There’s been a lot of talk recently, by our President and others, about gun violence and race relations. How to simultaneously address both? Have our country live up to its legal obligations under ICERD by putting a National Plan of Action in place.
It is beyond inappropriate to leverage the Charleston church massacre, an act of racial terror, to push for background checks on gun sales when that measure, as reported by major news agencies, did not prevent the crime, nor was it designed to capture those holding hateful beliefs. And doing so weakens the gun violence prevention movement by keeping the attempts to limit gun violence at an initiative-based level rather than a broader issue-based level that both recognizes the complex nature of gun violence and encompasses all segments of our society.
To understand what happened in Charleston it becomes necessary to confront the horrific and enduring history of racial terrorism in this country, terrorism that continues to this day as part of a dangerous global movement uniting white supremacists across the US, Europe and Australia.
The mass shooting at a historic black church in Charleston, SC provides yet another stark example of the death that can result from the racial divide that plagues our country and that the issue of gun violence in America is not a one size fits all matter.
An examination of Supreme Court decisions in both Heller and McDonald reveal that North Carolina lawmakers are looking to undo several prohibitions held to be presumptively lawful under the Second Amendment.
A published Op-Ed from this author positions gun violence in America as an infraction of human rights and a failure of one of our government’s most fundamental duties – to protect the life of its citizens.
This author’s testimony before the NC House Rules Committee in opposition to House Bill 562, that expands public exposure to concealed carry and weakens background checks on gun sales, is reproduced here. This legislation is held to be a dereliction of duty on the part of the NC lawmakers regarding their fundamental duty to protect life.
With the risk of serious injury and death to the public by the concealed carry permit holder population itself having been established, with the many claimed benefits of concealed carry being unsubstantiated (if not supported by deceptive practices), with concealed carry not being a constitutionally-protected right, and with a primary function of government being the protection of its citizenry, it is felt warranted for NC lawmakers to call a moratorium on the further expansion of concealed carry into public venues until they can verify that the benefits of concealed carry outweigh the established risks.
In unapologetic fashion, this paper makes the case that the time has come for activist groups to abandon business-as-usual tactics and go on the offensive to change the political landscape in Washington, D.C.
In this published Letter to the Editor (Raleigh N&O), powerful members of the North Carolina legislature have demonstrated little understanding of the importance of customer retention in building the business base of the state.
By using sex on a birth certificate to define sexual identity, NC’s legislature and governor have shown much ignorance about the complexities of biologic diversity. But it is the pandering to LGBT hate groups by ranking members of the GOP at both the national and state level that reveals the underlying discrimination that motivated the law.
The GOP’s decision to reinstate tax cut policy in 2001 exposed their hand. It was not about deficit reduction, growing the economy, or job creation. It was about ideology and, no doubt, special interests. It was a backdoor approach where government revenue was cut in an attempt to curtail spending on popular programs they otherwise could not take head-on. This while obstructing the work of Congress, spinning a web of deceit about the benefits of their policy, and weakening our country’s financial standing. It’s time to play hardball during ‘fiscal cliff’ negotiations and force them to be specific about what spending cuts they are talking about to offset the tax benefits they wish to preserve for the wealthiest. They wouldn’t have the nerve.