SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
December, 22 2010, 09:42am EDT
Contact:
Sally Martinelli,(202) 822-8200 x104,smartinelli@vpc.org
Murder, Suicide, and More Convictions: VPC Concealed Carry Killers December Update
WASHINGTON
The conviction of a Massachusetts concealed
handgun permit holder who executed his wife in the driveway of their home, a
domestic violence offender who sued to get his concealed carry permit reissued
and then killed his six-year-old son and himself, and a drug dealer accused of
shooting a customer who didn't pay for three ounces of marijuana are among this
month's updates and additions to Concealed Carry Killers, a Violence Policy
Center (VPC) on-line resource that tallies reports of killings by concealed
handgun permit holders that have not been determined to be legitimate self
defense.
Since May 2007, concealed handgun permit holders have killed
at least 282 individuals--including nine law enforcement officers--in 193
incidents in 28 states. In more than two-thirds of the incidents (134)
the concealed handgun permit holder has already been convicted, committed
suicide, or was killed in the incident. Of the 59 cases still pending, the vast
majority (47) of concealed handgun permit holders have been charged with
criminal homicide, two were deemed incompetent to stand trial, two incidents
were unintentional shootings, and eight incidents are still under
investigation. Of the 193 incidents, 17 were mass shootings where
concealed handgun permit holders claimed the lives of 73 victims.
Commenting on the most recent additions to the Concealed
Carry Killers tally, Violence Policy Center Legislative Director Kristen Rand states,"Each month we see a
different set of lives destroyed by concealed carry permit holders."
A summary of each of the 193 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 charges are listed on the
site, those numbers are not included in the VPC's totals.
New additions and updates for December include:
o In December 2010, Missouri concealed handgun permit holder
Clinton Gallagher, 35, shot and killed his six-year-old son Alex and then
himself in a murder-suicide. Court documents filed the prior week by
Gallagher's wife revealed that she feared for her son's life as
well as her own. According to news
reports, in her filing she expressed concerns about a gun
Gallagher owned and requested temporary custody of Alex. She wrote,
'I'm afraid he will use it on me at this time being that he is in a
rage." In 2009, Gallagher pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor domestic
violence charge against his wife. As a result, he lost his concealed
weapons permit. He then sued the Jackson County Sheriff's Office in
2010 to have his permit re-issued and won.
o In December 2010, Florida concealed handgun permit
holder and drug dealer Emanuel "Emma" Laboy Rivera, 26, allegedly
shot and killed Lekeefe Lee, 25, the result of a drug deal gone bad.
According to news reports, Rivera, who dealt drugs out of his home, had agreed
to sell Lee three ounces of marijuana for $900. Lee, who had no cash on
him, took only two ounces, leaving his .380 handgun with Rivera as
collateral. A half hour later Lee returned to Rivera's home and
took his handgun and the remaining ounce of marijuana without paying
Rivera. As Lee attempted to leave, Rivera fired his Glock pistol into
Lee's car, hitting and killing him. Because of Florida's Castle law, which allows the
use of lethal force in cases of perceived threat, Rivera was not charged with
homicide (even though the law does not apply to a person who is engaged in
unlawful activity). Rivera was instead charged with two felony counts of
delivery of drugs and use of a gun in the commission of a felony.
o In November 2010, Massachusetts concealed handgun
permit holder John Tassinari was found guilty of first degree murder and
sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder of his wife, whom he
shot and killed in the driveway of the couple's home. "It was an
execution," Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said after
the verdict was read. According to the medical examiner who performed the
autopsy on Barbara Tassinari's body, the damage was so extensive that it
was difficult to tell how many times she'd been shot.
"Justice was served, absolutely," said neighbor Anne Irwin, who had
witnessed Barbara Tassinari falling in her driveway, calling her husband a "sick,
sick guy."
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.
***
For non-fatal concealed carry incidents follow the VPC on
Twitter -- https://twitter.com/VPCinfo
-- and visit the Violence
Policy Center's
Concealed Carry Killers page on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/manage/#!/pages/Violence-Policy-Center-Concealed-Carry-Killers/258069527568
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
Trump-GOP Stonewalling Shows They Are 'Absolutely Committed to Raising Your Costs,' Says Murphy
"They are willing to keep the government shut down, they are so determined to make you pay more for healthcare," said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy.
Nov 08, 2025
US Sen. Chris Murphy said Saturday that the GOP's rejection of Democrats' compromise proposal to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits for a year in exchange for reopening the federal government shows that the Republican Party is "absolutely committed to raising your costs."
" Republicans are refusing to negotiate," Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a video posted to social media, arguing that President Donald Trump and the GOP's continued stonewalling is "further confirmation" that Republicans are uninterested in preventing disastrous premium increases.
"They are willing to keep the government shut down, they are so determined to make you pay more for healthcare," the senator added.
An update on the shutdown.
Senate Republicans continue to refuse to negotiate. House Republicans refuse to even show up to DC.
Democrats just made a new reasonable compromise offer. And if Republicans reject it, it's proof of how determined they are to raise health premiums. pic.twitter.com/JUBPMMXKC7
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) November 8, 2025
More than 20 million Americans who purchase health insurance on the ACA marketplace receive enhanced tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year if Congress doesn't act. So far, the Republican leadership in the Senate has only offered to hold a vote on the ACA subsidies, with no guarantee of the outcome, in exchange for Democratic votes to reopen the government.
People across the country are already seeing their premiums surge, and if the subsidies are allowed to lapse, costs are expected to rise further and millions will likely go uninsured.
“Clearly, the GOP didn’t learn their lesson after the shellacking they got in Tuesday’s elections,” said Protect Our Care president Brad Woodhouse. “They would rather keep the government shut down, depriving Americans of their paychecks and food assistance, than let working families keep the healthcare tax credits they need to afford lifesaving coverage. Good luck explaining that to the American people."
In a post to his social media platform on Saturday, Trump made clear that he remains opposed to extending the ACA tax credits, calling on Republicans to instead send money that would have been used for the subsidies "directly to the people so that they can purchase their own, much better healthcare."
Trump provided no details on how such a plan would work. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who was at the center of the largest healthcare fraud case in US history, declared that he is "writing the bill now," suggesting that the funds would go to "HSA-style accounts."
Democrats immediately panned the idea.
"This is, unsurprisingly, nonsensical," said Murphy. "Is he suggesting eliminating health insurance and giving people a few thousand dollars instead? And then when they get a cancer diagnosis they just go bankrupt? He is so unserious. That's why we are shut down and Americans know it."
Polling data released Thursday by the health policy group KFF showed that nearly three-quarters of the US public wants Congress to extend the ACA subsidies
"More than half (55%) of those who purchase their own health insurance say Democrats should refuse to approve a budget that does not include an extension for ACA subsidies," KFF found. "Notably, past KFF polls have shown that nearly half of adults enrolled in ACA marketplace plans identify as Republican or lean Republican."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Quietly Dishes Out More Tax Breaks to Rich Investors While Slashing Food Aid for Millions
"Why would corporations spend millions on Trump's ballroom or Bitcoin? Because they're getting billions in unlegislated tax breaks," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Nov 08, 2025
The Trump administration is quietly waging an all-out regulatory war on a Biden-era corporate tax that aimed to prevent large companies from dodging their tax liabilities while reporting huge profits.
The corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT) was enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, Democratic legislation that former President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022. The CAMT requires highly profitable US corporations to pay a tax of at least 15% on their so-called book profits, the figures reported to shareholders.
As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has explained: "Many of the special breaks that corporations use to avoid taxes work by allowing companies to report profits to the IRS that are much smaller than their book profits. Corporate leaders prefer to report low profits to the IRS (to reduce taxes) and high profits to the public (to attract investors)."
But since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has issued guidance and regulatory proposals designed to gut the CAMT. The effort is a boon to corporate giants and rich private equity investors at a time when the Trump administration is relentlessly attacking programs for low-income Americans, including Medicaid and nutrition assistance.
The New York Times reported Saturday that "with its various tax relief provisions, the administration is now effectively adding hundreds of billions of dollars in new breaks for big businesses and investors" on top of the trillions of dollars in tax cuts included in the Trump-GOP budget law enacted over the summer.
"The Treasury is empowered to write rules to help the IRS carry out tax laws passed by Congress," the newspaper added. "But the aggressive actions of the Trump administration raise questions about whether it is exceeding its legal authority."
Why would corporations spend millions on Trump's ballroom or bitcoin?
Because they're getting billions in unlegislated tax breaks.
We've gone from a system where the rich must pay taxes for public services, to one where they must pay the president for private favors.
— Tom Malinowski (@Malinowski) November 8, 2025
The administration's assault on the CAMT has drawn scrutiny from members of Congress.
In a September 8 letter to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a group of Democratic lawmakers and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) warned that the administration's guidance notices "create new loopholes in the corporate alternative minimum tax for the largest and wealthiest corporations."
"Most troubling, Notice 2025-27, issued this June, allows companies to avoid CAMT if their income—under a simplified accounting method—is below $800 million," the lawmakers wrote. "The Biden administration previously set the safe harbor threshold precisely at $500 million in its proposed CAMT rule after calculating that a higher safe harbor threshold would risk exempting corporations that should be subject to CAMT under statute."
"Now, less than nine months later and with zero justification, this new guidance summarily asserts that an $800 million safe harbor will not run that risk," they continued. "We are seriously concerned that this cursory loosening of CAMT enforcement will simply allow more wealthy corporations to avoid paying their legally owed share."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Food Banks in 'Disaster Response Mode,' Supreme Court Lets Trump Pause SNAP Funds
"This is insane," said US Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "Trump is jumping through hoops to block SNAP."
Nov 08, 2025
The US Supreme Court late Friday temporarily blocked a lower court order that required the Trump administration to fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits as the government shutdown drags on with no end in sight.
One wrinkle in the case is that the Supreme Court order, which came after the Trump administration appealed the lower court directive, was handed down by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her brief order came after the Massachusetts-based US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit opted not to swiftly intervene in the case.
Jackson, who is tasked with handling emergency issues from the 1st Circuit, wrote that her administrative stay in the case will end 48 hours after the appeals court issues a ruling in the case.
The justice's order came after states across the US had already begun distributing SNAP benefits after a district court judge directed the Trump administration to release billions of dollars in funds by Friday.
"Some people woke up Friday with the money already on the debit-like EBT cards they use to buy groceries," NPR reported.
Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, wrote Friday that "it may surprise folks that Justice Jackson, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the court's behavior on emergency applications from the Trump administration, acquiesced in even a temporary pause of the district court's ruling in this case."
He continued:
But as I read the order, which says a lot more than a typical “administrative stay” from the Court, Jackson was stuck between a rock and a hard place—given the incredibly compressed timing that was created by the circumstances of the case.
In a world in which Justice Jackson either knew or suspected that at least five of the justices would grant temporary relief to the Trump administration if she didn’t, the way she structured the stay means that she was able to try to control the timing of the Supreme Court’s (forthcoming) review—and to create pressure for it to happen faster than it otherwise might have. In other words, it’s a compromise—one with which not everyone will agree, but which strikes me as eminently defensible under these unique (and, let’s be clear, maddening and entirely f-ing avoidable) circumstances.
The Trump administration has fought tooth and nail to flout its legal obligation to distribute SNAP funds during the shutdown as low-income Americans grow increasingly desperate and food bank demand skyrockets.
"This is insane," US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote after the administration appealed to the Supreme Court. "Trump is jumping through hoops to block SNAP. Follow the law, fund SNAP, and feed American families."
Maura Healey, the Democratic governor of Massachusetts—one of the states that quickly moved to process SNAP benefits following the district court order—said in a statement that "Trump should never have put the American people in this position."
"Families shouldn’t have had to go hungry because their president chose to put politics over their lives," said Healey.
Feeding America, a nonprofit network of hundreds of food banks across the US, said Friday that food banks bought nearly 325% more food through the organization's grocery purchase program during the week of October 27 than they did at the same time last year.
Donations to food banks, which were underresourced even prior to the shutdown, have also skyrocketed. The head of a Houston food bank said the organization is in "disaster response mode."
"Across the country, communities are feeling the real, human impact the shutdown is having on their neighbors and communities,” said Linda Nageotte, president and chief operating officer at Feeding America. "Families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities are showing strength through the hardship, and their communities are standing beside them—giving their time and money, and advocating so no one faces hunger alone.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular