March, 22 2012, 01:04pm EDT
Unarmed Teen Trayvon Martin One of More Than 400 Victims of "Concealed Carry Killers" since May 2007
U.S. Senate May Soon Consider Legislation to Allow Trayvon Martin’s Killer and Other Concealed Carry Permit Holders to Carry Their Guns Nationwide
WASHINGTON
The deadly shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is unfortunately only one example of at least 402 victims killed in 32 states since May 2007 in incidents involving private citizens legally allowed to carry concealed handguns according to the March update of the Violence Policy Center's (VPC) Concealed Carry Killers on-line resource (https://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm).
VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "The tragic killing of Trayvon Martin is the result of Florida's lax gun laws that allow virtually anyone to carry a concealed loaded handgun in public. While Florida's 'Shoot First' law is the reason that George Zimmerman has not been arrested, it's Florida's concealed carry law that enabled Zimmerman to confront Trayvon Martin with a loaded handgun in the first place. Without Florida's lax concealed carry law Trayvon Martin would be alive today. Across America, hundreds of innocent lives and families have been decimated, their communities shaken, by concealed carry killers who acted as judge, jury, and executioner."
Despite the national outrage over the shooting of Trayvon Martin, Congress may soon act on legislation that would actually expand the ability of people like George Zimmerman to carry their guns to virtually every state. Two bills have been introduced in the U.S. Senate (S. 2188 and S. 2213) that would significantly expand the ability of George Zimmerman--whose concealed carry permit is still valid--and all other concealed carry permit holders to carry their loaded handguns nationwide. The bills would force all states that issue concealed carry permits to recognize all out-of-state permits, even if the person could not qualify for a permit in that state. The result would be that states such as New York and California that tightly regulate who can carry a gun would be forced to allow people with concealed carry permits issued by Florida and other states with lax laws to carry their guns into their states. Similar legislation (H.R. 822) passed the U.S. House in November 2011.
The Violence Policy Center has been tracking shootings since May 2007 in which private citizens use their legal handguns to kill in non-self defense incidents. The Violence Policy Center's Concealed Carry Killers database documents 290 incidents in 32 states. In more than three quarters of the incidents (223) the concealed carry killer has already been convicted (83), committed suicide (134), or was killed in the incident (six). Of the 58 cases still pending, the vast majority (48) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and six incidents are still under investigation. An additional nine incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder. Eleven of the victims were law enforcement officers. Twenty of the incidents were mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 89 victims.
These killings, however, likely represent only a small percentage of the actual number of deaths caused by private citizens legally allowed to carry concealed handguns because most state systems release little data about crimes committed by them. The primary source for Concealed Carry Killers is published news reports.
A detailed summary of each of the 290 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 deaths involving concealed carry killers, click on "Total People Killed by Concealed Carry Killers."
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
'No Safety in Appeasement': Law Firms That Fought Trump Vindicated as DOJ Drops Cases
"Another significant victory for the rule of law over Trump's reign of lawlessness," said Rep. Jamie Raskin.
Mar 03, 2026
Congressman Jamie Raskin said the US Department of Justice's decision Monday to abandon its legal cases against law firms that refused to capitulate to President Donald Trump should serve as "a reminder that those who fight back against authoritarianism are winning."
The DOJ asked the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to dismiss its cases against law firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block, which won legal challenges they filed last year after Trump issued executive orders saying they should lose government contracts and their employees should be blocked from government buildings.
Those executive orders were signed because the firms represented and employed high-profile Democrats and other opponents of Trump.
Other law firms, including Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss, angered lawyers within their ranks and the larger legal community when they signed deals with Trump; the latter firm agreed to end its internal diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and provide $40 million in free legal work for the president and causes he supports.
The Trump administration's decision on Monday proved, said Raskin (D-Md.), that "there’s no safety in appeasement.”
“When the Trump administration tried to bully and silence law firms by banning them from federal buildings, courthouses and contracts, a handful—like Susman Godfrey, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—fought back," said Raskin. "Today, those firms forced Trump to back down and abandon his blatantly unconstitutional effort to punish lawyers, clients, and causes because Trump disagrees with their speech. Meanwhile, the firms that chose to roll over saddled their associates and partners with doing billions of dollars-worth of free legal work for Trump, his twisted administration and his MAGA allies."
While other firms caved to Trump's demands last year, the companies that didn't quickly won legal victories, with one federal judge saying the executive order targeting Jenner & Block was “doubly violative of the Constitution" because it targeted the clients it represents as well as a lawyer it once employed—Andrew Weissman, who was part of former special counsel Robert Mueller's team that investigated Trump.
“This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the executive branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers," US District Judge John Bates wrote last May. "It thus violates the Constitution and the court will enjoin its operation in full.”
"This episode will be remembered as demonstrating the difference between institutions that had the ethical courage to uphold the Constitution and fight bullying and then won, and those that compromised their ethics and gained nothing."
Jenner & Block said Monday that "the government’s decision to withdraw its appeals makes permanent the rulings of four federal judges that the executive orders targeting law firms, including Jenner & Block, were unconstitutional."
"Our partnership is proud to have stood firm on behalf of its clients, and we look forward to continuing to serve them—guided by these bedrock values—for many decades to come," said the firm.
Brian Hauss, deputy director of the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project at the ACLU, said the DOJ had finally admitted "what everyone knew on Day 1: There is no way to defend these unconstitutional executive orders."
“This shameful assault on the rule of law has failed, thanks to the brave lawyers who refused to compromise their integrity," said Hauss.
Vanita Gupta, former associate attorney general under the Biden administration, told NBC News that the law groups that struck deals with the White House had "undermined the rule of law and the legal profession in this country."
"This episode will be remembered as demonstrating the difference between institutions that had the ethical courage to uphold the Constitution and fight bullying and then won, and those that compromised their ethics and gained nothing," Gupta said. "Let’s hope that media companies, universities, and other organizations pay heed."
In addition to his attacks on law firms, the president has threatened universities with funding cuts and federal investigations into what the White House views as antisemitism and extremism on campus and the colleges' efforts to promote diversity and inclusion.
At least six universities have struck deals with Trump. The University of Pennsylvania agreed to ban transgender student athletes from participating on women's sports teams and Columbia University agreed to further crack down on campus protests like those that erupted in 2024 against US support for Israel's assault on Gaza—protests that both the Biden and Trump administrations claimed were antisemitic.
Harvard sued the administration over its decision to freeze $2.2 billion in research funding and was granted a restraining order last year to protect international students whom the White House had threatened with visa restrictions.
On Monday, Raskin said the DOJ's decision to back down from the attacks on law firms was "another significant victory for the rule of law over Trump's reign of lawlessness."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Netanyahu Insists Iran Assault Is 'Not an Endless War' as US Sends More Forces to Middle East
Benjamin Netanyahu infamously predicted that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 would "have enormous positive reverberations on the region."
Mar 03, 2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted in a Fox News appearance late Monday that the intensifying assault on Iran "is not an endless war," even as Trump administration officials declined to provide a clear timeline for the ongoing military operations, deployed more forces to the region, and signaled a more intense bombing campaign is ahead.
As elements of Trump's MAGA base expressed outrage over the war, which is broadly unpopular with the American public, Netanyahu claimed in an appearance on "Hannity" that the US-Israeli onslaught "will create conditions of peace," remarks that came as the Middle East descended into regional war as Iran retaliated against the illegal attacks with strikes on sites in at least nine countries.
The Israeli prime minister's comments recalled his infamous prediction in 2002, ahead of the US invasion of Iraq, that "if you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region."
Netanyahu's remarks to Trump loyalist Sean Hannity echoed those of US Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, who told reporters and the public earlier Monday that "this is not Iraq," dismissing criticism of the administration for plunging the US into another disastrous Middle East war.
"This is not endless," Hegseth said. The Pentagon chief later bristled at a question about President Donald Trump's suggested timeline of "four weeks or less," calling it a "typical NBC sort of got-you type question."
"President Trump has all the latitude in the world to talk about how long it may or may not take four weeks, two weeks, six weeks," Hegseth said. "It could move up, it could move back. We're going to execute at his command."
During the same press conference, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US would be sending more forces to the region, declining to offer specifics so as not to "tip the enemy off." Caine also said the US expects to "take additional losses."
"This work is just beginning and will continue," Caine said.
Trump, for his part, said the timeline for the war is "whatever it takes" for the US and Israel to achieve their stated objectives, which have ranged from knocking out Iran's nuclear energy program to full-scale regime change.
"Right from the beginning we projected four to five weeks, but we have the capability to go far longer than that," Trump said.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, warned that "the hardest hits are yet to come from the US military" and said that "the next phase will be even more punishing on Iran than it is right now." Rubio also indicated that Trump decided to join Israel in attacking Iran because the planned Israeli attack was likely to spark retaliation against US forces in the region, a justification that critics described as "insane."
The Iranian Red Crescent said Tuesday that Iran's death toll from the assault is now close to 800 and counting. The US has confirmed six deaths from an Iranian strike on a military installation in Kuwait.
"That we would just follow an ally into a war of choice that puts hundreds of Americans' lives, if not thousands of Americans' lives, at risk should be bone-chilling to Americans," US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said late Monday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Leads Push for UN to Declare US-Israeli Assault on Iran 'War of Aggression'
"No legal framework, international or domestic, can justify this."
Mar 02, 2026
A leading human rights group on Monday urged the United Nations General Assembly to declare the unprovoked US-Israeli assault on Iran—which has already killed more than 500 people in just three days, including many children—a "war of aggression."
In a letter sent to the permanent missions of all UN member states in New York City, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) "called on governments to formally request an emergency special session of the UN General Assembly to declare the assault a war of aggression in violation of the UN Charter and to demand the immediate cessation of all hostilities."
"The [UN] Security Council is unable to make that determination because the United States, as a permanent member and a party to the conflict, will veto any resolution," DAWN explained. "The General Assembly should act in its place."
DAWN's call came as the death toll from three days of US-Israeli bombardment of cities, towns, and sites throughout Iran rose to at least 555, according to the Iranian Red Crescent Society. Multiple massacres—including a bombing of a girls' school in Minab that officials said killed at least 180 people, many of them students—have been reported.
"The United States has initiated a war of aggression, which UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 defines as 'a crime against international peace' and which the Nuremberg Tribunal—established by the United States itself—called 'the supreme international crime,'" the group noted.
DAWN continued:
The US and Israeli decision to go to war violates the foundations of jus ad bellum, the body of international law governing when a state may lawfully use force against another. Under UN Charter Article 2(4), all member states are prohibited from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. There are only two explicit exceptions: self-defense under Article 51, or authorization by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII. Neither applies here. Article 51 permits self-defense only "if an armed attack occurs," and Iran had not attacked the United States. Even under the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense, the war is unlawful.
"No legal framework, international or domestic, can justify this US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran," DAWN executive director Omar Shakir said in a statement. "This war is patently illegal, and it must be stopped."
DAWN's call came on the same day that US First Lady Melania Trump chaired a UN Security Council meeting about the role of education in "advancing tolerance and world peace."
Just to be clear, sending his wife Melania to preside over the United Nations Security Council is a display of contempt for the UN by Trump.During his first term, Trump similarly sent his daughter Ivanka to multiple United Nations General Assembly sessions.
[image or embed]
— Leah McElrath (@leahmcelrath.bsky.social) March 2, 2026 at 1:02 PM
"We've become the laughingstock of the entire world," lamented the social media group Occupy Democrats. "This is an unprecedented appearance by an American first dady and yet another sign that [President] Donald Trump prizes loyalty and proximity to himself over competence."
"In fact, this is the first time that the spouse of ANY world leader has been allowed to take the president's seat on the Security Council," Occupy Democrats added. "It sends a clear signal to the world that the United States is now little more than a nepotistic, tin-pot dictatorship."
DAWN also sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to pass a pair of war powers resolutions that would bar US forces from waging an unconstitutional war on Iran. H.Con.Res.38 and S.J.Res.59—introduced last year respectively by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)—would direct Trump to withdraw US forces from unconstitutional attacks on Iran.
"The question before Congress is not whether to authorize this war retroactively," the letter states. "Given that... this war has been illegal under US domestic law from the moment it began... the question before you is whether to end it now, and Congress has the power to do so."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


