Guns: Arkansas Blog, Arkansas Times

The guns and Bass Pro Shops open line

Max Brantley — Tue, 21 May 2013 16:00:48 -0500

The line is open. Finishing up:

* UA PRESIDENT BOBBITT RECOMMENDS UA MAINTAIN NO-GUN POLICY: University of Arkansas System President Donald Bobbitt will recommend to the UA Board of Trustees Thursday that it vote to opt out of the new state law that allows college campuses to choose to permit staff to carry concealed weapons. The UA has 11 campuses. Several other Arkansas colleges have already made that decision, including UCA and Henderson. The ASU Board of Trustees also will vote Thursday on chancellors' recommendations to keep the four ASU campuses gun-free. Here's the resolution that Bobbitt will ask the UA Board to approve.

* THINGS ARE HUMMING IN OTTER CREEK: One of those periodic urban retail myths — Costco was looking at a location in Otter Creek — passed over my desk and that reminded me I'd been meaning to check in with Tommy Hodges of Otter Creek Land Co. on the Bass Pro Shops development at the I-30/430 interchange. No, Costco isn't coming. But construction on the Bass Pro Shops outlet is moving along and the store should open, complete with four-acre fishing lake, by October or November, Hodges said. First Security Bank will have a new branch on an outparcel about that time, too. A restaurant may also be among the first new developments. A year later, Hodges said he hopes to have open a high-end outlet mall, with complementing hotel and restaurants. He said a glitzy lineup of tenants has been assembled, but he's not ready to release it yet. The opening of the Bass Pro, with its expected big traffic, should firm up commitments from many businesses, including some retail operations with plans for freestanding businesses.

* VOTE BUYING SENTENCE: Sam Malone, a former West Memphis police officer, was sentenced to 7.2 months of house arrest and additional probation in federal court today for his role in an illegal scheme to elect Hudson Hallum, a Democrat, to a seat in the state House, the U.S. attorney's office said. He, Hallum, Hallum's father and Philip Carter, a West Memphis council member, have pleaded guilty in a scheme that included influencing votes with vodka and chicken dinners. The others haven't been sentenced. Carter will be in court tomorrow; Hallum on June 20.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

'Stand your ground' laws increase homicides

Max Brantley — Fri, 17 May 2013 11:05:00 -0500

Count me unsurprised that enhanced legal protection for opening fire on people results in more gun deaths.

But if you can't believe researchers from Texas A&M, who can you believe? From the Law Blog:

In a new study, an economics professor and a PhD student at Texas A&M University take a broader look at the laws’ effect. The authors, Professor Mark Hoekstra and Cheng Cheng, use state-level crime data from 2000 to 2009 to determine whether the laws deter crime.

The answer, they conclude, is no. In fact, the evidence suggests the laws have led to an increase in homicides.

From the study:

Results indicate that the prospect of facing additional self-defense does not deter crime. Specifically, we find no evidence of deterrence effects on burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault. Moreover, our estimates are sufficiently precise as to rule out meaningful deterrence effects.

In contrast, we find significant evidence that the laws increase homicides. Suggestive but inconclusive evidence indicates that castle doctrine laws increase the narrowly defined category of justifiable homicides by private citizens by 17 to 50 percent, which translates into as many as 50 additional justifiable homicides per year nationally due to castle doctrine. More significantly, we find the laws increase murder and manslaughter by a statistically significant 7 to 9 percent, which translates into an additional 500 to 700 homicides per year nationally across the states that adopted castle doctrine.

Thus, by lowering the expected costs associated with using lethal force, castle doctrine laws induce more of it. This increase in homicides could be due either to the increased use of lethal force in self-defense situations, or to the escalation of violence in otherwise non-lethal conflicts. We suspect that self-defense situations are unlikely to explain all of the increase, as we also find that murder alone is increased by a statistically significant 6 to 11 percent.

The gun lobby will shortly inform us 1) that the study is all wrong and 2) what's wrong with more "justifiable" homicides anyway? These have included people gunning down petty thieves who posed no physical threat to the shooter, but if you can't shoot someone for breaking into your car, what's a gun for?

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Guns and the governorship: Asa Hutchinson continues to front for NRA

Max Brantley — Fri, 17 May 2013 06:44:00 -0500

In for a penny ....

Asa Hutchinson, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, seems happy to be indelibly branded as the NRA's front man on guns as the calendar rolls toward the May gubernatorial primary. And why not, given the recent gunfest legislative session?

Says here that he'll debate Sarah Brady May 27 on gun control in a program in California moderated by Leon Panetta. Brady chairs the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Her husband, Ronald Reagan's press secretary, was shot in the 1981 Reagan assassination attempt

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Two-year-old dies from handgun shot to head

Max Brantley — Thu, 09 May 2013 13:48:00 -0500

From Texas, another accidental death (link corrected) of a child from a handgun in a house.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Has Arkansas deregulated guns or not?

Max Brantley — Wed, 08 May 2013 06:25:00 -0500

John Lyon of Stephens Media examines at some length today a simmering topic in the gun nut community that is of general interest.

Did a little ol' bill generally assumed to be a technical correction aimed at allowing people to carry handguns on a "journey" without fear of arrest actually deregulate the carrying of handguns entirely? That's the gun nut argument, though it's contested by many, even pro-gun lawyers of the Republican variety such as Rep. Matthew Shepherd of El Dorado. He says deregulation wasn't the intent of the minor corrective. But a court interprets intent only from the plain language of a law and this is a sloppily drafted piece of dreck from Rep. Denny Altes that got the same consideration most gun legislation got this session — it was whooped through. (Note, too, that the bill lifted the prohibition on toting guns into taverns and any other place alcohol is sold.)

It's going to take a court test to clear up, no doubt about that. Who'll be the showcase arrest? Maybe Rep. Nate Bell would volunteer.

Here's the thing. It seems to me if the nutters' argument is right, it's the end of regulation of handguns carried both openly and in concealment. For legal authority, who better than Rep. Bullet Bob Ballinger, a putative lawyer, who had hoped to declare Arkansas immune to federal law when it came to guns, a rare gun defeat in the Fetuses and Firearms and Federally Finance Obamacare Session.

“If it’s given its plain meaning, then it essentially says unless you’re carrying with intent to commit a crime, that you can lawfully carry a handgun,” said Ballinger, a lawyer.

A Facebook comment from someone else who identifies himself as a lawyer:

"I am an attorney and I, as well as many other attorneys, think the new law allows for 'open carry' meaning carrying a handgun openly on your belt anywhere not otherwise prohibited. I believe the new law makes conceal carry laws obsolete. After July 1, any non-prohibited person can carry a handgun, knife, or club on their person or in their vehicle as long as they do not have the intent to attempt to use the weapon unlawfully against a person. The law does not distinguish between open or concealed carry. The new law deletes the section prohibiting carrying a weapon into an establishment that serves alcohol."

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

'Powder, lead, walnut, brass and steel': Nate Bell's tribute to weapons

Max Brantley — Tue, 07 May 2013 16:24:00 -0500

Kind of a nicely written narrative from Rep. Nate Bell of Mena on what he says was a formative episode of his youth, when, he says, a 30-30 rifle gave him the backing he needed to scare a would-be intruder away from his Alabama home.

That early spring morning, I learned that having a firearm at the ready could give a terrified little boy the ability to successfully defend his mother and siblings from the evil intentions of a criminal. No one was harmed, no shots were fired, and what could have become a horrific crime scene instead remained the home of our unharmed family.

Physically, I was no match for the grown man attached to those large hands on the bathroom window sill. Powder, lead, walnut, brass and steel made an adult criminal flee from a 12 year old boy.

I know firsthand that firearms in the hands of responsible individuals prevent crimes and save lives. As a citizen and elected official, I am 100% committed and dedicated to protecting and preserving the right of EVERY American to defend himself, herself, or loved ones from those who intend to commit evil.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Churches choose on guns

Max Brantley — Tue, 07 May 2013 06:47:00 -0500

Now that the Arkansas legislature has opened the sanctuary doors to guns in churches — if the churches choose — decisions are being made.

John Lyon at Stephens Media updates the situation and the story includes a couple of points worth highlighting:

* NO GUNS, BUT SOME SWORDS: This from the Catholic bishop in Arkansas:

Catholic churches, however, have been instructed not to allow concealed handguns. After the law was enacted in February, the Diocese of Little Rock sent a directive to pastors stating, “Bishop (Anthony) Taylor has stated that all weapons, whether concealed or unconcealed, are prohibited on the premises of all Catholic churches in our diocese. The only exceptions are law enforcement officers in the exercise of their duties and ceremonial blunt swords used by the Knights of Columbus.”

* PICKING AND CHOOSING: Several pastors seemed to favor a policy that would allow some, but not all, to carry guns. For example, Rev. Schanon Caudle, pastor of North Park Baptist Church in Van Buren.

Caudle said he has not declared a policy for the church, but he would not object to allowing certain church members to carry concealed weapons in church, if they request permission and can give a good explanation for their request.

“I don’t think it ought to be a blanket invitation for everybody to carry one,” he said. “I think it would hurt your witness in the community, if you found out that was a church where everybody was carrying a weapon.”

Where are the 2nd Amendment purists now? A church may decide who may and who may not carry weapons? What part of "shall not be infringed" don't these liberals understand?

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

UCA, Hendrix opt out of new campus gun law

Max Brantley — Fri, 03 May 2013 11:51:00 -0500

The University of Central Arkansas Board of Trustees voted this morning to opt out of the new state law that allows concealed guns to be carried on campus. The law, by Republican Rep. Charlie Collins, passed with the provision that governing bodies could choose to continue no-gun policies.

The Conway Log Cabin Democrat reports.

UPDATE: A friend e-mails me to say that the Hendrix College Trustees took a similar vote today.

The University of Arkansas Board of Trustees is expected to take up the issue May 23, a spokesman said.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Asa Hutchinson on the NRA speakers platform today

Max Brantley — Fri, 03 May 2013 09:08:00 -0500

Good to be associated with the extremists of the NRA?

In Arkansas Republican circles, the answer is a big ja wohl!

Republican gubernatorial candidate Asa Hutchinson is front and center in a lineup of speakers today at the NRA "leadership forum" in Houston that only an assault rifle-packing extremist could give unconditional love.

The NRA convention is expected to draw 70,000 for a celebration of the gun lobby's recent defeat of modest gun legislation. There'll surely be plenty of sneers for the call from Gabby Gifford's husband for moderation in NRA leadership.

Didn't Asa proclaim his independence the other day in releasing the NRA-commissioned study calling for putting more guns in school to combat the ill effects of guns in school?

How nutty is this assembly going to be? Check this out.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Overestimating the gun lobby — and conservatism generally

Max Brantley — Thu, 02 May 2013 06:46:00 -0500

Here's another look — lengthy and full of multiple poll citations — on the premise that it would NOT have been politically dangerous for the Fearful Four (Democrats Begich, U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, Heitkamp, Baucus) to have allowed a vote on universal gun background checks.

Thomas Edsall makes a point I hit glancingly on the same subject this week. Politicians overestimate the size of the hard-right conservative bloc. This is certainly true in Arkansas, if you believe polling on a wide range of issues from abortion to drugs to guns. But it is an article of faith in Arkansas politics and I can't think of a local politician who won a race by a concerted run to the left (outside of Hillcrest or central Fayetteville, anyway).

Still, Edsall's numbers on the national mood on broad background checks is always worth repeating. And this based on recent academic research:

The Broockmany-Skovronz paper suggests that politicians left, right and center have been making decisions on the basis of mistaken premises about their voters. One hypothesis is that the roots of this misperception originated in the early 1980s, particularly with the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, of a Republican Senate majority, and of a working conservative majority in the House.

Those events — followed by the 1994 and 2010 Republican landslides — stunned Democrats from Republican-leaning states, making them apprehensive. Fearing a conservative backlash, they were willing to shift their votes to the right.

The electorate has and will continue to punish liberal excess, but Democrats are only starting to recognize how voters have come to confront the liabilities and costs of conservatism. Democrats do not have a free hand to dole out tax-financed benefits to the liberal interest group community, but the likelihood that they will be punished for supporting common sense measures to contain gun violence is far less than it was two or three decades ago.

In the long run, the best hope for gun control advocates is the changing demographic make-up of the membership of their prime adversary, the National Rifle Association. Not only is the N.R.A. disproportionately dependent on older white men, a declining constituency, but strong majorities of current members, from 74 to 85 percent according to the polls cited above, defy the organization’s leadership and support background checks.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Firearm safety report

Max Brantley — Wed, 01 May 2013 09:42:00 -0500

From Kentucky comes the story of a two-year-old killed accidentally by a rifle fired by her five-year-old brother. He had received the rifle as a gift LAST YEAR.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Mark Pryor: Stooge of the Night on Letterman show

Max Brantley — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:46:31 -0500

As several have noted, David Letterman made Mark Pryor his stooge of the night last night for his vote with the NRA to defeat legislation to expand gun purchase background checks to gun shows.

Hey, Alan, what time is it?

ALAN: “It’s time for ‘Stooge of the Night!’ Tonight’s stooge of the night is Democratic Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas.”
We stay on a photo of Senator Mark Pryor.

DAVE: “Senator Mark Pryor voted ‘NO’ on gun reform legislation even though as a state legislator in Arkansas he authored four gun control bills that included background checks.

‘Hi, please call me ‘Mark.’ What can I do to put you in a LeSabre?’

It’s Mark Pryor, and he is our Stooge of the Night.

So what do you think? The conventional wisdom in the Arkansas legislature and among the gun nut class is that you may not support a single measure, no matter how innocuous, that might require even a bit of paperwork from a gun lover. So wouldn't it be solid gold for Mark Pryor to vote down the line with the NRA? Or what if the polls are right? That a solid majority favor universal background checks? That Mark Pryor's position is a discentive for voters? (Forgetting, of course, that the only other likely viable candidate is even nuttier on guns.) That being labeled a "stooge" on a leading national TV show is not a good thing? Tom Cotton would proudly claim the label, presumably.

And speaking of guns, this was a bangup segment on the subject on the Daily Show, about how conservative politicians in wild and woolly Australia passed tough gun control legislation following a massacre and lived politically to talk about it.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Australia & Gun Control's Aftermath

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Indecision Political Humor

The Daily Show on Facebook

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

ICYMI: Challenge planned on Obamacare laws; surprise, open carry may be legal in Arkansas

Max Brantley — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:41:00 -0500

Things you might have missed if you don't carefully peruse the open lines:

* ARKANSAS OBAMACARE UNDER ATTACK: Durango noted last night that the ink was barely dry on the state legislation enabling Obamacare's Medicaid expansion in Arkansas when news developed of a petition drive to refer the legislation to voters. Glenn Gallas, a familiar anti-tax crusader from the tea bagging coterie in Garland County, has filed to create a ballot question committee, Arkansans Against Big Government, to attempt to overturn the law. If his group gets the signatures, it will be continued employment for the enormous big business combine that spelled success for this legislation. More here. The attorney general must approve a ballot question first, then some 46,000 signatures will be needed.

* AND YOU SAY YOU THOUGHT THE LEGISLATURE DEFEATED OPEN CARRY: Thanks to Theodosius for pointing me to Act 746, by Rep. Denny Altes (a tipoff to craziness for sure) and others such as Bullet Bob Ballinger. Styled as a "technical correction" to laws governing handgun possession, it might have done a good bit more. Or so the gun lobby apparently believes. It gets into the long-running dispute about whether it is legal to carry a weapon on a "journey." The new law now says, carrying a weapon (concealed or unconcealed) is legal if

The person is on a journey beyond the county in which the person lives, unless the person is eighteen (18) years of age or less;.

And what is a journey?

"Journey" means travel beyond the county in which a person lives

So, does this mean a Bryant resident can holster up for her journey to Little Rock to work as a clerk in, say, the motor vehicle license office on Main Street in Little Rock. And continue to holster it all day, unless her place of work otherwise prohibits guns?

Or maybe a carload of Cabotians can strap on shooting irons when they motor down to Little Rock to stroll along President Clinton Avenue and take in the scenery in the River Market, again being careful to observe which premises do and do not allow weapons inside.

There is no emergency clause, so at least we won't have any legal challenges of this issue at this year's Riverfest. The law won't take effect until mid-August. A whole lot more is to come on this topic, I'd guess, including inevitable court disputes. You may recall that the gun lovers community got all bent out of shape when House Speaker Davy Carter said the open carry bill was a bill too far in a session that otherwise elevated guns above all except the zygote. This bill also struck the part of the law that made it a misdemeanor to carry a weapon into a place that sells alcoholic beverages.

It's messy of course. Suppose it is legal for a Cabotian to pack heat openly in Little Rock. Once back in the confines of the home county, it would not be. The folks over at Arkansas Carry are beside themselves with joy, you can see from the link and the photo above they've posted on their webpage.

UPDATE: A lawyer throws this constitutional question into the mix:

It would be unconstitutional for e.g., non-PuCo residents to be able to open carry and PuCo's not because the non-PuCo's are on a "journey."

Therefore, does it make "open carry" lawful as to everybody?

I think that is essentially the open carry crowd's argument.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Report: Bloomberg looks to make 'example' of Mark Pryor

Max Brantley — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:13:00 -0500

I talked with former Arkansas newsman Ron Fournier, now at the National Journal, about this story yesterday.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the well-funded group co-founded by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is seriously considering a months-long television, radio and direct-mail campaign against Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, one of four Democrats who opposed expanding a background check for guns.

The goal: Make an example of him.

Senior members of Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns met at length Sunday to debate potential responses to the failure of President Obama’s gun regulation package, including a watered-down background check provision that fell five votes short.

...The broader goal of the Bloomberg group is to provide a political counterweight to the National Rifle Association which has had virtually unmitigated influence over Congress since 1994, when Democrats lost control of the House and blamed then-President Clinton’s assault-weapons ban.

The Bloomberg group is mulling a variety of messages and methods for Arkansas. One approach would be to target reliable Democratic voters, including African Americans, with advertising that calls out Pryor for “opposing the president’s agenda,” the official said. Another would be to expand the campaign to suburban women and other moderates. The campaign might not be limited to the issue of guns.

“Money would not be an object,” the official said, adding that a decision on whether to target Pryor would come soon and that action against other Democrats is still possible.

I stick with what I said to Fournier yesterday. A general election effort against Pryor only yields the worst possible outcome for progressive political forces, election of an even worse Republican. It is hard, too, to imagine success for a campaign supporting a liberal Democratic alternative to Pryor in the primary, presuming such an alternative presented itself. None is evident at the moment. And should such a candidate surface, he or she would be unlikely to have the organizational skills, personal money and huge labor support that Bill Halter had in his race for U.S. Senate against Blanche Lincoln. And Lincoln still won. But the damage done was no help in her losing November general election campaign.

A Bloomberg campaign against Pryor would just be a grievous wound in their own foot, seems to me.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

'The spineless gun vote': Why?

Max Brantley — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:08:35 -0500

Joe Nocera writes this morning about the vote to block legislation to expand gun purchase background checks and his pursuit of an answer to why from the four Democrats, including Sen. Mark Pryor, who stood in the way of a vote. Then he answers his own question.

Of course, we all know the reason: The four Democrats — along with many Republicans — quake in fear of the National Rifle Association. In 1994, Baucus voted in favor of the assault rifle ban — and then nearly lost his re-election bid. He never again stood up to the N.R.A. Yes, his phones were undoubtedly jammed this week. Still, it seemed to me that his unanswered phone was a potent symbol. I could almost picture him cowering in his office, waiting for us to stop asking why he sold the country down the river.

I loathe single-issue politics, but maybe this is what it has come to. Maybe it is going to take senators like Max Baucus losing their jobs because they wouldn’t stand up to the N.R.A. Maybe it is going to require the majority of Americans who support sensible gun laws to turn themselves into an avenging political force. I wish it weren’t so, but nothing else seems to move them — not even the sight of 20 slaughtered children in Connecticut.

Nocera, a smart guy, is a little out of touch with Arkansas, of course, and most likely Montana, North Dakota and Alaska, where other Democrats joined Pryor in going belly up for the NRA.

It is true that this vote isn't helpful to Mark Pryor's re-election. A small number — and I heard from yet another good Democratic voter last night that this was her intention — will vote Green in November 2014 rather than vote for Mark Pryor. That small number could be critical in a close election. Many more likely Democratic voters will be decidedly unenthusiastic about whether Mark Pryor lives or dies politically in November 2014. They won't give him money. They won't make phone calls. They won't write postcards. They just might not vote at all. Think enthusiasm doesn't matter? Ask Blanche Lincoln.

When I say Nocera is out of touch, I mean about the implication that the result of sending a message to Mark Pryor could have a positive impact in time. In Arkansas, it will mean electing someone who is even worse on guns and just about everything else, most likely the Club for Growth's emissary to Arkansas, Tom Cotton. And if Nocera thinks he'd just be a placeholder until a Democrat with more courage could stand for election, he doesn't know Arkansas very well.

Pryor's decision was wrong as a matter of policy, wrong as a matter of courage and, worst of all for him, wrong as a matter of politics. He'll gain not a single vote from gun enthusiasts for pandering to the NRA. The gun nuts don't trust him and won't trust him. The NRA won't support him. But he will lose votes. Lots of them. And the power of the bullies will increase

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

UPDATE: Nate Bell shoots from lip on Boston violence; Speaker Carter apologizes for him; Bell apologizes for 'timing'

Max Brantley — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:14:44 -0500

UPDATE:

A Twitter by Nate Bell set the web on fire this morning. His post, responses and more follow below. But to get quickly to the latest news. He's issued a non-apology apology by Twitter and Facebook:

I would like to apologize to the people of Boston & Massachusetts for the poor timing of my tweet earlier this morning. As a staunch and unwavering supporter of the individual right to self defense, I expressed my point of view without thinking of its effect on those still in time of crisis. In hindsight, given the ongoing tragedy that is still unfolding, I regret the poor choice of timing. Please know that my thoughts and prayers were with the people of Boston overnight and will continue as they recover from this tragedy.

Apology would be accepted if he'd made one. His absymal judgment — and this wasn't the first episode — lives on regardless of apology.

Bell has been elusive for reporters seeking him today. You wonder, given his fears and often expressed needs for the ability to have weapons at the ready in public, if he's surrounded himself with weapons today on account of the backlash. Words are pretty powerful, aren't they, Rep. Bell? The Internet might even be more powerful than your semi-automatic.

Following is what was posted earlier today.

(For readers new to this site: Nate Bell is a Republican state representative from Mena. For those unfamiliar with the unfolding story to which he referred, it's the Boston bombing aftermath in which one armed police officer was killed, another armed officer was wounded and other armed police failed to stop a speeding SUV in the hunt for two suspects.)

This just in: A response from Boston is shown below. It's going viral. Comments piling up at Boston writer Charles Pierce's blog. Also, Think Progress chimes in on his remark about cowering liberals in Boston.

UPDATE: House Speaker Davy Carter, a fellow Republican, issued a statement today apologizing for Nate Bell.

“On behalf of the Arkansas House of Representatives and the state of Arkansas, I want to extend my deepest apologies to the people of the City of Boston and the state of Massachusetts for the inappropriate and insensitive comment made this morning by an Arkansas House member. I can assure the people of Boston and the people of Massachusetts that Arkansans have them in their thoughts and prayers during this tragic time.”

David Goins of grabbed a video interview with Bell, not a simple and true apology. It's still, first, an apology for his timing. Also:

* DISSED BY OWN: House Republican Leader Bruce Westerman issued a statement distancing the House Republican Caucus from Bells' remarks.

* DISSED BY DEMS: Somewhat belatedly, House Democratic Leader Greg Leding also took a crack at the bumptious Bell (and after him, Bill Halter):

Little Rock — Democratic House Leader Greg Leding of Fayetteville issued the following statement regarding a tasteless tweet from Republican state representative Nate Bell of Mena:

“Rep. Bell's comments regarding the unfolding terror in Boston are tasteless and uncaring. A proud and patriotic city has endured heartbreak since Monday's lethal bombings at the Boston Marathon, and brave men and women are at this very moment hunting down a dangerous suspect they believe to be responsible for those attacks as well as last night's murder of Massachusetts Institute of Technology police Officer Sean Collier and the shooting of Richard H. Donohue, Jr., a member of the city's transit system police force.

“The people of Boston are not cowards. They are patriots. No one, including Rep. Bell, should ever infer that the American people are anything other than courageous, and the only words we should be offering to the people of Boston are those of support and of prayer.

“I can't speak for them, but I would imagine every other member of the Arkansas House of Representatives, the Arkansas Senate, and Arkansans everywhere find Rep. Bell's comments to be as reprehensible as I do. Boston is a city of patriots, and all Arkansans should stand with them today.”

From Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Halter:

From Bill Halter:

"Our thoughts and prayers are with our fellow Americans in Boston. A terrorist remains on the loose and innocent people are in harm's way. Such inappropriate comments at this time are insensitive, uncaring and certainly do not reflect the values of Arkansans."

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Guns and more guns: Pryor says no to background checks

Max Brantley — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:59:00 -0500

The U.S. Senate today begins a series of votes on gun safety legislation, including a bipartisan but controversial effort to expand gun purchase background checks to gun shows.

Political opponents will be watching U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor closely. He's an important vote on filibusters, which will decide the outcome of the votes, most likely. Doubtful with an election next year that he'll cast a vote not approved by the NRA. And doubtful that he'll get credit from the gun zealots for siding with them.

For the record, the Progressive Change Committee has scheduled a news conference today to urge Pryor to support gun reform. It will cite polling that shows a majority of Arkansans — and a majority of gun owners — favor the legislation being considered today. That's a generally silent majority, however, compared with the shrill gun lobby, which no longer will accept any legislation pertaining to guns, period. The news conference today included Arkansas gun owners calling on Pryor to vote for background checks.

UPDATE: Here's a poll that shows Arkansans, like the rest of the country, favor expanded background checks. The beauty of this insanity is that the gun nuts simply say the polls are wrong. They know it. Just like they know, against all evidence to the contrary from A. Scalia and Co., that 2nd Amendment allows no regulation of guns.

UPDATE II: I tuned into the live broadcast long enough to hear Mark Pryor's vote against the measure. He mealymouths about it here.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

UPDATE: Medicaid, guns, bicycles on the Broadway Bridge

Max Brantley — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 06:24:54 -0500

A light input overnight. A few things stand out.

* IT'S ALL ABOUT MEDICAID: Will today be a climactic day on Arkansas's decision on expanding Medicaid under President Obama's health care initiative? Will the House vote to appropriate the money, with the required 75 votes? Don't know yet. But note that the 27 Senate votes also remain an open question, particularly if tall-talking tea baggers such as Jason Rapert and Missy Irvin scuttle back into the corner of their patrons and soulmates on the Koch-financed reservation. One unconfirmed report has national Republican leaders making calls to fence-sitting Republicans to oppose the Arkansas plan, devised by Republicans to make Obamacare more palatable.

UPDATE: Now have a second report that House Speaker John Boehner is meddling in Arkansas politics, encouraging Republican legislators to vote against Medicaid expansion.

UPDATE II: Need a good uurp this morning? Read Roby Brock on Rep. Rick Crawford's appeal to Arkansas legislators to defeat Medicaid expansion and then, for a real urrp, catch some U.S. Rep. Tiny Tim Griffin posturing in Congress this morning with HHS Secretary Sebelius. She's not getting into the Arkansas debate.

* MORE GUNS IN SCHOOL: The move to put more guns in schools in the person of armed security officers seems likely to only contribute to this trend reported by the New York Times. When you put more guards in schools, you wind up with more kids arrested and put into the criminal justice system for offenses, routine fistfights, that once were better handled in the principal's office.

* FIE ON THE NEW BROADWAY BRIDGE: The Democrat-Gazette reported this morning on a letter by Jim McKenzie, director of Metroplan, excoriating the planned design of the replacement Broadway Bridge. Better late than never. He's right. It will be a plug ugly monstrosity, with an awful paint job and fake bricks, supposedly to mimic Dickey Stephens Park, that will soon look like homemade s***.

UPDATE: Here's a full copy of his letter. Also, here's a fuller document on the current state of the bridge design.

The eternally ugly edifice will be but nothing to the poor traffic design, which will sacrifice safe and useful pedestrian/bike access to the mission of moving motorized traffic as fast as possible between Dogtown and South Dogtown. Walkers and bikers will take their lives in their hands, particularly, trying to cross the high-speed funnel down to LaHarpe Boulevard, a nightmarish ramp now.

The Highway and "Transportation" Department honors non-motorized traffic only to the barest extent required by federal law. It is going to build this new bridge just because it can and because some free federal money's available, though not enough to do it right. The state never had an interest in waiting to get enough money to do this bridge right — or better yet, build a new crossing on a new site and make the existing Broadway Bridge a hanging garden of public enjoyment between a remodeled Robinson convention center and the north shore's lovely riverfront. It was always this approach for the highway builders: We're going to build a monstrosity NOW, so you better get out of our damn way.

The two-year nightmare of downtown disruption of construction will seem blissful by comparison to the 100-year legacy of poor planning that the Highway Department is soon to dump on the river.

The Highway Department spokesman seemed pissed that the director of a planning agency had used his letterhead to urge a well-planned bridge. Where does he get off doing such a thing?

* ANOTHER LAWSUIT ON EXXON PIPELINE OIL SPILL: Here's a copy of the second federal lawsuit filed by a property owner who claims damages from the busted pipeline and tar sand crude deluge at Mayflower.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Mark Pryor, the NRA's friend, opposes debate on gun bill

Max Brantley — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:48:11 -0500

The Senate voted 68-31 to send gun legislation to the floor for debate. The majority included many Republicans who oppose the bill, but believe the issue should be debated. U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor was one of two Democrats who opposed the motion.

If I read this correctly, the NRA didn't set a litmus test on this particularly procedural vote. But Pryor voted against it anyway. The real tests are on filibuster of a compromise proposal to broaden gun background check purchases to gun shows and Internet sales, something widely supported among the public at large, but not by the NRA.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

U.S. Senate strikes deal on gun regulation

Max Brantley — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:56:00 -0500

The New York Times reports that a deal has been struck in the Senate to produce enough votes to avoid a filibuster and approve expansion of gun background checks to gun shows and on-line sales, with some record retention that law agencies want.

Can the House pass this? Not with any votes from the Arkansas delegation, you'd have to guess.

The NRA has already weighed in:

Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg's "universal" background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Gun battles (political) rage on

Max Brantley — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:16:28 -0500

The New York Times examines why some states — Colorado and Connecticut — have been successful in enacting gun safety laws while Congress has been stymied.

Living in Arkansas, I thought the headline out of touch, or at least a bit sweeping:

As Gun Control Advances in States, It Meets an Unforgiving Math in Congress

What advances? What you have in this story, actually, are defeats for the gun lobby in two states where mass killings occurred. The defeats occurred, even in those hot houses, only by tight margins and against an outpouring of massive resistance from the gun lobby, resistance that may yet produce future election backlash.

I also say this as a resident of the gun echo chamber of Arkansas: The gun lobby has won. Advocates of commonsensical and constitutional regulation have lost — to money, to passion and, in many cases, to fear. I don't happen to think we are any safer for the victory of the gun. The steady rate of people wounded annually by guns (including accidentally) is testament to that. But, outliers like votes in Colorado and Connecticut aside, the outlook politically isn't promising for regulation. I'm just about to the relax-and-enjoy-it phase.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

School shootings: A look back at Arkansas

Max Brantley — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 07:32:00 -0500

The current debate about school security and guns prompted by the Sandy Hook slaughter has occasioned a 15-year anniversary article about the shootings at the Westside school in Arkansas. It's by David Peisner for BuzzFeed.

Today, the shooting is a historical footnote, and Jonesboro is just another name on a depressingly long list of places that seem cursed to be remembered — in some cases, barely — for the schoolyard carnage they played host to: Pearl, Paducah, Springfield, Littleton, Red Lake, Nickel Mines, Newtown. The details of each of these towns' tragedies are uniquely horrible, but with a decade and a half of distance, the story of what happened to this place and to these people — the students and faculty who lived through it, the families of those who didn't, the first responders, the shooters themselves — feels at times like an inspiration, and at others, like a grim cautionary tale.

But the residents of this community never signed up to be an inspiration or a cautionary tale. For almost everyone I spoke to over the course of a week in and around Jonesboro, it's the defining event of their lives, yet not something they talk about with strangers, or even with one another. But once they were convinced to open up, most seemed eager or relieved to share, accepting that their stories were not theirs alone but part of a larger story that goes far beyond northeast Arkansas, and that is still being written.

The extensive article is crammed with personal tales of difficult family passages, mental health problems, gun politics and more, including interviews with wounded and accounts of relationships with family of the shooters, including Monte Johnson, brother of shooter Mitchell Johnson, who went to the Westside school a year later.

Monte, who still lives in Jonesboro, declined to be interviewed, but did write in a Facebook message to me, "The biggest factor I want to get out to the public is not to push away, blame or point fingers at the family of the killers but to embrace them, accept them in society. I graduated from Westside High School. It was one difficult task, I assure you. There was a lot of aggression, anger [and] hatred for me and my family."

One of the shooters, Johnson, is in prison. Andrew Golden has mostly stayed off-radar, except when he applied for a concealed weapon permit under a different name. He's believed to still live in Northeast Arkansas.

The whys remain out of reach.

There's an account, too, of a play about the event staged in February in Memphis as a benefit for Sandy Hook, written by one of the children at the school the day of the shooting

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Gun control: A tale of two states

Max Brantley — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:40:24 -0500

Who wants to be like Connecticut? High per capita income. High education achievement. And now, tough gun control laws.

The legislation includes a ban on the sale of magazines carrying 10 or more bullets and requires registration of existing ones. It also includes an expansion of the existing assault weapons ban, requires background checks on all firearms sales and sets up a registry of weapons offenders. Among the mental health measures are changes intended to require insurers to make faster decisions on coverage for mental health and substance abuse issues, a program to help educators recognize signs of mental illness and a doubling in the number of specialized treatment teams providing intensive support to people with serious mental illness.

We need not fear such here, of course. And speaking of guns: Can you imagine an organization more unhinged about guns than the NRA? Imagine it. The Gun Owners of America says its missionis to stay on top of the N.R.A. “when we don’t think they’ve gone far enough.” Zounds.

Care to see the number of bills introduced this session — against no demonstrated threat — to promote more and more unregulated firearms in Arkansas? Go to legislative search page and plug "firearm" into the word search field. Quite a list. Amazingly, a few didn't pass. Not to worry, the Gun Owners of America are on the case.

Not to mention the likes of U.S. Rep. Tom Cotton, who's joined the NRA paranoia-fueled opposition to a UN treaty to regulate arms sales to tyrant regimes. The dubious and groundless argument is that it would somehow impede domestic gun rights. If you want the NRA line, you can read Cotton's news release.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Arkansas: No. 9 in gun violence

Max Brantley — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:53:00 -0500

A new study says (Talking Points Memo) states with the loosest gun laws have a higher level of gun-related violence.

The report, from the liberal Center for American Progress, analyzed 10 indicators of gun violence: overall firearm deaths in 2010; overall firearm deaths from 2001 through 2010; firearm homicides in 2010; firearm suicides in 2010; firearm homicides among women from 2001 through 2010; firearm deaths among children ages 0 to 17, from 2001 through 2010; law-enforcement agents feloniously killed with a firearm from 2002 through 2011; aggravated assaults with a firearm in 2011; crime-gun export rates in 2009; and percentage of crime guns with a short “time to crime” in 2009.

Applying this criterion, the report found that the states with the weakest gun laws "collectively have an aggregate level of gun violence that is more than twice as high—104 percent higher, in fact—than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws." Of the the 10 states with the highest level of gun violence, eight have some of the loosest gun laws in the country. The report's rankings of the states with the worst level of gun violence are as follows:

1) Louisiana
2) Alaska
3) Alabama
4) Arizona
5) Misssissippi
6) South Carolina
7) New Mexico
8) Missouri
9) Arkansas
10) Georgia

This is before the spate of further relaxation of gun laws in the recent legislative session. But, as you know, the gun advocates contend more guns and looser gun control will make us safer.

Here's the full report.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Asa! distances himself from NRA; not easy UPDATES

Max Brantley — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:35:00 -0500

Asa Hutchinson has gotta be kidding.

The National Rifle Association announced that Republican Asa Hutchinson had been chosen to lead a study on school safety. It paid for the study. It ballyhooed the release of the results of that study yesterday. It is promoting the study on its website now.

Hutchinson, to no one's surprise, announced that the major finding of the study was like all initiatives from the NRA — more guns are needed, this time in schools.

But, last night, on Lawrence O'Donnell's show Hutchinson took pains to try to disassociate himself from the NRA. (Might he think, maybe, even in darkest Arkansas, that being a shill for the gun lobby isn't necessarily a political home run?)

“I’m not with the NRA nor do I represent the NRA, nor am I a spokesman for the NRA. So I’m in here just as the director of the task force that just looked at the school safety issues.”

Right. And he responded to questions aimed at whether this school report serves as a useful distraction from attention to gun regulation measures in Congress by saying he wished people would focus on the NRA-commissioned report (a study notably lacking membership from school people.)

UPDATE: Hutchinson clearly does want to put some degree of separation between himself and the most extreme edge of the gun lobby. He has a local news conference scheduled this afternoon at the Arkansas Educational Administrators headquarters. The expectation is that he will distance himself from news accounts that portrayed him yesterday as endorsing weapon carrying by school teachers. His report certainly advanced the cause of putting armed guards in schools. But arming teachers as a means of getting the guns inside without added cost is supposedly not part of his message, though he did say quite explicitly that a thoroughly trained teacher who wanted to carry a weapon was an idea worth considering. I've asked him how he feels about the advocacy by his nephew, Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson, of allowing teachers and other school staff to carry weapons. Nephew didn't introduce the bill, but he talked about it at length. And others, too, proposed the idea.

UPDATE II: I chatted with Hutchinson, who was "frustrated" by a Democrat-Gazette headline that had him endorsing armed teachers. "The story is flat wrong," he said. "I've said consistently since the whole debate began that teachers should teach and others should protect. The story line gave the opposite impression."

It IS true, though, that the options he outlined, after a trained resource officer, might include a specifically trained staff member — teacher, administrator or otherwise — who served the protective role of a resource officer, if a local school district chose to do it that way. He said he couldn't envision more than one person on a staff with such a designation because multiple people with weapons could create a problem should law enforcement have to respond to a school emergency. Coordination would be important, he said. He acknowledged the budgetary problems schools faced, including in security issues including fencing, doors, entrances and the like.

I asked him about advocacy in December by his nephew, Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson, for a law to allow school staff to carry weapons. He didn't introduce the bill and a similar idea in the House was pulled down. The legislature has approved a bill allowing church school staff to carry guns at churches that have approved guns on the premises. "I think he realized that wasn't a good idea," Asa Hutchinson said. He said he'd never supported broad arming of teachers.

I asked Hutchinson about something I've often thought about not just in school safety but in the huge sums the U.S. has spent on airport and other security since 9/11. Is there a point at which the cost outweighs the benefit. As awful as the Connecticut shooting was, does it justifying an enormous expense in greater security and armed guards? There are tens of thousands of schools in the U.S.

Hutchinson's answer: If he had to choose between two schools for a grandchild between one with a security plan and one with a plan and an armed officer, he'd choose the one with the officer.

Today, he'll emphasize the push in yesterday's report for self-assessment by schools of existing security plans.

As for his linkup with the NRA, he said it was fair to question his independence given the financing for the study. But he noted that he'd moved away from the notion of volunteer armed guards that the NRA leader Wayne Pierre had suggested when the planned study was announced. And, he also has broken with the NRA line on a current hot topic in Washington — universal background checks. From CNN:

Asa Hutchinson, the former Republican congressman who led the National Rifle Association’s school safety initiative, personally disagrees with its opposition to universal background checks, he told CNN on Tuesday.

"Yes. Absolutely. I'm open to expanding background checks," he said in response to a question on the "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."

He's also open to guns in school, as he made clear at the Little Rock news conference in the company of some school officials and law officers.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]