Amid growing concerns about mass shootings, Washington state lawmakers are considering a measure to restrict high-powered guns.

House Bill 1240 aims to prohibit the sale, manufacture and distribution of semi-automatic rifles, categorized as assault weapons.

April Schentrup, whose daughter was killed in the Parkland, Florida, shooting in 2018, spoke about the need for the law.

"Because he chose that weapon, he was able to go through all three floors of the building shooting students and teachers as he saw them in the hallway but also through doors of the classrooms," Schentrup stated.

Schentrup now lives in Washington state and advocates for gun safety measures. Opponents of the bill say it erodes their constitutional gun rights. The bill is waiting for a vote on the House floor. It has until March 8 to pass out of the chamber.

Dylan O'Connor, government affairs director for the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, said states prohibiting semi-automatic weapons have seen fewer mass shooting events and, if they do happen, fewer casualties. He argued the weapons have no role in public life.

"They happen to be the favored tool of the mass shooter," O'Connor contended. "And providing as much of a barrier to entry on access to such dangerous firearms is great for public health."

O'Connor added other gun legislation is in play this session as well, including a bill requiring a permit to purchase or transfer a firearm and a bill which would create liability for the gun industry.

Schentrup emphasized the prohibition on semi-automatic rifles is necessary.

"I truly believe that this bill, if it's passed in the state of Washington, will help save lives," Schentrup added.

Other states, including California, Hawaii and New York, have enacted similar bans on high-powered rifles. The gun lobby has opposed the measure.

Minnesota appears to be on the verge of adopting new gun-safety laws.

Some of the common talking points have come up in debate, but groups demanding action say the proposals have evidence on their side. The proposals cleared their final legislative hurdles Monday as part of a larger public safety bill.

One provision would establish extreme no-risk protection orders, where someone deemed a threat to themselves or others would be temporarily blocked from having access to firearms. Another expands background checks for gun shows and private gun sales.

Molly Leutz, Minnesota chapter lead for the group Moms Demand Action, said the proposals are not "knee-jerk" reaction laws.

"There is evidence from these laws being in place in other states that they have efficacy in reducing gun violence," Leutz pointed out.

University of Michigan researchers say protection order laws appear to be an effective tool in preventing firearm incidents, such as mass shootings. And Johns Hopkins University said states without universal background checks have 30% higher levels of seeing guns eventually getting into the hands of criminals.

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus contends the provisions would burden lawful gun owners without reducing firearm crimes or suicide rates.

Maggiy Emery, interim executive director of Protect Minnesota, echoes sentiments from others, saying these are worthwhile strategies based on how they've been applied elsewhere. She said there's no "one-size-fits-all" approach to reducing gun violence, but added these would be important solutions to build on.

"These bills represent the bottom-line, common-sense, should-have-been-done-years-ago things that Minnesota is behind on," Emery contended. "And once we get these over the finish line, that's really going to open up an opportunity for us to think about what else can we be doing here that's going to be really effective in saving lives."

Federal data show suicides make up a majority of firearm deaths in Minnesota, and Emery feels the protection order provision could be very effective in preventing those situations. Gov. Tim Walz has indicated he would sign such laws into place.


get more stories like this via email

Missouri's Stand Your Ground law has been cited a number of times since the recent shooting of a Missouri teen by a homeowner whose house he went to by mistake. But one expert said the statute is not what authorizes a person to use lethal force when a "legitimate" threat occurs at their home or property.

Ari Freilich, state policy director for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, pointed out Stand Your Ground laws apply in public spaces, and the Castle Doctrine covers private property.

He said what the two have in common is lowering the legal requirement to avoid using lethal force when possible, by stepping away, or otherwise de-escalating the situation.

"Generally speaking, you cannot use lethal force unless it was objectively reasonable for you to believe that it was necessary to use that amount of force to prevent death or serious bodily harm, or really serious crimes from occurring," Freilich explained.

Freilich noted both the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws fall under the umbrella of homicide laws. He added although every state has variations, the legal system has important protections, independent of the two, in the form of self-defense and justifiable homicide laws.

Freilich stressed although the Castle Doctrine does not require someone to step away or attempt to de-escalate a threat when at home, it has major restrictions.

"That does not authorize someone to use lethal force when there is no reason to believe that someone is unlawfully entering the home," Freilich emphasized. "And also, when there is really no objectively reasonable indicator that the person was a threat to life or safety."

And although de-escalating has historically been the expectation in public spaces, Freilich acknowledged people's understanding of this seems to be changing.

"Stand your ground laws have altered and distorted that and told people they have some vague affirmative right in public spaces -- wherever they might lawfully be present -- to stand their ground and not withdraw, not de-escalate in that way," Freilich said.

Freilich co-authored a study with the Southern Poverty Law Center which concluded Stand Your Ground laws should be repealed, stating, "They encourage a trigger-happy culture of anxious vigilantism that cheapens the value of human life. And they deepen vast and harmful disparities in our legal system."


get more stories like this via email

The annual National Rifle Association convention in Indianapolis wrapped up Sunday. Those in support of -- and against -- increased gun rights were in attendance. But one local group doesn't agree with why the organization came to Indy.

The speaker roster included former vice president Mike Pence, who was greeted with 'boos' from the crowd, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb, U.S. Senators Mike Braun, R-Ind., and Tim Scott, R-S.C., and possible presidential contender, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence President Jerry King questioned why Indianapolis hosted the convention.
As King put it, "How disappointed we are that the city of Indianapolis has welcomed this organization, whose policies are so much out of step with a nation, of [an] unrigid position on opposing moderate, reasonable gun reform, whose policies result in people dying."

Outside the center, protestors held signs saying "Protect Kids Not Guns." According to the website Everystat, from the gun-safety group Every Town For Gun Safety, guns are the leading cause of death among children and teens in Indiana. On average, 110 children and teens die by guns; 31% of these deaths are suicides and 63% are homicides.

Another accidental fatal shooting happened Sunday afternoon in Indianapolis, the last day of the convention. A child reportedly died from injuries consistent with a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Gun deaths and injuries cost Indiana an estimated $7 billion a year, of which $300 million is paid by taxpayers. The NRA is viewed as the most powerful gun-rights organization in the country and generally does not contribute to lawmakers who push for more gun legislation.

King was asked if he thinks the convention's speakers stand firm with gun-rights supporters, or whether their rhetoric is a platform for their own political agenda.

"Sometimes people, especially politicians, have views more moderate than the ones that they speak in public," King observed. "But when it comes to making decisions, I think they're going to act on those pretty extreme positions that the NRA sticks out."

A controversial permitless carry bill, HB 1296, opposed by law enforcement and anti-gun violence groups, was signed into law last year by Gov. Holcomb. The law removes the requirement for an Indiana resident to have a handgun permit to legally carry, conceal or transport a handgun within the state.