# data[].attributes.body
Katrina- Journalist
Mackenzie- Testifier

# data[].attributes.body
Mallori - Testifier
Corbin -proponent
Eliodoro - Jurnalist

# data[].attributes.body
Cole- Testifier / Proponent
Laquincia- Journalist
Cassie- Journalist

# data[].attributes.body
Juan: Journalist
Brooke: Testifier

# data[].attributes.body
Bailey: Testifier- Opponents
Ethan: Testifier- Proponents
Kendell: Journalists

# data[].attributes.body
Dillon- Proponent
Elisa- Opponent
Alex- Journalist

# data[].attributes.body
Garet- Journalist
Sindey- Testifier

# data[].attributes.body
Tre- Testifier- Proponent
Jacob- Journalist- Proponent

# data[].attributes.body
Although biased (this is an interest group) this site has a lot of information about the bill - and other gun-related bills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Nebraska Firearm Owners Association (NFOA) Political Action Fund

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Preemption LB68 (Senator Hilgers) Reinforces that the state is the original authority and that laws controlling firearms ownership and possession shall not be overridden by local laws (county, city, municipality). This critical piece of legislation emphasizes the power and authority of the state in matters that affect ownership and possession of firearms and will serve to bring equality under the law throughout the state. When passed, law abiding firearms owners will no longer be under the threat of accidentally stepping on a land mine of overreaching city and municipality ordinances. LB-68, as introduced by Senator Hilgers, is a Big One...STATE PREEMPTION! Almost every other state (43 of them) have some form of Preemption where City Councils are NOT allowed to interpret the 2nd Amendment. Notice of hearing for February 10, 2017. Preemption got directed to Government Affairs committee. This bill would simply create uniform firearm laws across our state. LB-68 State Preemption introduced by Senator Mike Hilgers, District 21 and sponsored by Senators Ebke, 32; Geist, 25; Groene, 42; Kolterman, 24; Larson, 40; Lindstrom, 18; Lowe, 37; Murante, 49; Watermeier, 1; Bostelman, 23; Halloran, 33; and Brasch, 16. To see bill Bill StatusAM630 (amendments to LB 68) CLICK HERE

All recorded votes on 4-12-17 CLICK HERE

5-24-17: The 2017 session is complete. This bill LB 68 may move to next year by adding the amendments (LB 630, etc.) to the bill content.
Facts on LB 68:

A preemption bill would not alter state-wide firearm regulations, just those at the local level.

It would remove the ability of cities and villages to regulate, prevent, and punish the carrying of concealed weapons (except the carrying of a concealed handgun in compliance with the Concealed Handgun Permit Act).

It would amend state statute so that cities and villages do not have power to regulate the carrying, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories.

It would create a remedy for those whose rights have been violated through the enforcement of improper ordinances.

It provides exceptions for: (1) law enforcement agencies to regulate firearms used by a peace officer in the course of their employment, (2) zoning ordinances to regulate firearms businesses unless the purpose conflicts with this section, (3) city and village employees to be regulated during their official duties, and (4) the ability of a court or hearing officer to resolve matters within their jurisdiction.

_________________________________________________________________________

4-12-17

It moves to Select file after E&R gets done with it, they fix numbering issues etc and may put forward an amendment to do that if it's needed, at that point it gets another vote that comes with a second chance to filibuster or amend the bil. Then after it completes its second visit to E&R it goes back out for final passage (unless it gets sent back to select file to receive another amendment, happens but not common). Final reading does not allow for much to happen unless recommitted to Select File but Ernie does get one final chance to filibuster.

Andy Allen

___________________________________________________________________________

NFOA Members,

Statewide Preemption of Firearms Laws is moving! We have some good news and some remains to be seen news. Let's review what is going on with LB68, our Preemption bill.
First off, Senator Hilgers designated LB68 his priority bill for this session. That is huge and it really helps move the bill along. Next, the committee advanced the bill to General File. That means it has moved out of committee and is ready to be scheduled for debate on the floor. Additionally, the committee advanced an a mendment to bill. This is the part many folks don't care for.
To understand what is going on with the amendment, let's review a couple of realities. First, the bill will need to get 33 votes to overcome a filibuster. That is a given. Senator Chambers will certainly filibuster the bill this year as he did last year. Next, we need to get a few more votes to overcome the filibuster. We also know that several Omaha area senators, and a couple around Lincoln, have not supported Preemption because the Omaha Police Union was against it. If we could eliminate the Police Union objections we are likely to pick up the support of several senators.

Senator Hilgers had been meeting with representatives from the Omaha Police Officers Association (OPOA) for weeks in hopes of finding some middle ground. He understands that firearm registration is not negotiable for us. He also understands that major changes to the spirit of the bill would not be tolerated by the NFOA. What they finally negotiated might appear to be worse than it really is. So what is in the amendment?
Preemption is about removing all municipalities authority to regulate ownership and possession of firearms. The bill does exactly that, even with the amendment. What the amendment does is take a couple of the items from Omaha city statute and retains them by adding to state law. That doesn't sound good does it? Not on the surface it sure doesn't. But there are a couple of positive ways to look at this. First, there is nothing in the amendment we give up that we currently have. If amended, the bill would result in about 90 per cent of what we were asking for, and no loss of anything we currently have. The bigger win here is that the remaining restrictions are now part of state law. State law will be easier to change down the road than a city statute. And no new city ordinances may ever be passed. They are all gone. Whatever concessions given become part of state law. Those concessions only apply to a city of Omaha. Even though in state law, they only apply to Omaha not the entire state.
Specific pieces that were important to OPOA are things they believe are critical tools to combat gang violence. We want them to have the tools to do their job but disagree that all citizens should have to have their rights restricted to achieve that goal. Senator Hilgers was careful to insure that the few concessions made to OPOA were worded verbatim from current statutes.
A couple of items don't make a lot of sense when you read the amended language, so let's step through the actual changes.
Eliminates:
- Omaha handgun registration
- Lincoln back door registration
- Omaha and Lincoln prohibitions of ownership from many listed misdemeanors.

Changes:
- language for purchase permit. Seemingly insignificant change.

Would retain:
- transportation of long guns must be cased and unloaded - Omaha only
Adds:
- For stolen firearms, a valid purchase certficate is an affirmative defense. Means that if you bought a handgun without a valid purchase certificate (which is illegal) and it is determined you purchased a stolen handgun, it would imply knowledge it was stolen.

In the end, it appears that without gaining support of OPOA and the senators they can swing our way the bill is likely to die during a filibuster like it did last year. To lose 10% of what we originally requested seems small compared to not gaining anything. This would be a victory for 92 of 93 counties in Nebraska.
I don't like compromise when it comes to our rights. I also know that gains are often incremental. Is it really a compromise if you don't give up something you currently have and still gain 90% of what you were going after? Join the discussion on the NFOA members forum and let us know what you think.

In Liberty,

Rod Moeller

Nebraska Firearms Owners Association

_________________________________________________________________________

LB68 Nebraska Legislature Voting (MOTION TO REREFERENCE): CLICK HERE

Notice for hearing: Notice of hearing for February 10, 2017 CLICK HERE

Vote Totals: Yes: 17 No: 24 Present - Not Voting: 5 Excused - Not Voting: 3 Absent - Not Voting: 0 CLICK HERE

LB68 was Prioritized by Senator Hilgers 2-28-17.

It should come out of committee sometime later this week and likely be placed on the calendar for first round debate within another 2 weeks or so after coming out of committee.

____________________________________________________________

2. LB501 Signage, To see bill Bill Status

____________________________________________________________

3. LB 666 would address the recent Nebraska Supreme Court ruling that effects the definition of a concealed weapon to ensure the spirit and intent of our current law is clarified to protect your rights to legally transport firearms. This Bill was introduced by Kintner and has been picked up by Senator Lowe. See Bill CLICK HERE Change provisions relating to carrying a concealed weapon - Bill Status Referred to Judiciary Committee. Placed on general file 3-20-17.

____________________________________________________________
Other firearms legislation
LB39 prohibits the sale and trade of ivory and could affect antique firearms. Sen. Harr - Bill Status Committee Hearing 2-2-17 CLICK HERE NFOA Support

LB81 Change the application fee for handgun certificates. Changes fee from $5 to $25 for a State-issued Firearm Purchase Permit Senator Blood - Bill Status Committee Hearing 2-2-17 CLICK HERE NFOA Support

LB82 - seeks to update the DMV Nebraska Driver's Manual to include certain traffic safety information and includes a recommendation for anyone transporting a firearm to notify police officers if stopped. Senator Blood - Bill Status referred to the Transportation & Telecomm Committee NFOA ignore

LB100 - seeks to change provisions relating to removal of firearm-related disabilities under the Nebraska Mental Health Commitment Act Senator Stinner - Bill Status Committee hearing 2-2-17 CLICK HERE NFOA Support

LB321 will change the provisions relating to unlawful possession of a firearm at school. It would afford Trap Shooting teams the same ability to store their equipment on campus. Current accommodations are provided in the law for UNL's Rifle Team and we seek to provide the same opportunity to other firearm related sports teams. We are actively educating the public and members of the Unicameral on the validity of this bill. Sen. Lowe - Bill Status Committee Hearing 2-1-17 CLICK HERE NFOA ignore

LB350 Provides for setting aside certain misdemeanor and felony convictions, however there is some concerning language with regards to the current ability for setting aside firearm prohibiting convictions. We've testified at the hearing and will be seeking a floor amendment. Bill Status hearing January 25, 2017 CLICK HERE The NFOA is against the bill as written, but is working to change the language.

LB370 eliminate the requirement to obtain a certificate or complete a background check to purchase, lease, rent, or receive transfer of a handgun Sen. Lowe - Bill Status CLICK HERE (bill withdrawn 1-18-17) NFOA Ignore

LB394 seeks to change the provisions relating to possession of a deadly weapon by person subject to a domestic violence protection order Sen. Morfeld - Bill Status CLICK HERE NFOA Oppose

LB478 - Provide for possession of archery equipment and knives for recreational purposes - Senator Groene - Bill Status Referred to Judiciary Committee

LB500 authorize the carrying of concealed handguns by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers Sen. Brewer - Bill Status Referred to Judiciary Committee NFOA Neutral

LB501 will change the prohibitions on locations where permit holders may carry a concealed firearm. Senator Brewer - Bill Status Referred to Judiciary Committee NFOA Support

LB502 Permitless Concealed Carry Act , Senator Brewer - Bill Status Referred to Judiciary Committee

LB520 Require notification when persons prohibited by state or federal law obtain a handgun or concealed carry permit Senator Hansen - Bill Status Referred to Judiciary Committee NFOA Oppose

LB556 is quite the patchwork bill which seeks to change provisions relating to firearms and create offenses of use of a facsimile or non-functioning firearm to commit a felony and possession of a firearm by a prohibited juvenile offender. We will be seeking clarification of the bill's intent. Sen. Halloran - Bill Status Referred to Judiciary Committee NFOA Oppose

LB558 Define the term knife for certain provisions of the criminal code Senator Schumacher - Bill Status Referred to Judiciary Committee

LB637 will prohibit disclosure of information related to firearms owners and concealed carry permit holders. With the recent release of firearms instructors' personal information in California, the time is now to protect our privacy. Wednesday, March 8, 2017 the Judiciary Committee will be hearing Legislative Bill 637. Introduced by state Senator Bruce Bostelman (LD 23), LB 637 will protect the privacy of gun owners by requiring that information regarding firearm possession, sale, use, registration, permits, or applications be maintained as confidential and not considered a public record. This will ensure that newspapers and those intent on harassing law-abiding gun owners are not able to obtain and publish this information. NFOA Support
Please contact members of the Judiciary Committee and politely urge them to protect your private information and to support Legislative Bill 637.
Senator Bostelman - Bill Status Referred to Judiciary Committee NFOA Support

Our priority bills go before the legislative committee:
Judiciary committee

Laura Ebke, Chairperson

Roy Baker

Ernie Chambers

Steve Halloran

Matt Hansen

Bob Krist

Adam Morfeld

Patty Pansing Brooks

For those that may be new to this process, I thought it may be a helpful to discuss how to look at bills that gets introduced.

First, each two year Legislature cycle begins again with the bill numbering.

Next, when a bill is introduced it gets published on the nebraskalegislature.gov site where it tracks the progress and history of the bill. This includes who introduced it, date of introduction, history of events (amendments, motions, committee assignments, etc.)

When we post bill information in the forum for our members to see we try to include the link to that page so you can check that page any time in the future to see the current status and history. Eventually, transcripts of any debates on that bill are linked on that page too.

Reading the bill:

On the page relating to the bill, there is a link to the actual language. The link says "Introduced Copy". It is a pdf file. We include the link to that pdf file when we post about the bill on our forum. So you should see two links, one to the page tracking progress and one to the introduced language as a PDF file.

Each page has the year of introduction and LB number in the upper corners.

The first page will include the LB number and which Legislative session it was introduced. (i.e. 105th Legislature, 1st Session) It then will include who introduced it, including co-sponsors and the date of introduction. Followed by language describing the section of law the bill relates to (banking, appropriations, Firearms, etc.) It is a brief summary that often doesn't tell you much. That is the language used to direct the bill to the appropriate committee.

Starting on page 2 is the language of the affected section of law. It may include several sections. All of the current section of law will be included and will include 3 things, which makes it a challenge to read sometimes:
- What language stays (normal text. if it isn't underlined or stricken, it is existing language the bill intends to retain.)
- What language is struck (has the strike thru font. this is the part of current law the bill intends to remove)
- What language is added (is underlined. This is the new language being added by the bill)

I find it easier to read a bill that has an entire section added or removed over those that are removing and replacing a lot within one section. Most bills are not that clean, so I read the bill several times, and several ways (only old language, then only new language, then combined to see the ultimate affect of the bill).

I hope that helps understand how the language is presented within a bill.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2017 legislation priorities for NFOA - Nebraska Firearm Owners Association (NFOA) Political Action Fund

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Preemption LB68 (Senator Hilgers) Reinforces that the state is the original authority and that laws controlling firearms ownership and possession shall not be overridden by local laws (county, city, municipality). This critical piece of legislation emphasizes the power and authority of ... Continue reading →

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LINCOLN - Members of the Omaha Police Department recently arrested a man who was driving around with a rifle leaning between his right leg and the center console.

The man posted photos of an AR-15 on social media as he drove. The rifle was loaded. And he is a member of the 38th Street Bloods.

Under state law, he had committed no crime.

But an Omaha ordinance that prohibits transporting loaded rifles allowed police to take a known gang member off the streets, at least temporarily.

It's the kind of situation that explains why the Omaha Police Officers Association opposes a bill in the Nebraska Legislature that would force cities, villages and counties to repeal their local gun ordinances in favor of less-restrictive state gun regulations.

Omaha City Councilman Garry Gernandt also testified against the measure Friday during a three-hour public hearing before the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee.

Legislative Bill 68 has been identified as the top priority of firearms organizations and many gun owners, who say the assortment of regulations in Omaha and Lincoln is confusing and too easy to violate.

In the past, Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert testified in support of a similar version of the bill, saying she doubts the local restrictions reduce gun violence. The mayor did not appear at Friday's hearing, but said in an email that her position on the issue has not changed.

Heath Mello, who is running for mayor against Stothert, led the fight against the similar bill last year when he was in the Legislature. That bill came within a single vote of breaking a filibuster.

Friday's hearing drew passionate testimony from people on both sides of the gun divide.

State Sen. Mike Hilgers of Lincoln, a committee member who sponsored the bill, said Friday that he believes the local codes infringe upon gun rights in both the Nebraska and U.S. Constitutions. Nebraska is one of six states where state gun laws do not pre-empt municipal codes.

Because many gun owners from rural Nebraska are unaware of the tougher restrictions, they can unknowingly commit violations while transporting guns into Omaha's city limits, Hilgers said.

Gun rights advocates particularly dislike an Omaha ordinance that requires handgun owners to register their firearms. They also oppose ordinances that allow local authorities to deny handgun ownership to anyone convicted of certain misdemeanor offenses or possession of a small amount of marijuana, an infraction.

Hilgers said he has reviewed multiple research papers and has yet to find a correlation between handgun registries and lower rates of gun violence. Lawmakers should not allow a constitutional right to be impeded without clear and compelling justification, he added.

"We have the right to bear arms. We have the right to own guns. That's not the question before us," he told his fellow committee members.

Lancaster County Sheriff Terry Wagner testified in support of the bill, saying it would help resolve ambiguity that exists between ordinances in different jurisdictions. He added, however, that he would like to see an amendment to prevent firearms from being brought into courthouses or other county offices.

Patricia Harrold of Papillion, a member of the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association, said she inadvertently violated one of Omaha's gun ordinances while teaching a class that instructs women how to shoot. As a Defense Department contractor with a security clearance, she was required to self report the violation to her employer. Although it did not cost her the job, she said she feared it could have.

Many opponents accused supporters of the measure of doing the bidding of the National Rifle Association, which backs the bill. They also argued that it would be wrong for the state to usurp the ability of local elected officials to adopt gun regulations intended to make their communities safer.

Opponents also were concerned about a provision of the bill that would allow gun owners and their organizations to sue cities that continued to enforce local ordinances after the law was adopted. That's one reason the League of Nebraska Municipalities opposed the measure.

Omaha Police Sgt. Aaron Hanson, testifying on behalf of the police union, said the ordinances give authorities another tool to combat gun violence. In addition to the registry, he said officers highly value a rule that prohibits people under 21 from possessing a handgun in Omaha. (State law sets the minimum age at 18.)

It's one thing to allow a farmer to keep a loaded rifle in his pickup to shoot coyotes, but police don't want to allow armed teenagers to legally cruise through Omaha, Hanson added.

"The transportation of a loaded handgun might not raise an eyebrow in Albion, Nebraska, which hasn't experienced a homicide in almost 20 years," Hanson said. "But it could raise a huge red flag for an Omaha police officer giving special attention to a west Omaha bar parking lot with a history of gang violence."

Gun control advocates at the hearing also were critical of Hilgers for introducing the measure after accepting a $1,000 campaign contribution from the NRA's political action committee.

After the hearing, Hilgers said he has long been a supporter of the Second Amendment and decided he wanted to introduce the bill last year, well before he won his legislative seat.

The committee took no action on the bill Friday.
joe.duggan@owh.com, 402-473-9587

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Local gun laws under fire in Nebraska from bill that would make state regulations supreme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LINCOLN - Members of the Omaha Police Department recently arrested a man who was driving around with a rifle leaning between his right leg and the center console. The man posted photos of an AR-15 on social media as he drove. The rifle was loaded. And he is a member of the 38th Street Bloods.

# data[].attributes.body
-It's important that cities/towns are able to make the decision for themselves
-There are significant lifestyle differences b/w the Lincoln/Omaha areas and Western NE

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america/http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america/

# data[].attributes.body
*" Its a awful bill should not be discussed"
* Should not be changed

# data[].attributes.body
Explain line 25 - firearms?
Everyone agrees with the bill
What's the point of having a concealed carry if the bill is to prevent the discharge of firearms?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/after-las-vegas-gun-control-group-seizing-moment-to-push-for-tighter-regulations/2017/10/16/ee4a5472-b291-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.32b2ae63aa46

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/opinion/vegas-gun-control-shooting.html

# data[].attributes.body
Cassie- for gun control
Laquincia- for gun control
Cole- for gun control
Parker- against gun control
Azlin- for gun control
Courtney- against gun control

# data[].attributes.body
https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Comprehensive and meticulously documented facts about gun control. Learn about ownership rates, crime, background checks, accidents, politics, and more.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016885101000299X

# data[].attributes.body
John: no gun control AT ALL
Ryan: no gun control, background checks
Marissa: no gun control
Haley: no gun control
Juan: no gun control
Marissa: on the fence between both sides

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
http://concealedcampus.org/common-arguments/#50

# data[].attributes.body
* I believe that

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-colorado-guns-2016-story.html

# data[].attributes.body
https://gun-control.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/?utm_term=.8e3d5492839d

# data[].attributes.body
http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/356087-gun-control-is-constitutional-just-ask-the-supreme-court

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/gun-control-state-of-play/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
Tre Marshall

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/us/maryland-harford-county-shooting/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.0324c2d70fe2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case, the one in which the Court decided that the 2nd Amendment protected the right to have guns, the following was said:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions ... possessions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing condition and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

And the Court supported the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

Assault rifles with large clips are "dangerous and unusual" and thus can be outlawed. Clearly many other proposed regulations of guns such as background checks, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, restricting firearms in certain places, and regulation of all sales, would not violate the 2nd Amendment.

The NRA effectively claims that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. And so a false interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights is being used to prevent government from protecting a very basic right - the right to life.

Another argument used to justify not controlling guns is the "freedom" argument. It says that people should be free to use their prized possessions without government interference.

Another prized possession that people have is their automobile. Let us suppose that the AAA took the "absolutely no regulation" stance that the NRA uses. No speed limits, no inspections, no driver's licenses, no traffic lights, and no parking restrictions. Drivers would be free to go as fast as their car could go. There might be some very serious crashes, but so what?

Without periodic inspections (which most states require), your car or another driver's car could have poor brakes, or be unseen at night when lights were out - unsafe conditions. With no tests to get driver's licenses, one would be driving among untrained drivers, ignorant of the good driving practices. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we didn't have to wait for red lights - what an annoyance. Without traffic lights, there may be crashes at intersections all the time. And why restrict parking? The handicapped and trucks needing loading zones would just have to get along somehow.

We have restrictions on driving to provide for safety and to have orderly, free flowing traffic. We have had these restrictions on cars for a long time, yet the government has not come and confiscated our cars. There is this ridiculous notion, propounded by the NRA, that any regulation of guns will lead to confiscation.

Also, whenever our people are in danger of being killed by violent acts, measures are taken by government to protect them. For example, we now have to put up with the annoyance of arriving early and having our possessions and bodies searched before boarding a plane. We put up with it because it provides safety for ourselves and others. But the NRA will not put up with any restriction, thus disregarding the safety of others.

It is said that gun control may not have stopped an horrendous killing such as the Sandy Hook school, Orlando, or Las Vegas. Yes, controls will not stop every shooting any more than automobile regulations have stopped speeding, or prevented car accidents. But think how dangerous it would be without them - a great many more accidents and deaths on the highway. Without gun controls, we now have a constant string of mass killings.

In summary, the NRA cannot justify rejecting gun control on the basis of 2nd Amendment rights, nor can they invoke the "freedom" argument unless they want to be the sole dissenter in a nation that regulates most things, such as cars and air travel, in consideration of everyone's safety. There is no valid rationalization or excuse for not having gun control.

That leaves just one reason for a congressman or senator to reject gun control - fear of the electoral power of the NRA. How many lives must be sacrificed so they can keep their seat in Congress? There should be a Wall of Grief erected in Washington, similar to the Vietnam Memorial, with the names of all those who have been killed in mass shootings. Next to it should be a Wall of Shame etched with the names of the congressmen and senators who have voted against gun control legislation that would have kept the Wall of Grief from expanding so rapidly.
David RePass is professor emeritus, University of Connecticut, who specializes in elections and electoral behavior. He has published in The American Political Science Review, the online journal The Forum and an op-ed in The New York Times.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun control is constitutional - just ask the Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case, the one in which the Court decided that the 2nd Amendment protected the right to have guns, the following was said: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/17/do-tougher-gun-laws-lead-to-dramatically-lower-rates-of-gun-violence/?utm_term=.1e243652b1ac

# data[].attributes.body
-Depends on the type of gun (hand gun/sporting guns/etc)
-Mental health screening and background checks are good
Micah- people should be allowed to own guns as long as they are mentally stable and have no criminal record
Sydney- restrictions on guns won't last very long before being overturned

# data[].attributes.body
http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/356087-gun-control-is-constitutional-just-ask-the-supreme-court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The mass shooting in Roseburg, Ore. has reignited debate over gun control and gun rights in the United States.

Below are a series of questions drawn from what people have been searching for on Google since the shooting - and an attempt to answer them.

1. "Gun control" is a broad term that covers any sort of restriction on what kinds of firearms can be sold and bought, who can possess or sell them, where and how they can be stored or carried, what duties a seller has to vet a buyer, and what obligations both the buyer and the seller have to report transactions to the government.

Sometimes, the term is also used to cover related matters, like limits on types of ammunition and magazines, or technology, like the type that allows guns to fire only when gripped by their owners.

In recent years, gun control debates have focused primarily on background checks for buyers, allowing people to carry weapons in public, and whether to allow the possession of assault rifles.

2. What is the state of gun control today?

Federal law prohibits certain people from owning firearms: those with certain kinds of criminal records or mental illness; drug addicts; immigrants without legal status; veterans who left the military with a dishonorable discharge; anyone with a permanent restraining order keeping them from a partner or a partner's children. And there are others barred as well; a full list of the prohibitions can be found here.

Federal law requires that licensed gun dealers conduct a background check, through a database run by the F.B.I., to see if the customer is among those prohibited from owning a gun.

But the system has major holes in it, among them incomplete listings of criminal cases. Perhaps the biggest hole is that small-scale sellers, including many who do business at gun shows, are not required to do background checks - the so-called gun show loophole.

The law's provision on the mentally ill is extremely porous, too. It prohibits gun possession by a person "adjudicated as a mental defective" by a court or other authority. Most people with serious mental illness never receive such adjudication, and those who do can petition courts to have it reversed. Many mass shootings have been carried out by people who were recognized by those around them as being deeply disturbed, yet were able to own guns legally.

From 1994 to 2004, federal law also banned the sale of many types of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, but the law expired and has not been renewed. A few states have assault weapon bans of their own that remain in place.

In fact, most gun controls exist at the state level, with New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Illinois and Massachusetts being the most restrictive.

Some states have more stringent background check systems than the federal one, for example, and some require checks before private sales like those at gun shows. Some states require a license or permit to own a gun, but most do not.

Laws on carrying weapons vary enormously. Most states allow anyone who legally owns a gun to carry it openly, in public, without requiring a license or permit. A few states also have no permit requirement to carry a concealed gun. Concealed carry requires a permit in most states, but the majority of those states grant the permits automatically to any legal gun owners who want them. States also vary in their rules on gun possession in specific settings, like campuses and houses of worship.

For example, in Rhode Island, any person with a concealed carry permit can bring a gun onto the grounds of a public school, but next door in Massachusetts, written permission from school officials is required - and rarely given.

3. What do law enforcement authorities say about gun control?

There is no consensus. In fact, law enforcement officials have the same kinds of cultural and regional divides as everyone else.

In general, big-city police chiefs are more likely to support gun control, and small-town chiefs and sheriffs are more likely to oppose it. Those in the Northeast are more likely than those in the South and West to favor it.

The Major Cities Chiefs Association endorses closing the gun show loophole, strengthening the background check system, reinstating the assault weapons ban and other measures. The Major County Sheriffs' Association disagrees on assault weapons, but agrees on strengthening background checks.

The National Sheriffs Association, which includes more sparsely populated areas, has stated that it "does not support any laws that deprive any citizen of the rights provided" by the Second Amendment. And some rural sheriffs have simply refused to enforce new controls.

4. Where does the American public stand?

Over the past 25 years, Americans' support for stricter gun control laws has been generally declining even as the number of mass shootings is on the rise. While some high-profile shootings have resulted in calls for increased restrictions, that support has proved fleeting thus far. Gun control is one of the most sharply divisive issues in the U.S. today.

This chart, compiled by the Roper Center, provides a summary of public opinion on the issue since 1989. The most recent reading was taken in mid-September by Quinnipiac University, and found Americans were evenly divided. Several polls in the last several months have shown a similar divide with majorities of Democrats and those without a gun in their households favoring more restrictions on guns and majorities of Republicans and gun owners voicing opposition.

The results, however, also depend in part on how you ask the question. Surveys that ask broadly whether people favor stricter gun laws show the public roughly evenly divided but when surveys ask people about specific gun restrictions, the picture becomes much more pro-control.

Overwhelming majorities support universal background checks, and steps to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. Those changes have vast support among Republicans and Democrats, and gun owners and non-owners alike. (In 2013, The New York Times profiled several people from across the country who had intimate experiences with firearms, including gun enthusiasts who fell on both sides of the gun control debate.) Majorities also favor the creation of a federal database to track all gun sales, and an assault weapons ban, though answers to those question show more of a partisan divide.

5. What are the arguments against gun control?

The arguments come down to principle, law and practicality.

Gun rights advocates see weapon possession as a matter of individual rights. They say that people have the right to arm themselves for hunting, self-defense, sport - or just because they want to.

Legally, the debates often come down to the Second Amendment, whose 18 th century context and language have been endlessly parsed and debated: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun rights advocates say that means an individual right to gun possession, while gun control advocates say it means the people's collective right, through a militia.

For generations, the Supreme Court avoided directly answering the question, though its decisions were often seen as favoring the collective interpretation. But in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time, in a 5-to-4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to have firearms. Even so, debates continue to rage on what sorts of limitations on that right are allowable.

On a practical level, gun owners argue that the weapons actually make society safer, giving people the power of self-defense, and dissuading criminals from victimizing people who might be armed. In particular, they say that an armed citizen can stop a mass shooter.

6. What are the arguments in favor?

They begin with numbers. The United States has far more gun ownership than other developed countries, and far more gun violence. In 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the nation had more than 33,000 firearms deaths: 70 percent of all homicides (11,208), more than half of all suicides (21,175), and hundreds of accidental and unsolved deaths.

Fewer guns, better records on who has them, and some restrictions on purchase, possession and storage, gun control advocates argue, would still allow law-abiding people to have firearms, while resulting in far fewer deaths. They contend that it is not a question of disarming the public or absolutes - most people agree that individuals should not have bazookas or machine guns - but a matter of where to draw sensible limits.

While gun-rights advocates say more people armed equal a safer society, people who favor gun control say the opposite is true: the more people carry weapons, the more likely it is that an everyday dispute can escalate to lethal force. Social scientists say there is little reliable data one way or another.

7. Why does nothing get done about gun control?

Gun rights advocates, led by the National Rifle Association, form a powerful lobby that politicians fear to cross. For many of them, it is a core voting issue, a line they will not cross, which, as President Obama recently lamented, is less often true for those who want gun control.

These advocates have effectively deployed the argument that after mass shootings, when emotions run high - and interest in new restrictions spikes - is not the time to debate the issue.

Opponents of gun control often talk about President Obama wanting to take guns away from lawful owners, and although he has never proposed to do that, many gun owners continue to believe it.

The gun lobby has also become more unyielding in recent years. The N.R.A. has hardened its opposition to expanded background checks, for example, and after years in which the group gave subdued responses to mass shootings, after the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting, Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.'s executive vice president, famously declared that school employees should have been armed, because " The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Over the past generation, American politics have become more bitterly partisan, and regional divisions more rigid. As a result, gun control has become an increasingly partisan issue, with Republicans more uniformly opposed - at a time when Congress and most state houses are in Republican hands.

The result is that in recent years, states have gone in opposing directions. Responding in many cases to the same mass shootings, some have made their gun laws stricter (such as Oregon and Connecticut) while about the same number (including Arkansas and Georgia) have made theirs weaker.

In Congress and in more conservative and rural states, gun control tends to be a non-starter. Gun control advocates say politicians' fear of the gun rights lobby is exaggerated, but even in swing states and some more liberal ones, that lobby has a reputation for punishing those who step out of line.

After Colorado enacted new gun controls, in 2013, gun rights groups succeeded in recalling two Democratic state senators who had voted for the measures, including the Senate leader. In 2014, they targeted two Democratic governors who had signed tougher gun restrictions into law, John Hickenlooper of Colorado and Dannel Malloy of Connecticut, but both were narrowly re-elected.

Another example of the gun lobby's power came after Smith & Wesson broke with the rest of the gun industry in 2000, agreeing to several control measures to settle government lawsuits over gun violence. The N.R.A. led a boycott of Smith & Wesson, its sales plummeted, and rather than setting an example that other gun makers would follow, the company backed out of the deal.

Megan Thee-Brennan and Catrin Einhorn contributed reporting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The mass shooting in Roseburg, Ore. has reignited debate over gun control and gun rights in the United States. Below are a series of questions drawn from what people have been searching for on Google since the shooting - and an attempt to answer them.

# data[].attributes.body
Group 6

# data[].attributes.body
Levi: we don't need guns (higher gun control)

Mckenzie: wants guns to be regulated

Danny: same

Mallori: for gun control

Corbin: for gun control

Bri: no gun control, extensive background checks

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

# data[].attributes.body
https://gun-control.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Group 3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The NRA, for example, accepts the federal ban on fully automatic weapons (machine guns), a ban that has been upheld by the courts. And after Las Vegas, some pro-gun Senators and the NRA raised the possibility of regulating (but not banning) "bump stocks," which the Las Vegas shooter used to turn semi-automatic weapons effectively into fully automatic weapons.

But the rift in the country over guns is otherwise unabated. Here's an idea to move that needle.

What we need is a compromise over regulations to offer at least a partial solution to America's unending culture war over guns, one that would allow both the proponents of gun ownership and the proponents of gun safety to each get much of what they want in a reasonable and constitutional manner.

That solution? Focus the protection of the Second Amendment on keeping nonmilitary arms at home for self-defense, while putting an escalating standard of protection on other kinds of arms and uses.

The Second Amendment says the following: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The amendment has been read in two ways. The first holds that the right to bear arms is only the collective right to the arms needed for a citizen's militia. The second holds that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, irrespective of any militia.

In upholding the individual right to bear arms, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in District of Columbia et al v. Heller, asserted the second interpretation, which is now law of the land. (Scalia held, implausibly in my view, that the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment could not legally control what he termed the operative clause of the amendment).

Yet even Scalia, in backing the individualist version of the right to bear arms, noted at length that the right is not unlimited. For example, as noted earlier, he acknowledged and supported the existing ban on fully automatic weapons.

Scalia, in fact, went much further. He argued at length in Heller that the core constitutional right is to keep and bear arms for self-defense within one's home with weapons in common use for self-defense. Thus, he struck down a District of Columbia ordinance that regulated or banned handgun ownership within the home, judging handguns to be widely used for self-defense and self-defense within the home to be the core protection offered by the Second Amendment.

Yet Scalia also enumerated many key restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. He reaffirmed prohibitions on felons, the mentally ill, limits on arms in sensitive places (like schools and government buildings), regulations on commercial sales, and importantly, prohibitions of dangerous and unusual weapons, and "weapons most useful in military service -- M16 rifles and the like." The point, according to Scalia, was that the Second Amendment only protects arms typically kept at home by law-abiding citizens for the purposes of self-defense, such as handguns.

On this basis, the Fourth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals recently upheld Maryland's ban of semi-automatic assault weapons like the AR-15, noting that the AR-15 is modeled on the M16 and, while it is semi-automatic, unlike the automatic M16, the AR-15 possesses crucial military features that put it outside of the protection of the Second Amendment (or at least subject it to a constitutionally satisfactory balancing standard with public safety).The court's reasoning should be the basis of a much broader compromise.

Here is an example of a regulation that could provide an effective compromise. If individuals want to own semi-automatic assault weapons, either as collectors or for practice shooting, then enforce a provision that such weapons can only be kept at legally registered shooting ranges or other registered depositories, and cannot be removed from the designated premises.

Similarly, if individuals want to use unusual high-powered weapons for hunting, and if such weapons are deemed to be acceptable for hunting purposes, then require that the hunters collect their weapons from a registered hunting depot and redeposit them after hunting, with the guns and ammunition properly accounted for. Or if gun enthusiasts want to visit gun shows, then fine, but purchases of regulated weapons would have to be delivered to designated sites, such as shooting ranges or hunting depots.

Gun ownership at home would be protected, according to the protections recognized in Heller. Gun ownership more broadly would also be protected, for hunting and sports shooting, but subject to protective regulation. We would end the day when a madman could lawfully own and keep powerful assault weapons wherever they like, and then carry them at will to a chosen location to murder those gathered, but still recognize the right of Americans to own, collect and shoot their weapons for lawful purposes.

No solution will satisfy all perspectives. A very large part of the population (roughly one-third) is dedicated to gun ownership, most importantly for self-defense at home, and also for hunting and sports shooting. A majority (roughly two thirds) does not own a gun, and many of them would like to see a ban on all guns including handguns and certainly on semi-automatic assault weapons.

Would this compromise end gun deaths? Of course not, since so many gun deaths occur at home among family and friends. And criminals would still evade the law, no doubt, so that we would as always depend on police forces for protection of persons and property.

Would such regulations inconvenience gun owners? Yes, modestly, but not unreasonably. Would such an approach offer some relief to a society that is suffering an epidemic of deaths from mass shootings, random gun violence, and rising fear? Yes, it would.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
sachs: a modest proposal on guns (opinion)  - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NRA, for example, accepts the federal ban on fully automatic weapons (machine guns), a ban that has been upheld by the courts. And after Las Vegas, some pro-gun Senators and the NRA raised the possibility of regulating (but not banning) "bump stocks," which the Las Vegas shooter used to turn semi-automatic weapons effectively into fully automatic weapons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The mass shooting in Roseburg, Ore. has reignited debate over gun control and gun rights in the United States.

Below are a series of questions drawn from what people have been searching for on Google since the shooting - and an attempt to answer them.

1. "Gun control" is a broad term that covers any sort of restriction on what kinds of firearms can be sold and bought, who can possess or sell them, where and how they can be stored or carried, what duties a seller has to vet a buyer, and what obligations both the buyer and the seller have to report transactions to the government.

Sometimes, the term is also used to cover related matters, like limits on types of ammunition and magazines, or technology, like the type that allows guns to fire only when gripped by their owners.

In recent years, gun control debates have focused primarily on background checks for buyers, allowing people to carry weapons in public, and whether to allow the possession of assault rifles.

2. What is the state of gun control today?

Federal law prohibits certain people from owning firearms: those with certain kinds of criminal records or mental illness; drug addicts; immigrants without legal status; veterans who left the military with a dishonorable discharge; anyone with a permanent restraining order keeping them from a partner or a partner's children. And there are others barred as well; a full list of the prohibitions can be found here.

Federal law requires that licensed gun dealers conduct a background check, through a database run by the F.B.I., to see if the customer is among those prohibited from owning a gun.

But the system has major holes in it, among them incomplete listings of criminal cases. Perhaps the biggest hole is that small-scale sellers, including many who do business at gun shows, are not required to do background checks - the so-called gun show loophole.

The law's provision on the mentally ill is extremely porous, too. It prohibits gun possession by a person "adjudicated as a mental defective" by a court or other authority. Most people with serious mental illness never receive such adjudication, and those who do can petition courts to have it reversed. Many mass shootings have been carried out by people who were recognized by those around them as being deeply disturbed, yet were able to own guns legally.

From 1994 to 2004, federal law also banned the sale of many types of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, but the law expired and has not been renewed. A few states have assault weapon bans of their own that remain in place.

In fact, most gun controls exist at the state level, with New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Illinois and Massachusetts being the most restrictive.

Some states have more stringent background check systems than the federal one, for example, and some require checks before private sales like those at gun shows. Some states require a license or permit to own a gun, but most do not.

Laws on carrying weapons vary enormously. Most states allow anyone who legally owns a gun to carry it openly, in public, without requiring a license or permit. A few states also have no permit requirement to carry a concealed gun. Concealed carry requires a permit in most states, but the majority of those states grant the permits automatically to any legal gun owners who want them. States also vary in their rules on gun possession in specific settings, like campuses and houses of worship.

For example, in Rhode Island, any person with a concealed carry permit can bring a gun onto the grounds of a public school, but next door in Massachusetts, written permission from school officials is required - and rarely given.

3. What do law enforcement authorities say about gun control?

There is no consensus. In fact, law enforcement officials have the same kinds of cultural and regional divides as everyone else.

In general, big-city police chiefs are more likely to support gun control, and small-town chiefs and sheriffs are more likely to oppose it. Those in the Northeast are more likely than those in the South and West to favor it.

The Major Cities Chiefs Association endorses closing the gun show loophole, strengthening the background check system, reinstating the assault weapons ban and other measures. The Major County Sheriffs' Association disagrees on assault weapons, but agrees on strengthening background checks.

The National Sheriffs Association, which includes more sparsely populated areas, has stated that it "does not support any laws that deprive any citizen of the rights provided" by the Second Amendment. And some rural sheriffs have simply refused to enforce new controls.

4. Where does the American public stand?

Over the past 25 years, Americans' support for stricter gun control laws has been generally declining even as the number of mass shootings is on the rise. While some high-profile shootings have resulted in calls for increased restrictions, that support has proved fleeting thus far. Gun control is one of the most sharply divisive issues in the U.S. today.

This chart, compiled by the Roper Center, provides a summary of public opinion on the issue since 1989. The most recent reading was taken in mid-September by Quinnipiac University, and found Americans were evenly divided. Several polls in the last several months have shown a similar divide with majorities of Democrats and those without a gun in their households favoring more restrictions on guns and majorities of Republicans and gun owners voicing opposition.

The results, however, also depend in part on how you ask the question. Surveys that ask broadly whether people favor stricter gun laws show the public roughly evenly divided but when surveys ask people about specific gun restrictions, the picture becomes much more pro-control.

Overwhelming majorities support universal background checks, and steps to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. Those changes have vast support among Republicans and Democrats, and gun owners and non-owners alike. (In 2013, The New York Times profiled several people from across the country who had intimate experiences with firearms, including gun enthusiasts who fell on both sides of the gun control debate.) Majorities also favor the creation of a federal database to track all gun sales, and an assault weapons ban, though answers to those question show more of a partisan divide.

5. What are the arguments against gun control?

The arguments come down to principle, law and practicality.

Gun rights advocates see weapon possession as a matter of individual rights. They say that people have the right to arm themselves for hunting, self-defense, sport - or just because they want to.

Legally, the debates often come down to the Second Amendment, whose 18 th century context and language have been endlessly parsed and debated: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun rights advocates say that means an individual right to gun possession, while gun control advocates say it means the people's collective right, through a militia.

For generations, the Supreme Court avoided directly answering the question, though its decisions were often seen as favoring the collective interpretation. But in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time, in a 5-to-4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to have firearms. Even so, debates continue to rage on what sorts of limitations on that right are allowable.

On a practical level, gun owners argue that the weapons actually make society safer, giving people the power of self-defense, and dissuading criminals from victimizing people who might be armed. In particular, they say that an armed citizen can stop a mass shooter.

6. What are the arguments in favor?

They begin with numbers. The United States has far more gun ownership than other developed countries, and far more gun violence. In 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the nation had more than 33,000 firearms deaths: 70 percent of all homicides (11,208), more than half of all suicides (21,175), and hundreds of accidental and unsolved deaths.

Fewer guns, better records on who has them, and some restrictions on purchase, possession and storage, gun control advocates argue, would still allow law-abiding people to have firearms, while resulting in far fewer deaths. They contend that it is not a question of disarming the public or absolutes - most people agree that individuals should not have bazookas or machine guns - but a matter of where to draw sensible limits.

While gun-rights advocates say more people armed equal a safer society, people who favor gun control say the opposite is true: the more people carry weapons, the more likely it is that an everyday dispute can escalate to lethal force. Social scientists say there is little reliable data one way or another.

7. Why does nothing get done about gun control?

Gun rights advocates, led by the National Rifle Association, form a powerful lobby that politicians fear to cross. For many of them, it is a core voting issue, a line they will not cross, which, as President Obama recently lamented, is less often true for those who want gun control.

These advocates have effectively deployed the argument that after mass shootings, when emotions run high - and interest in new restrictions spikes - is not the time to debate the issue.

Opponents of gun control often talk about President Obama wanting to take guns away from lawful owners, and although he has never proposed to do that, many gun owners continue to believe it.

The gun lobby has also become more unyielding in recent years. The N.R.A. has hardened its opposition to expanded background checks, for example, and after years in which the group gave subdued responses to mass shootings, after the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting, Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.'s executive vice president, famously declared that school employees should have been armed, because " The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Over the past generation, American politics have become more bitterly partisan, and regional divisions more rigid. As a result, gun control has become an increasingly partisan issue, with Republicans more uniformly opposed - at a time when Congress and most state houses are in Republican hands.

The result is that in recent years, states have gone in opposing directions. Responding in many cases to the same mass shootings, some have made their gun laws stricter (such as Oregon and Connecticut) while about the same number (including Arkansas and Georgia) have made theirs weaker.

In Congress and in more conservative and rural states, gun control tends to be a non-starter. Gun control advocates say politicians' fear of the gun rights lobby is exaggerated, but even in swing states and some more liberal ones, that lobby has a reputation for punishing those who step out of line.

After Colorado enacted new gun controls, in 2013, gun rights groups succeeded in recalling two Democratic state senators who had voted for the measures, including the Senate leader. In 2014, they targeted two Democratic governors who had signed tougher gun restrictions into law, John Hickenlooper of Colorado and Dannel Malloy of Connecticut, but both were narrowly re-elected.

Another example of the gun lobby's power came after Smith & Wesson broke with the rest of the gun industry in 2000, agreeing to several control measures to settle government lawsuits over gun violence. The N.R.A. led a boycott of Smith & Wesson, its sales plummeted, and rather than setting an example that other gun makers would follow, the company backed out of the deal.

Megan Thee-Brennan and Catrin Einhorn contributed reporting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The mass shooting in Roseburg, Ore. has reignited debate over gun control and gun rights in the United States. Below are a series of questions drawn from what people have been searching for on Google since the shooting - and an attempt to answer them.

# data[].attributes.body
http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/356087-gun-control-is-constitutional-just-ask-the-supreme-court