A group of 10 men were approached by police near the park on Sunday, according to a police report. One of the men, Kenneth L. Newman “approached Ptlm. Moody from his blind side and Newman made several movements toward his hip area, then Newman came within the reactionary gap of Ptlm. Moody made several loud verbal commands for Newman to sit down but [Newman] continued forward in a threatening, offensive posture toward Ptlm. Moody,” according to the police report. “At this time Ptlm. Moody drew his department issued firearm, and using loud verbal commands ordered Newman into a prone position.”

Providence Police Chief Hugh Clements said the reactionary gap is the area of personal space at which a person can come into contact with an officer. He said the suspect had a knife on his person and Officer Moody thought Newman was reaching for it.

“It appears the officer was very justified in pulling his firearm in this instance,” Clements said. “Based on what I know, I think he reacted properly to the threat to him.”

Clements said Providence police investigate every use of force by an officer – and use of force includes brandishing a gun. “If there is more to investigate, they will,” he said. “It doesn’t appear to me this will rise to that level. Only [Moody] and the officers on the scene know the exact totality of the threat to him.”

Clements said it is not uncommon for a Providence police officer to wield their guns. It happened more than 500 times last year, he said. “It happens at every single drug raid, every single gun arrest, every time there is a perceived threat to an officer,” he said. “Because it gets captured by someone on social media doesn’t mean it’s wrong.”

Providence police try to document every incident when an officer pulls their gun on a suspect, but Clements said some officers don’t. “It’s an area that we constantly struggle with making sure that we document,” he said, noting that it happened at least 500 times in 2015.

Clements declined to disclose how many times Officer Moody has pulled out his gun. He said Moody trains other officers in safe use of firearms and is a member of a police department SWAT team, known as the “tactical team” or “special response unit.”

Newman was not charged with a crime.

The event will be on Wednesday, 3pm at the Providence Public Safety Complex.

Cicilline and Langevin both participated in the historic sit-in on the House floor last week that was organized to call attention to the GOP’s inaction on gun safety following the horrific Pulse massacre in Orlando that left 49 innocent people dead.

The follow-up event is being billed, by Cicilline spokesman Rich Luchette, as an opportunity to “discuss ways for Rhode Islanders to continue to push Republicans in Congress on ‘no fly, no buy’ and universal background checks,” he said.

Cicilline was an organizer of the 26-hour House floor sit-in, along with Georgia Congressman John Lewis, which for 12 hours prevented Republicans from conducting congressional business.

“Republicans can no longer ignore the voices of millions of Americans who are demanding commonsense legislation to address this epidemic,” Cicilline said in a statement following the protest action. “It is shameful that Speaker Ryan, using a procedural maneuver, adjourned the House in the dark of night, shortly after his party voted for another Wall Street giveaway, so that Republicans would not have to address the very real impact of gun violence. This isn’t Wall Street’s House – it’s the People’s House – and it’s time Republicans start acting like it by addressing the important issues facing American families. When the Speaker calls the House back into session we will continue to stand up once again for our constituents who are demanding we take action to reduce gun violence in our country.”

In a letter to congressional colleagues, the six organizers of the sit in wrote:

Dear Colleagues:

This week, Democrats in Congress made history while the world watched.  Our sit-in showed that the Republican Leadership can no longer ignore the epidemic of gun violence.  A movement was born and will only continue to grow.

We ask you to join us in a National Day of Action on June 29, 2016.  While you are back home in your District, you can continue to build the momentum and engage your community.  Whether it a press conference, roundtable, or telephone town hall, we encourage you host an event showing that Democrats in Congress will keep up the fight against gun violence.  Local partners including survivors, law enforcement and faith leaders can be excellent partners and can help carry our message even further.

We look forward to working with you as we continue our fight to bring commonsense, bipartisan, gun violence prevention legislation up for a vote. Together, we can give voice to the overwhelming majority of the American people who want to see their Congress take action to help keep our communities safe.

Sincerely,

John Lewis

John B. Larson

Katherine M. Clark

David N. Cicilline

Robin Kelly

Mike Thompson

“We are resolved and committed to speaking out for victims, survivors, and families at home who deserve a vote,” said a letter signed by Cicilline and 16 other Democrats to House Speaker Paul Ryan. “We are prepared to continue standing on the House floor whenever the House is in session to assist you in bringing these bills to a vote.”

According to Politico, “more than 40 Democrats walked into the chamber just before noon and pledged to ‘occupy’ the House floor until GOP leadership allowed a vote.”

Cicilline, in a speech on the House floor just prior to the sit-in, said the incident at the Pulse nightclub in Orland should compel a legislative response to the increased mass shootings and gun violence America is facing. “This monstrous attack on the LGBT community in a place of refuge and empowerment requires us to act,” he said. “The shooter in Orland used an assault rifle that is virtually identical to the ones used by mass killers in San Bernandino, Umpqua Community College, Aurora and Sandy Hook Elementary. That’s no coincidence. Out of the eight high profile mass shootings that have taken place in the past year, seven involved the use of an assault weapon.”

Congressman Jim Langevin also participated in the action. In a statement, he said, “These are not radical ideas. These are commonsense proposals, and the time to take action is long overdue. As the victim of an accidental shooting, I know firsthand the devastating effects that guns can have on a life, even when being handled by experts. I was lucky. I lived. The 49 innocent people killed in Orlando – and the thousands killed by guns in our country each year – did not have that chance, and their families and friends deserve better. The vast majority of Americans support responsible gun reforms, like universal background checks, and those constituents deserve a vote.”

Here’s the full text of the letter from the 17 representatives to Speaker Ryan:

Dear Mr. Speaker:

As the worst mass shooting in our nation’s history has underscored, our country cannot afford to stand by while this Congress continues to be paralyzed by politics. We urge you to lead the House into action and work with both sides of the aisle to pass commonsense solutions to keep American children and families safe.

There is broad agreement among Americans – greater than 90 percent by some measures – that expanding background checks for firearms purchases is a reasonable measure for this Congress to pass. An overwhelming majority also agree that we should enact safety measures that keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists.

The question before us is, what is this Congress waiting for?

Over the last 12 years, gun-related crimes claimed more American lives than AIDS, war, and illegal drug overdoses combined. Since Newtown, tens of thousands of lives have been lost to this deadly crisis. The number of bills that have been debated and passed by this Congress to prevent such deaths is zero.

Together we represent families who are worried and frustrated – millions of Americans who are fed up with the inaction in Congress. There is no doubt that our path to solutions will be arduous, but we have to agree that inaction can no longer be a choice that this Congress makes. We cannot enact solutions for families at home if the Speaker will not even allow a debate.

Therefore, we stand with thousands of brokenhearted families who have not been served by this Congress, and millions more who are counting on us to find the moral courage to do the right thing. We stand together in our refusal to sit by while this Congress abdicates its fundamental responsibility to protect American families from harm. We urge you to keep the House in session until we have robust debate and votes on expanding background checks and banning the sale of firearms to suspected terrorists.

Until then, we are resolved and committed to speaking out for victims, survivors, and families at home who deserve a vote. We are prepared to continue standing on the House floor whenever the House is in session to assist you in bringing these bills to a vote.

Sincerely,
Rep. Katherine Clark
Rep. John Lewis
Rep. Gregory Meeks
Rep. John Larson
Rep. Robin Kelly
Rep. John Yarmuth
Rep. Chellie Pingree
Rep. Stacey Plaskett
Rep. Michael Capuano
Rep. Rosa DeLauro
Rep. David Cicilline
Rep. Kathy Castor
Rep. Bonnie Watson-Coleman
Rep. Steve Cohen
Rep. Peter Welch
Rep. Bill Pascrell
Rep. Joyce Beatty
Rep. Joseph Kennedy

Soon after Mr. Mateen first opened fire, he was confronted by an armed security guard who was an off-duty police officer, said John Mina, the Orlando police chief, at a news conference Monday morning. They exchanged gunfire. The security guard was then joined by an unknown number of police officers, the first to arrive on the scene.

In other words, the gunman’s actions were immediately met with an armed response. Did it help?

A sense of optimism was expressed by many speakers at last night’s Interfaith Memorial Vigil, held at the Second Free Will Baptist Church in Providence. Despite the steady, deadly drumbeat of mass shootings and the hysteria being generated by the Republican presidential front runner over refugees and Muslims, forces are beginning to coalesce around a series of reforms to our gun laws on both the sate and national level.

The day before Governor Gina Raimondo held “a two-hour discussion… about ways to reduce gun violence” and though the NRA was represented through the Second Amendment Coalition‘s Frank Saccoccio, his views did not dominate the discussion, a far cry from what is usually seen at the State House, where legislators seem to treat his every word and opinion as gospel.

Former State Representative Linda Finn, one of the founders of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence (RICAGV) talked about Saccoccio at the governor’s discussion when she addressed the crowd.

“Yesterday I got to sit in on the governor’s round table discussion,” said Finn, “and it was wonderful because one of the guys who comes to every hearing and just throws out so many lies and misperceptions had three judges sitting there telling him, ‘That’s just not true, what you’re saying, it just doesn’t happen… When a domestic violence charge is issued it’s not two people [who are typically charged] it’s just one person. It’s not two people. [Saccoccio] was saying that most of the time it’s two people that get charged. And if a woman gets charged then she can’t carry a gun to protect herself [from her abuser]. And our politicians and our legislators believe that. And one of the judges who sits on the court she said, ‘I have 800 cases that I’ve been dealing with this year and I only had one situation where two people [were charged with domestic violence.]’”

Last year, said Finn, “was the first time we had more people who were for the gun bills than [the gun proponents] did.”

These facts give Finn hope that this will be the year that real gun reforms bills could pass out of the General Assembly. Specifically a bill to ban domestic abusers from owning or purchasing guns, and a bill to prevent people with conceal/carry permits from bringing those guns into public schools.

Also of particular interest were the words of Imam Farid Ansari. “Obviously the Islamic community has been affected by this scourge of gun violence,” said Ansari, but, “Let me assure you that the images that are being portrayed in regard to Islam is not the true picture of Islam… As an American I myself most certainly condemn these acts of violence that are being perpetrated in the name of Islam.”

Ansari talked about the current climate of Muslim scapegoating and fear mongering. “There is a vocabulary emerging today that is unfortunately being focused on the Islamic community. We hear the words jihadist, terrorist, fundamentalist, all these words are words that are designed to inflame and incite the passions of the people… It’s an evil. It literally is an evil.

“Don’t be persuaded by this vocabulary, of this image being portrayed about Islam. And please do not listen to – I don’t know how to describe him – but you know who I’m talking about.,” said Ansari, getting laughs for his allusion to Donald Trump.

“This portrayal of us as a menace,” said Ansari to a standing ovation, “is absolutely evil.”

I’ll have a full 90 minute video later today of the entire Vigil, but for now I’ll leave you with two more speakers. First up is The Reverend Jametta Alston of the United Church of Christ giving a rousing sermon against gun with a powerful reference to the Biblical commandment “Thou shall not kill.”

And here’s Jennifer Smith Boylan speaking about her awakening to the issue of gun violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings and her involvement with Moms Demand Action.

The professor was generous enough to grant some time on December 8 for an interview to provide expertise on the subject of constitutional law and the history of the ever controversial Second Amendment. A conversation via Skype revealed and explained fascinating truths behind American gun culture.

Insurrectionist Theory

“Throughout the history of the republic, until about 1960, as a matter of law, the right to bear arms was a collective right and not an individual right,” said Professor Bogus. He explained that the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy as a crucial moment in gun rights history, noting that Lee Harvey Oswald purchased his rifle from a mail-order ad in American Rifleman, an official publication of the National Rifle association. “Afterward,” said Professor Bogus, “there was a fear of significant gun regulation. The NRA was overtaken by right-wing political extremists.”

Of course, this version of history does not compute with the lofty rhetoric commonly used to espouse the right to bear arms as promoted by the NRA. Rather, one hears broad and abstract statements about the how the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all Americans. For example, according to the Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition website,

“… our very liberty is in jeopardy at the hands of misinformed, and/or over zealous anti-gun legislators who don’t understand or respect the systems put in place through the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Let’s not forget this; without the 2nd Amendment, the entire Constitution is nothing but unenforceable words on paper. The 2nd Amendment is the only thing that separates us from every other country that has confiscated the privately-owned firearms of the public – turning them into ‘subjects’ as opposed to ‘citizens’.”

Relatively new, this interpretation of the language of the second amendment is referred to as “insurrectionist theory,” and has been developed, in no small part, through NRA grant funding. In The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, a 1998 publication in the UC Davis Law Review, Professor Bogus writes that, “insurrectionist theory is premised on the idea that the ultimate purpose of an armed citizenry is to be prepared to fight the government itself.” But, in this self-contradicting concept, the wise framers of the constitution, whose foundation for American democracy is praised for its unique freedoms, expresses enough mistrust to require the need for citizens to arm themselves with sufficient deadly force and vehemently contested regulation to risk unparalleled levels of collateral damage. The Hidden History points out that insurrectionist theory would have one believe that all of the other Constitutional components designed to prevent the abuse of government power are insufficient and the ultimate guarantee of freedom comes from the barrel of a gun.

Well Regulated Slave Patrols

The popular, contemporary association, however, of armed individuals being the thin, lead line standing between liberty tyranny is not supported by the history of the “founding fathers.” Furthermore, it ignores the very language of the :

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

When asked whether individual citizens can be considered the de facto Militia necessary to the security of a free State, Professor Bogus said, “Not according to the framers. Militia is defined in the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8. There was a concern at the Virginia Constitutional Convention by George Mason and Patrick Henry, in 1788, that if congress declared, they could disarm the militia. There was a large dispute over what militia ought to be. There was talk of every white male able body. Madison wrote the second amendment to solve that problem, irrespective of congress.” Professor Bogus is, of course, correct. Notwithstanding the lack of an immutable definition of who actually composes a militia, well regulated or no, the article in the main body of the Constitution gives Congress power over the militia.

And, according to Bogus, at the time, state militias had only one job: controlling slave insurrections.

By the middle of the 18th century, in the South, militias and slave patrols had become synonymous. In Virginia, by the time the delegates convened to debate ratification of the evolving Constitution in 1788, over 40 percent of the population were non-white slaves. For all intents and purposes, the “well regulated militia” was a vast, industrial police system. Therefore, by that logic, the founding fathers’ intent by writing into the document delineating the supreme law of the land language that spoke of an armed militia as necessary to the security of a free state was, in practical terms, to preserve slavery. “Even during the revolution,” said Bogus, “the south refused to commit state militia because of slave insurrections.”

It was not principally Heller

When asked whether the primary shift in contemporary public opinion was the Supreme Court Decision laid out in D.C. vs. Heller, Professor Bogus said, “It was not principally Heller. They (the NRA, the gun manufacturing lobby) sold the view that guns signify freedom and the fear that people may need to go to war with their own government. Heller is the fruit of the long campaign to sell these views. Heller made it the law of the land. The culture here is a greater obstacle.”

To what culture does he refer? Is it the culture that flies the flag of the armed minuteman, but ignores the armed slave owner? Is it the culture that places its trust in the men in government who cry loudest that government cannot be trusted? Is it the culture that creates a campaign to stamp out every single cause of gun violence except for the guns? Or, is it the culture that calls itself the greatest democracy the world has ever seen, but only if the provisions of the doctrine that enable those ideals it holds in such high regard – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – are held at gunpoint?

Approximately six weeks ago, I was using the internet for its intended purpose: arguing with strangers about social policy issues while simultaneously binge-watching the latest Netflix series and shopping for the best online deals for boxer-briefs. During my bandwidth frenzy the social media debate in which I was engaged turned to the issue of gun laws. It must have been in the recent aftermath of one or another mass shooting. With the frequency of such occurrences, I cannot recall which one.

I made a comment concerning the relative ease of purchasing a firearm and was met with a strong opposing statement about how difficult it is to buy a gun. I believe I had said that peanut butter is too dangerous to bring on to school property, but certain lawmakers want to allow concealed firearms. I followed that up with something comparing the simplicity of buying a gun to that of buying peanut butter. Admittedly, this was not my best case argument to date. But, I was testing an angle. I decided to try an experiment.

Opening yet another browser window on my laptop, now hot to the touch due to the number of running applications, I typed into Google, “buy a gun online.” I clicked the first response that popped up. Six and a half minutes later, I had located a 9mm semi-automatic handgun, completed the background questionnaire, and been approved. I requested a hold for delivery to a nearby gun shop for pick up within six days. I also checked to see how long it would take to buy peanut butter online. For the record, ordering peanut butter for in-store pickup was quicker and easier by a good two or three minutes.

Also, for the record, I had no intention of actually purchasing a firearm. Nor do I plan on owning a gun. I rely heavily on statistics for most decisions and the numbers point to a much higher probability of something irreparably traumatic occurring to me or someone for whom I care than of requiring such a device for protection. I feel no need to repeat the statistics that have been accurately expressed ad nauseum by other sources. Suffice it to say, they all strongly suggest that more guns result in more shootings.

It was after I went through the online registration with the site that acted as the broker for my gun purchase that never was, that I started to receive the almost daily promotional e-mails from Gallery of Guns, a site that prices and deals in firearms. I had gone through something that called itself  the Gun Genie. The primary address for the operation is in Prescott, Arizona. Yet, I also noticed a secondary address in Greensboro, North Carolina. I have no knowledge of Arizona. I did, however, live in Greensboro, North Carolina for six years. I went to college there. And, I cannot say that I am at all surprised that such an operation would exist in Greensboro.

But I digress. Below are some of the highlights from the e-mails that I have been  receiving.

Then there was a bit of a shock when I was offered aan opportunity to enter for a chance to win not one, but two guns. Mind you, these are not just any guns. The Jericho 9mm is a nearly indestructible, polymer sidearm; and the Tavor is a unique, bullpup design, with a similar barrel-length and muzzle velocity to an AR-15 assault rifle. However, the configuration allows it to be more compact and maneuverable in close-combat situations. You know, like close-combat deer hunting and close-combat target shooting. Both are Israeli-design and versions are used by the Israeli military. I will be sure to let you all know more about their design characteristics if I win the “Great Gun Giveaway.”The last promotional e-mail is the real class-act. One might think that the day following the November 27 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood siege, in which a gunman killed three and wounded four over the course of a six hour standoff, it would be in good taste to refrain from sending advertisements for military-style firearms. However, one would be wrong to think so. Advertised as a special for this weekend only, the ever popular AR-15 type weapon, touted here as the best gun for WSHF/WROL (without forward assist). If you do not know (I had to look it up) that stands for “when shit hits the fan,” and “without rule of law.” So, I suppose this is the one you would want to buy if you found yourself trapped by police after invading a women’s health facility and opening fire on unarmed, innocent civilians.

I cannot pinpoint exactly what to take away from my own story. I suppose the issue worthy of discussion is this: If guns are tools of either survival or of sport, why are they being marketed so hard. As soon as I provided one single point of contact, I have been bombarded with a barrage of marketing that has showed me a glimpse of the culture of the firearms market. These are instruments designed to maximize the efficiency with which a human being can cause life threatening injury or death to another living thing. When there are cries of guns getting into the hands of the wrong people and discussions of responsible gun owners, limiting access to convicted felons, or (the most recent scapegoat) the mentally ill, it holds even less weight than before I became aware of all the savings, deals, promotions, and shameless advertising tactics for tactical weapons.

This experience has further validated my suspicions of an industry and a culture that speaks out of both sides of its mouth when it promotes rights and responsibilities and then acts in such a sensational and classless manner, offering deals on AR-15 rifles the day after a national gun-related tragedy. And, as for the “Great Gun Giveaway,” yes, they have indeed given it away. But not just the gun. They gave away the whole scam.

Jack Warner, spokesman for the group, said, “Each record is critical.  In fact, the Virginia Tech shooter in 2007 was able to buy his gun because his mental health records had not been submitted… RI is still among the worst-performing states.”

Due to the vast influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) on the General Assembly in Rhode Island, no meaningful legislation has passed in this state limiting access to guns in years. Not wanting to take any meaningful action after the terrible shootings in Newtown CT, in which 20 children and six adults lost their lives to a shooter, the Rhode Island General Assembly convened a task force to deal with the issue of mental health and guns.

The report compiled by that task force, “Behavioral Health and Firearms Safety Task Force to Review, and Make Recommendations for, Statutes Relating to Firearms and Behavioral Health Issues” made a series of recommendations for legislation that might improve Rhode Island’s participation in the NCIS program, none of which were followed up on by the General Assembly this legislative session.

According to Everytown, “States that have taken steps to improve record-sharing have seen tangible results, not just in record submission, but in background check denials to dangerous people.  In 2014, 342 gun sales to seriously mentally ill individuals in South Carolina were blocked by background checks, up five-fold from just four years before.”

Rhode Island has submitted only 27 reports to the NICS.  To join with the best performing states Rhode Island would have to submit 8,505 records. According to Everytown, “20,400 gun background checks were conducted in Rhode Island in 2012 using this incomplete database, which fails to block gun sales to the hundreds of thousands of prohibited purchasers whose mental health records are not in the system.”

In addition to do nothing about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, the General Assembly also failed to move forward on a bill designed to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Yet when Speaker Nicholas Mattiello brought the legislative season to an abrupt end, last week, he said that the bills that did not come to the floor were “not very consequential” and “just not as important” as the legislation he dealt with and passed.

“It is inconceivable that domestic violence could be seen as trivial or characterized as inconsequential…” said the Rev. Gene Dyszlewski, Chair of the Religious Coalition for a Violence-Free RI.

“The person who has been violent in the home has already lost the trust of his family and of most reasonable people.  What more do we need? Rhode Island families deserve better. For a legislature that has accomplished so little, this could be the crowning achievement; instead it is a mark of shame.”

Mental illness is neither uncommon nor separate from physical illness. People with conditions like schizophrenia are not necessarily acting much different from the rest of us, especially if they are getting effective treatment. Whether we know it or not, all of us know people who are dealing with serious mental health challenges.

People who are truly disengaged from reality may do things that are self-injurious and have no gain or rationale that others can understand.

In my own urban neighborhood there are people who are driven to wander the streets in their own purgatory. A family member is lost to us, out of contact. Mental illness causes immense suffering and it’s a shame that it’s used as a slur or a joke. It’s a disgrace that so many influential voices are using a cowardly attack on the mentally ill to avoid admitting that we all have a social disease. Worse, they prefer to deny and spread it around rather than come clean and seek a cure.

Different cultures have different kinds of crazy. During the European witchcraft hysteria of the 1400’s a book was published that warned men about – a belief that got a lot of women killed. Insane by our standards, but not in that society. Is The Hammer of Witches really so different from The Turner Diaries, a book that inspired racist mass-murderer Timothy McVeigh?

Does mental illness explain a pattern of crime where the perpetrators dress up, shout slogans and for the most part target the same kinds of people repeatedly? Does it explain why so many violent men seem to believe they are part of a community of right-thinking patriots? Does it excuse our leaders for failing to demand that anyone who wants to own a lethal weapon owes the rest of us some accountability?

Mental illness may explain the derelict masturbating in public on a park bench, but it does not explain the serial rapist. The kind of premeditated violence driven by hateful ideas is not simply sick individuals and will not be solved by locking them up after the damage is done. There will only be more to replace them.

What is needed is a clear assessment of the cultural delusions that enable bigotry to hide in plain sight. As someone described the latest mass killer:

“I never heard him say anything, but just he had that kind of Southern pride, I guess some would say. Strong conservative beliefs,” he said. “He made a lot of racist jokes, but you don’t really take them seriously like that. You don’t really think of it like that.”

South Carolina still flies the Confederate flag at its Statehouse. The governor expresses her regrets with care not to offend her supporters invested in denial about racism and guns.

America is gun-crazy. Every child grows up watching hundreds of dramas where guns bring power and respect, the bad guys are eventually out-shot and other ways to resolve conflict are ignored or disparaged. They don’t see the damage, the wounds that don’t heal, the bereavement that is never outlived. Nurses see that but it’s not entertaining and there’s no happy ending.

Mass shootings boost gun sales. Fear is good for the industry.

A gun carries the magic power of every movie cowboy and TV hero. Having one demands a high level of responsibility and good judgment, or else the gun owner is no longer the ‘good man’ but a menace. In spite of this, any attempt to ‘well regulate’ our self-appointed militia is met with outrage. In the wake of many decades of political assassinations it’s an act of physical courage to stand up to the most extreme of the gun lobby.

Only 21 years old, and given one moment to turn away from atrocity-

Roof, 21, has told police that he “almost didn’t go through with it because everyone was so nice to him,” sources told NBC News.
And yet he decided he had to “go through with his mission.”

Why? Who gave him his mission? Who armed him? He had his problems but he was not some lost soul wandering aimlessly and hallucinating. He had a script and he was armed. The adults in his life enabled him to get a lethal weapon and no one thought his indoctrination into racism was a problem. When America is racist and gun crazy, how will we even know who is a threat? The problem is in plain sight but requires letting go of delusion.

Easier to blame mental illness and the disempowered people who struggle with it.

Image from Good Magazine.

That’s why last week the ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of a North Smithfield resident, who is seeking the return of lawfully-possessed weapons that were seized from him over six years ago by the local police department. The lawsuit, filed by RI ACLU volunteer attorney Thomas W. Lyons on behalf of Jason Richer, argues that the North Smithfield Police Department has violated his right to due process and his right to keep and bear arms by retaining his property without just cause. The ACLU successfully filed a similar lawsuit against the Cranston Police Department three years ago.

In September 2008, police responded to Richer’s house when his now ex-wife called to express concern that he had tried to harm himself by taking pills. Although Richer explained that he was not suicidal and that his wife had misconstrued a conversation they had, police forced him to submit to a mental health evaluation at Landmark Hospital. The doctor who saw him there discharged him shortly after his arrival, and no charges were ever filed or any other action taken. In the meantime, police seized “for safe keeping” three lawfully registered guns from a locked case in Richer’s garage. Two months later, when Richer tried to retrieve the guns, police refused to return them, telling him he would need to obtain a court order.

Both his ex-wife and a psychologist provided letters to the Department in support of returning the guns to him, but the Department still refused to do so. Over the years, Richer has repeated his request for the return of the weapons, but he has been consistently rebuffed. He most recently pressed a captain at the department for their return in January of this year. The Captain said he would talk with the town solicitor about it, but Richer never heard back from anybody. In March, the ACLU wrote a letter to the police chief on Richer’s behalf, but also received no response, prompting the filing of today’s lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that the police department’s practice of requiring “weapons owners who are not charged with a crime to engage in formal litigation in order to recover their seized property” violates Richer’s due process and Second Amendment rights. The suit seeks a court order declaring the police department’s practice unconstitutional and requiring the return of his weapons, as well as an award of monetary damages.

“I am resolved to do all I can to end the unconstitutional practices and procedures employed by the North Smithfield Police Department. From the moment my firearms were seized, I have been asked to prove that I am fit to have them returned, and all the proof I have provided has been dismissed and ignored. This flies in the face of the presumption of innocence we enjoy as Americans. This practice must be stopped,” Jason Richer said when the suit was filed.

In 2012, the ACLU filed a virtually identical suit against the Cranston Police Department, which settled the case by returning the weapons that had been unlawfully held, agreeing to make any necessary repairs to the weapons while they had been confiscated, and paying monetary damages and attorneys’ fees.

Mr. Richer has been extraordinarily patient, yet the police have done nothing but make excuses about returning his property to him. Police departments must learn that the Constitution simply does not allow them to arbitrarily keep the property of innocent residents.

Whether police seize lawfully owned firearms as part of an emergency investigation, use civil forfeiture laws to impound a car from a person who is suspected of drug dealing, or confiscate medical marijuana from somebody alleged to not be a registered patient, the principle should be the same: people have a right to have their property returned – promptly – once officials conclude that no criminal activity has occurred or the basis for the seizure has been found wanting.