The shooting in Connecticut has shocked, disturbed, and saddened us all.  But are we prepared to accept our own vulnerability, our own lack of safety, and our refusal to make necessary change?  Or are we just in denial?

When Will We Stop Pretending School Shootings Can’t Happen In Our Town?

Here’s something to consider.  In 2008, there were 42 gun-related deaths in the entire country of Great Britain. 1   In the year 2010-2011, that country saw 60 gun-related deaths. On Friday, December 14, 2012, the State of Connecticut in the United States saw 27 deaths in one day.

Think about that.

If you add up the death toll in the United States in 2012, the numbers are shocking.  In Connecticut, 20 little kids were shot in class and 7 other adults were killed too. In Aurora, Colorado, 12 people were killed while watching a movie.  At Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio, 3 high school kids died while waiting in a cafeteria.

Taken together, these tragedies account for 42 deaths and three mass-shootings and two school shootings in just one year in the U.S.

Should these deaths the price of lax gun laws in support of gun owner freedom?  Or should these shootings be a spark for change that restricts access to guns? At times like this, it’s worth considering moments and places in history where similar circumstances were encountered and action was taken. And so to England, we go. Ironically, it was a school shooting of grade school kids that changed the law there.

The Dunblane school massacre occurred at Dunblane Primary School in the Scottish town of Dunblane on March 13, 1996. The gunman, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton, entered the school armed with four handguns. He shot and killed sixteen children and one adult before committing suicide. After gaining entry to the school, Hamilton made his way to the gymnasium and opened fire on a grade school class of kids aged five and six, killing or wounding all but one person. Fifteen kids died together with their class teacher, Gwen Mayor. She was killed trying to protect the children.

It’s eerily similar to the attack that happened just a few days ago in Connecticut.

Public debate in England after Dunblane focused on gun-control legislation. The discussion was driven by the media, which advertized public petitions calling for a ban on private ownership of handguns. In response to that discussion, the Firearms Act of 1997 was enacted in two parts. It essentially outlawed private ownership of handguns in the United Kingdom.

Since 1997, you might wonder how many rampage-style killings have occurred in England.  The answer?

One.

With some of the strictest gun laws in the world, England seems to be doing a lot better than the United States in the mass shootings category.

Look, the time has come to consider some hard truths. And the truth is, mass shootings in the United States are no longer a “once in a generation” sort of tragedy that calls us to be sympathetic to victims, but unlikely to worry much.  Until recently, we just didn’t think such a horrific thing could happen in our town.  We believed that these events were like shark attacks – horrible and terrifying, but unlikely.

Many are against strict gun control.  And many believe that the safest way to live in America is to have guns, guns, and more guns. But after the reports of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, others are starting to wonder: is it time for change? And what about those statistics from England?

We need answers.  Whether it’s increased security or tighter gun laws, the time for a Nation-wide discussion about our National safety must start now.  And the time for denial is over.

In New York City this week, two men got into a fight.  Not uncommon. But what was unique about this fight was that its lethal end result was captured on film.

A photographer was waiting for the subway when one of the men was pushed onto the tracks of the subway as the train was arriving.  Instead of rushing to the aid of the man on the tracks, the photographer took a picture, capturing the last seconds before the man would be run over and killed.

What makes this scenario even more dramatic: the photographer might have had enough time to save the man’s life.

Did the photographer “let” the man die?  Can he be held responsible for the death of the man on the tracks?

And for those who enjoy discussion about the First Amendment, Real Law Radio will ask: Is the photo obscenity (not protected by the First Amendment from censorship) or is it protected speech?

Listen to Real Law Radio to hear our intense discussion!

- Robert F. DiCello, Esq.

After watching video from this week’s Republican National Convention, it strikes me that the biggest challenge facing our nation is enmity.  A nasty thing, enmity is defined as the state or feeling of being actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.  This is exactly the kind of thing that I saw during this week’s convention.  And it is exactly what good leadership is opposed to.

Added to that enmity was a silliness that made the RNC look trifling and small, despite its blazing video and blaring country music. Don’t know if I’m right?  Just watch Reagan’s acceptance speech from the 1980 Republican National Convention in Detroit, Michigan.  Compare his speech to the speeches given by Romney and Ryan.

Ryan laced half-truth attacks throughout his speech. Sometimes he even lied, like when he said the President broke his promise to keep an auto manufacturing plant open. Romney was credited for things he didn’t do.  And worst of all, others made statements that he will do things that he plainly can’t do.

When Romney spoke, he made glossy, saccharin statements that were devoid of fact or substance.  Consider this one: “Every new college graduate thought they’d have a good job by now. A place of their own. They could start paying back some of their loans and build for the future.”  Laying it all at the feet of the President undermined the credibility of the point Romney tried to make. We need a better economy.

Or was he trying to make any points?  Was he simply pandering to those that would elect him anyway?  Those who watched Romney speak saw a man beleaguered by the advice of consultants and marketers. Those who watched Reagan saw a man tear up (out of heart-felt sincerity and fear) when he asked if we all could join him in a moment of prayer before beginning the challenge of his Presidency.

And the essence of the Reagan presidential message, that he does not trust one person or one party, but the values that transcend persons and parties, was wholly absent from the Romney pep rally.

I make these observations as a democrat with the expectation that I will likely see the democrats do the same silly things at their convention.

Silly just isn’t the kind of adjective I enjoy giving to those who seek our nation’s highest office.  Perhaps they all should watch Reagan’s speech again.  Maybe then they will be reminded of what real leadership sounds like.

In matters of public concern, judges are not free to speak their minds. The reason is straightforward: judges need to maintain the appearance of  — if not the actual practice of — impartiality. When Lubbock County Judge Tom Head, a local judge in Texas, said that the re-election of President Obama would spark a civil war, he likely violated the rules which govern the conduct of judges in his state.

Head’s role as a judge is not the typical kind. In addition to performing judicial functions, he serves as the administrative head of the county government. “He’s kind of like the county mayor,”  said Kenny Ketner, the Chairman of the Democratic Party in Lubbock, Texas.  He has administrative duties, like preparing the County budget for approval by the County Commissioners. He also pgeresides over probate court proceedings, including competency hearings.

Judge Head’s Statement

Described by his friends as polite, professional, and kind, Head’s detractors fear that he has lost himself to conspiracy theories and notions that the United Nations will  take over America if the President is re-elected. Here’s what he said in a recent radio interview:

Did Judge Head violate ethics rules?

“[The President] is going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the UN, and what is going to happen when that happens? I’m thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we’re not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we’re talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy. Now what’s going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He’s going to send in U.N. troops. I don’t want ‘em in Lubbock County. OK. So I’m going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say ‘you’re not coming in here’. And the Sheriff, I’ve already asked him, I said ‘you gonna back me’ he said, ‘yeah, I’ll back you’. Well, I don’t want a bunch of rookies back there. I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me.”

The Texas Code of Judicial Conduct

And so the issue now turns to a serious legal one: did the judge violate the rules that govern the conduct of judges in his state? The Preamble to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct is instructive. It states:

“The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all sections of this Code of Judicial Conduct are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system.The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law.”

According to Cannon 4 (A)(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, titled “Extra-Judicial Activities in General,” a judge shall conduct all of the judge’s extra-judicial activities so that they do not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge.

It is hard to imagine that the comments of Judge Head do not cast doubt on his ability to be fair-minded. He holds an outrageous opinion that re-electing President Obama would lead to civil war.  But if that was the only shocker that’s come from the Judge, he’d probably be safe.  Unfortunately, he’s said and done other eye-popping things.

In 2009, he posted offensive emails and pictures on a public bulletin board in the Lubbock County Courthouse. One of the posters showed nine arrest photos of people wearing Obama t-shirts, accompanied by the text:

“Did you ever see anyone arrested wearing a Bush T-shirt, or for you older folks, an Eisenhower? Gerald Ford? Ronald Reagan? even Nixon? or any political t-shirt? There MUST be a message here, but I can’t quite grasp it, or maybe I’m afraid to.”

Above the pictures, the Judge inserted a fake narration of a person waking up, putting on an Obama t-shirt, holding up a convenience store, buying drugs, and beating his wife. There were articles too, including content that disparaged Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor.  The entire mess used most of the space on the bulletin board. All of it was put there by Judge Head.

So Who Is Judge Head?

Judge Head is a successful politician with more than 13 years in office. According to Carl Tepper, Chairman of the Lubbock County Republican Party, Judge Head has a reputation for being professional, quiet, and a good community booster. Tepper said, “The Judge is someone that I know, he’s a nice man. He’s usually soft spoken. He goes to church.”

According to the Lubbock Democratic Party Chairman, Kenny Ketner, Judge Head is a Tea Partier who “taps into the idea that ‘every body’s out to get them.’”  Ketner explained that recently, the Judge invoked the UN takeover idea to justify the hiring of seven additional sheriff deputies and to raise the salary of the local district attorneys office.

And then there’s this interesting description of Judge Head that was just recently posted on-line by Carol Morgan, a writer for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal:

I met Judge Head many years ago when I was a counselor at Cavazos. He presided over the attendance cases and family problems of our students. He did an outstanding job; buying alarm clocks for students who couldn’t make it to school on time and helping entire families find solutions to employment, financial and legal problems. I respected him a great deal. The Judge Head whose words I read today is the not the same Judge Head I knew then.

The extreme Right Wing of the Republican Party; the Eagle Forum and John Birch Society members, are poisoning what used to be a group of solid citizens just a few years ago. It’s like a scene from an old movie, Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

What Does The Lubbock County Republican Party Think?

Still, Head’s local party leadership is not getting behind his statements. “I disagree with the judge,” said Tepper. “The President is not a threat. And although I disagree with his policies, I don’t know that I see Obama as evil.”

Tepper pointed out that within the Lubbock Republican Party there are divergent views on how the local Republicans should deal with the recent declarations of Judge Head.

“There are people who don’t appreciate the Judge,” Tepper conceded. “They also don’t appreciate what they see as an Obama power grab.” Tepper noted a third group too, those who are afraid that these types of comments will hurt the local party.

Tepper also noted that the media seems to portray the Republican Party as rife with crazy opinion. But, according to him, “The Occupy people can say whatever they want. It’s just that when a conservative speaks out, there’s this piling on that happens”

The Future For Judge Head

Despite getting calls to get Judge Head out of office, Lubbock Democratic Chairman Ketner noted there is no recall process in the County Charter.  “I know people have been filing complaints with the court system,” Ketner said. “But because there’s no recall process, we need to organize. We’re urging a high turnout for our budget workshop meeting to discuss this.”

Judge Head is not up for re-election until 2014. Whether he will succeed in reaching another term is now in question – just as his status as a judge-in-good-standing may be.

William Todd Akin is the U.S. Representative for Missouri’s 2nd congressional district. He is running for Senator of Missouri. He is also a news-making pariah among center-leaning Republicans, as he highlights the problems the Republican Party has with at least two important social issues, women’s rights and abortion.

On Sunday, August 19, 2012, congressman Todd Akin, a republican candidate for Senate in the state of Missouri was interviewed on local T.V. and spoke about his anti-abortion stance.  When asked whether he favored abortion in instances where rape causes a pregnancy, he offered this controversial statement:

“It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume, that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment out to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

Without publicly attacking Akin’s assertion that doctors support his viewpoint (we do that here), Republican Party leaders across the nation urged Akin to quit the Missouri Senate race.  He made it clear he was not going anywhere. Asked why he would stay in the race when leaders within his own party were asking him to leave, Akin said,

In my case, I believe, as I took a look at this race, that what we’re doing here is standing on a principle, about what America is.  I believe that this is the right thing for me to do, and that I will be able to add to the message that’s being neglected in some circles by the Republican Party.

In his own video apology, Akin said,  “I used the wrong words in the wrong way, and for that I apologize.” He added, “the fact is, rape can lead to pregnancy.” He then offered, “The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold.”

But the video of Akin’s extreme position does not show that the Congressman flubbed an interview with a poor selection of words, as he asks us to believe. Nor did any statement made by him retract the heart of his message: that women who are raped don’t need abortions because their bodies can defend themselves. His apology artfully dodges that assertion entirely when he said “rape can lead to pregnancy.”

In a show of support for Akin, the Missouri Republican Assembly issued it’s own statement which, among other things said:

Congressman Akin’s comment on the rarity of pregnancy following rape was initiated by, ‘… From what I understand from Doctors.’ Whether or not this is true (and it probably is as indicated by well documented studies) is immaterial, as the Congressman was relating that which the experts had told him.

The Missouri Republican Assembly makes two serious assertions in defense of Akin:  1) that there are doctors and well-documented studies supporting Akin’s point of view; and 2) that Akin innocently only recounted what experts told him.  The upshot of all this of course is they want us to believe that Akin was not to blame for his own position.

Real Law Radio investigated whether any well-documented studies exist in support of Akin’s position. The results completely and utterly destroy the notion that Akin had a good faith, medically informed adviser whispering into his ear.  They show that Akin disregards current research on the subject.  They also show that the Missouri Republican Assembly spreads lies in support of Akins and urges us to look away from the plain, knowable truth of science and biology.

Fourteen years ago, in 1998, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published a study that sampled 4008 adult American women to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from rape. The study involved a 3 year survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes.

Twelve years ago the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, published in November 2000:

Pregnancy following rape is a continuing and significant public health issue. We estimate that the 333,000 sexual assaults and rapes reported in 1998, along with many more unreported, were responsible for 25,000 pregnancies. Potentially, as many as 22,000 such pregnancies could be prevented if all women who were raped received prompt medical services, and if not already protected against pregnancy, were provided with emergency contraceptive treatment.

Nine years ago, in 2003, Jonathan A. Gottschall and Tiffani A. Gottschall researchers from St. Lawrence University published “Are Per-Incident Rape-Pregnancy Rates Higher Than Per-Incident Consensual Pregnancy Rates?” (full text here). The question they asked: “Is a given instance of rape more likely to result in pregnancy than a given instance of consensual sex?”  Their conclusion refutes everything that Akin and the Missouri Republican Assembly have said about the likelihood of pregnancy from rape:

Our analysis suggests that per-incident rape-pregnancy rates exceed per-incident consensual pregnancy rates by a sizable margin, even before adjusting for the use of relevant forms of birth control. Possible explanations for this phenomenon are discussed, as are its implications to ongoing debates over the ultimate causes of rape.

And just a few days ago, in response to Akin’s comments, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the nation’s leading group of physicians providing health care for women, released this statement:

Each year in the US, 10,000–15,000 abortions occur among women whose pregnancies are a result of reported rape or incest. An unknown number of pregnancies resulting from rape are carried to term. There is absolutely no veracity to the claim that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down.” A woman who is raped has no control over ovulation, fertilization, or implantation of a fertilized egg (ie, pregnancy). To suggest otherwise contradicts basic biological truths.

In the end, the most shocking part of Todd Akin”s story is not his completely unfounded claim that women’s bodies can defend themselves from pregnancy.  It’s his belief in his own statement. And that belief is compounded by his refusal to investigate and own up to his own ideas.  The most morally bankrupt aspect of his story, however, is support of that the Missouri Republican Assembly showed Akin when it asserted that others gave Akin his ideas.

It is extremely important that citizens out government leaders and political groups who hold extreme, unfounded, and frankly misogynistic views. Real Law Radio is doing that here.  We need leadership in America that is not bent by witchcraft, junk science, misconceptions and misapplications of moral law, or adherence to vapid, misogynistic party platforms. Todd Akin is a menace to good government, and his supporters at the Missouri Republican Assembly ought to be ashamed of themselves for taking the position that Akin’s view is “immaterial” because he relied on expert opinion.  Accountability and integrity matter. The lies told by the Missouri Republican Assembly need to be called out for what they are – lies designed to dupe concerned citizens away from the truth of Todd Akin.

The electorate is watching. And they are not so stupid as to discount real research into female biology and believe that Akin didn’t mean every word he said.

Ok. What happened exactly?

Apparently a punk rock band in Russia was arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to two years in prison for speaking out against Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. Or . . . the band was prosecuted for taking action that was motivated by religious hatred.  It depends on who you listen to.

According to reports out of Russia, the band members were charged after screaming, “Mother Mary, please drive Putin away,” in a protest act this past February inside Christ Savior Cathedral, one of Russia’s most revered religious sites.

The band was charged with criminal hooliganism, a rather serious form of what you might call disorderly conduct. According to Russian law, it involves “a gross violation of public order, showing a disrespect for society.” When actions are taken by Russian citizens for motives of political, ideological, racial, national, or religious hatred, toward a social group, they are prosecuted for this crime . The penalty is a sentence of up to 5 years if committed by an individual, or 7 years if committed by an organized group.

Judge Marina Syrova said the three young women “committed hooliganism driven by religious hatred.” She rejected the band members’ arguments that they were protesting the Orthodox Church’s support for Putin and didn’t intend to offend religious believers. For their part, the band members themselves have said they are motivated to stimulate anti-Putin sentiment.

In one video, Russians seemed only slightly bothered by the prosecution of Pussy Riot’s band members.  Many didn’t even mention politics or political dissent at all.  Some were apparently okay with the sentence, noting that the band made their protest as old women were praying.

But the West has been very critical of the prosecution.  Amnesty International strongly condemned the court’s ruling, saying it “shows that the Russian authorities will stop at no end to suppress dissent and stifle civil society.” Governments including the United States, Britain, France and Germany denounced the sentences as disproportionate.

Russian President Putin seemed surprisingly unaffected by the tumult.  He noted that if the band had performed as they did in a temple in Jerusalem, they would have been sternly punished.  He added, that security would likely not be able save the women from outrage if they tried their performance in a Muslim temple.

And so now, there’s an interesting question to ask.  What if the women conducted their protest in a Christian church in Ohio?  What would be the result? It is likely they’d be prosecuted for disorderly conduct.  Their sentence would not be susceptible to more than a month or so in jail.  But they would have certainly committed a crime.

The law does put limitations on where and how citizens can conduct social protests.  In Russia, the law is arguably too harsh. Two years in a work camp seems pretty stiff punishment, given the fact that the women were just expressing their views, albeit in the wrong place.

Now to the most interesting questions of all:  are any American Christian conservatives angered or troubled by the penalty?  Are there many here among us who would welcome such laws in our Country?  And what happens when people try to legislate morality? We’ll discuss this today, on Real Law Radio.

Today Real Law Radio will be discussing three major issues:

First, Mitt Romney announced  his vice presidential running mate:  Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan. The decision excites many conservatives who believe Ryan will fire up a campaign that has appeared bland. Some think this will focus the discussion on the policy differences between Romney and President Obama.

Liberals will point to his controversial budget plan and tough stance against Medicare he has little foreign policy expertise and has spent most of his career in Washington.  Rep. Steve Israel, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, called the Romney-Ryan ticket “a match made in millionaires heaven” and telegraphed that Democrats plan to home in on Ryan’s Medicare plan. As noted by USA Today, Israel said, “They’ll be a nightmare for seniors who’ve earned their Medicare benefits.”

“For the last 18 months, we’ve said Republicans will have to defend the indefensible — their vote to end Medicare.”

Our second story will cover what happens when emotional, irrational Free Speech meets rational thought. Michigan Councilman Paul Smith has been asked by his colleagues to resign from office after he was seen depicting signs of President Barack Obama‘s bloody head on a spike.  Where does freedom of expression end and illegality begin? What about the Secret Service interviewing Smith?

Our third story will cover the evangelical right’s invocation of something they call,God’s “moral law.”  And they take it seriously.  When supporters of gay marriage speak out, they say that gays and their friends should shut up. And they talk about how God’s law an design are not being supported.  What are they talking about?

Join  Real Law Radio today from 1-3pm EST.

America has places in it where the First Amendment doesn’t seem to exist. Take work, for example. As explained here, if you express controversial opinions in a way that makes your boss look bad, you might just be out of a job. But for some, there is hope. In certain situations a Civil Rights lawyer might just help you get your job – or lost salary – back.

Consider this real-life scenario. When Adam Smith, the CFO/Treasurer of a company in Arizona, got upset at statements made by the leader of a national fast food chain, he got out his camera and decided to make his own personal protest video.

When he pulled up to the drive-thru window he told the attendant that the company she worked for was a hateful, anti-gay corporation. He was pushy, but not outraged. The “how-can-I-help-you” smile worn by the worker faded as she realized Smith’s agenda.

With his hand-held camera rolling, Mr. Smith complained that the corporation gave money to anti-gay hate groups. He said he didn’t know how the drive-thru worker could work for that business and live with herself. He said her boss’s company had horrible values.

Smith offered the fact that he wasn’t even gay. He said he was a nice guy, just there to speak against hate. He urged the worker to “stand up.” And as he drove away, he told her that she deserved better.

Mr. Smith posted his personal protest video on the internet.

A few days later, Mr. Smith was fired.

Some say, good. Mr. Smith should have been fired. He treated the drive-thru lady poorly. He acted like all those other rude protesters who pick an argument with a person who had nothing to do with the problem.

But was his termination justified under the law? Can your employer lawfully fire you for doing what Mr. Smith did? Or does the First Amendment protect those who, like Mr. Smith, firmly speak their mind about matters of public concern?

Well, the answer is: it depends on who you work for.

If you work for the government, the First Amendment protects your right to free speech. But if you work for a private company, the First Amendment does not apply.

Why? Because civil rights are protected from government interference. Section 1983 of the United States Code gives to every resident of the United States the right to sue every person who, “under color of law,” denies that resident any constitutional rights. And so, Civil Rights cases, also known as “1983″ suits, can only be brought against government employers. Private employers are free to fire employees who simply express their opinions in a way that makes the boss look bad.

Mr. Smith was likely not aware of this odd wrinkle in the law. If he was, it’s a safe bet that he probably wouldn’t have recorded his own personal protest. But this difference between the ability to hold government and private employers accountable for limiting free speech reflects a principle in our law that few understand or pay attention to: the constitution was only designed to protect us from the government. It was not designed to regulate disputes among ordinary citizens.

Where government action limits freedom of speech, the Constitution protects and defends ordinary citizens who express their minds. The First Amendment is not a grant of power. It acts as a limit on government intrusion into our lives.

So if your boss is the government and you get fired for making your own personal protest video and posting it on-line, remember: the law protects you. If you choose to speak your mind and you lose your government job, contact a Civil Rights attorney.

Robert F. DiCello, Esq.,

On Monday, February 27, 2012, T.J.  Lane entered the Chardon High School with a .22 caliber handgun and killed  3 students, shooting all of them in the head. On July 20, 2012, James Holmes entered the Centruy Theater in Aurora Colorado and shot and killed 12 innocent victims in a hail of gun fire.

These two attrocities have motivated many to begin the gun control debate. And so the discussion turns to what measures – if any – should be taken to make it harder to access firearms in America.  Many have urged that we first address the gun show loophole.

Gun Shows

If you’ve never been to one, a gun show is a place where  people gather to exhibit and sell firearms, firearm accessories, ammunition,  literature, knives, military gear, and collectibles related to guns. Gun shows  are typically open to the public. Anyone can attend, as long as they pay a small  admittance fee. Hunters, gun manufacturers, gun enthusiasts and prospective  buyers meet to show their wares and discuss gun culture.

The Second Amendment  is a frequent topic of discourse.  So too  is the “liberal agenda” to make it harder for these folks to have guns.

That agenda, say gun advocacy groups, is what is behind a  motivation to close what is known as “the gun show loophole.”

Gun Shows Loophole

Part of the problem with our national discussion about gun control is the quirky nature of some of the laws that define how law-abiding citizens can enjoy their Second Amendment right to possess firearms. One fo the more interesting, if not confusing features of that law is what’s known as the Gun Show Loophole.

As the above video discusses and shows, the City of New York conducted an undercover investigation ino gun shows. They recorded video an audio of gun dealers being approached by the investigator-buyers. The results are pretty persuasive: the laws are screwy, and many think they need to be changed.

Under current law, private, unlicensed gun show dealers are permitted to sell guns without conducting a background check on the buyer. Where the seller has reason to believe that the buyer would not pass a background check, the unlicensed seller is not permitted to do the transaction.

Still, as the video shows, many private gun dealers ignore that law, despite being fully aware that the buyer would not be able to pass the background check. Why? Because there are no consequences and no laws in place.        Should that change?

The horrifying shooting in a Colorado theater on July 20, 2012, has been the main discussion on social media everywhere. And recently, the mother of one of the victims initiated a movement that seems to be gaining traction. She asked that the media only mention her daughter and the other victims. By writing simple messages on social media websites, the public has shared their compassion and general agreement with the mother of Jessica Redfield. They have agreed to keep the shooter’s name quiet, for now. But should the media avoid mentioning the shooter? And if so, for how long?

In the short term, the media should honor a grieving mother’s request. The symbolism of keeping the shooter’s name from the press also has meaning now as we bury and say goodbye to those we loved. In that way we keep our thoughts and memory clear, our hearts open.

But in the long term, we must move beyond grief and get to the business of living again. And living requires freedom.

Let’s not empower the shooter by never speaking his name. Let’s be free of the awful burden of willfully limiting our own speech in an effort to frustrate the intentions that we have ascribed to the shooter. We believe he wanted to be famous. We don’t want him to be famous. So we’re silent.

Living in fear of what someone else might enjoy at our expense is not living fully or freely. We are not him. We can’t allow ourselves to be limited by his decisions or desires. We must remember that we choose what to focus on in life.

After a while, the silence stops being about honoring the dead. It eventually starts to diminish and limit us. The silence is limiting because it constantly reminds us of the tragedy and the loss. It keeps us frozen in time, at a point where little was known about how these terrible events transpired.

Every happy person knows, nothing good comes from dwelling on the past. Life is change. And though they are gone, the victims have lived a purposeful life, if only for contributing to the national dialogue that we now must undertake to make America safer.

That dialogue requires – no, demands – that we boldly publicize the name and other facts regarding the Colorado theater shooter. We must not give the shooter any more control or power over our lives. He has already exercised the highest control over the lives of twelve wonderful people. Soon, perhaps within a few months, it will be time to talk about him.

Our national dialogue about gun safety requires knowledge about the shooter. Legal change for the betterment of our society is at issue. By studying who the Colorado theater shooter was, we gain an insight into his motivations, his triggers, or maybe his weaknesses and defects. By exploiting those weaknesses and understanding those defects we might better understand how to draft laws that protect ourselves from his kind in the future. We also take back our power and control over our lives.

We must not be insensitive to the families and memory of the victims. Now is the time for silence. And soon it will be time to have an open, if not painful, discussion about the shooter.

Let us freely remember. Let us always freely discuss and learn. May we never be limited by tragedy, but always rise above it. And may we always think before we fear.