America's Slow March to Gun Control

This article comes from CBC, a mainstream media (MSM) organization, which means it leans heavily to the left. Consequently, the views tend to be for gun control. Whether you are for it or against it, this report gives an informative update on the 'progress' of most American States either toward or away from gun control.

People attend a candlelight vigil the day after last February's deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Progress on gun control has been fitful. (Jonathan Drake/Reuters)

Jonathon Gatehouse, CBC

It's been almost a year since 17 staff and students were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in what ranks as America's ninth deadliest mass shooting.

The survivor-driven (many would question that) movement that followed drew hundreds of thousands to the streets to protest for tougher firearms laws, and helped elect a new generation of pro-gun-control legislators to state and federal office in last November's midterm elections.

But it's proving difficult to make a dent in U.S. gun culture.

In 2018, 27 states passed a total of 67 new gun control measures.

Yet only two states — California and New Jersey — received an"A" grade in the annual gun control report card issued today by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Five others -- Connecticut, Maryland, Hawaii, New York and Massachusetts -- received "A-" grades, while Washington and Illinois got a "B+" ranking. Florida earned a "C+", passing for the first time due to some post-Parkland restrictions.

In comparison, 22 states received failing grades of "D" or "F", with Mississippi ranking 50th for gun control and fifth for firearms deaths.

A new Ipsos/Reuters poll, released this morning, confirms that a solid majority of 69 per cent of Americans — including 57 per cent of Republicans — want stronger gun measures. Although only 14 per cent of gun control supporters say they are "very confident" that their elected representatives understand their views, and just eight per cent trust politicians to actually take action.

The survey of 6,800 voters found wide agreement on the need to expand background checks, stop people with mental health issues from purchasing firearms, and ban internet ammunition sales. It also found support for Donald Trump's approach to stopping school shootings, with 61 per cent of parents of school-age children saying they favour publicly funded firearms training for teachers.

This year will be a crucial test for American gun control advocates. At least 50 major pieces of firearms restriction legislation have already been introduced in State houses.

Democratic governors in California, New York and Illinois are moving to strengthen their already tough measures. And there is bipartisan support in almost two dozen states for bills that will stop convicted domestic abusers from buying guns, or so-called "red flag" laws to allow police to temporarily seize weapons from people who might pose a danger to themselves or others.

On the other hand, at least 26 states are poised to expand gun access — particularly when it comes to concealed carry provisions—  in 2019.

In Washington, D.C., the new class of House Democrats flexed their muscles this week with a rare congressional hearing on gun violence, paving the way for the introduction of legislation to expand background checks to internet and gun show sales.

Aalayah Eastmond, a Parkland senior who survived last year's massacre by hiding underneath the body of a slain classmate, testified in favour of stricter measures, receiving a standing ovation.

Republicans countered with Savannah Lindquist, a sexual assault survivor and gun rights backer. 

The eventual house bill is likely to suffer the same fate as the last major federal gun control efforts in the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying it is "highly unlikely" to pass in the upper chamber.  

And there is apprehension about what the new conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court might do to existing gun control legislation, as it prepares to weigh in on a challenge to a New York City regulation that limits how and where firearm owners can transport their weapons.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has been busy making it easier for U.S. arms makers to export their semi-automatic assault weapons, flamethrowers and grenades to overseas customers, doing away with the need for State Department licences.

And while the gun debate rages, the violence continues.

There have been 41 mass shootings in the United States over the first 39 days of 2019, which have resulted in 62 deaths and 128 wounded. 

U.S. Senate - An Out-of-Control Bully?

Germany, Austria hit out at US over new

anti-Russian sanctions

The Reichstag building, Berlin 

“Unacceptable” new anti-Russian sanctions approved by the US Senate violate international law, affect European companies and have a real aim of benefitting the US oil and gas sector, Berlin and Vienna said in an angry joint statement.

The new anti-Russian sanctions are outlined in an amendment to a bill imposing sanctions against Iran. It was approved by the US Senate on Thursday by a majority of 98 to 2, but still needs to pass the House of Representatives and be signed by the US president to become law.

The anti-Russian measures in the amendment involve imposing penalties on enterprises that cooperate with Russian oil and gas companies. A number of European companies are doing just that, participating for example in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project.

“Europe's energy supply is a matter for Europe, and not the United States of America!” said the joint statement by German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern, published on Thursday.

“We cannot accept threatening European companies that contribute to the development of the European energy supply [system] with extraterritorial sanctions that violate the international law.”

“Sanctions as a political instrument should not be linked to economic interests,” the statement says. It adds that “threatening German, Austrian and other European enterprises, which take part in the gas supply projects such as the Nord Stream II together with Russia or finance them, with penalties on the US market would add an absolutely new and highly negative aspect in relations between the US and Europe.”

The statement went on to say that Washington’s intention to impose new sanctions against Russia is guided not by some political or humanitarian reasons but rather by economic interest.

“This issue is all about the sales of the US condensed gas [to Europe] and pressing the Russian energy supply companies from the European market. The actual goal [of such sanctions] is to provide jobs for the US gas and oil industry,” the statement says, citing the US bill on the new sanctions.

Gabriel and Kern also expressed their concerns over the fact that the US is actually trying to boost its own competitiveness at the expense of its European allies that the new measures would eventually negatively affect “competitive positions of our [European] energy intensive industries and thousands of jobs.”

They also accused the US of attempts to interfere in Europe’s internal affairs and impose its will on its allies by undermining the principle of “open and fair market competition.”

“It would be not only highly regrettable but also detrimental to the effectiveness of our position in the context of the Ukrainian conflict, if some unrelated issues such the US economic interests in exporting gas gain the upper hand in this matter,” the statement warns.

The two politicians then urged the US authorities to back away from these plans and said that they “very much support” the efforts of the US Department of State aimed at changing the bill concerning the sanctions.

The amendment on anti-Russian sanctions stipulates “broad new sanctions on key sectors of Russia’s economy, including mining, metals, shipping and railways”. The bill also prohibits lifting any executive sanctions imposed on Russia by the Obama administration without congressional review.

The amendment states that the goal of US policy in this particular case is to “oppose the Nord Stream II pipeline given its detrimental impacts on the European Union's energy security… and energy reforms in Ukraine.”

According to the amendment, the US president can impose sanctions against entities and individuals that either make an investment “that directly and significantly contributes to the enhancement of the ability of the Russian Federation to construct energy export pipelines” or provides Russia with “goods, services, technology, information, or support that could directly and significantly facilitate the maintenance or expansion of the construction, modernization, or repair of [its] energy pipelines.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday said that Russia has been historically living under some form of sanctions from the West, which are used as a tool of economic competition as well as a means of containment.

“If there were no situation with Crimea and other problems, they would have invented something else to contain Russia,” he said.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called for a more “flexible approach” to the issue of anti-Russian sanctions. He particularly said that he would not like to see Washington “handcuffed” to the progress in the implementation of the Minsk agreements as Moscow and Kiev could eventually find some other way to resolve the crisis in eastern Ukraine.

Earlier, Tillerson also said that virtually all US partners and allies were calling on Washington to improve its relations with Russia and warned that a new set of restrictive measures against Moscow might further worsen relations with Russia.

Proposed Nord Stream 2, gas pipeline