- The Trump Administration has ruled that gun shops are an essential business during coronavirus lockdowns.
- This comes after several states and cities, including California, did not list firearm retailers as essential. The NRA hit California with a lawsuit, saying this choice “suffocates your self-defense rights when you need them most.”
- Not everyone has agreed with this ruling though. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the communications and documents that led the federal government to make this decision.
- While this debate has been going on, gun retailers say they have seen a significant spike in gun and ammunition sales since fears about the coronavirus became widespread.
Trump Admin Rules Gun Shops Essential
The federal government has ruled gun stores an essential business during coronavirus lockdowns, prompting gun control organizations to fight back.
On Monday night, the Trump administration listed firearms stores, manufacturers, shooting ranges, and other related businesses as essential during the pandemic. Their decision comes after strong debates over what should happen to gun shops during shelter-in-place orders. After sheriffs in Los Angeles and other officials in California said that these stores should not be considered essential and should close, the National Rifle Association hit the state with a lawsuit.
“Municipalities who target lawful gun stores for closure aren’t promoting safety,” Jason Ouimet, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Actions said in a statement. “By weaponizing their politics to disarm you and your loved ones, these shameless partisans are recklessly promoting a gun-control agenda that suffocates your self-defense rights when you need them most.”
The Department of Homeland Security also recommended that gun shops remain open. After the new federal ruling came down, California said it will be opening up gun shops again. The NRA thanked President Donald Trump for his administration’s decision in a tweet.
Opposition to Gun Stores Remaining Open
This ruling has not come without dissent, however. Over the past few weeks, many lawmakers have suggested that gun shops should close during the lockdown.
“There’s no reason why gun stores should be given this exception,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) in a statement. “In fact, arming more Americans in their homes at a time of rising tension and anxiety seems more dangerous than ever.”
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has also been vocal about their opposition to this. On Tuesday morning, they said they will be filing a Freedom of Information Act request so they could see the communications and documents that led the government to decide gun shops should be essential.
“Americans have a right to know whether the Trump Administration is listening to Dr. Anthony Fauci or (NRA Executive) Wayne LaPierre when pushing to keep gun businesses open despite the risk of spreading coronavirus,” the group’s president, Kris Brown said in a statement. “The American people deserve answers as to whether our federal government has put industry interests and profits ahead of our public safety.“
Gun Sales See Bump Amid Coronavirus
This ruling comes as gun sales are on the rise, something sellers are saying is a direct response to fears of the coronavirus. Online retailer Ammo.com said it has seen increased purchases and website traffic since the virus became a widespread concern.
“While people have stockpiled toilet paper, hand sanitizer, and pantry essentials, they’ve also purchased ammunition at an unprecedented rate,” Ammo.com said on its website. “Here at Ammo.com, our growth in sales directly correlates with the rise of COVID-19 and its spread across the country.”
The increases the business has seen are staggering. Ammo.com has reported a 777% increase in revenue, 516% increase in transactions, and 350% increase in site traffic. It has also seen significantly higher conversion rates and order values.
NPR spoke to a gun shop owner in Tulsa, Oklahoma who said gun sales at his store have gone up 20%, while ammunition sales roughly quintupled.
Fears About Gun Ownership Amid Lockdowns
Increased gun ownership during this time of uncertainty and vulnerability does not sit well with everyone though. Gun control advocates fear that having people trapped inside with their weapons could lead to more gun violence.
As many are stuck inside due to lockdowns, there are already reports that domestic violence cases are increasing. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, if a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, the risk of homicide goes up by 500%.
There are also fears that because so many people are panic buying, there are now new gun owners who may be unfamiliar with gun safety measures. Gun deaths significantly increase when proper safety care is not taken. Death by suicide is three times greater in homes with loaded firearms versus a home with an unloaded firearm, a statistic that is also troublesome because of the toll social isolation takes on depression and mental health.
The Brady Campaign has also stated that eight children and teens are injured or killed a day due to an unlocked or unsupervised gun in the home. While kids cannot go to school and are spending more time at home than usual, some worry that this could lead to them getting their hands on a firearm.
Because of this, Brown has been advocating for all gun owners, new and old, to make sure they are being responsible with their weapons.
“While it is understandable to seek what can feel like protection in times of upheaval, we must acknowledge the risks that bringing guns into the home pose and take all appropriate measures to mitigate that risk,” Brown stated.
“In this uncertain time, we urge all gun owners to ensure that their weapons are safely stored,” Brown continued. “Just like we can all do our part to slow the spread of this virus, we can do our part to help prevent unintentional shootings in the home.”
See what others are saying: (NPR) (Wall Street Journal) (Reuters)
SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Police in Two Qualified Immunity Cases
The move further solidifies the contentious legal doctrine that protects officers who commit alleged constitutional violations.
SCOTUS Hears Qualified Immunity Cases
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of police in two separate cases involving qualified immunity, the controversial legal doctrine that shields officers accused of violating constitutional rights from lawsuits.
The topic has become a major flashpoint in debates over police reform and curbing police violence since the protests against racial injustice and police brutality in the summer of 2020.
On one side, supporters of qualified immunity claim it is necessary to ensure that police can do their jobs without worrying about frivolous lawsuits.
However, opponents argue that judicial interpretations of the doctrine over time have given police incredibly broad legal immunity for misconduct and use of excessive force. Under a previous Supreme Court ruling, in order for officers to be held liable, plaintiffs have to show that they violated rights “clearly established” by a previous ruling.
In other words, officers cannot be held liable unless there is another case that involves almost identical circumstances.
As a result, many argue the doctrine creates a Catch-22: Officers are shielded from liability because there is no past precedent, but the reason there is no past precedent is because officers are shielded from liability in the first place.
An Ongoing Debate
Critics argue that the two cases the Supreme Court saw Monday illustrate that double bind, as both involved accusations of excessive force commonly levied against police.
In one case, officers used non-lethal bean bag rounds against a suspect and knelt on his back to subdue him. In the other, police shot and killed a suspect after he threatened them with a hammer.
The justices overturned both lower-court rulings without ordering full briefing and argument because of the lack of precedent. The court issued the decisions in unsigned orders with no dissent, signaling they did not even see the cases as close calls.
Advocates for qualified immunity claim the decisions signal that the current Supreme Court is not open to changing qualified immunity, and the most likely path for opponents of the doctrine is legislation.
While Democrats in Congress have made numerous efforts to limit qualified immunity, including most recently in the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act passed by the House earlier this year, all those attempts have been blocked by Republicans.
At the state level, dozens of bills have been killed after heavy lobbying from police unions. As a result, it remains unclear what path proponents for reform have at this juncture.
See what others are saying: (NPR) (The New York Times) (The Washington Post)
Florida School Says Students Vaccinated Against COVID-19 Must Stay Home for 30 Days
The school falsely claimed that people who have just been vaccinated risk “shedding” the coronavirus and could infect others.
Centner Academy Vaccination Policy
A private school in Florida is now requiring all students who get vaccinated against COVID-19 to quarantine for 30 days before returning to class.
According to the local Miami outlet WSVN, Centner Academy wrote a letter to parents last week describing COVID vaccines as “experimental” and citing anti-vaccine misinformation.
“If you are considering the vaccine for your Centner Academy student(s), we ask that you hold off until the Summer when there will be time for the potential transmission or shedding onto others to decrease,” the letter reportedly stated.
“Because of the potential impact on other students and our school community, vaccinated students will need to stay at home for 30 days post-vaccination for each dose and booster they receive and may return to school after 30 days as long as the student is healthy and symptom-free.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has debunked the false claim that those newly vaccinated against COVID-19 can “shed” the virus.
According to the agency’s COVID myths page, vaccine shedding “can only occur when a vaccine contains a weakened version of the virus,” but “none of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines in the United States contain the live virus that causes COVID-19. This means that a COVID-19 vaccine cannot make you sick with COVID-19.”
In fact, early research has suggested that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus than unvaccinated people.
Beyond that, unvaccinated people are more likely to spread COVID in general because they are much more likely to get the virus than vaccinated people. According to recently published CDC data, as of August, unvaccinated people were six times more likely to get COVID than vaccinated people and 11 times more likely to die from the virus.
Centner Academy Continues Spread of Misinformation
In a statement to The Washington Post Monday, Centner Academy co-founder David Centner doubled down on the school’s new policy, which he described as a “precautionary measure” based on “numerous anecdotal cases that have been in circulation.”
“The school is not opining as to whether unexplained phenomena have a basis in fact, however we prefer to err on the side of caution when making decisions that impact the health of the school community,” he added.
The new rule echoes similar efforts Centner Academy has made that run counter to public health guidance and scientific knowledge.
In April, the school made headlines when its leadership told vaccinated school employees that they were not allowed to be in contact with any students “until more information is known” and encouraged employees to wait until summer to get the jab.
According to The New York Times, the following week, a math and science teacher allegedly told students not to hug their vaccinated parents for more than five seconds.
The outlet also reported that the school’s other co-founder, Leila Centner, discouraged masking, but when state health officials came for routine inspections, teachers said they were directed in a WhatsApp group to put masks on.
See what others are saying: (WSVN) (The Washington Post) (Business Insider)
Katie Couric Says She Edited Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quote About Athletes Kneeling During National Anthem
Couric said she omitted part of a 2016 interview in order to “protect” the justice.
Kate Couric Edited Quote From Justice Ginsburg
In her upcoming book, journalist Katie Couric admitted to editing a quote from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2016 in order to “protect” Ginsberg from potential criticism.
Couric interviewed the late justice for an article in Yahoo News. During their discussion, she asked Ginsburg about her thoughts on athletes like Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem to protest racial inequality.
“I think it’s really dumb of them,” Ginsburg is quoted saying in the piece. “Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it’s dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.”
According to The Daily Mail and The New York Post, which obtained advance copies of Couric’s book “Going There,” there was more to Ginsburg’s response. Couric wrote that she omitted a portion where Ginsburg said the form of protest showed a “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life…Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from.“
Couric Says She Lost Sleep Making Choice
“As they became older they realize that this was youthful folly,” Ginsberg reportedly continued. “And that’s why education is important.“
According to The Daily Mail, Couric wrote that the Supreme Court’s head of public affairs sent an email asking to remove comments about kneeling because Ginsburg had misspoken. Couric reportedly added that she felt a need to “protect” the justice, thinking she may not have understood the question. Couric reached out to her friend, New York Times reporter David Brooks, regarding the matter and he allegedly likewise believed she may have been confused by the subject.
Couric also wrote that she was a “big RBG fan” and felt her comments were “unworthy of a crusader for equality.” Because she knew the remarks could land Ginsburg in hot water, she said she “lost a lot of sleep” and felt “conflicted” about whether or not to edit them out.
Couric was trending on Twitter Wednesday and Thursday as people questioned the ethics behind her choice to ultimately cut part of the quote. Some thought the move showed a lack of journalistic integrity while others thought revealing the story now harmed Ginsburg’s legacy.