ST. PAUL, Minn. - The Minnesota House may soon decide whether to close what some call a "loophole" for gun sales at gun shows. A newly-introduced bill would require background checks for gun show purchases. Right now, those checks are only done when purchases are made from federally licensed dealers at those gun shows.

Heather Martens, executive director of Citizens for a Safer Minnesota, says a recent survey shows 82 percent of Minnesotans support background checks. She adds that a New York Times poll of National Rifle Association members nationally found almost 70 percent support the same idea.

The bottom line for her organization, Martens stresses, is keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

"I just can't imagine why Minnesota would stand by and allow that to keep happening. It's such an obvious thing to do to close off an avenue for felons, gun traffickers or domestic abusers to get guns."

Under the bill, unlicensed sellers would obtain the background check through a federally licensed dealer on the gun show site. Opponents have said they fear such a system would lead to a gun registry, or a waiting period for gun purchases. The bill's sponsors say neither assumption is true.

Martens says the bill would make sure that convicted felons, domestic abusers and people with dangerous mental illnesses would no longer be able to avoid background checks at gun shows.

"Is it okay that people can just go up to somebody at a gun show and not have to pass a background check, when we have a huge problem with illegal guns on the streets and a huge problem with gun violence?"

A similar bill didn't make it through the legislature last year. However, chief bill sponsor Rep. Michael Paymar says language in the bill was changed this year to make it clear no gun registry would be created, in order to satisfy those who raised concerns.

The New York Times survey is available at www.nytimes.com.




get more stories like this via email

A new initiative for single mothers and their sons is helping to combat crime and empower vulnerable community members in Jackson.

The nonprofit Operation Good, made up of people who used to be in prison, said it has helped to significantly lower crime rates in the areas it serves. In one neighborhood, the rate dropped from 87% to 14%.

Fredrick Womack, founder and executive director of Operation Good, said the goal is to find the root causes of violence in Jackson. They are doing family interventions and collaborating with single moms and high-risk youth to prevent violent crimes.

"To change the mindset of the high-risk participant and also give them in a better place in life, get the mothers in a better place in life," Womack explained. "Data here show that over 52% of the children are born into unwed families; 77% of those are single moms."

The Mississippi Department of Public Safety aims to reduce violent crime by 5% using federal grants. However, Womack pointed out Mississippi received American Rescue Plan Act funds and 20% of the money was supposed to be allocated to community organizations for public safety and violence prevention. He noted Mississippi used the money instead to create a Capitol Police Department.

For Operation Good, community engagement also includes providing food, educational and mentoring resources to families. They host monthly events. The most recent was a block party and the next will be a community symposium on Sept. 26, where victims of violent crime will discuss prevention.

"We're doing a gun violence event with the hospitals and researchers and talk dealing with those who have been a victim of gun violence, you know, who have been shot," Womack outlined. "We're having a symposium with them, to try to let them know there are resources available."

According to the Marshall Project, Jackson has a curfew restricting young people from being out past 10 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on weekends. The ordinance is set to expire in January 2025. In the meantime, city officials hope engagement centers also offer a safe haven for children.


get more stories like this via email

Montgomery County officials are asking students to use social media responsibly following a series of arrests stemming from online threats to local schools.

Over the weekend, three students -- two 13-year-olds and an 11-year-old -- were arrested for alleged "terroristic threats" made in social media posts.

Melvin Brown, superintendent of Montgomery Public Schools, said it is important students think before they post and issued a sharp reminder threats can have long-term consequences.

"Social media can be a powerful tool but it's also a dangerous place to make dangerous decisions," Brown emphasized. "Bad decisions. It's crucial that students understand the impact of their online behavior and adhere to the school district's social media policy."

Brown also urged parents to play an active role in promoting online safety and revisiting the student handbook and code of conduct available on the Montgomery Public Schools website. The call to action comes after the school shooting in Georgia that tragically claimed four lives.

James Graboys, interim chief of the Montgomery Police Department, detailed the police department's response in a news conference, stressing threats online or in person will be met with strict action.

"Whenever somebody decides to make these kinds of pranks or these kinds of actions, they need to understand that we are going to react very aggressively and very hard to whoever completes these types of actions," Graboys stated. "When we are knocking on those doors, we're going to be wanting to talk to every individual in that residence."

Daryl Bailey, Montgomery County district attorney, warned the effects of making threats online extend beyond the students involved. He said his office will work to make sure parents are held accountable.

"If I can find any shred of evidence that parents were responsible for this, or neglectful with their children, or encouraged them or did anything to participate in this, they will be held responsible in adult court," Bailey pledged.

Investigations into similar threats are ongoing in Autauga, Elmore and Madison counties, as officials statewide continue to address growing concerns about school safety.


get more stories like this via email

Connecticut is one state not affected by a recent Supreme Court ruling.

In Garland v. Cargill, the Court overturned a federal bump-stock ban the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives implemented after a 2017 mass shooting. Authorities found most of the shooter's weapons had a bump stock, which enables someone to fire multiple rounds at a rapid pace.

Melissa Kane, board chair and interim executive director of the group Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said federal action must follow the ruling.

"Legislation to ban bump stocks has already been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate," Kane pointed out. "Congress has the power to change the law and ban bump stocks now to keep these kinds of weapons off of our streets and out of our communities but it has to happen."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has signaled he'll call for a vote on legislation banning bump stocks. The big challenge Kane sees for implementing such a ban is political gridlock. Senate Democrats support Schumer's proposal but GOP senators said they will block the legislation.

Polls from just before the ban was implemented show most Americans support it and attorneys general from numerous states say a federal bump-stock ban is necessary. Although federal gun safety bills often face an uphill battle, some states have not had the same issue.

Kane argued Connecticut can be a model for other states and the federal government.

"Connecticut's is ironclad and I'd like other states to look at the wording of our legislation and know that if your state doesn't have a ban on bump stocks, you can ban bump stocks," Kane contended. "That's important for people to see. They will be able to uphold those in case there are cases that come against them."

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have bump-stock bans which remain in effect since the ruling covers the ATF rule, not the constitutionality of state bans.