Background

The United States of America has the highest rate of gun violence of any country, and that's because firearms owners write our gun laws, and the only way that's going to change is if everyone else speaks up. Firearms kill roughly 100 people a day, even on a relatively calm day. It's going to take several laws to solve this problem. You never know what would trigger someone to use a firearm — even people that have a good mental state sometimes have bad times, and who's to say they're not going to shoot someone?

Patrick R. McElhiney grew up in a household that has never allowed guns—not even toy versions of them. His parents' values have shaped his beliefs, and he's not going to change his positions on firearms safety just because some voters that want certain gun rights protected. Patrick would rather stick to his values and run an honest political campaign, then sell himself out on any issue that he doesn't agree with.

While Patrick respects the rights of others as protected by the Second Amendment, he believes that without the firearms in America, our society would be a much safer place. Patrick knows this, because he's been threatened down the barrel of a gun before. There's nothing like seeing your life flash before your eyes to change your mind about gun safety.

Of course the gun owner would argue that if you took away firearms, there would still be knives. And perhaps if you took the knives away, there would still be pencils. But let's not think like criminals to defend gun rights. Let's think about what we agree with, and how agreeing with these positions affect others.

The gun owner argues that before, when there were tighter firearm controls, there were more violent crimes—however, this is not statistically significant with regard to today's gun laws. Below you will find more information about some changes that Patrick believes is necessary to address the issue of firearm safety, in order to prevent most cases of gun violence.

 

There have been 150 mass shootings in the first 150 days of 2019.

 

Better Background Checks for Every Firearm Purchase

If criminals, domestic terrorists, drug abusers, the mentally disturbed, and perpetrators of domestic violence are allowed to purchase firearms, it's more likely that they're going to be involved in a violent shooting, than a responsible gun owner that has been vetted by the government. This is why we need comprehensive background checks—not to inconvenience the responsible firearm's owner, but to protect society from dangerous people having the capability to obtain weapons legally that would give them the capability to kill in seconds.

Under current federal law, firearm transfers by people other than licensed federal firearms dealers are exempted from background checks. The fact of the matter is that private sellers are engaged in the business of selling firearms, even if they sell only one weapon, and they should be required to conduct background checks just like the legitimate business owner. It's illegal for convicted criminals to purchase firearms under Federal law—the laws need to be strengthened to ensure that other shady characters in our country also aren't able to, because chances are these shady folks won't use firearms responsibly if those persons are breaking other laws as well.

Did you know that 40% of all firearm sales happen by private sellers, which are currently exempt from the background check process? This means that there are currently 6 million gun transfers every year that don't go through the background check process with “no questions asked”. You may wonder — how many of these firearm transfers are ending up in the hands of criminals and domestic terrorists? We honestly don't know, until one of them pulls the trigger.

Background checks work when they are used — since February 28, 1994, when the Brady law went into effect, background checks have stopped more than 3 million firearm sales to prohibited purchasers including convicted felons, domestic abusers, fugitives from justice, and other dangerous individuals. We need to close the private sellers, so-called “gun show” loophole, that allows firearm sales to anyone without requiring a background check.

The issue of gun control has not been a partisan issue for a long time. As of August 2019, 94% of Americans support the requirement of a background check in order for someone to purchase a firearm. As of August 2019, there were no requirements of background checks on unlicensed gun sales in 29 states. Background checks need to be fixed, because currently, prohibiting events such as histories of domestic violence that occurred in other states are not reported to the background check system. Many mass shootings have occurred because the data that would have prevented the individuals from obtaining weapons was not in the database.

It's going to take laws passed at a Federal level to fix the problem. There needs to be information sharing between local, regional, state, and Federal law enforcement agencies as part of the background check process. We need to close the so-called “boyfriend” loophole, which allows domestic abusers to purchase weapons. Expanding background checks is the #1 best way to help solve the gun violence problem — but it will take multiple laws to significantly help solve the problem. Many of the mass shooters are young men that don't have prior criminal records.

 

The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, passed by the House of Representatives, has the support of 9 out of 10 Americans. President Trump has also voiced support for stronger background checks.

 

Legislative Action Needed

Over 8,000 bills have been proposed by the 116th Congress. Of those, 110 bills contain the word “gun”, and only 5 of those have seen committee action. The most popular of these bills are the concealed carry bill, and the background check bill.

Some House Republicans have joined bipartisan legislation for background checks. Even the NRA has said it welcomes President Trump's call for stronger firearms laws. The question is whether Republican leadership in the Senate will allow legislation to come to the floor. Mitch McConnell originally said he wouldn't allow voting on the legislation, because the President threatened to veto it. The White House will have to explain why the President would veto legislation supporting stronger background checks, because he also came out in support of it on Twitter, and spoke of support for it at the White House in August 2019.

If Senator McConnell wants to keep his majority, he needs to push forward this legislation. The reason why many members of Congress don't support the legislation, is because they fear a Primary challenge. There are other organizations, other than the NRA, such as Everytown for Gun Safety that will come out in support of Republicans if they support legislation.

Mitch McConnell said the President reached out to him to engage in bipartisan legislation. The background checks bill passed by the House had 8 Republicans that supported it. Some Republicans have reacted in favor of the bill that didn't previously support background checks. Hopefully the statements will turn into votes. It's not just for the sake of firearms laws — the American People want to see Congress work.

 

Congress will reconvene in September 2019, though many Americans don't see any wiggle room for passing bipartisan legislation.


 

Banning Military Assault Rifles, High Capacity Magazines, and Other Components & Modifications

As of August 2019, there were 638,000 machine guns in the United States, which includes assault rifles. The term “assault weapon” refers to a semi-automatic firearm that was designed for military use for quick, efficient killing. Federal legislation should ban semi-automatic rifles that are compatible with a detachable magazine and at least two additional features, including a telescoping or folding stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher, for all non-military personnel of the U.S. Military. One example of this type of legislation was the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. (https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary) There is no rational reason for an American citizen to use a military assault rifle other than if s/he is training or fighting in a war zone, and thus there is no reason for Americans that are not serving in the U.S. Military to own or use or acquire or trade military assault rifles.

Bump stocks, high capacity magazines, and other components and modifications that can alter a weapon to become semi-automatic or fully-automatic must also be banned for non-military personnel, and any individual that has ever had a mental illness that would impair their judgement while holding possession of any firearm. They are not reasonably necessary for self-defense in non-combat settings, or for sport, or for hunting purposes. Shooters in massacres such as Parkland, Las Vegas, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, Aurora, and Sandy Hook have all used assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Our Police should not be put in extreme danger while doing their job, and it's a very scary world when civilians can own better guns than law enforcement. Lives are at stake every day, and the legislative stalemate in Congress is the moral equivalence of negligent homicide when mass shootings could have been prevented.

A ban on assault weapons was supported early on by former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan. In 1994, Congress enacted a federal assault weapons ban as part of a comprehensive bill known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.”  The Act named 19 guns (and their copies), as well as other semi-automatic firearms with two or more specified features listed in the legislation. The bill was signed into law by U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton in 1994, however it expired on September 13, 2004. Congress, under Republican control, chose not to renew it. When it expired, assault weapons and large capacity magazines were suddenly legalized, unless banned by state or local laws. 

There should be Federal firearms safety regulations that ban gun components and modifications, not just background checks preventing the purchase of firearms alone by any person that is mentally ill, or has a criminal history, or is not associated with the U.S. Military through a lifelong service to defending the freedoms of The United States of America. We need a law that bans firearm owners from purchasing silencers, because there's no legitimate reason for someone to own a component that modifies their gun to be almost completely silent when fired. This is exactly what the shooter in the Virginia Beach Municipal Center shooting took advantage of on May 31st, 2019. He legally owned the silencer, and brought it with him to the shooting, where victims had no warning, even in real-time, of how deadly their co-worker was about to be, because they couldn't even hear the shots being fired, at the time, which otherwise would have allowed them to run and seek shelter.

Assault weapons, paired with large capacity magazines, have long been the weapon of choice for mass shooters. The shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida killed 17 students and teachers using an assault weapon. This was one in a long string of horrific shootings committed with assault rifles. Below is a list of some senseless mass shootings that have occurred in America:

  • The Oregon District in Dayton, Ohio shooting: 9 killed, 37 injured
  • The El Paso, Texas Walmart shooting: 22 killed, 24 injured
  • The Virginia Beach Municipal Center shooting: 12 killed, 6 injured
  • The Tree of Life Synagogue shooting: 11 killed, 6 injured
  • The Sutherland Springs church shooting: 26 killed, 20 injured
  • The Las Vegas music festival shooting: 59 killed, 500+ injured
  • The Pulse Nightclub shooting: 49 killed, 53 injured
  • The San Bernardino Community Center shooting: 14 killed, 22 injured
  • The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting: 26 killed, 2 injured
  • The Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting: 12 killed, 58 injured 

At Columbine High School, they're talking about tearing down the school in order to build another one with taxpayer money, for the safety of the students, after countless people have traveled there in buses as if it's a tourist attraction. Earlier in 2019, a young woman who became obsessed with school shootings and Columbine caused the entire school district to go into lock down. She was able to obtain weapons, which she later used to commit suicide. None of these things would have occurred if there were strong gun laws in America.

The recent shooting at the bars in the Oregon District in Dayton, Ohio took place in just 24 seconds. Police responded immediately, but they couldn't save the people that had already been killed — including the shooter's own sister. The magazines for the firearm held 250 bullets, and these weapons are legal in the United States. Ohio has a universal background check bill that the House had passed by the time of the shooting, but the Senate hadn't taken it up yet.

People in Dayton, OH are asking President Trump to change his vision on gun control laws. They fear that another mass shooting could unfold in another city very soon, because they continue to happen due to inaction by our government. But people also aren't hopeful that legislators will be able to make any changes.

 

Gun violence kills 36,000 Americans a year, on average.

 

“Red Flag” Laws

Would if you knew someone that was about to commit a crime with a gun? Wouldn't you want to take their guns away? One promising strategy is the ERPO strategy — it is effective, it is tightly focused on people that pose a threat, and it’s temporary. ERPO laws are common legislative ground between gun owners, that don't want to lose their gun rights but want to keep the community safe, and gun control activists. ERPO’s were thought to be good for preventing suicides, but are being used to prevent mass shootings as well. EPRO’s are “Red Flag” laws, but specialists don’t like the term “Red Flag” because it inspires fear.

Sometimes also known as gun violence restraining orders, these laws give family members and law enforcement an avenue to prevent an individual in crisis from harming themselves or others by temporarily removing the individual's right to have firearms, and prohibiting the individual from purchasing other guns. These orders have saved countless lives in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, where the laws have been enacted by State legislature. Ohio may also soon add similar laws to its legal system.

Moms Demand Action is calling for Congress to pass legislation that would enact red flag laws effective in all states, and some Republicans in Congress have come out strongly in support of “Red Flag” laws. Even President Trump referenced support for the laws in August 2019. We need to get these types of laws passed in every state government in the U.S., or in the Federal government. Laws that are passed in the Federal government apply to every U.S. state, because of the Supremacy Clause. ERPO laws are meant to get individuals that are a threat to themselves or others the mental help they need (not criminal prosecution), and they are estimated to prevent one suicide for every 10 to 11 protection orders.

The way the laws work is a family member, law enforcement officer, or sometimes others like dating partners or house mates go before a judge with evidence of a history or recent threats or acts of violence, dangerous past behavior with guns, substance abuse, or recent firearms or ammunition acquisitions. The at-risk individual is allowed an opportunity to be heard and present other evidence before the judge in a civil hearing. If the judge finds that the evidence warrants temporarily removing guns from the individual, the judge issues an order known as an ERPO, which prevents the individual in crisis from purchasing additional guns, and allowing law enforcement to temporarily hold their guns for safekeeping. At a subsequent hearing, the order can be extended given additional evidence that the individual in crisis continues to be a threat to themselves or others.

 

If a person is accused of any crime, the police should go and take their guns away immediately. You have to error on the side of caution with any crimes that have been committed.

 

Minimum Age of 25 to Purchase Firearms

According to a report by Chelsea Parsons and Anne Johnson at AmericanProgress.org, 21% of individuals killed by firearms in 2010 were under the age of 25—totaling more than 6,500 deaths. On average, 33,000 Americans are killed with firearms each year, and the burden of this violence falls disproportionately on young people: 54% of people murdered with guns in 2010 were under the age of 30. Young people are also disproportionately the perpetrators of gun violence, as weak firearm laws offer easy access to guns in many parts of the country.

There should be a minimum age requirement to purchase firearms, and the current minimum age isn't high enough. Although the public seems to be centered on the age of 21, Patrick has pointed out that according to our nation's finest neurologists, our youth's judgment centers in their brains are not fully developed until they are at the age of 25, and this is the reason why Patrick believes the minimum age to purchase a firearm should be 25. It's a fact that most of the mass school shootings that have occurred in the past have occurred because minors under the age of 25 gained access to firearms.

 

Keeping Guns Out of the Reach of Children

While it's unclear why children are killed disproportionately by gun-inflicted injuries, compared to adults, it is important to keep firearms out of the reach of children. There are still countless stories around the country of children obtaining access to their parents' firearms, and harming themselves or others. This level of parent negligence is sad to read about in the headlines, and more needs to be done to control firearms in the home, including stronger legislation about the storage of firearms in residences with children.

 

Improvements to Law Enforcement

There should be structural changes in law enforcement to be able to deal with future threats better, such as having technology to detect social media posts from firearms owners that are making threats, automatically, and investigating every timely threat that is made, because it is through swift prevention that we can save lives from potential criminal acts in the future. Some of these improvements deal with organizational priorities, such as when to respond to threats or information, and others pertain to a lack of having full oversight of all uses of technology, such as social media, instant messaging, and the dark web.

Through the utilization of new tools from the National Security Agency (NSA), Law Enforcement should be empowered to protect the public from all potential criminal acts, and people that have made threats will be fully evaluated in a psychiatric hospital for at least 48 hours, and potentially lose the right to own firearms in the future — and not just be swept under the rug.

We also need better training for our law enforcement to deal with mass shootings. The Broward County Sheriff lost its accreditation due to the mishandling of two events, including the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School. Officers didn't respond fast enough, and people died.

 

Mental Health's Role in Gun Violence

The Republicans are focusing on mental health in the wake of what happened in El Paso, TX and Dayton, OH. President Trump is calling for changes to mental health laws to prevent future shootings. He said people should be involuntarily confined if they speak out about threats involving gun violence. President Trump said mass shooters are “mentally ill, mentally disturbed” people. But mental health cannot be used as an excuse to not act on gun control laws.

The problem of mental illness resonates with people, but the majority of mass shooters don't have a mental health illness. Only 5% of homicide perpetrators show signs of mental illness. Mental healthcare isn't a fix for the gun violence. People argue that someone that goes and shoots a bunch of people must have a mental illness, because they have problems, but it doesn't mean they have a mental health disorder recognized by a psychiatric doctor. Tens of millions of Americans have metal health conditions, yet they aren't violent.

If we cured mental illness, the problem of mass shootings would go down by 4%. Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are a good piece to the puzzle in solving gun violence problems. There are lots of people prohibited from obtaining guns. There are also lots of people that can get guns that don't have mental health problems, but may pose an extreme risk. According to legal experts, there's nothing you can do without that person having had committed a crime, or having been involuntarily committed before without the ERPO laws.

 

Hate Speech, Fear Mongering, and Domestic Terrorism

The mass shooting in El Paso, TX brought the issue of hate speech, fear mongering, and domestic terrorism to the forefront of American politics. People there find President Trump partly responsible for the shooting. People in Mexico were not surprised by the mass-shooting — they resent President Trump's rhetoric on Latinos. Mexicans shop in El Paso for shoes and clothes, because they are cheaper in the U.S. — the two sides of the border at El Paso have been described as one community in two countries.

No one is more responsible for spreading fear of migrants than President Trump. His campaign has used the term “invasion” in ads online, and has previously called the migrants criminals and rapists. One of the easiest way to win a debate in immigration, is to dehumanize the immigrants, which is exactly what Trump has been doing.

The community in El Paso, TX is trying to cope with the tragedy that left 22 dead, and 24 more wounded. Police say it was a hate crime, due to there being a manifesto published online by the 21 year-old shooter minutes before the massacre that the FBI is looking at. The shooter targeted Mexicans, and is being charged under domestic terrorism laws. The suspect in the El Paso, TX shooting also faces capital murder charges, and Federal authorities are looking to bring hate crime charges, which could sentence him to death.

Nine new gun control laws will go into effect in TX in 2019, making it the most permissive state to allow gun owners to carry guns in public. It has been the victim of 4 mass shootings in history.

There's also an investigation into the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting in California, to determine whether it was domestic terrorism. The shooter had researched possible targets prior to the shooting, including Federal buildings and politicians.

 

Mandatory Firearms Licensing Program

Firearms owners should be required to complete gun safety training before they are issued a firearms license, that would track what firearms they own, how they use them, and the gun owners must verify that they have a secured place away from children to store their firearms before they can purchase them. The firearms license would be used to verify concealed carry permits in public by law enforcement, and any person with a concealed firearm that doesn't produce their firearms license on request may be arrested and charged with a crime.

The firearms license would also be linked to any pre-purchase ballistics information on file about the firearms that the gun owner owns, and would be linked to their driver's license, so Police officers that are pulling over a driver for speeding or some other traffic violation would be notified on their computer in the police car that the driver is a gun owner. A Police officer's system would tell them if the driver has a concealed carry permit as well, and whether they have been involved in a gun-related crime before.

A Firearms License will be required for all gun owners. There should also be a Firearms User license that allows a person to use another person's or organization's firearms, such as on a shooting-range, and the same requirement of gun safety training certification will be required for that license as well. The Firearms User license will also be linked to the person's driver's license.

Firearm permits should be required to be renewed each year, so that authorities can determine whether they should still be allowed to have guns. If the gun is not renewed, it would have to be turned in or confiscated by law enforcement. If the owner no longer has the gun, law enforcement would recover the firearm if the firearm was sold illegally to someone else.

 

Mandatory Ballistics Tests Before Every Firearm Sold

One option to secure the criminal justice system from gun violence is to pass legislation that would require ballistics tests on every weapon before it is sold to the gun owner. This would allow law enforcement to immediately identify who owned the firearm from the ballistics of the slug from the bullet that was fired, because the ballistics information would be unique to that weapon, contained in a law enforcement database. Just like DNA databases, ballistics databases can be helpful to ensuring that gun owners securely store their firearms and do not use them in crimes. For cases that involve the barrel of the gun being drilled out after the ballistics test was performed, it would at least narrow down that any firearm that has been modified could have been the weapon that was fired, and there should also be legislation that makes it a felony to drill out a gun barrel, or modify a firearm from the condition that it was sold.

 

Right to Carry for Law Enforcement and National Guard, Only

We need to pass Federal laws that prohibit civilians from carrying firearms in public legally, including after natural disasters. In 2019, Texas passed a law that allows residents to carry their firearms after a flood or hurricane, and the reasoning was that looters could take the legitimate firearms' owner's guns. Ideally, what we need to do in this situation, is allow firearms owners to deposit their guns in a central location where they will be safe from theft, rather than allow them to carry them in public.

Allowing firearms owners to carry their guns after a natural disaster will lead to higher incidents of shootings, such as when a homeowner encounters a looter that perhaps isn't even looting their house, but the gun owner could try to claim that they were standing their ground to protect their neighbors' houses from looting, while in reality these types of policing activities should be left up to law enforcement and the national guard.

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2019 would allow people with concealed carry permit in one state to carry their firearms in other states. These laws have primarily been pushed with the narrative that a good guy with a gun is the only solution to a bad guy with a gun. However, like in the El Paso, TX mass shooting in August 2019, people who were armed at the Walmart were running from the scene, according to the Media.

More firearms on the streets won't solve the problem of gun violence — it will increase it! This is just common sense — and there are statistics to prove it. More deaths have occurred in recent years due to violent shootings because of stand your ground laws than any other type of shooting. Even if there is a good guy with a gun on the scene of a mass shooting, and they're really brave, chances are the weapon the mass shooter is using will mow down their efforts faster than they can get a single shot off.

There have been no cases of a good guy with a gun stopping a mass shooting in history. Gun owners still want more people with guns to 'prevent shootings'. The State of New York has already banned school teachers and administrators from carrying firearms. Other states and communities will likely follow suit.

 

Handgun Regulations

Another way to limit the incidents of shootings in general, would be to limit the right to own a handgun to law enforcement officers, only. Handguns are not used in hunting sport activities, and are not necessary for defense unless there are other handguns on the streets, because other types of firearms cannot be legally carried in public. If we remove handguns from the streets, that are at the center of the conceal carry permit, we can eliminate the need for people to have to defend themselves from other people that have handguns. The proliferation of concealed firearms in public has led to more shootings, because there are more guns out there. Even if we only considered misfires, and not the purposeful shooting of handguns, there are more incidents of handguns being fired than if those same guns were not out in the public and were instead locked up and not in use, or better yet, if they had not been manufactured in the first place.

 

Require Manufacturers to Create Smarter, More Secure Guns

Legislation that requires firearm manufactures to create and manufacture firearms that only work when in proximity to the specific gun owner's firearms license, through an RFID-type chip that is secured from the possibility of hacking would help to secure the weapons themselves. This would limit the use of a gun owner's firearms, if the weapons user doesn't have the firearms license. The weapon would only work in proximity to the firearms license, and while this wouldn't stop a criminal from stealing the firearms license along with the weapon, it would allow for additional security measures such as bio-metrics to work more effectively, with a government process of verifying ownership of the firearm at the time of use.

There is a gun technology made by BioFire Technologies, that requires a smart phone belonging to the original gun owner, required to use the weapon. Other technologies include an armory security lockup for guns, that require warrants or military warrants to be able to unlock the guns in law enforcement and in the military, and even specific warrant limitations on the use of each gun, and even limitations for the specific period of time of the warrant. There could be a technology to secure weapons based on a handgrip that scans fingerprints, and a technology to secure weapons in law enforcement and the military based on cases. It would be good if all guns were secured in armories, to ensure that the guns can only be checked out by specific agents or officers, based on case limitations security.

 

Require U.S. Military to Dismantle Guns to be used in Crimes

Legislation requiring the U.S. Military to dismantle, or break the trigger and reciol mechanisms in guns that would be used in crimes through the use of offensive use of military force through U.S. Space Forces, using space weapons, using directed radio frequency canon technology or directed laser technology, would ensure that guns will not be a capability that criminals can use against others. The use of Artificial Intelligence to automatically break guns that would be used in crimes, through the automated use of space weapons, would be a valid way to ensure that gun rights are maintained under the Second Amendment, yet that guns cannot be used for criminal activities. In this reality, guns would break automatically anytime someone would think to use a gun in a crime.

 

Limits to Firearms Purchase Frequency

There should be legislation that limits how many of these weapons a person can purchase in a specified amount of time. A frequency limit of 1 firearm for every 6 months or more would be adequate to control the problem of people going out on a hinge and buying a bunch of firearms to commit a mass shooting because of something that has happened to them, such as being fired from work. There is no logical reason for any firearm purchaser to need to buy so many firearms in such a short amount of time. There would be exceptions for licensed gun dealers that perform comprehensive background checks and follow all other gun laws established by Congress and lower jurisdictions.

Federal laws requiring waiting periods can significantly reduce incidents of shootings — such as 72-hour waiting periods. These waiting periods allow additional time for information to be gathered for background checks, and allows law enforcement to act if the individual is under surveillance. This means not just laws limiting the frequency of how many guns a person can purchase within a specified amount of time, but also laws specifying the frequency that they have to wait when they are allowed to purchase a firearm.

 

Improvements to Public Safety

While these improvements to public safety would not necessarily be required if we dealt with the threat of guns head-on, these solutions may help to improve the confidence of the public to attend public events and locations that would normally be classified as soft targets.

Malls and other public places where people gather should install metal detectors and staff them with security to screen all incoming and outgoing traffic. Parents shouldn't have to purchase bullet-proof backpacks for their children to feel that they will be safe, but it is another option that is available.

The U.S. military could be used to disable guns with space weapons, including radio frequency or laser in type, by breaking mechanisms such as recoil springs or trigger mechanisms, whenever there is a gun crime that would be committed. The Pentagon could develop artificial intelligence computer software to automatically target guns with space weapons, and dismantle them, whenever any gun is about to be used in any crime.

 

Gun Violence in Chicago, IL

In one of the most violent weekends of 2019, 52 people were shot in the first week of June in Chicago, IL. On 8/5/2019, Chicago shootings left 40 shot, including 3 fatally across the city. Repeat offenders, and firearms are the primary causes of the uptick of gun crimes in Chicago. The city is in need of a unified criminal justice system that keeps gun offenders off of the streets of Chicago, and improved firearm regulations that keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, including gang members.

 

Investigating the NRA

Patrick R. McElhiney supports investigations into the National Rifle Association (NRA), not only to determine if it has violated its tax exempt status, but also whether it has broken any other laws, such as Federal Election Commission laws regarding political contributions, marketing and advertising laws, and commerce laws. So far, an investigation into the NRA has found that 18 out of the 76 board members were engaged in side deals, benefiting financially from a vendor or because of lobbying work. Some benefits didn't amount to much, but some amounted to a lot.

Lawyers that look at charity groups are looking into the board's spending, and they said they'd never seen anything like this before. The NRA is in a family feud, and is under the microscope for lavish spending. The New York Attorney General is looking into whether the entity deserves its tax-exempt status, because the NRA isn't looking out for the best interests of its members. They aren't rightfully a charity, according to McElhiney. Agreements have been retroactively approved in recent months for lavish spending. They're constantly at war with anyone that critiques them. Some members of the board have been wearing suits worth $3000 to $4000 each, and flying on “private jets” to go to “meetings” at luxury resorts. Is the NRA a charity, or a criminal enterprise?

 

Reference Organizations