#The Gun Control Act of 1968 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cliff-montgomery · 3 months

Text

The Thorny Problem of Straw Purchases in U.S. Gun Law

by Cliff Montgomery - Feb. 15th, 2024

Yesterday’s mass shooting at a parade intended to celebrate the Kansas City Chiefs’ recent Super Bowl victory over the San Francisco 49s once again reminds us of the need for serious gun laws and gun law reform.

On February 9th, two short reviews on current federal gun laws were released by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The CRS refers to itself as a “ non-partisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress.” In short, it prepares concise, easy-to understand reports on matters of the moment to members of the U.S. and their affiliated staff members.

We will cover those two short studies for our readers. Tonight, we look at the report Gun Control: Straw Purchase and Gun Trafficking Provisions in Public Law 117-159, better known as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

Straw purchases are defined by the study as “illegal firearms transactions in which a person serves as a middleman by posing as the transferee, but is actually acquiring the firearm for another person.”

Below, we offer readers most of the central statements found in the CRS report:

“On June 25, 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA; S. 2938; P.L. 117-159). This law includes the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, provisions of which amend the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA, 18 U.S.C. §§921 et seq.) to more explicitly prohibit straw purchases and illegal gun trafficking. Related provisions expand federal law enforcement investigative authorities.

Federal Firearms Law

“The GCA is the principal statute regulating interstate firearms commerce in the United States. The purpose of the GCA is to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement in ongoing efforts to reduce violent crime.

“Congress constructed the GCA to allow state and local governments to regulate firearms more strictly within their own borders, so long as state law does not conflict with federal law or violate constitutional provisions.

“Hence, one condition of a federal firearms license for gun dealers, which permits the holder to engage in interstate firearms commerce, is that the licensee must comply with both federal and state law.

“Also, under the GCA there are several classes of persons prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition (e.g., convicted felons, fugitives, unlawful drug users). It was and remains unlawful under the GCA for any person to transfer knowingly a firearm or ammunition to a prohibited person (18 U.S.C. §922(d)). Violations are punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is the principal agency that administers and enforces the GCA, as well as the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA, 26 U.S.C. §§5801 et seq.).

“The NFA further regulates certain firearms deemed to be especially dangerous (e.g., machine guns, short-barreled shotguns) by taxing all aspects of the making and transfer of such weapons and requiring their registration with the Attorney General.

Straw Purchase Provision

“Straw purchases are illegal firearms transactions in which a person serves as a middleman by posing as the transferee, but is actually acquiring the firearm for another person.

“As discussed below, straw purchases are unlawful under two existing laws. Prosecutions under those provisions have been characterized by some as mere paperwork violations and, hence, inadequate in terms of deterring unlawful gun trafficking.

“P.L. 117-159 amends the GCA with a new provision, 18 U.S.C. §932, to prohibit any person from knowingly purchasing or conspiring to purchase any firearm for, on behalf of, or at the request or demand of any other persons if the purchaser knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the actual buyer

is a person prohibited from being transferred a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §922(d);

plans to use, carry, possess, or sell (dispose of) the firearm(s) in furtherance of a felony, federal crime of terrorism, or drug trafficking crime; or

plans to sell or otherwise dispose of the firearm(s) to a person who would meet any of the conditions described above.

“Violations are punishable by a fine and up to 15 years’ imprisonment. Violations made by a person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that any firearm involved will be used to commit a felony, federal crime of terrorism, or drug trafficking crime are punishable by a fine and up to 25 years’ imprisonment.

Gun Trafficking Provision

“Gun trafficking entails the movement or diversion of firearms from legal to illegal channels of commerce in violation of the GCA. P.L. 117-159 amends the GCA with a new provision, 18 U.S.C. §933, to prohibit any person from shipping, transporting, causing to be shipped or transported, or otherwise disposing of any firearm to another person with the knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that the transferee’s use, carrying, or possession would constitute a felony.

“It would also prohibit the receipt of such firearm if the transferee knows or has reasonable cause to believe that receiving it would constitute a felony. Attempts and conspiracies to violate these provisions are proscribed as well. Violations are punishable by a fine and up to 15 years’ imprisonment. […]

GCA Interstate Transfer Prohibitions

“The GCA generally prohibits anyone who is not a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) from acquiring a firearm from an out-of-state source. [But] Interstate transfers among unlicensed persons may be facilitated through an FFL in the state where the transferee resides. […]

GCA Record-keeping and Straw Purchases

“Under the GCA (18 U.S.C. §926), Congress authorized a decentralized system of record-keeping allowing ATF to trace a firearm’s chain of commerce, from manufacturer or importer to dealer, and to the first retail purchaser of record. FFLs must maintain certain records, including ATF Forms 4473, on transfers to non-FFLs as well as a parallel acquisition/disposition log.

“As part of a firearms transaction, both the FFL and purchaser must truthfully fill out and sign the ATF Form 4473. The FFL must verify the purchaser’s name, date of birth, and other information by examining government-issued identification (e.g., driver’s license). The purchaser attests on Form 4473 that he or she is not a prohibited person and is the actual transferee/buyer. […]

“[However,] straw purchases are not easily detected because they only become apparent when the straw purchase is revealed by a subsequent transfer to a prohibited person.

Other GCA Gun Trafficking Prohibitions

“According to ATF, gun trafficking often entails an unlawful flow of firearms from jurisdictions with less restrictive firearms laws to jurisdictions with more restrictive firearms laws, both domestically and internationally.

“Such unlawful activities can include, but are not limited to, the following:

straw purchasers or straw purchasing rings in violation of the provisions described above;

persons engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(1)(A), punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment;

corrupt FFLs dealing off-the-books in an attempt to escape federal regulation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(b)(5), punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment; and

trafficking in stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(j), punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

“Under current law, offenders could potentially be charged with multiple offenses under both the preexisting GCA provisions such as those discussed above and 18 U.S.C. §§932 and 933.

“Since P.L. 117-159 went into effect on October 31, 2023, 250 defendants have been charged with gun trafficking, including 80 charged with violating the law’s straw purchase provision.

“In January 2024, the National Shooting Sports Foundation—an industry trade group for the firearms industry—noted that the ATF has yet to implement two parts of P.L. 117-159: ‘Firearm Handler Background Checks’ (FHCs) and instant point-of-sale background checks when an FFL buys from a private individual.

“The former would allow FFLs to use the NICS to background check FFL employees and has been in regulatory review since September 26, 2023. The latter would allow FFLs to instantly identify if a weapon is stolen at the point of sale by authorizing importers, manufacturers, and dealers of firearms to access records of stolen firearms in the National Crime Information Center; it has been in the interim final rule stage since May 17, 2023.”

#political news #politics #gun control #gun laws #gun violence

18 notes · View notes

lilithism1848 · 8 months

Text

Atrocities US committed against NATIVE AMERICANS

In 2016, the US army corp of engineers approved a Energy Transfer Partners’ proposal to build an oil pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, sparking the Dakota Access Pipeline Protests, evoking a brutal response from North Dakota police aided by the National Guard, private security firms, and other law enforcement agencies from surrounding states. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe believes that the pipeline would put the Missouri River, the water source for the reservation, at risk, pointing out two recent spills, a 2010 pipeline spill into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, which cost over billion to clean up with significant contamination remaining, and a 2015 Bakken crude oil spill into the Yellowstone River in Montana. Police repression has included dogs attacking protesters, spraying water cannons on protesters in sub-freezing temperatures, >700 arrests of Native Americans and ~200 injuries, a highly militarized police force using armored personnel carriers, concussion grenades, mace, Tasers, batons, rubber bullets, and tear gas. In November 2017, the keystone XL pipeline burst, spilling 210,000 gallons of oil in Amherst, South Dakota.

In 1975, FBI agents attacked AIM activists on the Pine Ridge Reservation, in the ‘Pine Ridge Shootout’. Two FBI agents, and an AIM activist were killed. In two separate trials, the U.S. prosecuted participants in the firefight for the deaths of the agents. AIM members Robert Robideau and Dino Butler were acquitted after asserting that they had acted in self–defense. Leonard Peltier was extradited from Canada and tried separately because of the delay. He was convicted on two counts of first–degree murder for the deaths of the FBI agents and sentenced to two consecutive terms of life in prison, after a trial which is still contentious. He remains in prison.

In 1973, 200 Oglala Lakota and AIM activists occupied the town of Wounded Knee, South Dakota, on the Pine Ridge Reservation, called the Wounded knee incident. They were protesting the reservation’s corrupt US-backed tribal chairman, Dick Wilson, who controlled a private militia, called Guardians of the Oglala Nation (GOONs), funded by the government. FBI, US marshals, and other law enforcement cordoned off the area and attacked the activists with armored vehicles, automatic rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, and gas shells, resulting in two killed and 13 wounded. Ray Robinson, a civil rights activist who joined the protesters, disappeared during the events and is believed to have been murdered. As food supplies became short, three planes dropped 1,200 pounds of food, but as people scrambled to gather it up, a government helicopter appeared overhead and fired down on them while groundfire came from all sides. After the siege ended in a truce, 120 occupiers were arrested. Wilson stayed in office and in 1974 was re-elected amid charges of intimidation, voter fraud, and other abuses. The rate of violence climbed on the reservation as conflict opened between political factions in the following three years; residents accused Wilson’s private militia of much of it.

In Nov. 1969, a group of 89 Native Americans occupied Alcatraz Island for 15 months, to gauge the US’s commitment to the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868), which stated that all abandoned federal land must be returned to native people. Eventually the government cut off all electrical power and all telephone service to the island. In June, a fire of disputed origin destroyed numerous buildings on the island. Left without power, fresh water, and in the face of diminishing public support and sympathy, the number of occupiers began to dwindle. On June 11, 1971, a large force of government officers removed the remaining 15 people from the island.

From its creation in 1968, The American Indian Movement (AIM) has been a target of repression from law enforcement agencies, and surveillance as one of the FBI’s COINTELPRO targets. This includes the wounded knee incident and the pine ridge shootout.

In 1942 the federal government took privately held Pine Ridge Indian Reservation land owned by tribal members in order to establish the Badlands Bombing Range of 341,725 acres, evicting 125 families. Among the families evicted was that of Pat Cuny, an Oglala Sioux. He fought in World War II in the Battle of the Bulge after surviving torpedoing of his transport in the English Channel. Dewey Beard, a Miniconjou Sioux survivor of the Wounded Knee Massacre, who supported himself by raising horses on his 908-acre allotment received in 1907 was also evicted. The small federal payments were insufficient to enable such persons to buy new properties. In 1955 the 97-year-old Beard testified of earlier mistreatment at Congressional hearings about this project. He said, for “fifty years I have been kicked around. Today there is a hard winter coming. …I might starve to death.”

In 1890, US soldiers killed 150-300 people (including 65 women and 24 children) at Wounded Knee (19-26 people, including two women and eleven children.) on the Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in the U.S. state of South Dakota. Twenty-five soldiers also died, and 39 were wounded (6 of the wounded later died). At least twenty soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor. The event was driven by local racism towards the practice of Ghost Dancing, which whites found distasteful, and the Native Americans arming up in response to repeated broken treaties, stolen land, and their bison-herds being hunted to near extinction by the whites.

In 1887, the Dawes Act, and Curtis Act, resulted in the loss of 90 million acres of native-alloted land, and the abolition of many native governments. During the ensuing decades, the Five Civilized Tribes lost 90 million acres of former communal lands, which were sold to non-Natives. In addition, many individuals, unfamiliar with land ownership, became the target of speculators and criminals, were stuck with allotments that were too small for profitable farming, and lost their household lands. Tribe members also suffered from the breakdown of the social structure of the tribes.

Starting in the 1870s, The US army, aided by settlers and private hunters, began a widespread policy of slaughtering bufallo and bison, in order to destroy many tribe’s primary food source, and to starve Native Americans into submission. By 1900, they succeeded; the bufallo population dropped from more than 30 million, to a few hundred. The country’s highest generals, politicians, and presidents including Ulysses S. Grant, saw the destruction of buffalo as solution to the country’s “Indian Problem.” By destroying the food supply of the plains natives, they could more easily move them onto reservations.

Starting in 1830-50, The Trail of Tears was a series of forced removals of Native American nations, including Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole, Cherokee people and the African freedmen and slaves who lived among them, from their ancestral homelands in the Southeastern United States to an area west of the Mississippi River that had been designated as Native Territory. The forced relocations were carried out by various government authorities following the passage of the Indian Removal Act in 1830. “Marshaled by guards, hustled by agents, harried by contractors,they were being herded on the way to an unknown and unwelcome destination like a flock of sick sheep.” They went on ox wagons, on horses, on foot, then to be ferried across the MississippiRiver. The army was supposed to organize their trek, but it turned over its job to private contractors who charged the government as much as possible, gave the Indians as little as possible. The Cherokee removal in 1838 (the last forced removal east of the Mississippi) was brought on by the discovery of gold near Dahlonega, Georgia in 1828, resulting in the Georgia Gold Rush. Approximately 2,000-6,000 of the 16,543 relocated Cherokee perished along the way.

In 1848, the California Genocide is a term used to describe the drastic decrease in Native American population in California. The population decreased from ~300,000 in 1769, to 16,000 in 1900.

The Second Seminole War, also known as the Florida War, was a conflict from 1835 to 1842 in Florida between various groups of Native Americans collectively known as Seminoles and the United States, part of a series of conflicts called the Seminole Wars. The Second Seminole War, often referred to as the Seminole War, is regarded as “the longest and most costly of the Indian conflicts of the United States.” ~3000 seminoles were killed, and 4000 were deported to Indian territory elsewhere.

In 1832, the Black Hawk War, was a brief 1832 conflict between the United States and Native Americans led by Black Hawk, a Sauk leader, in Illinois. The war gave impetus to the US policy of Indian removal, in which Native American tribes were pressured to sell their lands and move west of the Mississippi River and stay there. Over 500 Native Americans were killed in the conflict.

In 1832, the Chickasaw Indians were forced by the US to sell their country in 1832 and move to Indian Territory (Oklahoma) during the era of Indian Removal in the 1830s.

In 1813, the Creek War, was a war between the US, lead by the then notorious indian-hunter Andrew Jackson, and the Creek nation, residing primarily in Alabama. Over 1,500 creeks were killed. The war effectively ended with the Treaty of Fort Jackson, where General Andrew Jackson insisted that the Creek confederacy cede more than 21 million acres of land from southern Georgia and central Alabama. These lands were taken from allied Creek as well as Red Sticks. In 1814, Andrew Jackson became famous for his role in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, where his side killed more than 800 Creeks. Under Jackson, and the man he chose to succeed him, Martin Van Buren, 70,000 Indians east of the Mississippi were forced westward.

The Red Sticks, a faction of Muscogee Creek people in the American Southeast, led a resistance movement against European-American encroachment and assimilation; tensions culminated in the outbreak of the Creek War in 1813.

From 1785-96, the Northwest Indian War was a war between the US and a confederation of numerous Native American tribes, with support from the British, for control of the Northwest Territory. President George Washington directed the United States Army to enforce U.S. sovereignty over the territory. Over 1,000 Native Americans were killed in the bloody conflict.

In the 1800s, Indian removal was a policy of the United States government whereby Native Americans were forcibly removed from their ancestral homelands in the eastern United States to lands west of the Mississippi River, thereafter known as Indian Territory. That policy has been characterized by some scholars as part of a long-term genocide of Native Americans.

The Texan-Indian Wars were a series of 19th-century conflicts between settlers in Texas and the Southern Plains Indians. Its hard to approximate the number of deaths from the conflicts, but the Indian population in Texas decreased from 20,000 to 8,000 by 1875.

The Indian Wars is a name given to the collection of over 40 conflicts and wars between Native Americans and US settlers. The US census bureau reports that they have cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians. The actual number of killed and wounded Indians must be very much higher than the number given… Fifty percent additional would be a safe estimate.

From 1500-1900s, European and later US colonists and authorities displaced and committed genocide on the Native American Population. Ward Churchill characterizes the reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900 as a “vast genocide.. the most sustained on record.

29 notes · View notes

deadpresidents · 1 year

Note

You are an LBJ apologist

Here is a small selection of LBJ's legislative accomplishments during his five years and two months as President:

•Clean Air Act of 1963

•Food Stamp Act of 1964

•Civil Rights Act of 1964

•Creation of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1964)

•Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Creation of Head Start, Job Corps, and Community Action Programs)

•Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

•Higher Education Act of 1965 (Creation of Teacher Corps and Upward Bound)

•National Endowment for the Arts

ªNational Endowment for the Humanities

ªImmigration and Nationality Act of 1965

•Social Security Amendments of 1965 (Creation of Medicare and Medicaid)

•Older Americans Act of 1965

•Creation of the Model Cities Program (1965)

•Child Nutrition Act of 1965 (Creation of school breakfast programs)

•Voting Rights Act of 1965

•Creation of VISTA (now part of AmeriCorps) (1965)

•Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Creation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)

•Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966

•Child Safety Act of 1966

•Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 (Creation of PBS, NPR, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting)

•Wholesome Meat Act of 1967

•Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (Early disability access to public buildings law)

•Truth-In-Lending Act (1968)

•Gun Control Act of 1968

•Bilingual Education Act of 1968

•Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act, Indian Civil Rights Act, and creation of Federal hate crime laws)

•Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968

So, yeah, guilty as charged.

Here are more landmark laws from the LBJ years, courtesy of the fine folks over at the @lbjlibrary.

#History #Lyndon B. Johnson #LBJ #Great Society #President Johnson #Johnson Administration #Voting Rights Act #Civil Rights Act of 1964 #Civil Rights #Medicare #Medicaid #Social Security #Fair Housing Act #Life-changing Legislation #5 years and 59 days #LBJ Library

45 notes · View notes

leohtttbriar · 9 months

Text

The Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily revived the Biden administration’s regulation of “ghost guns” — kits that can be bought online and assembled into untraceable homemade firearms. [...] The regulation, issued in 2022 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, broadened the bureau’s interpretation of the definition of “firearm” in the Gun Control Act of 1968. [...] The new regulation did not ban the sale or possession of kits and components that can be assembled to make guns, she wrote, but it did require manufacturers and sellers to obtain licenses, mark their products with serial numbers and conduct background checks. [...] Judge Reed O’Connor, of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas, sided with the challengers and struck down the regulation in July, saying that “a weapon parts kit is not a firearm” and “that which may become or may be converted to a functional receiver is not itself a receiver.” [...] In the government’s emergency application, Ms. Prelogar asked the justices to consider an analogy. “Every speaker of English would recognize that a tax on sales of ‘bookshelves’ applies to Ikea when it sells boxes of parts and the tools and instructions for assembling them into bookshelves,” she wrote.

#also prelogar continues to be so so mwah as an advocate #scotus #us politics

34 notes · View notes

freetheshit-outofyou · 1 year

Text

When they say they aren't coming after all the guns I want you to remember this article. This laws bans all un-serialized firearms. Not just home kits, not firearms made on a work bench in a private residence, but every un-serialized firearm. Why is that important? Firearms manufactured or sold in the United States were not required to be serialized until enactment of the Gun Control Act of 1968. That means pre-1968 firearms by makers that did not serialize their products would be ban, not just kits made for home built firearms. I have firearms made from the late 1870's through to the mid-60's that have no serial numbers, they would become illegal if this passed and I lived there. In the 247 years the United States has existed firearms serial numbers have only been required for 55 of those years. So when they say we're not coming after your firearms, remember laws like these would make 247 years worth of old firearm illegal, not just the homebuilt modern rifle and pistols without a serial number.

Every firearm's law is an infringement meant to set up the next infringement.

#me #firearms #gun laws #every firearms law is an infringement

34 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 1 year

Photo

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

May 6, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAY 6, 2023

For years now, after one massacre or another, I have written some version of the same article, explaining that the nation’s current gun free-for-all is not traditional but, rather, is a symptom of the takeover of our nation by a radical extremist minority. The idea that massacres are “the price of freedom,” as right-wing personality Bill O’Reilly said in 2017 after the Mandalay Bay massacre in Las Vegas, in which a gunman killed 60 people and wounded 411 others, is new, and it is about politics, not our history. The Second Amendment to the Constitution, on which modern-day arguments for widespread gun ownership rest, is one simple sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” There’s not a lot to go on about what the Framers meant, although in their day, to “bear arms” meant to be part of an organized militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court wrote in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.” Today’s insistence that the Second Amendment gives individuals a broad right to own guns comes from two places. One is the establishment of the National Rifle Association in New York in 1871, in part to improve the marksmanship skills of American citizens who might be called on to fight in another war, and in part to promote in America the British sport of elite shooting, complete with hefty cash prizes in newly organized tournaments. Just a decade after the Civil War, veterans jumped at the chance to hone their former skills. Rifle clubs sprang up across the nation. By the 1920s, rifle shooting was a popular American sport. “Riflemen” competed in the Olympics, in colleges, and in local, state, and national tournaments organized by the NRA. Being a good marksman was a source of pride, mentioned in public biographies, like being a good golfer. In 1925, when the secretary of the NRA apparently took money from ammunition and arms manufacturers, the organization tossed him out and sued him. NRA officers insisted on the right of citizens to own rifles and handguns but worked hard to distinguish between law-abiding citizens who should have access to guns for hunting and target shooting and protection, and criminals and mentally ill people, who should not. In 1931, amid fears of bootlegger gangs, the NRA backed federal legislation to limit concealed weapons; prevent possession by criminals, the mentally ill and children; to require all dealers to be licensed; and to require background checks before delivery. It backed the 1934 National Firearms Act, and parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act, designed to stop what seemed to be America’s hurtle toward violence in that turbulent decade. But in the mid-1970s a faction in the NRA forced the organization away from sports and toward opposing “gun control.” It formed a political action committee (PAC) in 1975, and two years later it elected an organization president who abandoned sporting culture and focused instead on “gun rights.” This was the second thing that led us to where we are today: leaders of the NRA embraced the politics of Movement Conservatism, the political movement that rose to combat the business regulations and social welfare programs that both Democrats and Republicans embraced after World War II. Movement Conservatives embraced the myth of the American cowboy as a white man standing against the “socialism” of the federal government as it sought to level the economic playing field between Black Americans and their white neighbors. Leaders like Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater personified the American cowboy, with his cowboy hat and opposition to government regulation, while television Westerns showed good guys putting down bad guys without the interference of the government. In 1972 the Republican platform had called for gun control to restrict the sale of “cheap handguns,” but in 1975, as he geared up to challenge President Gerald R. Ford for the 1976 presidential nomination, Movement Conservative hero Ronald Reagan took a stand against gun control. In 1980, the Republican platform opposed the federal registration of firearms, and the NRA endorsed a presidential candidate—Reagan—for the first time.

When President Reagan took office, a new American era, dominated by Movement Conservatives, began. And the power of the NRA over American politics grew. In 1981 a gunman trying to kill Reagan shot and paralyzed his press secretary, James Brady, and wounded Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy and police officer Thomas Delahanty. After the shooting, then-representative Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced legislation that became known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, or the Brady Bill, to require background checks before gun purchases. Reagan, who was a member of the NRA, endorsed the bill, but the NRA spent millions of dollars to defeat it. After the Brady Bill passed in 1993, the NRA paid for lawsuits in nine states to strike it down. Until 1959, every single legal article on the Second Amendment concluded that it was not intended to guarantee individuals the right to own a gun. But in the 1970s, legal scholars funded by the NRA had begun to argue that the Second Amendment did exactly that. In 1997, when the Brady Bill cases came before the Supreme Court as Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court declared parts of the measure unconstitutional. Now a player in national politics, the NRA was awash in money from gun and ammunition manufacturers. By 2000 it was one of the three most powerful lobbies in Washington. It spent more than $40 million on the 2008 election. In that year, the landmark Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller struck down gun regulations and declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Increasingly, NRA money backed Republican candidates. In 2012 the NRA spent $9 million in the presidential election, and in 2014 it spent $13 million. Then, in 2016, it spent over $50 million on Republican candidates, including more than $30 million on Trump’s effort to win the White House. This money was vital to Trump, since many other Republican super PACs refused to back him. The NRA spent more money on Trump than any other outside group, including the leading Trump super PAC, which spent $20.3 million. The unfettered right to own and carry weapons has come to symbolize the Republican Party’s ideology of individual liberty. Lawmakers and activists have not been able to overcome Republican insistence on gun rights despite the mass shootings that have risen since their new emphasis on guns. Tonight, I am, once again, posting yet another version of this article.

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Heather Cox Richardson #Letters From An American #gun violence #right wing propaganda #NRA #history #Corrupt SCOTUS #money in politics #guns #Brady Bill #gun control

12 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 11 months

Text

By: Conor Friedersdorf

Published: May 31, 2023

The diversity, equity, and inclusion industry exploded in 2020 and 2021, but it is undergoing a reckoning of late, and not just in states controlled by Republicans, where officials are dismantling DEI bureaucracies in public institutions. Corporations are cutting back on DEI spending and personnel. News outlets such as The New York Times and New York magazine are publishing more articles that cover the industry with skepticism. And DEI practitioners themselves are raising concerns about how their competitors operate.

The scrutiny is overdue. This growing multibillion-dollar industry was embedded into so many powerful public and private institutions so quickly that due diligence was skipped and costly failures guaranteed.

Now and forever, employers should advertise jobs to applicants of all races and ethnicities, afford everyone an equal opportunity to be hired and promoted, manage workplaces free of discrimination, and foster company cultures where everyone is treated with dignity. America should conserve any gains it has made in recent years toward an equal-opportunity economy. Perhaps the best of the DEI industry spurred the country in that direction.

However, the worst of the DEI industry is expensive and runs from useless to counterproductive. And even people who highly value diversity and inclusion should feel queasy about the DEI gold rush that began in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. A poor Black man’s death became a pretext to sell hazily defined consulting services to corporations, as if billions in outlays, mostly among relatively privileged corporate workers, was an apt and equitable response. A radical course correction is warranted––but first, let’s reflect on how we got here.

On rare occasions, a depraved act captures the attention of a nation so completely that there is a widespread impulse to vow “never again” and to act in the hope of making good on that promise. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination prompted the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, triggered a global war against al-Qaeda, among many other things, including the tenuously connected invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Floyd’s murder was similarly galvanizing. Arresting, trying, and convicting the police officers involved, and implementing new police training, was the most immediate response. But Floyd’s story suggested some additional possibilities. With several criminal convictions in his past, Floyd tried to turn his life around, preaching nonviolence in a neighborhood plagued by gun crime, serving as a mentor to young people, and trying to stay employed. He also struggled with drug addiction, layoffs due to circumstances beyond his control, and money problems that presumably played a role in the counterfeit bill he was trying to pass on the day that he was killed. If a callous police officer was the primary cause of his death, secondary causes were as complex and varied as poverty in America.

So how strange––how obscene, in fact––that America’s professional class largely reacted to Floyd’s murder not by lavishing so much of the resources spent in his name on helping poor people, or the formerly (or currently) incarcerated, or people with addictions, or the descendants of slaves and sharecroppers, or children of single mothers, or graduates of underfunded high schools, but rather by hiring DEI consultants to gather employees together for trainings.

In what, exactly?

It is often hard to say. What has one been trained to do after hearing Robin DiAngelo, the best-selling author and social-justice educator, lecture on what she calls “white fragility,” or after pondering a slide deck with cartoons meant to illustrate the difference between equality and equity as critical theorists understand it?

[ Illustration by The Atlantic. Sources: Getty / Interaction Institute for Social Change ]

Or after absorbing the racial-equity consultant Tema Okun’s widely circulated claims that attributes including “sense of urgency” and beliefs including “individualism” are traits of “white supremacy culture”? (Okun made these claims in a 1999 article that even she regards as widely misused. She once told an interviewer about the article, “It was not researched. I didn’t sit down and deliberate. It just came through me.” She has launched a website that explains her views in far more detail and with more nuance.)

Consider a specific PR pitch from a DEI consultant in 2021, chosen for how typical it is. It leads by invoking Floyd’s death as the impetus to “take bolder actions.” It promises expertise in “best practices” to corporate leaders. Then it pivots to naming a specific training on offer, “Microaggressions in the Workplace,” which, along with other offerings, will help “create a culture where employees feel valued and are encouraged to be their true selves, celebrating each individual’s uniqueness.” The pitch claims that this training “enables talent acquisition, retention, and career advancement.” Is it not inappropriate to use an unemployed Black man’s murder by police to justify expenditures on reducing unintentional micro-slights at work so the bosses can retain more talent?

Conor Friedersdorf: Can Chloé Valdary sell skeptics on DEI?

Of course, setting aside unseemly invocations of Floyd’s name, an initiative needn’t be a coherent response to his death to be defensible or worthwhile. All companies should invest in being equal-opportunity employers, including affirmative steps to ensure, for example, that managers haven’t unwittingly introduced unjust pay disparities or culturally biased dress codes. Beyond that, if DEI consultants made life better for marginalized groups or people of color or any other identifiable cohort within a given corporation or organization, or boosted corporate profits so that their fees paid for themselves, the industry could be justified on different terms.

But most DEI consulting fails those tests.

Harvard Business Review published an article in 2012 called “Diversity Training Doesn’t Work,” which drew heavily on research published in 2007 by the sociologists Frank Dobbin, Alexandra Kalev, and Erin Kelly. “A study of 829 companies over 31 years showed that diversity training had ‘no positive effects in the average workplace,’” the article reported. “Millions of dollars a year were spent on the training resulting in, well, nothing.” In 2018, Dobbin and Kalev wrote that “hundreds of studies dating back to the 1930s suggest that antibias training does not reduce bias, alter behavior or change the workplace.”

Portending the 2020 explosion of DEI, they continued, “We have been speaking to employers about this research for more than a decade, with the message that diversity training is likely the most expensive, and least effective, diversity program around. But they persist, worried about the optics of getting rid of training, concerned about litigation, unwilling to take more difficult but consequential steps or simply in the thrall of glossy training materials and their purveyors.”

And no wonder that DEI consultants struggle to be effective: In a 2021 article in the Annual Review of Psychology, a team of scholars concluded that the underlying research on how to intervene to reduce prejudice is itself flawed and underwhelming while regularly oversold.

A paper published in the 2022 Annual Review of Psychology concluded, “In examining hundreds of articles on the topic, we discovered that the literature is amorphous and complex and does not allow us to reach decisive conclusions regarding best practices in diversity training.” The authors continued, “We suggest that the enthusiasm for, and monetary investment in, diversity training has outpaced the available evidence that such programs are effective in achieving their goals.”

Those outside the industry are hardly alone in levying harsh critiques. Many industry insiders are scathing as well. Last year in Harvard Business Review, Lily Zheng, a diversity, equity, and inclusion strategist, consultant, and speaker, posited that the DEI industrial complex has a “big, poorly kept secret”: “The actual efficacy” of most trainings and interventions is “lower than many practitioners make it out to be.” In Zheng’s telling, the industry’s problems flow in large part from “the extreme lack of standards, consistency, and accountability among DEI practitioners.”

Zheng was even more blunt in comments to New York in 2021:

When your clients are these companies that are desperate to do anything and don’t quite understand how this works, ineffective DEI work can be lucrative. And we’re seeing cynicism pop up as a result, that DEI is just a shitty way in which companies burn money.

And I’m like, Yeah, it can be.

What if instead of burning the money, we simply redirected it to the poor?

Yes, I understand that it isn’t as if that money would have gone to the neediest among us but for the DEI initiatives of the past few years. Still, I am being serious when I propose that alternative. (I should note that The Atlantic, like many media companies, holds DEI trainings for new hires. These trainings include discussions of Okun’s critique of “sense of urgency” and an updated version of the equity/equality cartoon.)

The DEI spending of 2020 and 2021 was a signal sent from executives to workers that the bosses are good people who value DEI, a signal executives sent because many workers valued it. Put another way, the outlays were symbolic. At best, they symbolized something like “We care and we’re willing to spend money to prove it.” But don’t results matter more than intention?

A more jaded appraisal is that many kinds of DEI spending symbolize not a real commitment to diversity or inclusion, let alone equity, but rather the instinctive talent that college-educated Americans have for directing resources to our class in ways that make us feel good.

In that telling, the DEI-consulting industry is social-justice progressivism’s analogue to trickle-down economics: Unrigorous trainings are held, mostly for college graduates with full-time jobs and health insurance, as if by changing us, the marginalized will somehow benefit. But in fact, the poor, or the marginalized, or people of color, or descendants of slaves, would benefit far more from a fraction of the DEI industry’s profits.

It would be too sweeping to say that no DEI consultant should ever get hired. Underneath that jargony umbrella is a subset of valuable professionals who have expertise in things like improving hiring procedures, boosting retention, resolving conflict, facilitating hard conversations after a lawsuit, processing a traumatic event, or assessing and fixing an actually discriminatory workplace. In a given circumstance, a company might need one or more of those skills. Ideally, larger organizations develop human-resources teams with all of those skills.

But the reflexive hiring of DEI consultants with dubious expertise and hazy methods is like setting money on fire in a nation where too many people are struggling just to get by. The professional class should feel good about having done something for social justice not after conducting or attending a DEI session, but after giving money to poor people. And to any CEO eager to show social-justice-minded employees that he or she cares, I urge this: Before hiring a DEI consultant, calculate the cost and let workers vote on whether the money should go to the DEI consultant or be given to the poor. Presented with that choice, I bet most workers would make the equitable decision.

#Conor Friedersdorf #diversity equity and inclusion #diversity training #diversity #diversity consultants #die bureaucracy #dei bureaucracy #equity #inclusion #religion is a mental illness

8 notes · View notes