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
brady campaign
Still Marching: 25 Years After the Million Mom March
We didn’t march 25-years ago because we wanted to. We marched because we had to—children were dying. They still are.
May 11, 2025
I’d never seen anything like it: a mother standing quietly in the crowd, wearing a plain white T-shirt with a large photo of a young boy flashing a wide grin, a missing front tooth, and a superhero logo across his chest. Below the picture, in simple black letters, “Darius Carter 1993-1999 Forever Six.”
She was living my worst nightmare, her beautiful six-year-old son had been shot and killed. And there she was, surrounded by thousands of other moms wearing similar shirts, refusing to let her son be forgotten.
We were just feet from the massive, bright pink-and-white Million Mom March stage on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., listening to speakers demand Congress pass common sense gun laws. It was Mother’s Day 2000—25 years ago.
Darius’ mom and I stood among 750,000 parents, grandparents, and children holding signs, wearing Million Mom March shirts, and carrying photos of loved ones lost to gun violence. Across the country, hundreds of sister marches rose up in solidarity. For many, like me, it was our first protest.
Twenty-five years ago, we marched because we believed a safer world was possible.
But the Million Mom March was more than a protest. It was a collective outcry—stitched together by grief, fueled by hope, and driven by one belief: no child should die by gun violence. With Congress failing to act, mothers across the country rose up— angry, determined, demanding change.
I never imagined I would become an activist. But on April 20, 1999, I sat frozen in front of my TV, heart pounding, as the unthinkable unfolded at Columbine High School—my alma mater. My basketball coach, Dave Sanders, was killed along with twelve students.
Something inside me broke.
I went from a stay-at-home mom with a six- and two-year-old, juggling diapers, nap schedules, and tantrums, to a gun control activist with a new sense of purpose. The following year I organized and led a delegation from Oregon to the D.C. march.
The Million Mom March was a tipping point. It sparked national conversations about gun laws and helped launch a lasting movement—it later merged with the Brady Campaign, amplifying the call for reform. The march also introduced life-saving initiatives like the ASK (Asking Saves Kids) campaign, which urges parents to ask one critical question before their child visits a friend’s home: Is there an unlocked gun in the house? It’s a simple question that can prevent tragedy. Each year, unintentional shootings injure or kill an average of 363 children in the U.S.
In the 25-years since, the movement—propelled by that day on the National Mall—has helped reshaped the fight for gun safety in America. It ignited one of the first large-scale grassroots campaigns, led to the formation of Brady Campaign chapters, and paved the way for groups like Moms Demand Action. It also spurred a wave of state-level reforms: dozens of states passed child access prevention laws, expanded background checks, and enacted red flag laws—one of our most promising tools for temporarily removing firearms from individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others.
Despite the progress, the crisis has grown worse. In 2000, about 28,000 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S.—a staggering number. Today, it’s soared to over 48,000 per year—132 lives taken every day. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children and teens in America, surpassing car crashes, drownings, and cancer.
So what happened? Political courage withered and the gun lobby adapted.
They pushed through PLCCA, granting themselves sweeping immunity from lawsuits. They blocked federal funding for gun violence research. And in 2008, they won a Supreme Court ruling that redefined the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down local gun safety laws.
The COVID-19 pandemic certainly didn’t help. It created a perfect storm: fear, isolation, distrust of government, and economic insecurity, all of which led to record-breaking gun sales. Millions of first-time gun buyers flooded the market, many without proper safety training. The gun industry profited from the fear, and communities are still paying the price.
Meanwhile, untraceable ghost guns flooded our communities, and leaders in many states chose to weaken gun laws rather than strengthen them. The gun industry seized the moment, expanding its appeal.
Twenty-five years ago, the typical gun buyer was a middle-aged man, and gun ownership was in decline. Today, the industry aggressively markets to women, young adults, and even parents—selling pink pistols to moms and tactical diaper bags to dads—casting gun ownership as a form of family empowerment. As sales rose, so did deaths.
So what now? We march again—in new ways, in new places, with the same resolve.
First, we confront the gun industry’s false promises to women and families. Marketing isn’t the problem; it’s the deadly narrative that owning a gun makes your home safer. It simply doesn’t. Research shows that a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide by 100%, suicide by 50%, and unintentional death significantly. I’ve witnessed how quickly an unsecured gun can turn a moment of fear, anger, or despair into an irreversible tragedy.
Second, we shift the national conversation from gun rights to gun responsibilities. Rights come with duties. An unsecured gun doesn’t just put your family at risk—it endangers neighbors, classmates, and entire communities. Only about 6% of guns used in crimes are stolen, yet those guns are far more likely to be used in violent crimes. And nearly 74% of school shooters under 18 got their gun from home or a relative. These aren’t just tragedies, they’re preventable. Responsible gun owners lock up their firearms, store ammunition separately, and support common-sense policies like mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns, child access prevention laws, and required training. Supporting background checks and red flag laws isn’t anti-gun, it’s pro-responsibility.
Third, gun violence groups must work together.
In 2000, there was one widely recognized national organization: the Brady Campaign. Today there are many, but they often compete for funding, attention, and influence. It’s time to align, collaborate, and focus our collective energy against a fractured gun lobby whose primary strategy remains fear and bravado. Only by working together can we create sustained lasting change.
Finally, we must elevate and invest in the next generation of activists. Today’s young people have grown up with lockdowns and active shooter drills. They understand the stakes—viscerally. Their leadership was undeniable after the 2018 Parkland shooting, when survivors organized March for Our Lives, one of the largest single-day protests in U.S. history. Those of us who marched in 2000 must now step up and mentor, resource, and amplify this rising generation. Our kids’ lives depend on it.
Twenty-five years ago, we marched because we believed a safer world was possible. I often think of Carole Price, who bravely stood on stage that day and told us about her 13-year-old son, John—shot and killed while playing at a friend’s house. “It never occurred to me to ask about guns,” she said. “I wish I had asked the question.” Then she said something I’ll never forget: “It might be uncomfortable to ask the question. But I can tell you from personal experience, it’s a lot more uncomfortable to pick out a casket for your child.”
Even now—despite the setbacks, the rising death toll, and the political paralysis—I still believe. I believe in this next generation, in the power of parents and survivors, and in ordinary people who refuse to look away. We didn’t march 25-years ago because we wanted to. We marched because we had to—children were dying. They still are.
So we keep going. Because really, what other choice do we have?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ahead of Pivotal Supreme Court Gun Case, Domestic Violence Murders by Firearm Surge
"Intimate partner firearm homicide is increasing as the Supreme Court debates whether people subject to domestic violence restraining orders should be allowed to possess firearms," said the president of national gun control group Brady.
Oct 19, 2023
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a case centered on a law that restricts access to firearms for domestic abusers, an analysis out Thursday shows how "the safety of domestic violence survivors, their families, and the American public" will be placed at risk if the court loosens those restrictions.
The group behind the report—Brady: United Against Gun Violence, whose founders fought to require background checks for firearm sales—determined that firearm homicides committed by an intimate partner went up by 22% from 2018-22, with states that have weak gun regulations seeing the most domestic abuse-related murders.
The group found that 782 people were killed by a current or former intimate partner with a gun in 2022, up from 642 in 2018. As the coronavirus pandemic was linked to an overall rise in domestic violence, a high of 856 firearm homicides by domestic abusers were recorded in 2021.
As firearms prove increasingly deadly for people facing intimate partner violence and abuse, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in U.S. v. Rahimi on November 7. The respondent in the case, Zackey Rahimi, argues that his Second Amendment rights are violated by federal laws prohibiting him from possessing a firearm due to a domestic violence restraining order filed against him.
The federal government has prohibited people subject to such restraining orders from purchasing guns since 1994, and the law was expanded to include people convicted of domestic violence two years later. In 2022, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act closed the so-called "boyfriend loophole" in the earlier law, which had only pertained to abusers who were married to, had a child with, or were the parent or guardian of the person who filed an order against them.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with Rahimi earlier this year—a decision that will carry "horrific ramifications, particularly for women and children," said Brady president Kris Brown, if it is allowed to stand.
"This analysis shows that intimate partner firearm homicide is increasing as the Supreme Court debates whether people subject to domestic violence restraining orders should be allowed to possess firearms," said Brown. "We know that firearms are the most common weapons used in domestic violence homicides, with female intimate partners more likely to be murdered with a gun than by all other means combined. Prohibiting domestic violence abusers from accessing firearms is common-sense, life-saving, and constitutional."
Brady noted in its analysis that even in rulings that weakened gun control regulations, such as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly stated... that the Second Amendment provides 'law-abiding, responsible' citizens the right to possess firearms, but also allows for reasonable restrictions in service of public safety."
"Domestic abusers who are subject to a court ordered domestic violence restraining order—including Zackey Rahimi—are not 'law-abiding, responsible' citizens," reads the analysis. "If the Supreme Court allows the Fifth Circuit's decision to stand, the lives of countless individuals who are protected under domestic violence restraining orders will be put at risk."
The group noted that weaker state-level gun regulations are linked to deadly outcomes for people who face domestic abuse, with Texas, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee ranking as the top five states with the highest average number of intimate partner firearm homicides per year.
All five of the states have loopholes in their gun laws allowing people to buy guns online, at gun shows, or in other private transactions without a background check.
"This gap in the law creates a path for domestic abusers to avoid the Brady Background Check system and purchase firearms despite being prohibited," said Brady.
Twenty-two states and Washington, D.C. have laws requiring people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders to surrender their firearms, and on average, the group said, states that do not have such requirements see nearly twice as many firearm homicides by intimate partners.
Along with increasing the risk of homicide by 500% for the estimated 10 million people who face domestic violence in the U.S. each year, domestic abusers' access to firearms puts the greater public at risk, according to the analysis.
"In the United States," the report reads, "60% of mass shooting events between 2014-19 were either domestic violence attacks or perpetrated by those with a history of domestic violence. Several perpetrators of high-profile school shootings—including in the Parkland shooting, the Santa Fe High School shooting, and the Great Mills High School shooting—have histories of adolescent dating violence."
With the support of leading anti-domestic violence advocacy groups, Brady filed an amicus brief with the court in August in opposition of the Fifth Circuit's ruling, noting that 25 million adults in the U.S. have been threatened or injured by an intimate partner with a gun—and there is a 16% in homicides when guns are taken from the abuser by law enforcement in these cases.
"The Supreme Court must prioritize survivor safety over a dangerous abuser's access to firearms," said Brown, "and overturn this deadly ruling."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Supreme Court Refuses to Block Assault Weapons Ban in Illinois
"The Supreme Court once again reaffirms the rights of legislators and local officials to pass gun safety laws," said one advocate.
May 17, 2023
State and local laws banning the sale of assault weapons will stand in Illinois for the time being, following the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal on Wednesday to temporarily block the measures while pro-gun groups appeal them in lower courts.
The high court did not disclose how each justice voted or explain their reasoning for the decision, releasing only a brief statement saying that the request for an injunction was denied.
A gun store in Naperville, Illinois joined the National Association for Gun Rights in challenging a local ordinance that blocks the sale of assault weapons, defined as 26 firearms and other weapons that meet certain criteria. The law went into effect in January after being passed last August, a month after seven people were killed and nearly 50 were injured in a mass shooting in Highland Park, 35 miles away from Naperville.
The lawsuit also challenges the Protect Illinois Communities Act, which also went into force in January and bans the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines across the state.
The 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals has taken up the case and is scheduled to hear arguments on June 29.
"This is an important victory in the fight to end gun violence as the U.S. continues to deal with multiple mass shootings."
The gun store and pro-gun group cited two landmark rulings by the Supreme Court, including District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to possess a firearm for "lawful purposes," independent of serving in a militia; and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which held that courts must consider the gun regulations that were in effect when the Constitution was written when they decide whether a gun law should stand.
The latter ruling expanded access to firearms last year even as gun violence surpassed vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death among children in the United States.
The plaintiffs claimed that "there is no historical analogue to such a ban" as the ones passed in Illinois. State Attorney General Kwame Raoul countered in a court brief that the types of guns targeted by the laws, such as one used by the shooter in Highland Park, fall well outside the Constitution's protections for "firearms that are 'commonly used' for self-defense."
The gun control group Brady said Wednesday's development at the Supreme Court, while not the final word on the case, was "an important victory in the fight to end gun violence."
\u201c\ud83d\udea8BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to block Illinois' and Naperville's assault weapons ban from being enforced. \n\nThis is an important victory in the fight to end gun violence as the US continues to deal with multiple mass shootings.\nhttps://t.co/U8Z3AeJK3Q\u201d— Brady | United Against Gun Violence (@Brady | United Against Gun Violence) 1684340876
"This is a great victory for Americans and all of us working to protect our children from the gun violence epidemic facing our nation," said Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, senior adviser to advocacy group Giffords. "With this ruling the Supreme Court once again reaffirms the rights of legislators and local officials to pass gun safety laws."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular