August, 30 2010, 11:55am EDT
Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Fatally Shoot Each Other During Argument: VPC Concealed Carry Killers August Update
WASHINGTON
Two Florida concealed handgun permit holders
who got into a confrontation and shot and killed each other on a neighborhood
street are among the additions and updates to Concealed Carry Killers, a
Violence Policy Center (VPC) on-line resource that tallies news reports of
killings by concealed handgun permit holders.
Since May 2007, concealed handgun permit holders have killed
at least 189 individuals--including nine law enforcement officers--in 26
states. Of the 114 incidents that resulted in the deaths, in more than
half (63 incidents) the concealed handgun permit holder has already been
convicted, committed suicide after the shooting, or was killed in the
incident. Of the 51 cases still pending, the vast majority (44) of
concealed handgun permit holders have been charged with criminal homicide, two
were deemed incompetent to stand trial, two incidents were unintentional shootings,
and three incidents are still under investigation. Of the 114 incidents,
16 were mass shootings where concealed handgun permit holders claimed the lives
of 65 victims.
A summary of each of the 114 incidents is available at https://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm,
clicking on each category leads to a state-by-state breakout for the incidents
with current known status. To review all killings by concealed handgun permit
holders, click on "Total People Killed by Concealed Handgun Permit
Holders." While the incident summaries of the few concealed handgun
permit holders eventually found not guilty of their crimes are listed on the
site, those numbers are not included in the VPC's totals.
Updates and additions for August include:
o In April 2010, Florida neighbors and concealed handgun
permit holders Robert G. Webster, 63, and Charles E. Ingram, 57, got into
an argument that escalated to the point where Webster walked out of his yard
with a gun at his side and then raised it. Ingram, who had also left his
yard, standing in the sidewalk and street, raised his gun as Webster
approached. Both men fired at approximately the same time. Webster
died at the scene. Ingram died less than a month later from wounds inflicted
by Webster. Detectives investigating the shooting concluded that both men
might have faced criminal charges had they lived.
o In July 2010, Michigan
concealed handgun permit holder Justin Luckhardt, 32, shot and killed Kim
Luchie, 25, at the Cabin bar in what was described as a "jealous,
race-fueled rage" before taking his own life. Luckhardt, who was
separated from his wife and was convinced she had an African-American
boyfriend, had spent his day drinking and playing golf when he saw Luchie, an
African-American, drinking with Luckhardt's sister-in-law.
Luckhardt shot and killed Luchie with a .357 Glock pistol. Luchie, who
had a long-time girlfriend, was not romantically involved with
Luckhardt's wife or his in-laws. Luckhardt then left the bar,
crashed his car, and fatally shot himself.
o In July 2009, Alabama
concealed handgun permit holder Laquintta Turk, 23, shot and killed Rosetia
Smith, 24, in a parking lot. The shooting occurred during a confrontation
involving two other women--Tiffany Allen and Lashan Catlin, both 23--over the
fact that Allen's sister had had a baby with Catlin's ex-high
school boyfriend. Each woman had arrived in a separate car with
additional passengers, including friends and children. As Catlin and
Smith fought, Turk shot Smith. The fatal bullet landed at the foot of
Smith's oldest child. During Turk's trial, Prosecutor Mike Philpott
told jurors, "This is a case about a woman who brought a gun to a fist
fight, and the tragedy that resulted." Turk was convicted of
reckless murder and faces up to life in prison. Turk and Smith did not
know each other.
Violence Policy Center Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "This month we found out what
happens when two concealed handgun permit holders get into an argument--they
shoot each other and die. Is this really what the law's supporters
had in mind?"
Because most state systems that allow the carrying of
concealed handguns in public by private citizens release little data about
crimes committed by permit holders, the VPC reviews and tallies concealed
handgun permit holder killings primarily as reported by news outlets. It
is likely that the actual number of fatal incidents involving concealed handgun
permit holders is far higher.
The Violence Policy Center (VPC) works to stop gun death and injury through research, education, advocacy, and collaboration. Founded in 1988 by Executive Director Josh Sugarmann, a native of Newtown, Connecticut, the VPC informs the public about the impact of gun violence on their daily lives, exposes the profit-driven marketing and lobbying activities of the firearms industry and gun lobby, offers unique technical expertise to policymakers, organizations, and advocates on the federal, state, and local levels, and works for policy changes that save lives. The VPC has a long and proven record of policy successes on the federal, state, and local levels, leading the National Rifle Association to acknowledge us as "the most effective ... anti-gun rabble-rouser in Washington."
LATEST NEWS
TikTok Sues US Government Over 'Unconstitutional' Potential Ban
One expert said legislators' admissions "that the ban was motivated by a desire to suppress content about the Israel-Gaza conflict will make the law especially difficult for the government to defend," said one First Amendment expert.
May 07, 2024
A top First Amendment expert on Tuesday said TikTok has a strong case against the U.S. government as the social media platform filed a federal lawsuit against a potential ban—particularly since proponents of the law have admitted it is aimed at blocking Americans' access to news out of Gaza.
The platform filed the lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit nearly two weeks after President Joe Biden signed the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversaries Act into law as part of a larger foreign aid package.
Under the law, TikTok parent company ByteDance, a Chinese firm, has 270 days to sell the platform, allowing it to continue operating in the U.S. If it does not sell TikTok, the app will no longer be available on U.S. networks and app stores.
As Common Dreams reported Monday, Republican lawmakers including U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) have linked TikTok to the burgeoning anti-war protest movement spreading across the U.S., with the latter saying in an interview with Secretary of State Antony Blinken last Friday that "there was such overwhelming support" in Congress to shut down TikTok because of the frequent posting of Palestine-related content on the app.
"Restricting citizens' access to media from abroad is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, so it's sad and alarming to see our own government going down this road," said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, on Tuesday. "TikTok's challenge to the ban is important, and we expect it to succeed. The First Amendment means the government can't restrict Americans' access to ideas, information, or media from abroad without a very good reason for it—and no such reason exists here."
"The fact that some legislators have acknowledged that the ban was motivated by a desire to suppress content about the Israel-Gaza conflict will make the law especially difficult for the government to defend," Jaffer added.
The law's sponsors claim it "is not a ban because it offers ByteDance a choice: divest TikTok's U.S. business or be shut down," reads the lawsuit. "But in reality, there is no choice. The 'qualified divestiture' demanded by the act to allow TikTok to continue operating in the United States is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally."
Even if selling the app within the time frame was feasible, added TikTok and ByteDance, the law "would still be an extraordinary and unconstitutional assertion of power," ultimately allowing Congress to "circumvent the First Amendment by invoking national security and ordering the publisher of any individual newspaper or website to sell to avoid being shut down."
"And for TikTok, any such divestiture would disconnect Americans from the rest of the global community on a platform devoted to shared content—an outcome fundamentally at odds with the Constitution's commitment to both free speech and individual liberty," the plaintiffs continued.
At The Philadelphia Inquirer on Tuesday, columnist Will Bunch noted that about a third of Americans between the ages of 18-29 get their news from TikTok, according to a recent Pew survey—as Romney openly stated he fears last week.
As Bunch wrote:
During the war in Gaza, most mainstream Western journalists have been blocked from entering the war zone. The best source of real-time information is often the phone video of airstrikes and their aftermath either shot by Palestinian journalists—more than 90 of whom have been killed—or civilian bystanders. Look, there's disinformation about every issue on social media—it's a serious problem. I'm a clueless boomer myself about TikTok, but I do spend way too much time on X/Twitter and I can tell you exactly what is radicalizing young people about Gaza.
The reason so many under-30 folks have adopted the Palestinian cause isn't disinformation, from Hamas or China or anyone else. They've been radicalized by the truth—daily videos of young children, some of them bloodied, some of them already dead, covered in dust and targeted by 2,000-pound dumb bombs made right here in America.
"If the real motivation for zapping TikTok from your phone is to silence legitimate political speech, just because a lot of members of Congress don't like it," wrote Bunch, "then this bill is the worst attack on the First Amendment since the government was sending World War I critics like Eugene V. Debs and Kate Richards O'Hare to prison, more than 100 years ago."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress Urged to Tax Big Oil for Price Fixing and 'Issue Every American a Refund'
The Groundwork Collaborative's leader also said that "the Department of Justice should criminally prosecute Scott Sheffield," the former Pioneer CEO whom the FTC blocked from joining ExxonMobil's board.
May 07, 2024
Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens on Tuesday responded to U.S. government allegations of fossil fuel industry price fixing with calls for federal prosecution and congressional action to return money to the American public.
"Americans have been working harder and harder to cover rising energy costs, with the understanding that supply chain snags and geopolitical forces were keeping prices high," Owens said. "Now the Federal Trade Commission has uncovered the real source behind the price at the pump: collusion."
"The Department of Justice should criminally prosecute Scott Sheffield and Congress should tax back the industry's windfall profits and issue every American a refund," she added, referring to Pioneer Natural Resources' founder and longtime CEO.
Owens' statement came after members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) declined to contest ExxonMobil's controversial $64.5 billion acquisition of Pioneer—which was completed Friday—but approved a consent order barring Sheffield from serving on Exxon's board of directors or as an adviser to the fossil fuel giant.
"This complaint is a wake-up call about the dangerous consolidation of Big Oil's economic and political power."
The FTC voted 3-2 to accept the order and place related documents on the record for public comment. Citing communications including in-person meetings, public statements, text messages, and WhatsApp conversations, a commission complaint accuses Sheffield of trying to collude with the representatives of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and OPEC+.
"Mr. Sheffield's past conduct makes it crystal clear that he should be nowhere near Exxon's boardroom. American consumers shouldn't pay unfair prices at the pump simply to pad a corporate executive's pocketbook," said Kyle Mach, deputy director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. "The FTC will remain vigilant in its enforcement efforts to protect competition in these vital markets."
Pioneer toldFortune that the company and its founder "believe that the FTC's complaint reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the U.S. and global oil markets and misreads the nature and intent of Mr. Sheffield's actions," but neither party would take "any steps to prevent the merger from closing."
ExxonMobil "learned of the FTC's allegations regarding Sheffield from the agency and said in a statement that they are 'entirely inconsistent with how we do business,'" according to Fortune. "Exxon has agreed to the terms of the consent decree," which also "prohibits the oil giant from appointing any Pioneer employee or director to its board for five years."
Still, since the FTC's allegations were initially reported by The Wall Street Journal last week and then confirmed with the complaint's release, demands for additional action by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Congress have mounted.
Cassidy DiPaola, Fossil Free Media's director of communications, on Monday called the complaint "explosive" and said that Democrats "must respond with bold action to hold this rogue industry accountable," including:
- Aggressive congressional and DOJ investigations into the full extent of Big Oil's price fixing;
- A windfall profits tax to claw back ill-gotten gains; and
- End taxpayer subsidies for oil and gas.
"But accountability is just the first step. This complaint is a wake-up call about the dangerous consolidation of Big Oil's economic and political power. We can't let them use megamergers to entrench their control and crush clean energy competition," she stressed. "Ultimately, this is about the future we choose: One where we remain at the mercy of Big Oil's greed and destruction, or one where clean, democratically controlled energy powers our communities. It's time to make the right choice."
In response to the Journal's reporting, Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, similarly said that "Congress must immediately hold hearings on Big Oil's alleged collusion with OPEC to raise gasoline prices for Americans."
"Congress must not only investigate Pioneer's alleged role in conspiring with OPEC, but whether there existed a broader conspiracy by U.S. oil companies to collude with OPEC nations," he argued. "Big Oil must be held accountable for any conspiracy by or among American oil companies and OPEC members."
The reporting was notably published on the same day as the U.S. Senate Budget Committee's hearing about a nearly three-year investigation into fossil fuel companies and trade groups' decadeslong "campaign of deception and distraction," which has evolved from denying the planet-heating impact of their products to pretending to be part of the solution to the climate emergency.
"The joint report and documents we discovered show how, time and again, the biggest oil and gas corporations say one thing for the purposes of public consumption but do something completely different to protect their profits," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, testified during the hearing. "Company officials will admit the terrifying reality of their business model behind closed doors but say something entirely different, false, and soothing to the public."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Derail Batory': Senate Urged to Reject Ex-Trump Official for Amtrak Board
"His record clearly demonstrates a prioritization of carrier profits over the safety of rail workers and the traveling public," said Railroad Workers United.
May 07, 2024
An alliance of unionized rail workers on Tuesday demanded that the U.S. Senate reject President Joe Biden's nomination of former Trump administration official Ronald Batory to serve on the board of Amtrak, the nation's passenger rail company.
In a statement, Railroad Workers United (RWU) said Batory's tenure as head of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) under former President Donald Trump "was marked by policies favoring 'operational efficiencies' (i.e., corporate profits) over the safety and well-being of rail workers and the public."
"Notably, under his leadership, FRA attempted to override state laws mandating two-person train crews, promoting instead the adoption of single-person crews nationally," said RWU. "This push was part of a broader deregulation agenda, ostensibly aimed at reducing operational costs for the monopoly of carriers at the potential expense of safety and labor protections."
"Moreover, during the Covid-19 pandemic, Mr. Batory oversaw the FRA's issuance of emergency waivers that suspended numerous long-standing safety regulations," the group added. "These waivers were granted rapidly with limited opportunity for stakeholder input, raising significant concerns among rail labor organizations about their sweeping breadth and the lack of stringent oversight, which could compromise rail safety and worker security."
The statement urges rail workers across the country to contact their senators and demand they block Batory's nomination.
"His record clearly demonstrates a prioritization of carrier profits over the safety of rail workers and the traveling public," said RWU, calling the Senate to "derail Batory."
“Railroad Workers United urges all members of #raillabor to actively contact their Senators and argue against Mr. Batory's confirmation. His record clearly demonstrates a prioritization of carrier profits over the safety of rail workers and the traveling public.” #DerailBatory pic.twitter.com/8kVNNsBihD
— Railroad Workers United ✊ (@railroadworkers) May 7, 2024
Rail workers reacted with outrage last week after Biden announced Batory's nomination, given his ties to the railroad industry and policy moves under an administration whose deregulatory spree helped lay the groundwork for the toxic crash in East Palestine, Ohio last year.
Amtrak's board of directors is required to be both geographically and politically diverse. Greg Regan, president of the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, noted in a statement Monday that while Batory "would never be our choice, we recognize that federal law requires the board to have three members from the minority party, in this case the Republican Party."
"Since the law also requires the president to consult with the Senate minority leader when making minority party appointments, the breadcrumb trail for this transparently anti-labor nominee leads directly to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's doorstep," said Regan, contending that the Kentucky Republican "owns this choice," not Biden.
In its statement Tuesday, RWU acknowledged that "some may argue that the Biden administration is procedurally obligated to forward this nomination."
But the group said Batory's nomination nevertheless "starkly contradicts the administration's stated commitments to worker safety and robust regulatory standards."
"The nomination of Mr. Batory, whose regulatory philosophy aligns with reducing workforce protections and operational oversight, does not serve the public interest," said RWU.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular