

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Mandy Wimmer, Communications Associate, 202-822-8200 x110, mwimmer@vpc.org
Following today's Senate vote defeating the Thune
Amendment, which would have created a nationalized concealed handgun permitting
system, the Violence
Policy Center
issued the following statement by VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand:
"Today's Senate vote is a victory for those who
support a sane national gun policy.
"Concealed carry permit holders have already killed
police officers, murdered innocent citizens, and committed mass
shootings.
Following today's Senate vote defeating the Thune
Amendment, which would have created a nationalized concealed handgun permitting
system, the Violence
Policy Center
issued the following statement by VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand:
"Today's Senate vote is a victory for those who
support a sane national gun policy.
"Concealed carry permit holders have already killed
police officers, murdered innocent citizens, and committed mass
shootings.
"The Thune Amendment would have nullified laws in
states such as New York and California that have tough standards for the
issuance of concealed handgun permits. Those states would have been
forced to allow the carrying of concealed handguns within their borders by
people with permits issued by states with the lowest standards, such as Idaho and Florida.
The amendment would have also undermined state assault weapons bans because it
would have allowed permit holders to carry concealed assault weapons into the
seven states that currently ban these guns.
"The danger of the Thune amendment is demonstrated by
the fact that proponents of a nationalized concealed carry system argue that
lax concealed handgun laws are the answer to mass shootings, but the hard facts
are that concealed handgun permit holders do not prevent mass shootings, they
perpetrate them."
Earlier this week, the VPC released a new study (https://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf)
showing that concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police
officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007
through April 2009. Among the study's findings--
o Over the two-year period May 2007 through April 2009,
concealed handgun permit holders have slain seven law enforcement officers
resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All of the
killings were committed with guns. An additional three law enforcement
officers were injured in these incidents.
o Over the two-year period May 2007 through April
2009, concealed handgun permit holders have slain at least 44 private citizens
resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All but one
of the killings were committed with guns. An additional six private
citizens were injured in these incidents.
o In six of the 31 incidents (19 percent), the
concealed handgun permit holder killed himself, bringing the total fatality
count to 57.
o Five of the incidents were mass shootings resulting
in the deaths of 23 victims.
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."
A coalition of conservation groups sued the Trump administration in federal court on Tuesday over its move to rescind the regulatory definition of "harm" in the Endangered Species Act so that extractive industries can degrade crucial habitats.
"Since 1973, the ESA has served as the nation's most effective conservation law, saving numerous imperiled species from extinction and moving them toward recovery," states the complaint, filed in the District of Washington state. It argues that the rescission "defies the text and purpose of the statute, 50 years of administrative policy, and US Supreme Court precedent."'
The coalition is made up of the Center for Biological Diversity, Columbia Riverkeeper, Conservation Law Foundation, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Wild Swan, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club, Swan View Coalition, and WildEarth Guardians, and is represented by Earthjustice.
"Preventing harm to wildlife by protecting where they live, eat, and sleep is a basic foundation of the Endangered Species Act," said Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles in a statement, also stressing that the decision conflicts with not only the ESA but also decades of legal precedent. "Now more than ever, imperiled fish, birds, and wildlife need protection to survive and recover."
Ben Greuel, wildlife campaign manager at Sierra Club, warned that "without the habitat protections offered by the harm rule, countless species would be forced onto a path towards extinction."
For example, "roads built for logging and other human access destroy grizzly bear habitat and the bear's ability to safely use its habitat," said Swan View Coalition chair Keith Hammer. "Weakening the harm rule will allow industry to devastate the habitat grizzly bears and many other wildlife species depend on for their survival."
Noah Greenwald, endangered species co-director at the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed to not only grizzlies but also some of the other specific species that could be impacted by the administration's decision.
"It's beyond tragic that as the world's scientists warn us of an extinction crisis threatening to unravel our shared future, the Trump administration is yanking basic protections from our most endangered wildlife," Greenwald said. "There's just no way to protect endangered animals like spotted owls, Florida panthers, or grizzly bears without protecting the places they live."
In fact, as Oregon Wild staff attorney John Persell, noted, "habitat loss is the leading driver of extinction."
"This gutting of the Endangered Species Act is part of a broader assault on our bedrock environmental values," Persell also emphasized. "From public lands to wildlife to clean air and drinking water, the Trump administration is determined to waste, loot, and pollute America's natural heritage."
Separately, the group Defenders of Wildlife sent a letter to the departments of Commerce and the Interior about its intent to sue over the ESA rescission, which was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday by their respective agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
"The law has been clear for decades," said Jane Davenport, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife. "Rescinding this definition is wholly out of bounds and misaligned with the vast majority of Americans who support protecting and recovering endangered species."
"We will use the full force of the law to fight back and prevent industry from unfettered destruction of critical forests, streams, deserts, oceans, and coastlines," Davenport pledged.
The rescission came just a day after President Donald Trump signed proclamations dramatically shrinking the size of two national monuments in Utah, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante.
As with Trump's repeated attacks on the ESA, his targeting of the two monuments dates back to his first administration.
Taylor McKinnon, Southwest director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said Monday that "gutting Utah’s national monuments to enrich polluting extractive corporations shows Trump's extreme disdain for Americans' shared natural heritage. It's a national embarrassment. These monuments protect some of America's most iconic landscapes and rich biodiversity. We'll fight like hell to safeguard their future."
"Families shouldn’t be paying the price for Trump’s reckless decisions," said US Rep. Zoe Lofgren.
President Donald Trump's decision to restart his illegal war with Iran has sent oil prices back upward, and experts are warning that means more economic pain for working families in the coming months.
The price of Brent crude, which had fallen under $71 per barrel in late June after the US and Iran reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to wind down the conflict, has since surged back above $85 per barrel as of Tuesday, days after Trump declared the ceasefire between the two countries to be over.
Rising oil costs mean that the price of gasoline, which has similarly been dropping over the last month, will again start to rise. Petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan on Tuesday projected that, based on the current surge in oil prices, the US is "days away" from seeing the average price of gas go back over $4 per gallon.
The renewed hostilities with Iran came amid signs of inflationary pressures in the US easing. Data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Tuesday showed consumer prices in June rose by less than expected, with lower energy prices delivering relief.
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers argued that while Tuesday's inflation data was positive news, the recent fighting between the US and Iran means it could be short-lived.
"Inflation remains high, is well above the Fed's target, and the ceasefire with Iran is over," Wolfers cautioned, referring to the Federal Reserve.
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, said the resumption of the illegal war would "continue hammering Americans’ budgets at home."
"Gas prices have already started to rise again and last month’s inflation data is stale," said Jacquez. "Trump’s debacle in the Middle East will have lasting, layered effects on our economy for months to come. Working families struggling to make ends meet should lay blame squarely on the president."
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, said the latest consumer price data show "it's still tough for middle-class and moderate-income Americans," as "inflation is wiping out wage gains for many."
More ominously, Long added, "The question is whether this relief is only temporary as the war in Iran restarts."
Project management professional Larry Boorstein warned Trump against spiking the football over the relatively tame inflation data from last month.
"Prices are down because oil prices dropped after the US-Iran MOU," Boorstein wrote. "Prices for food, both at home and away from home, increased, as did prices for shelter. Energy prices fell enough to more than offset increases in food and shelter prices. What's not so good is Trump declared the MOU dead July 8. Oil prices are ticking up again."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) put the economic damage caused by the Iran war into perspective by noting that it has cost US consumers over $56 billion so far in the form of higher gas prices, or just under $500 per household.
"Families shouldn’t be paying the price for Trump’s reckless decisions," wrote Lofgren.
Trump has threatened to deploy the military against the "enemy within" and has recently promoted the idea that "democratic socialism must be criminalized."
As he pushed for Congress to approve $350 billion in new spending requested by the Pentagon, House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested Tuesday that some of the funds were needed for "fighting communism on our own shores," an ominous notion in light of President Donald Trump's threats to deploy the US military against his domestic enemies.
In addition to the already record-breaking $1.1 trillion military spending bill that was approved last month by the House Appropriations Committee, the Pentagon has requested a separate $350 billion package to be passed through a separate GOP-led spending bill known as "Reconciliation 3.0," which can pass without Democratic support.
Johnson (La.) has faced pushback from some GOP senators, including Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and the hospitalized Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.), as he's sought additional spending. During a press conference on Tuesday, Johnson made his case for Republicans to back the reconciliation proposal.
The speaker argued that the package included "transformational funding that will help us change the dynamic of the Department of War and make it more efficient and effective," including Trump's request to "effectively double the funding for national defense."
"Look, we live in dangerous times," Johnson said. "We're fighting communism on our own shores, and we're fighting evil terrorists and tyrants around the world, and we have to be able to protect our national security."
In the weeks following a series of Democratic primary victories by progressive and democratic socialist candidates in New York, Colorado, Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and elsewhere, Trump and his allies in the GOP have relentlessly hammered on the idea that the nation was under siege by "godless Communists" who want to “completely destroy the traditional American way of life,” rhetoric that echoed McCarthy era red-baiting to many critics.
In just two weeks since those primaries on June 23, Reuters found that Trump had invoked "communism" at least 81 times to demonize candidates and officials like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and others, who have promoted policies like Medicare for All, higher taxes on the wealthy, the expansion of public utilities, the abolition of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, cutting off aid to Israel, and other policies supported by large numbers of Democratic voters.
Trump's recent rhetoric has indicated that opposing "communism" goes beyond simply voting to keep these candidates out of power. He's referred to the so-called communists as "animals," as a "cancer" that needs to be "cut out fast."
He said during a July 3 speech outside Mount Rushmore that "communists" cannot be "loyal" to America and he will “send them into exile... send them quickly away.”
On Sunday, Trump reposted a video from the right-wing radio host Michael Savage with the title "DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM MUST BE CRIMINALIZED; LEADERS DEPORTED."
Johnson echoed Trump's rhetoric on Tuesday, continuing to describe passing the military spending proposal as part of the existential fight against internal communist enemies.
"THE BARBARIANS ARE INSIDE THE GATE!" Johnson posted to social media alongside a video of himself promoting the bill.
"We are fighting right now in Congress over whether we're going to maintain our status as a constitutional republic OR trade that in, dismantle the foundations and GO DOWN THIS DARK ROAD OF DEATH TO COMMUNISM," he continued. "THAT is the question."
With these comments, Johnson was explicitly tying increased military funding to Trump's fight against communism, though it's unclear which aspect of the budget proposal would be directed toward those ends.
Federal troops are generally barred from domestic law enforcement, though the president can deploy them in cases of domestic insurrection and violence that ordinary law enforcement cannot handle.
Trump has deployed active duty Marines to US cities like Los Angeles and ordered the National Guard to deploy to many others, including Portland, Memphis, and Chicago, which courts have said violated the law.
He has also suggested using armed forces to target his ideological enemies. During a speech to generals last year, he said cities should be used as “training grounds for our military" as they fight an "enemy within," which has included immigrants, the "radical left" and protest movements that have mobilized in opposition to his administration.