between a firearm’s retail sale and law enforcement’s recovery of the firearm in connection with a crime. A short time-to-crime rate usually means the firearm will be easier to trace, and when several short time-to-crime traces involve the same individual/Federal firearm licensee, illegal trafficking activity is highly probable.” [UST]

What we have here is an “indicator” — not necessarily hard data — of criminals and those harboring criminal intent using Nevada’s relative lax gun regulation to procure and then to engage in gun trafficking to other states.   This doesn’t secure the proposition that Nevada is a “gun exporting” state, but it is highly suggestive that gun traffickers are taking advantage of the regulatory environment.

The gun export rate is more to the point, Nevada ranks 9th nationally in the “crime-gun export rate” in 2009; 808.  This means that we are 9th in the nation in the number of guns used in crimes in other jurisdictions which can be traced back to Nevada.

Nevada ranks 9th nationally in overall firearm deaths, 2010 — 395 or 14.63 per 100k population.  Nevada ranks 6th nationally in the number of firearm suicides in 2010; 289 or 10.7 per 100k population.   This time being in the top ten is not a good thing.  Being in the top five is truly not comfortable: Nevada ranks 5th nationally in overall firearm deaths 2001 to 2010, 3895 deaths or 15.92 rate per 100K population.

Illogical Fallacies

There have been several kinds of responses to these rankings, the most common was to attack the messenger.  The Center for American Progress, which published the study, was immediately attacked as a leftist organization of elitists fund by George Soros.  [C&L] This tactic obviated the need to address any of the numbers, or the sources of data, or to discuss the conclusions drawn from the analysis — it was enough for detractors to observe the study had to be part of a Great Left Wing Conspiracy to indulge in sweeping and manifestly impractical gun control actions.  Sometimes facts are just facts.

Another common response when facts and figures are introduced into the discussion of gun violence and safety issues is to infuse the numbers with interpretations and inclusions not part of the original data.  For example, when speaking of “gun homicides” gun enthusiasts assert that these numbers “must” incorporate villains shot by law enforcement, and therefore “the numbers are high.”  Cases of individuals shot by police officers are subject to review, and contrary to popular scripted television melodramas aren’t really all that common.  That explains why the incidents show up on the evening news — if such were common they wouldn’t be “news.”

The federal government doesn’t collect officer involved shooting statistics, and would require a Congressional mandate to do so, but we do know that one report assigns 387  justifiable homicides by the police in 2010, down from 414 the previous year. [LVRJ] The CDC reports 31,672 gun deaths in 2010,  so the percentage of death at the end of a service gun would be 1.22% of all gun deaths in the U.S. in 2010.   1.22% is hardly a sufficient number to skew the overall statistical reports.

A third tactic when dealing with uncomfortable facts and figures is to play and mix and match game with specific incidents and overarching generalizations.   If we color code the format it might look like this, using green for facts, blue for a disconnected assertion, and orange for an appeal to emotion:  Yes, the gun enthusiast may assert, in 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings, BUT background check expansion won’t solve that problem because it will only infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

A fourth strategy is to confound rational argument by extending the mixes and mismatches to apply to common problems and proposed solutions.  Consider the proposition that “increased background checks would not have prevented the Newtown, CT massacre.”  This contention requires the assumption that a proposal to close the gun show and Internet sale loophole for background checks was specifically intended to address that particular incident.  The assumption is not in evidence.  In this instance the contention is predicated on the conflation of the general public reaction to a  instance of gun violence with a specific proposal to make the acquisition of firearms by felons, fugitives, the seriously mentally ill, and undocumented aliens less likely.

When all else fails, there’s always the good old Gish Gallop in which assertions, distractions, extraneous statistics, and good old fashioned falsehoods are strung together in a verbal barrage of palaver such that there is no way to address the advocate’s “gallop” without literally shutting off the microphone at 15 second intervals.

It’s time to take a serious look at gun violence in this state and the other 49 — Without attacking messengers, without the infusion of muddled interpretations and extraneous information,  without the conflation of general incentives with specific incidents, and without the rambling rationalizations of the irrational.

Bits and Pieces

The Nevada legislature continues to talk about taxation issues, and talk and talk and talk and talk. No bills yet from either side just more talk and talk and talk and talk.  Full story at LV Sun.

The Reno Gazette Journal has a map with the break down by party affiliation in Washoe County.   Democrats are just barely behind in total county numbers.

Whatever would we do without the Pahrump Valley Times continuing its soap opera series on the Nye County Commission and the Nye County Sheriff’s office?  Here and here.

Two men from Ely, NV have been charged as ex-felons in possession of firearms.  [Elko Daily Free Press]  One of the two arrested is an undocumented alien, now facing deportation.  Now, remind me why Senator Dean Heller was opposed to background checks at gun shows or for Internet sales to catch — FELONS, fugitives, undocumented aliens, the mentally ill, and minors to help prevent guns from getting into their hands?  This vote may not be helping Nevada’s junior Senator:

“Nevada Dean Heller has seen a more modest decline in his approval numbers, from 47/42 right before the election to 44/41 now. However with the independent voters who were critical to his narrow victory in November, his approval has dropped from 52/37 then to now 42/42.”  [PPP]

70% of Nevadans support expanding background checks to gun shows and Internet sales. [HP]

Meanwhile, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is advising us that we can’t amend our statutes to prevent those who are on terrorist watch lists from having free and easy access to firearms.  Hint: His “logic” is a repetition of The Criminals Won’t Obey the Law argument.  Of course, criminals don’t obey laws — that is why we call them Criminals.

The Republicans can’t seem to get their narrative straight on U.S. options available for dealing with the Syrian civil war.  There’s the full on Let’s Have Another Lovely War Crowd, and the No Boots on the Ground Crowd, augmented by the I’m So Confused I’m Changing Positions faster than popcorn in a microwave group.

There’s this bit of news (old by now) from the U.S. Senate:

“The Senate moved quickly Thursday evening to help ease the Federal Aviation Administration’s ability to handle automatic spending cuts set forth in the sequester. Senators unanimously approved the “Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013″ — a patch to fix the deep cuts that have furloughed air traffic controllers and delayed flights across the country. The bill gives the FAA authority to spend up to $253 million of money already in the FAA’s budget — but not allocated to pay for other things — to keep employees on the job and make sure more flights a on time. It was passed by unanimous consent, which means no senator objected.”  [NBC]

For a group that usually moves with all the expediency and alacrity of molasses off a frozen spoon, THIS is amazing.  Now how about the 70,000 youngsters kicked off the Headstart rolls? The elderly cancer patients having reduced medical services?  The reduction in the food assistance programs?  The cut backs in long term unemployment benefits? —- Crickets.

But wait, there IS a topic on which two deficit chickenhawk allies ARE willing to spend more money — the Abrams Tank. The problem is that the Pentagon doesn’t want more Abrams tanks… more at Think Progress.  We ought to file this along side the dismal story of the F-35 production problems and spending issues. [Bloomberg]

What we haven’t been hearing much about are the problems related to the Other Disaster this month, the one at the West, Texas fertilizer plant.  The major media outlets gave it scant coverage.  OSHA records show the plant hadn’t been inspected since 1985. PHMSA did an inspection in 2011 and found the plant didn’t have an emergency plan. The EPA last looked at the plant in 2006 and levied a fine for the lack of a risk management plan.   Unfortunately, the list goes on. [TP]  Congressional Democrats are asking for work place safety hearings in the wake of the disaster. [Reuters] Neither the House Agriculture Committee nor the Education and Workforce Committee have posted scheduled hearings to date on the matter.   Deregulation, a popular theme amongst the GOP membership, has created a situation in which going to work can get a person killed.

Quick Hits

** The Las Vegas Sun has a quick list of bills that made it past the “Tuesday Deadline” for consideration in the Nevada Legislature.  Looking for bills that failed to meet the deadline? It’s here.  For information on other bills start with this link.

** Heads up: The Reno Gazette Journal will run an article on Sunday concerning the closing of the ATF office in Reno, NV, and how this has impacted the efforts to stop gun trafficking.  The Leahy-Collins amendment to curtail gun trafficking in the U.S. failed in the Senate on a 58-42 vote during which Republicans sustained their filibuster of the amendment. [TheHill] Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) voted to sustain the GOP filibuster. [Vote 99]

** Did we know? “Sixty-six Americans were killed in mass shootings by non-Muslims in 2012 alone, twice as many fatalities as from Muslim-American terrorism in all 11 years since 9/11.” [Politicususa] And, did we know that the NRA and Conservatives in Congress have made it more difficult to track or monitor non-Muslim extremists in this country since 2001?  Crooks and Liars posts a list of recent “eliminationist” attacks.

** It’s been a bad week for the Austerians.  First, comedian Stephen Colbert launched a devastating critique on the economic theorists.  Additionally, many others have piled on.  There’s Austerity as Flim-Flam.   There’s Who is Defending Austerity Now?  There’s rethinking austerity.   There’s the EU calling for diminishing austerian policies.  And, for good measure, there’s the choking effects of austerity policies in the UK.  Thus the House GOP budget plan is based on a seriously flawed study.

** What economic recovery? For 7% of this country it’s been a nice rebound, for the remaining 93% not so much.

“During the first two years of the nation’s economic recovery, the mean net worth of households in the upper 7% of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28%, while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4%, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly released Census Bureau data.” [PewResearch]

Graph it out and it looks like this:

** Watch H.R. 1549 carefully. It would “Give sick people without insurance temporary access to crappy private plans at exorbitant rates as part of a strategy aimed at pulling the rug out from under them entirely at the end of the year, all the while mewling about one’s concern for sick people.” [WashMon]  When astro-turf organizations like Freedom Works and AMAC line up for something it’s time to head the other direction.  The best description for this legislation is “ruse and trap.”

** Republicans Behaving Badly.  Let’s start with the Tennessee legislator who thinks pressure cooker bombs are humorous.  Followed, of course, by his non-apology-apology.  His rationale is that advocates of sensible gun safety legislation should have stayed quiet after Newtown…  Then there’s the Conservative group that photo-shopped ethnic minority people from its mailer about voting restrictions.  And who could have missed GOP behemoth, Rush Limbaugh, comparing the Boston bombers to Trayvon Martin?  That Arkansas legislator who called for using “2nd Amendment” solutions to Medicaid expansion, “Most likely won’t kill lawmakers who support Medicaid expansion.”  Most likely? How nice.

** Lady’s Days:  Ann Coulter, scourge of all operative grey cells residing in every cerebral cortex, calls for women to to prosecuted for wearing the hijab.  So, do we tell nuns to refrain from wearing their habits?  A Washington state pastor tells women to submit to their husbands and not nag “like Chinese water torture.”  The adherents of the Church of Perpetual Intolerance (aka the Family Research Council) are trying to convince us that “many” experts believe Plan B contraceptives should not be available over the counter — there are a few critics, and those critiques tend to be based on religiosity not science.  Rebuffed last year, Ohio Republicans are taking another swipe at funding for Planned Parenthood women’s health care services in that state.

Quick Hits

** Good news and Bad news: Nevada’s Governor is good at finding money for state programs — on the other hand the money is flowing in because our economy is lagging. [LVSun]  Unfortunately, this comes with an ideological framework, which a person could suppose is meant to sound moderate: “We cannot cut our way out, we cannot tax our way out, we can only grow our way out.”   The phrasing sets up a false choice in which “C” is the sole useful option.  It’s commendable that the Governor acknowledges growth based solutions as the proper course for economic development; it’s not so commendable to see that increasing taxation on economic elements in Nevada who have not been paying their way isn’t part of the total package.

** The Nevada Legislature is looking at the issues related to severe mental illness and gun possession in two bills.  SB 221, which cleared the Senate Health and Human Services Committee with a Do Pass as Amended recommendation, upgrades the background checks required by Nevada law to include private sales, and specifically prohibits a person who, in the estimation of a psychiatrist or a licensed psychologist is likely to be a danger to self or others from “possession, custody, or control” of a firearm.  Once more with urgency:  The only people who would be “inconvenienced” by background checks under Nevada law are (1) felons (2) fugitives (3) minor children (4) domestic abusers, and (5) undocumented aliens.  Surely, it’s not too much to ask that those seeking to transfer “possession, custody, or control” of a firearm would want the recipient to pass a quick background check before selling a weapon to anyone in those categories?

** Those who managed to find a bit of time to keep up with economic news during the Week from Hell, have benefited from “Pete Peterson’s Fingerprints…” at Crooks and Liars.   The Austerians are, indeed, losing the narrative in the national economic debate, and this short article explains who is still promoting  illogical austerity pontification which passes for economic theorizing in Dante’s Fourth Circle of Hell.   For those inclined to get into the mathematical weeds of the R&R mess, Angry Bear has a handy post.  A more general critique is available from the EPI.   As for the prospective denizens of the Fourth Circle, see Naked Capitalism’s post in which Robert Johnson opines of the oligarchs, “they are all standing on the deck of the Titanic looking in each other’s eyes.”

** Republicans behaving badly: Second Amendment Solutions?  One GOP lawmaker in Arkansas would like to activate them in terms of the expansion of Medicaid under the terms of the Affordable Care Act. [Think Progress] Ohio legislators would like to prohibit instruction in health education classes about “gateway sexual activity.” [TP]  As if the kids haven’t  just about figured out the “gateways” already?  Texas state legislators dislike the meddling old EPA — and they have a blasted out neighborhood in West, Texas to prove it. [Politicususa] In the mean time, would someone explain to me how any Planning and Zoning Commission could possibly approve plans to build residential developments next to a fertilizer plant — or a fertilizer plant near a residential neighborhood? Much less in proximity to a junior high, a high school, and a nursing home?!