Let's finish the week on gun control by moving from the threats from a global military occupation of what they see as US International Economic Zones to simply getting guns out of our communities. Everyone in the US knows all laws that try to prohibit----from Prohibition of Alcohol-----to War on Drugs-----always fail because a black market that is worse than the original problem is created. So, we already know that will happen with guns AND SO DO CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS AND BUSH NEO-CONS. The goal is simply to dismantle all US Constitutional rights so US cities can act like China, Malaysia, India where global FOXCONN corporate campuses are allowed to have their own police/security forces that act with impunity----
THAT MOVE WILL MAKE THE GUN PROBLEM IN US SOAR IN BLACK MARKET/INTERNATIONAL CARTEL SMUGGLING OF GUNS FAR WORSE THAN THE HANDGUNS WE HAVE TODAY.
Crime and violence is soaring in US cities because these several years under Obama saw what was left of the black middle-class be fired in city and state government and public school downsizing---that middle-class being the last help an extended poor family had for stability. White and Latino families are facing the same struggles.
Who owns guns in underserved communities? The King Pins of black market sex industry---drug industry----robbery rings--and gun running. The middle-tier working for those King Pins-----the street players selling sex, drugs, guns-----and the victims of all this---women, drug addicts, people living in communities who are honest but trying to keep their families and themselves safe. Then you have the poor robbing to survive using guns. Multiply this across cultural populations in cities----Asian, African, Latino, South Pacific King Pins all having these layers and you see the problem with guns IS HUGE.
YOU COULD WAVE A MAGIC WAND OVER BALTIMORE TO REMOVE ALL GUNS----AND WITHIN A FEW MONTHS--THE GUN-RUNNERS WOULD HAVE THEM ALL BACK.
Strict Gun Laws in Chicago Can’t Stem Fatal Shots
By MONICA DAVEYJAN. 29, 2013
The funeral for a 14-year-old boy who was killed Jan. 11 in Chicago, where there were more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013. Credit Scott Olson/Getty Images
CHICAGO — Not a single gun shop can be found in this city because they are outlawed. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, too, until 2010, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that was going too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban. Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public.
And yet Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl on Tuesday.
To gun rights advocates, the city provides stark evidence that even some of the toughest restrictions fail to make places safer. “The gun laws in Chicago only restrict the law-abiding citizens and they’ve essentially made the citizens prey,” said Richard A. Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. To gun control proponents, the struggles here underscore the opposite — a need for strict, uniform national gun laws to eliminate the current patchwork of state and local rules that allow guns to flow into this city from outside.
The Rev. Ira J. Acree and other ministers are trying to end to gun violence in Chicago. Credit Nathan Weber for The New York Times
“Chicago is like a house with two parents that may try to have good rules and do what they can, but it’s like you’ve got this single house sitting on a whole block where there’s anarchy,” said the Rev. Ira J. Acree, one among a group of pastors here who have marched and gathered signatures for an end to so much shooting. “Chicago is an argument for laws that are statewide or, better yet, national.”
Chicago’s experience reveals the complications inherent in carrying out local gun laws around the nation. Less restrictive laws in neighboring communities and states not only make guns easy to obtain nearby, but layers of differing laws — local and state — make it difficult to police violations. And though many describe the local and state gun laws here as relatively stringent, penalties for violating them — from jail time to fines — have not proven as severe as they are in some other places, reducing the incentive to comply.
Lately, the police say they are discovering far more guns on the streets of Chicago than in the nation’s two more populous cities, Los Angeles and New York. They seized 7,400 guns here in crimes or unpermitted uses last year (compared with 3,285 in New York City), and have confiscated 574 guns just since Jan. 1 — 124 of them last week alone.
More than a quarter of the firearms seized on the streets here by the Chicago Police Department over the past five years were bought just outside city limits in Cook County suburbs, according to an analysis by the University of Chicago Crime Lab. Others came from stores around Illinois and from other states, like Indiana, less than an hour’s drive away. Since 2008, more than 1,300 of the confiscated guns, the analysis showed, were bought from just one store, Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, Ill., within a few miles of Chicago’s city limits.
Efforts to compare the strictness of gun laws and the level of violence across major American cities are fraught with contradiction and complication, not least because of varying degrees of coordination between local and state laws and differing levels of enforcement. In New York City, where homicides and shootings have decreased, the gun laws are generally seen as at least as strict as Chicago’s, and the state laws in New York and many of its neighboring states are viewed as still tougher than those in and around Illinois. Philadelphia, like cities in many states, is limited in writing gun measures that go beyond those set by Pennsylvania law. Some city officials there have chafed under what they see as relatively lax state controls.
In Chicago, the rules for owning a handgun — rewritten after the outright ban was deemed too restrictive in 2010 — sound arduous. Owners must seek a Chicago firearms permit, which requires firearms training, a background check and a state-mandated firearm owner’s identification card, which requires a different background review for felonies and mental illness. To prevent straw buyers from selling or giving their weapons to people who would not meet the restrictions — girlfriends buying guns for gang members is a common problem, the police here say — the city requires permitted gun owners to report their weapons lost, sold or stolen.
Still, for all the regulations, the reality here looks different. Some 7,640 people currently hold a firearms permit, but nearly that many illicit weapons were confiscated from the city’s streets during last year alone. Chicago officials say Illinois has no requirement, comparable to Chicago’s, that gun owners immediately report their lost or stolen weapons to deter straw buyers. Consequently those outside the city can, in the words of one city official, carry guns to gang members in the city with “zero accountability.”
And a relatively common sentence in state court for gun possession for offenders without other felonies is one year in prison, which really may mean a penalty of six months, said Anita Alvarez, the Cook County state’s attorney, who said such punishments failed to serve as a significant enough deterrent for seasoned criminals who may see a modest prison stint as the price of doing business.
“The way the laws are structured facilitates the flow of those guns to hit our streets,” Garry F. McCarthy, the Chicago police superintendent, said in an interview, later adding, “Chicago may have comprehensive gun laws, but they are not strict because the sanctions don’t exist.”
In the weeks since the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., Toni Preckwinkle, the Cook County Board president, has introduced a countywide provision requiring gun owners beyond the city limits to report lost or stolen guns, though a first offense would result simply in a $1,000 fine. In the city, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has pressed for increased penalties for those who violate the city’s gun ordinance by failing to report their guns missing or possessing an assault weapon.
“Our gun strategy is only as strong as it is comprehensive, and it is constantly being undermined by events and occurrences happening outside the city — gun shows in surrounding counties, weak gun laws in neighboring states like Indiana and the inability to track purchasing,” Mr. Emanuel said. “This must change.”
State lawmakers, too, are soon expected to weigh new state provisions like an assault weapons ban, as Chicago already has. But the fate of the proposals is uncertain in a state with wide-open farming and hunting territory downstate.
“It’s going to be a fight,” said State Representative Jack D. Franks, a Democrat from Marengo, 60 miles outside Chicago. Complicating matters, an appellate court in December struck down the state’s ban on carrying guns in public, saying that a complete ban on concealed carry is unconstitutional. Illinois is seeking a review of the ruling, even as state lawmakers have been given a matter of months to contemplate conditions under which guns could be allowed in public.
Many here say that even the strictest, most punitive gun laws would not alone be an answer to this city’s violence. “Poverty, race, guns and drugs — you’ve got to deal with all these issues, but you’ve got to start somewhere” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, who was arrested in 2007 while protesting outside Chuck’s Gun Shop, the suburban store long known as a supplier of weapons that make their way to Chicago.
At the store, a clerk said the business followed all pertinent federal, state and local laws, then declined to be interviewed further. Among seized guns that had moved from purchase to the streets of Chicago in a year’s time or less, nearly 20 percent came from Chuck’s, the analysis found. Other guns arrived here that rapidly from gun shops in other parts of this state, Indiana, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia, Iowa and more.
“Chicago is not an island,” said David Spielfogel, senior adviser to Mr. Emanuel. “We’re only as strong as the weakest gun law in surrounding states.”
Clinton/Obama neo-liberals joined Bush/Hopkins neo-cons in breaking down all social Democratic structures at the same time moving US corporations overseas with no rebuilding of local economies in US cities just to allow US citizens to devolve into a third world desperation---as the article says---conditions of violence are third world---and global pols are trying to install third world solutions----from heightened policing force to installing NGOs to replace the US public institutions and government at all levels.
THE ANSWER IS OF COURSE----REBUILD THE SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND LOCAL ECONOMIES THAT KEEP PEOPLE FROM BECOMING SO IMPOVERISHED AND UNABLE TO FIND WORK.
Linking public institutions to communities key to tackling poverty, report says
Province’s hospitals and universities could inject hundreds of millions of dollars into local communities through smarter spending, report says.
University of Toronto Scarborough
University of Toronto Scarborough is trying to pump economic opportunity back into its community. One initiative is asking businesses with university contracts to take on young people like Kareem Francis, 26, a member of the Hammerheads program that gives construction training and apprenticeships to at-risk youth.
By: Sara Mojtehedzadeh
Work and Wealth reporter, Published on Mon Aug 24 2015
He’s a man with a vision, and Andrew Arifuzzaman’s latest ambition is to bring the University of Toronto’s Scarborough campus out of the woods. Literally.
“UTSC has been here in the community for 50 years,” says its chief administrative officer. “But up to eight years ago, it was literally behind a forest.”
According to a report to be released Monday by the Atkinson Foundation and the Mowat Centre, bringing big public institutions closer to their communities could be one of Ontario’s best hopes of tackling poverty.
“If institutions can begin to work together and create good economic opportunities for companies to succeed locally, I think that’s a great opportunity for everybody,” says Arifuzzaman.
“The university could be very important to helping revitalize what Scarborough is.”
That embodies the spirit of the so-called “anchor mission,” outlined by the Atkinson/Mowat report. Anchors are public bodies like universities, hospitals and municipal governments that are rooted in a particular community and are unlikely to ever leave.
The report suggests that if the province’s higher education and medical institutions spent more of their collective $9.9-billion goods and services budget locally, they could kick-start local economic growth and job creation.
“Diverting just 2 per cent of these expenditures to local small business and communities could inject $230 million into local communities,” the study says.
Currently, when Ontario’s public sector is tendering contracts for goods and services, it focuses mainly on who makes the cheapest bid. But anchor mission advocates say it makes more long-term sense to prioritize local and minority-owned businesses where possible — to create more vibrant, self-sufficient and egalitarian economies.
“It’s really a smarter way to use existing funds, especially at a time of increasing public debt and rising demand for services,” says Nevena Dragicevic, the report’s author and a policy associate at the Mowat Centre.
The Star has previously profiled the success of such anchor missions in Cleveland, a Rust Belt city whose universities and hospitals joined forces to buy about a quarter of all goods and services locally and to contract more local and minority businesses in infrastructure projects.
The effort, which also includes skill development programs and worker-owned co-operative businesses, is revitalizing low-income neighbourhoods hollowed out by long-gone manufacturing jobs and a housing market crash.
This month, a delegation from the City of Toronto and top philanthropic bodies, universities, and hospitals in the GTA visited the place now known as Comeback City to learn from its achievements.
“I was so impressed with what’s going on in Cleveland,” adds Arifuzzaman, who joined the weeklong trip. “You really get a sense that there’s something changing there.”
He is hoping to effect similar change at University of Toronto Scarborough, which is in the midst of a seven-year expansion plan with construction projects with the potential to create 2,500 full-time jobs.
One new initiative includes getting construction companies with UTSC contracts to take on students from the local Hammerheads program, which gives construction training and apprenticeships to at-risk youth.
Kareem Francis, 26, credits his mentors at Hammerheads for getting him out of his low-wage job as a mover and into a well-paid apprenticeship with VF Mechanical, which is currently doing work on the new UTSC environmental science building.
“They gave me a sustainable career,” says the Scarborough dad. “This program is definitely good for communities where youth don’t necessarily have a solid direction as to where they’re headed.”
Like the leadership at UTSC, Denise Andrea Campbell, the city’s director of social policy, wants to bring a little bit of Cleveland to Toronto. With city council considering a new poverty reduction strategy that talks of economic inclusion and community wealth building, Campbell says it’s time to spend public sector money in a smarter way.
“We’ve got a lot of successes but not a coherent integrated strategy. And that’s why Cleveland is inspiring to Toronto, for sure.”
By the numbers
$130 billion: amount the province will spend on infrastructure projects over the next 10 years.
$4.2 billion: amount Ontario universities spent on goods and services in 2011.
$5.7 billion: amount Ontario hospitals spent on goods and services in 2011.
$1.5 billion: average amount City of Toronto spends annually on procurement.
133,000: number of people employed by Ontario colleges and universities.
Successful anchor strategies
- Buying more goods and services from local businesses.
- Hiring a greater percentage of the workforce locally.
- Providing workforce training for local workers.
- Helping develop local businesses’ capacity to bid for and win lucrative contracts.
- Using real estate development to promote local retail, housing and community land trusts.
Baltimore has what is one effort that is not police and SWAT team oriented----that is the gun buyback and as this article shows-----these really do nothing. When guns are easily replaced-------it simply becomes a way towards a temporary money source.
Organizations in Baltimore kmow what the problem is-----and many of these organizations work hand in hand with the problem-----a very criminal Wall Street Baltimore Development and Johns Hopkins sucking all revenue and assets from all communities around Baltimore. So, these organizations wanting to help gun violence would not be connected to these two institutions and would be outing them as the problem in our underserved communities.
Are gun buybacks worth it?The programs don’t have a great track record, but organizers say saving one life makes them worthwhile.
June 12, 2015 | 9:20 AM
Allison Pohle @AllisonPohle
Guns from the citywide gun buyback program at Boston Police Headquarters in March 2014.
Kayana Szymczak/The Boston Globe
In February 2014, a 14 year old was playing with a gun in his family’s Mattapan home when he accidentally shot his 9-year-old brother and killed him.
In response to the shooting and other gun-related homicides in early 2014, Mayor Marty Walsh planned a gun buyback program to last from March to December 2014. Boston Police said they collected 411 guns.
Whether or not the buyback worked remains to be seen, but studies don’t paint an optimistic picture. Some studies, like one by criminologist Anthony Barga, show buybacks don’t reduce street crimes. Others show they don’t put a dent in the number of guns in a community, or attract the people most likely to commit crimes.
But they remain popular. Many organizers argue that they are worth it if they save even one life. And so gun buybacks continue, including one in Cambridge this Saturday.
The organizers of the first-ever Gift Cards for Guns event hope any residents who have unwanted or unsecured guns in their homes will trade them for grocery store gift cards ranging from $50 to $200.
Cambridge police spokesman Jeremy Warnick said the push for the event came from both faith-based and non-profit organizations that are covering the costs through donations.
One of those faith-based leaders is Lori Lander, founder of Many Helping Hands 365, who said she has watched gun buybacks in other communities to learn what works.
Warnick knows about the critical studies. So does Lander. The event will happen anyway.
“Whether we have guns turned in or not, we’re creating awareness from a public health standpoint,” Warnick said. “We’re not sure how many we’re going to get, but we figured we might as well give it a shot.”
Gun buybacks became especially popular after the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Mother Jones estimated 5,661 guns were bought back in 27 events nationwide in the year after the shooting. That’s 5,661 out of an estimated 300 million guns nationwide.
Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, said buybacks aren’t effective at reducing street crime for three reasons.
First, the people who participate are generally women and older adults, but young men are most likely to be involved in gun-related crimes.
Second, people tend to bring dysfunctional, old guns to buybacks. The guns used in crimes, Vernick said, tend to be newer—or, at the very least, functional.
Third, not many people bring in guns. Even the most successful events, he said, yield 1,000 guns. If each of the 1,000 guns results in a $100 gift card being given away, that’s $100,000. Vernick said that money could be better spent on a targeted policing strategy, or a community outreach program designed to decrease violence, such as Baltimore’s Safe Streets program.
It’s not all bad news. Removing guns from homes decreases the household risk of an accidental shooting or suicide by gun, Vernick said. He also said the programs can be effective as long as they’re the first thing the community does in response to potential gun violence, not the last.
In addition to collecting guns, which will be destroyed by state police, organizers will also give away free gun locks so residents can use them for other guns in their homes.
“If only one gun is turned in, that’s one less possibility of someone getting killed with a unsecured gun in the home,” Lander said. “In that sense, even one gun is a success.”
Obama and Eric Holder afer several years of allowing the most abusive and brutal policing to occur in US cities without intervening are now in an election year posing progressive with the idea of reforming the criminal justice system. Remember, states like Maryland and cities like Baltimore allowed the worst of policing and incarceration and conditions in jail because Clinton and Obama as Presidents signed the Federalist Act----which states the Federal government will not enforce Federal laws unless asked to by a state's Governor or city's Mayor. Obama used Executive Order to do as Clinton and Bush did because he does not recognize US Constitutional rights----Equal Protection----Bill of Rights----he embraces and pushed his entire terms in office for International Economic Zone and Trans Pacific Trade Pact to replace all status of US citizens as having rights.
So, what does it mean when Obama/Holder LOOKS at how to fix a criminal justice system? Well, if I were the underserved----I would be worried.
Right now, public justice systems around the nation have been dismantled especially across the South in Republican states and in neo- conservative cities like Baltimore. There is no sign of public justice in Baltimore and Maryland Assembly spent these several years under Obama further dismantling any ability of the public towards justice that is not able to be handled by JUDGE JUDY.
This is why crime and violence in cities like Baltimore is soaring-----the citizens have lost hope in attaining simple justice ---------it is rights and pathway to justice THAT EMPOWER PEOPLE ------if this disappears---then personal justice become meted with violence as the empowerment.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE BALTIMORE CITIZENS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AND IT IS EXACTLY HOW THIRD WORLD DEVELOPING NATIONS ACT.
So, REAL reforms of BAltimore criminal and public justice systems----looking at unconstitutional laws from Maryland Assembly and Baltimore City Hall to deliberately and illegally keep Baltimore citizens from accessing justice IS THE STEP TOWARDS GETTING GUNS OUT OF THE BLACK MARKET SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.
Getting Smart About Local Governments and Criminal Justice
There are some essential elements for an effective system for reducing arrests and incarceration.
by Edwina Dorch | November 17, 2015
In 2013, then-Attorney General Eric Holder launched a comprehensive review of the nation's criminal justice system to identify reforms that would ensure that federal laws were enforced more fairly and more efficiently. The initial package of recommended reforms was dubbed the Smart on Crime Initiative. Now the Smarter Sentencing Act, a bipartisan bill intended to reduce the federal prison population and reform mandatory minimum sentencing, is before the Senate.
These federal initiatives point the way, but for real progress to be made much of the action will have to come at the local level of government, where offenders typically have their first encounters with the criminal-justice system. That need is reflected in the recent call by more than 130 police chiefs and other top law-enforcement officials to reduce incarceration rates.
What does "smart" mean for our local governments in the context of these issues? It refers to an approach that is citizen-centric and fosters social justice, civic engagement, activism, and transparent and accountable governance; one that provides equal opportunities and reduces inequalities.
A smart arrest-reduction model, and the budget redistribution that such a model would entail, would rebalance police responsibilities. It would return some of the duties now performed by law enforcement back to health professionals, social workers and schools, creating opportunities for more effective forms of intervention and helping to reduce inequalities.
There is much work to be done. More specifically, a smart-city model would need to encompass several essential features:
• Improved case management: The Standards of Practice for Case Management were first introduced in 1995 and then revised in 2002. There are six standards, but one of them -- service evaluation -- is rarely performed. A smart city would provide data on parolee/probationer employment, housing and Medicaid outcomes on the home pages of its police, jail and court websites.
• Silo busting: Parolees and probationers seek services offered by numerous city agencies, but these agencies often operate as silos - that is, with little interaction with other agencies. Maneuvers that harmonize information and activities across agencies would allow city officials to measure the collective impact of a variety of city services on the outcomes of parolees and those on probation.
• Data sharing: Many cities have connected the data systems of their law-enforcement, court and jail systems, but few have connected these data systems to those serving the "no wrong door" social-service systems they have been building. These Web-based systems aim to provide caseworkers with a 360-degree view of a client's needs and available services. Allowing public-safety personnel and social-services caseworkers to collaborate electronically with each other is a smart idea.
• Data analysis: Many major cities now have performance-management-focused "stat" systems. However, a few local governments are taking that to a new level with a focus on performance analytics. Chicago, for example, has begun to identify predictor variables and develop simulated models that forecast, prioritize and allocate city resources more efficiently. These analytics would be fine substitutes for our current recidivism-prediction logic models.
• Evidence-based practice: Real-time data, easily accessible by both government agencies and the public, could be used to establish evidence-based practices, perhaps employing a mechanism similar to the executive-branch commission that U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan has proposed to provide "rigorous impact analysis into program design." As two Brookings Institution scholars put it, "A focus on evidence-based policy making (as opposed to its evil twin, policy-based evidence making) is an important goal." But to create evidence-based practice, we need data on how program inputs translate into outcomes.
• Budgeting: Since efforts to reduce arrests, and therefore incarceration and recidivism, will call on a different array of services from today's models, public-safety budgets will need to be reallocated. That will need to involve a process of budget simulation: collecting and analyzing data on arrests, goals for arrest reduction, savings that would result from meeting those goals, and the impact of redistribution across public, private and nonprofit social-service providers.
What many of these steps have in common is a reliance on government that is networked as never before. That's something that public-management experts have been advocating for decades, and modern tools provide the best opportunity yet to achieve it. Every area of government can benefit, but none more than our efforts to bring greater social justice into our criminal-justice system.
If middle-class America thinks the statement below doesn't include them----WAKE UP. When the election system is fixed so WE THE PEOPLE cannot get bad pols out----then we will see an explosion of crime and violence which global pols intend to meet with global militarized forces and not long after this will be how everyone lives.
'If you support an elected official that is owned, then you are owned. You are still a slave.'
This is where a reduction in gun violence starts-----with a Baltimore States Attorney that wants to mete out justice for victims of crime---not only street crime-----but government corruption and Wall Street frauds because that is where the future lies for citizens in underserved communities waiting for REAL job opportunities and not the same old non-profit and job training leading nowhere routine.
Everyone understands if a person feels they cannot access justice through a legal system----they are driven to be that justice. Much of the violence between groups of citizens are just that----getting guns out of communities starts with empowering people with rights and a pathway to justice.
Below you see what is true------every election for this important Baltimore Attorney's position is filled with people having no intention of doing any of this......
THIS IS WHERE A MAYOR OF BALTIMORE AND CITY COUNCIL COMES IN AND MAKES THESE JUSTICE PROCESSES WORK AND/OR TAKES IT TO THE US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO DO SO.
During political campaigns, especially local campaigns, many of us vote for the people we like or the ones that look most appealing. A reporter asked me one day " Have you noticed that no one elected in Baltimore City is unattractive?" I didn't notice at the time, but I do now. Because we often look at the wrong issues, we miss the most important issue of MONEY. For example: Marilyn Mosby mailed out 1 million dollars worth a campaign literature in the last 2 weeks of the primary election. This money was never raised in her campaign. Many police brutality activist believe they put Marilyn in office, but they didn't; the people that paid the 1 million dollars +, put her in office. The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) gave her the max of $4000. City Councilman Ed Reisinger exceeded the max and gave her $6000, because he wants Black people in Cherry Hill to have felony charges, so when they are forced out, they won't get housing vouchers (truth). Now tell me, who owns Marilyn Mosby and why did you vote for her? Elder C D Witherspoon
Below you see the top gun control policies from Johns Hopkins and beyond the popular banning assault rifles/ammo, background checks, and licensed gun dealers you see lots of what will become reasons to deny most Americans the right to own guns. Bringing in what are very vague descriptions of high-risk people and mental health will inevitably capture just about all Americans. From bar room fights comes alcohol and from treatment for depression comes mental health and VOILA----every college student found drunk on the street would lose their rights to own a gun.
Hopkins deliberately fails to address what we all know will become true------as more and more handguns are taken from US cities-----more and more movement by international cartels of BUSH/CHENEY WAR WEAPONS DROPPED IN UNSTABLE NATIONS will move into the US----they will arrive just as drugs do----cartels have their own submarines----they have frog men crawling onto beaches----they drop from small engine planes into rural areas-----and now Obama and Congress have made it super-easy------
MILITARY DRONES ARE NOW COMMERCIAL----FLYING BELOW RADAR AND UNDETECTABLE WILL CARRY DRUGS AND GUNS RIGHT TO SOMEONE'S DOOR.
Hopkins knows this. Hopkins makes clear----THERE ARE NO EXCUSES when one brings in poverty and unemployment which Hopkins creates in Baltimore as the top source to gun violence and crime. Hopkins is also the one with attachment to global military and security corporations spending the last few decades building militarized policing in International Economic Zones in Asia, Africa, and the South Pacific. This is all Hopkins has planned for Baltimore.
CITIZENS OF BALTIMORE MUST HAVE A MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THAT MOVES AWAY FROM WALL STREET BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT AND A VERY, VERY VERY GLOBAL NEO-CONSERVATIVE JOHNS HOPKINS TO FIX THIS PROBLEM WITH GUNS IN COMMUNITIES UNDER A US CONSTITUTIONAL/RULE OF LAW/EQUAL PROTECTION/SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC MODEL.
Gun Policy Summit: Expert Recommendations
More than 20 of the world's leading gun policy experts have identified several research-based policies to reduce gun violence in the United States. The recommendations are the result of the summit on gun violence convened by Johns Hopkins on Jan. 14 and 15.
"The purpose of putting forth these recommendations is to provide a research-based framework for reducing the staggering toll of gun violence in America," says summit organizer Daniel Webster, director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "Importantly, most recommended policies have broad public support and would not violate constitutional rights."
Collectively, the summit participants recommend the following:
• Establish a universal background check system, which would apply to all persons purchasing a firearm (inheritance exception).
• Require all sales to be facilitated through a federally licensed gun dealer. This would have the effect of mandating the same record keeping for all firearm transfers.
• Increase the maximum amount of time for the FBI to complete a background check from three to 10 business days.
• Require that all firearm owners report the theft or loss of their firearm within 72 hours of becoming aware of its loss.
• Ensure that persons who have a license to carry a firearm be subjected to a background check when purchasing a firearm.
Expanded conditions prohibiting high-risk individuals from purchasing guns
• Persons convicted of a violent misdemeanor would be prohibited from firearm purchase for 15 years.
• Persons committing a violent crime as a juvenile would be prohibited from firearm purchase until age 30.
• Persons convicted of two or more crimes involving drugs or alcohol within a three-year period would be prohibited from firearm purchase for 10 years.
• Persons convicted of a single drug-trafficking offense would be prohibited from gun purchase.
• Persons determined by a judge to be a gang member would be prohibited from gun purchase.
• A minimum age of 21 should be required for handgun purchase or possession.
• Persons who have violated a restraining order issued because of the threat of violence (including permanent, temporary, and emergency) would be prohibited from purchasing firearms.
• Federal restrictions of gun purchase for persons with serious mental illness should be focused on the dangerousness of the individual.
• Federal incentives for states to provide information about disqualifying mental health conditions to the National Instant Check System for gun buyers should be fully funded.
Trafficking and dealer licensing
• A permanent director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives should be appointed and confirmed.
• ATF should be required to provide adequate resources to inspect and otherwise engage in oversight of federally licensed gun dealers.
• Restrictions imposed under the Firearm Owners Protections Act limiting ATF to one routine inspection of gun dealers per year should be repealed.
• Provisions of the Firearm Owners Protection Act raising the evidentiary standard for prosecuting dealers who make unlawful sales should be repealed.
• ATF should be granted authority to develop a range of sanctions for gun dealers who violate gun sales or other laws.
• The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, providing gun dealers and manufacturers protection from tort liability, should be repealed.
• Federal restrictions on access to firearms trace data, other than for ongoing criminal investigations, should be repealed.
• Federal law mandating reporting of multiple sales of handguns should be expanded to include long guns.
• Adequate penalties are needed for violations of the above provisions.
• Congress should provide financial incentives to states to mandate childproof or personalized guns.
• The Federal Consumer Product Safety Commission should be granted authority to regulate the safety of firearms and ammunition as consumer products.
• Ban the future sale of assault weapons, incorporating a more carefully crafted definition—compared with the 1994 ban—to reduce the risk that the law can be easily evaded.
• Ban the future sale and possession of large-capacity (greater than 10 rounds) ammunition magazines.