Justice & Civil Liberties

Issues ››› Justice & Civil Liberties
  • Flashback: Trump Was Silent When The NRA Cased A Real Mall To Show How To Carry Out The “Perfect” Terrorist Attack

    Blog ››› ››› TIMOTHY JOHNSON

    GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump recently suggested that “freedom of the press” should be limited because of the existence of magazines that show terrorists how to build bombs, but had nothing to say in July when the NRA released a video in which they cased an Oklahoma mall to demonstrate how to carry out a successful terrorist attack.

    While discussing the weekend bombings in New Jersey and New York on Fox News, Trump made critical statements about “freedom of the press” and “freedom of expression,” claiming, “It’s called ‘freedom of the press,’ where you buy magazines and they tell you how to make these same bombs that I saw.” Trump added, “we should arrest the people that do that because they’re participating in crime”:

    The Huffington Post called Trump’s remarks “chilling” because of Trump’s “casual dismissal of ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘freedom of speech,’ bedrocks of American democracy, as potentially disposable in fighting terrorism.” Fusion also criticized Trump’s remarks, noting that they should be examined in the context of Trump’s widely panned past comments about wanting to “open” up libel laws to make it easier to sue journalists.

    Despite Trump’s recent comments connecting terrorism and "freedom of the press," Trump was not as critical in July when the National Rifle Association, which has endorsed Trump for president, released a video where an NRA employee cased a real shopping mall in Oklahoma to show how to carry out the “perfect” mass shooting terrorist attack.

    In the video, released as part of an online series, NRA News commentator Dom Raso warned of a hypothetical, forthcoming mass shooting at a shopping mall carried about by “a radical Islamic terrorist” who “is looking for gun-free zones in states and cities where politicians have reduced our Second Amendment freedoms.”

    Although there is no evidence that mass shooters choose their targets based on whether or not guns can be legally carried at those locations, the NRA attempted to illustrate its point by sending a member of its video crew to record cell phone video footage showing how to case a shopping mall.

    The NRA video blurred out some faces and store signs, but not others, making the mall identifiable as Penn Square Mall in Oklahoma City, OK, which is less than a mile from the offices of Ackerman McQueen, the NRA’s ad firm.

    As footage of the mall and shoppers was shown in the NRA video, Raso explained how to maximize casualties in a mass shooting incident, describing a would-be shooter’s planning, “As he walks through nearby shopping malls, he’s looking at the exits. He wants them to be few and far between -- hard to find in a panic, and easy to block. He wants lots of open area, high ground, and places to channelize people.”

  • NRA Ad Uses Home Invasion Footage To Lie And Fearmonger About Clinton And Guns

    Blog ››› ››› TIMOTHY JOHNSON

    A new attack ad from the National Rifle Association (NRA) depicting a woman as a victim of a home invasion falsely claims Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton “could take away” your “right to self-defense.”

    The ad is false because Clinton has repeatedly said that she favors allowing law-abiding gun ownership and that she supports the Second Amendment while also calling for measures to prevent dangerous people from accessing weapons. Fact-checkers have ripped a previous false ad that claimed Clinton “doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self-defense” and the false claim by Republican nominee Donald Trump that Clinton “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

    The NRA’s new September 19 ad depicts a woman being awoken in her home as a man kicks in her door. She begins to open a gun safe to retrieve a weapon but the gun vanishes into thin air as a narrator says, “Hillary Clinton could take away her right to self-defense”:

    NARRATOR: She’ll call 911. Average response time: 11 minutes. Too late. She keeps a firearm in this safe for protection, but Hillary Clinton could take away her right to self-defense. And with Supreme Court justices, Hillary can. Don’t let Hillary leave you protected with nothing but a phone.

    According to The Guardian, the ad is part of a $15 million effort by the NRA, which has endorsed Trump, to defeat Clinton. Federal Election Commission documents indicate that the NRA, through its Political Victory Fund and Institute for Legislative Action, has been the second biggest spender on independent expenditures opposing Clinton, only second to pro-Trump Super PAC Rebuilding America Now.

    The ad is premised on the lie that Clinton opposes gun ownership by law-abiding Americans. Clinton has never said she opposes gun ownership. In fact, Clinton’s campaign website says she “knows that gun ownership is part of the fabric of many law-abiding communities.”

    And in recent months Clinton has repeatedly said that legitimate Second Amendment rights should be protected while she advocated for expanding background checks on gun sales and other measures. She has also explained that you can call for stronger gun laws “and still support the right of people to own guns.” (According to PolitiFact, Clinton’s legal view of the Second Amendment appears similar to the Bush administration's position “recognizing the right but allowing reasonable curtailment.”)

    During her speech at the Democratic National Convention, Clinton said, “I’m not here to take away your guns. I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.”

    In May, PolitiFact rated the claim Clinton “wants to abolish the Second Amendment” false, finding “no evidence of Clinton ever saying verbatim or suggesting explicitly that she wants to abolish the Second Amendment, and the bulk of Clinton’s comments suggest the opposite.”

    The previous NRA ad claiming Clinton “doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self-defense,” which ran throughout August, was rated as false by PolitiFact North Carolina and The Washington Post Fact Checker, with PolitiFact noting “Clinton has never said that” and Glenn Kessler at the Post writing that the ad is “a classic example of a fear-mongering ad based on little evidence but leaps of logic.”

    The juxtaposition of images of a home invasion with false claims about a candidate’s record is a common tactic in NRA election ads. Earlier this month the NRA launched a home invasion-themed ad that used the same b-roll seen in the NRA’s new Clinton ad to falsely claim that Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Jason Kander “voted against your right” to “protect your home with a firearm.” (Kander, a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, responded with a viral ad of his own showing him assembling a firearm blindfolded while talking about the need to protect Second Amendment rights while keeping guns away from terrorists.)

    In 2014, an NRA ad showed the same home invasion footage while claiming that then-Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu “voted to take away your gun rights.” In that ad, the NRA cited Landrieu’s vote in favor of expanding background checks on gun sales following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting.

    PolitiFact rated the ad “pants on fire,” calling it “downright scary” and noting that it “can only be described as fear mongering.” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker similarly gave the ad “Four Pinocchios” -- its worst rating -- citing the “hyperbolic disconnect between the images on the screen and the practical impact of the law in question.”

  • New Trump Ad Features NRA Board Member Ted Nugent, Who Has Called For Clinton To Be Hanged

    Blog ››› ››› TIMOTHY JOHNSON

    A new advertisement from Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign about hunting and the Second Amendment features National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent, who claims Hillary Clinton “will destroy the freedom that is uniquely American.” Earlier this year, Nugent called for Clinton to be hanged for treason.

    The eight-minute video features other conservative media figures including Fox News host Sean Hannity, frequent Fox News guest and Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, and Mark Geist, the co-author of 13 Hours, about the 2012 attacks on American diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

    Nugent has a long history of making racist and other inflammatory commentary. In 2016 alone, Nugent has promoted anti-Semitic content, used a racial slur against a Latino critic, promoted misogynist reasons why guns are better than women, shared a racist meme advertising the fake moving company “2 niggers and a stolen truck,” and smeared Minnesota police shooting victim Philando Castile as a criminal. In 2015, Nugent devoted an entire column to praising the use of the word “nigger,” even in a racist context.

    Nugent, who has endorsed Trump for president, this year has called for Clinton to be hanged for treason and promoted a fake video of her being shot. In an August post on his Facebook page calling for people to vote for Trump, Nugent termed Clinton a “lying hypocrite bitch.” He has also called the former secretary of state a “toxic cunt.” In a viral 2007 concert video, an assault-rifle-wielding Nugent called Clinton a “worthless bitch” and said that she should ride on his machine gun.

    In August, Bud Light pulled sponsorship of a Nugent concert following reporting from Media Matters about the beer company's association with Nugent. Nugent caused a national controversy in 2014 by campaigning with Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott. Abbott was slammed -- including by fellow Republicans -- for the association after Nugent called President Obama a "subhuman mongrel."

    In Trump’s ad, Nugent says, “The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Ten Commandments, the golden rule. We the people, choosing our own pursuit of happiness: It doesn’t happen anywhere else in the world. Hunting, fishing, trapping: We the people own these precious renewable natural resources. It’s a way of life, which is why conservation is the greatest success story in the world here in America. Hillary Clinton is against all these things. She will destroy the freedom that is uniquely American. Donald Trump will safeguard the things that make America the greatest place in the world.”

    Nugent is promoting the Trump ad on his Facebook page, just hours after claiming victims of a September 17 stabbing spree at a Minnesota mall are “pathetic” and “embarrassing” because they were unarmed.

    At the end of the ad, Trump says, “Political correctness, Hillary Clinton, and Washington insiders are trying to take away our Second Amendment rights and they’re really trying hard like never ever before. That’s wrong, and it won’t happen when I’m president. I will protect your rights. I will protect your Second Amendment.”

    Trump’s full ad:

  • NRA’s Ted Nugent: Victims Of Minnesota Stabbing Spree Were “Pathetic” And “Embarrassing” Because They Were Unarmed

    Nugent: “Apparently Most Americans Like Being Victims”

    Blog ››› ››› TIMOTHY JOHNSON

    National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent attacked victims of a stabbing spree at a Minnesota mall, calling them “so pathetic” and claiming, “Apparently most Americans like being victims as it is clear they are incapable of waking up to self defense 101.”

    During the evening of September 17, a man used a knife to attack shoppers at Crossroads Center, a mall in St. Cloud, MN. Nine victims received injuries that were weren't life-threatening before the perpetrator was fatally shot by an off-duty police officer. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack.

    Nugent reacted to the attack by writing on Facebook, “Unarmed & helpless is so pathetic. Apparently most Americans like being victims as it is clear they are incapable of waking up to self defense 101. Sad soulless & embarrassing”:

    In a October 2015 column at conspiracy website WorldNetDaily following a mass shooting at an Oregon community college, Nugent wrote that “losers" who don't carry a gun "get cut down by murderous maniacs like blind sheep to slaughter.” (Students on campus were actually armed at the time of the attack.)

    Nugent’s WND column appears to be defunct. In recent months he has been using his Facebook page to publish a series of columns in support of GOP nominee Donald Trump that all end with the statement, “Let’s make America great again. Vote Trump for president.”

  • NY Magazine Explains Why “Donald Trump’s New Anti-Abortion Letter Should Terrify You”

    Rebecca Traister: New Letter Proves “Donald Trump Would Like To Return Us To A Nation Of Forced Births, With Women’s Bodies As The Vessels.”

    Blog ››› ››› SHARON KANN

    On September 16, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump released a letter announcing a new “pro-life coalition” meant to appeal to anti-choice voters. In response, New York magazine’s Rebecca Traister explained that Trump’s “promises about what he’ll do on abortion” as outlined in his “anti-abortion letter should terrify you.”

    In her article, Traister warned that Trump’s announcement was troubling not only for the extreme policies he endorsed, but also because of the news that he has begun recruiting well-known anti-abortion activists to rally voters.

    Trump’s letter set out four anti-choice policy priorities: a commitment to uphold the Hyde Amendment, a ban on the allocation of taxpayer funds to abortion services; an assurance that he would nominate “pro-life justices to the U.S. Supreme Court”; a promise to sign “the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” which means a ban on abortion after 20 weeks; and a pledge of “defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions.” 

    Trump’s announcement also included the news that he had appointed Marjorie Dannenfelser, a longtime anti-abortion leader and president of the anti-choice group Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), to lead the recruitment efforts for his new coalition. As Traister noted, SBA List is an extreme anti-abortion group that “not only opposes abortion in all circumstances, but also several forms of contraception.”

    In a press release, NARAL Pro-Choice America president Ilyse Hogue repeated these concerns about Dannenfelser and SBA List: “Let’s be clear: just like Donald Trump, Susan B. Anthony List hasn’t done a thing to empower women and everything to advance an extreme agenda that aims to entirely end women’s access to abortion in America, often even for survivors of rape, incest, and women whose health is endangered.”

    Traister warned that Trump’s commitments to anti-abortion policy could not “safely be considered electoral posturing” because if elected, Trump would likely have “a Republican congress and Supreme Court seats to fill.” She concluded: Trump “could do every single one of the things he’s promising anti-abortion activists,” and that would make it impossible for women to make decisions “about whether or when to bear children based on their health, their economic, or familial status, or the condition of the fetuses they carry.”

    From New York magazine:

    Today’s news has been dominated by the story of the man who spent years hyping racist lies to delegitimize this country’s first black president now betting that a pliable press will congratulate him on distancing himself from himself.

    But while this moronic sideshow is going down, a report in the Hill today brings a much more important story: Donald Trump took time out of his busy schedule of conspiracy promotion and disavowal to write a letter to America’s anti-abortion leaders, making some new firm promises about what he’ll do on abortion should he be elected president in 53 days. The missive, dated “September 2016,” was released by the anti-abortion nonprofit Susan B. Anthony List, an organization that not only opposes abortion in all circumstances, but also several forms of contraception, including emergency contraception and copper IUDs (which it has described as causing “early abortions”). The letter begins with Trump’s announcement that he has enlisted longtime anti-abortion leader Marjorie Dannenfelser, SBA List president, as the leader of his campaign’s “Pro-Life Coalition.”

    [...]

    So this is what he is promising if he becomes president: a court stacked with “pro-life justices” that will make abortion — and judging by the direction of his party, possibly several forms of contraception — illegal; the concretization of a law that makes full access to health care and control over reproduction unavailable to poor Americans; a 20-week rule that would make abortion illegal before the point in gestation at which many fetal abnormalities are diagnosed.

    This cannot safely be considered electoral posturing or some wacky new skirmish in a culture war. If Donald Trump is elected president, it will likely be with a Republican congress and Supreme Court seats to fill. He could do every single one of the things he’s promising anti-abortion activists he will do. And those things would return women, in a very real way — in a way that is already happening in state and local jurisdictions around the country — to their secondary status: unable to exert full control over their bodies; barred from making choices about whether or when to bear children based on their health, their economic, or familial status, or the condition of the fetuses they carry.

    Donald Trump would like to return us to a nation of forced births, with women’s bodies as the vessels. But by all means, let’s keep yukking it up over his funny orange hair.

  • Tampa Bay Times Calls For Conservatives To Quit “Self-Serving” Politicking And Approve Zika Funding

    Blog ››› ››› SHARON KANN

    In a September 14 editorial, the Tampa Bay Times called out congressional inaction on funding a federal response to the Zika virus and argued that it was time for conservatives to quit politicking and “get [the job] done.”

    The fight to pass Zika funding in Congress has been fraught with political arguments. On September 6, Congress failed for the third time to pass a Zika funding bill after Republicans included a legislative “poison pill” designed to exclude Planned Parenthood. Despite the crucial role Planned Parenthood has already played, and would continue to play, in responding to Zika, Republicans have attempted to score political points by cutting the provider out of the federal response.

    For Florida communities, a federal Zika response cannot come soon enough: NBC News recently reported that the state has already confirmed 70 cases of the Zika virus.

    As the multiple funding attempts have failed, Florida’s editorial boards have called on lawmakers to put politics aside, quit attacking Planned Parenthood, and authorize an increasingly necessary federal Zika response. The Tampa Bay Times reprised this argument and explicitly called on conservatives to approve the latest deal on the table, which reportedly would drop the language excluding Planned Parenthood from Zika prevention funding.

    According to the Times, the initial funding plan “should have been easy to pass, but Congress never misses a chance to inject partisanship into governing” as evidenced by “House Republicans attach[ing] provisions to the funding bill that were deal breakers for Democrats -- namely cutting off money to Planned Parenthood." The Times additionally criticized Republican Gov. Rick Scott for turning a nonpartisan opportunity to lobby for a federal Zika response into a platform to attack Florida’s Democratic senator, Bill Nelson, “for voting against earlier Zika bills that cut money to Planned Parenthood” claiming he had “turned the back on Floridians.” The editorial concluded that this “the governor's self-serving tour isn't helping Floridians, and his shot at the Democrat he may run against in 2018 was unnecessary.”

    In a September 13 article, the Times’ Alex Leary reported that despite calls for bipartisanship, Scott’s attack on Nelson and other Democrats revealed that “politics were on display … overshadowing the possibility of a breakthrough on funding.” Leary called the “political jab” a “bold move for Scott,” who made the remark on the same day that “frustrated Florida lawmakers attempted a more cohesive approach to the issue” by gathering together at a bipartisan press conference.

    Anti-choice lawmakers and right-wing media have frequently blamed Democrats for stalling Zika funding over the anti-Planned Parenthood rider. In reality, the reproductive health organization is an essential resource in addressing the spread of the virus.

    In an August statement to ABC News, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) president and CEO Dr. Hal Lawrence explained Planned Parenthood’s significant role in helping communities respond to Zika. According to Lawrence, Planned Parenthood has long “provided ongoing well-woman services and contraceptives to millions … and has been oftentimes the best access for some underprivileged women to get access to contraception.” Given the sexually transmitted nature of Zika and its impact on pregnant persons, ACOG further determined that “full access to the most complete range of reproductive options,” which includes contraception and abortion, is essential to address its spread.

    Beyond providing necessary health services, Planned Parenthood has already launched a public education campaign to raise awareness about the Zika virus and ways to mitigate its spread. As Alex Harris reported for the Miami Herald, Planned Parenthood staff have been going “door-to-door in areas where large groups of reproductive-age women live … [who] may not have been reached by state or federal Zika education efforts.”

    In a September 8 article, Salon’s Daniel Denvir wrote that despite right-wing media’s insistence otherwise, “It is Republicans who have made Zika funding the latest hostage to their crusade to defund Planned Parenthood.” Going into the next phase of negotiations over a federal Zika response, Republicans have another chance. As the Tampa Bay Times editorial board concluded: “The deal in the works now will not make up for months of lawmakers' willful inaction, but it will provide the crucial ingredient for fighting Zika: money.”

  • After NCAA, ACC Pull-Out Of North Carolina, Editorials Slam Gov. McCrory For Continued Support Of HB 2

    ››› ››› LUKE BATEMAN

    North Carolina editorial boards are slamming Republican Gov. Pat McCrory’s decision to stand by his state’s discriminatory House Bill 2 (HB 2) following the NCAA and ACC’s recent plan to remove championship games from North Carolina. Newspaper editorial boards are highlighting the “casualty count” caused by backlash the “hateful” and “disastrous” law has caused and saying it needs to be repealed. 

  • NRA Claims NC Sen. Candidate "Opposed Your Right To Self-Defense" Because She Voted Against NRA's Pro-Domestic Abuser Bill

    Ross Voted Against Bill To Allow Domestic Abusers To Own Guns

    Blog ››› ››› TIMOTHY JOHNSON

    A new attack ad from the National Rifle Association (NRA) against North Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Deborah Ross falsely claims Ross “opposed your right to self-defense” while serving as a member of North Carolina’s legislature.  

    But the vote cited by the NRA was not on legislation about the meaning of the “right to self-defense” -- in fact, the bill contained a provision to allow people subject to protective orders for domestic violence to own guns.

    On September 14, the NRA released an ad that claims that, while a member of North Carolina House of Representatives, “Ross voted against personal liberty. Ross voted for gun control. Ross opposed your right to self-defense.”

    According to The Charlotte Observer the ad is airing in Charlotte, Greensboro and Wilmington and the ad buy brings the total amount spent by the NRA in favor of Republican incumbent Sen. Richard Burr to $3 million.

    The NRA ad cites Ross’ 2011 vote against House Bill 650 to support its claim Ross “opposed your right to self-defense”:

    HB 650 was an omnibus bill strongly backed by the NRA that contained numerous provisions loosening North Carolina’s gun laws. The bill was signed into law by Republican Gov. Bev Perdue in June 2011. Among the bill’s provisions was a change to Chapter 50B of North Carolina’s domestic violence law. While before the law was enacted, people subject to a protective order because of domestic violence were prohibited from both owning and possessing firearms, the law was changed by HB650 to allow domestic abusers to own guns so long as they were not in the abuser’s possession -- a provision that allows abusers easier access to firearms.

    According to academic research, “domestic violence victims are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a gun.”

    Taking into account the other provisions of the bill -- which loosened rules on carrying guns in public buildings and on state property and made it easier for North Carolinians to buy guns across state lines and to buy machine-guns and silencers that are highly restricted under federal law -- voting against the legislation cannot be truthfully equated with opposing the right to self-defense. As it relates to firearms, the right to self-defense is presently described by the Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller to encapsulate the right of law-abiding people to have a gun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.

    Opposing the loosening of gun laws -- including making it easier for violent domestic abusers to access weapons -- does not mean opposing the core self-defense right defined by then-Justice Antonin Scalia in the conservative Heller decision. 

    Ross has responded to the ad with a statement that said it was being run “to distract from Sen. Burr’s reckless votes against a commonsense, bipartisan measure that would require dangerous criminals, domestic abusers, and the seriously mentally ill to get a background check before buying a gun at a gun show or online.”

  • What The Media Should Know About A Proposed Title X Funding Rule And Planned Parenthood

    Planned Parenthood Is An Essential Health Care Provider -- And A New Rule Could Help Protect Its Funding From Political Attacks

    ››› ››› SHARON KANN

    In September 2016, the Obama administration proposed a rule that would stop anti-choice lawmakers from diverting federal family planning money -- distributed to states through Title X -- away from Planned Parenthood. With support from right-wing media, several states have attempted to defund Planned Parenthood based on the misinformation that there are ample replacements already available at the local level.

  • Anti-Choice Extremist Troy Newman Endorses Donald Trump

    Founding Board Member Of CMP Newman Joins Other Extremists In Courting Evangelical Votes For Trump

    ››› ››› SHARON KANN

    On September 13, anti-abortion extremist Troy Newman endorsed Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, citing concerns that “a [Hillary] Clinton presidency will result in more dead babies.” Newman has a long history of anti-choice extremism and targeted harassment of abortion providers -- including involvement with the discredited Center for Medical Progress and leadership of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. Newman’s endorsement represents the latest step in anti-LGBT hate group leader Tony Perkins’ efforts to help Trump court evangelical voters.

  • NRA Lobbying Arm Lobs Falsehood-Filled Attacks Against Initiative To Expand Background Checks For Gun Sales In Maine

    Blog ››› ››› TIMOTHY JOHNSON

    The National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, released an ad falsely attacking Question 3, a Maine ballot initiative that would expand background checks on gun sales.

    The initiative, which will be on the ballot November 8, would require (with exceptions) individuals who are not licensed firearms dealers but wish to sell or transfer a firearm to go to a gun store, where the recipient of the firearm would undergo a background check before a transfer is completed.

    A new ad from the NRA-ILA, however, distorts what Question 3 proposes to do by misleading about the current state of background checks in Maine and also by offering a falsehood about how the new background check law would work.

    In its September 7 ad, the NRA-ILA claims proponents of the ballot initiative “say Question 3 is about background checks. We already have those in federal law.”

    In fact, Question 3 aims to close a loophole in federal law that allows prohibited people such as domestic abusers and felons to avoid undergoing a background check when obtaining a firearm. While the federal system has stopped more than 2 million prohibited sales over the last two decades, it requires only those individuals who are “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to obtain a license and perform background checks on customers.

    People who say that they are not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms do not need a license and are not required to run checks on their customers. This discrepancy is what is known as the "private sale loophole" or "gun show loophole,” and significant numbers of firearms are transfered through these types of sales, including in Maine.  

    The NRA-ILA ad also sweepingly -- and falsely -- claims, “Let’s say you loan your shotgun to a neighbor. You both have to drive to a dealer to get permission before you do it. And then you’d have to go back to a dealer and get another background check when he returns it.”

    In fact, that type of temporary transfer could easily fall into one of the exceptions to the background check requirement included in the law that Question 3 would enact.

    For example, in a section addressing temporary transfers, the background check requirement is waived if  “the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime” and if the transfer occurs during participation in shooting sports or hunting, or if the transferee remains in the presence of the transferor while the loan occurs.

    Further, the background check requirement would also be waived in a situation where a neighbor wanted to borrow a firearm “to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm”:

    The transfer is temporary and is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, and: (1) The transfer lasts only as long as necessary to prevent such threat; and (2) The transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is disqualified to possess firearms under state or federal law and has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime;

    Question 3 also exempts family members from the background check requirement for loans and permanent transfers.

    The NRA previously launched dishonest attacks against a ballot initiative to expand background checks in Washington state, misleading about temporary transfers and other exceptions to the background check requirement. That measure passed by a wide margin in 2014.

    UPDATE: On September 13, the NRA released a similar ad for television that falsely claimed, "Let's say you loan your neighbor a shotgun. You both have to drive to a dealer and get permission. If you don't, jail." The claim in the newly released ad is even more sweeping than the falsehood appearing in the NRA's September 7 radio ad. 

    The NRA's new ad, which complains that "New Yorkers" are "trying to tell Mainers how to live" also included a misshapen map of Maine that fails to include the western part of the state:

     

     

  • Media Matters Requests Fox Retain All Info Regarding Allegations Roger Ailes Sought Our Reporter’s Phone Records

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    The Huffington Post is reporting that Media Matters has requested Fox News executives and former CEO Roger Ailes “retain any information in their possession or control” that could be relevant  to the network allegedly obtaining the phone records of one of its journalists through “legally questionable means” in order to identify his anonymous sources at the network.

    New York magazine’s Gabriel Sherman reported on September 2, that Fox News had “obtained the phone records of journalists, by legally questionable means,” including the home and cell phone records of Media Matters’ senior reporter Joe Strupp, in an effort to find Strupp’s anonymous sources at the network.

    Media Matters president Bradley Beychok responded to the egregious allegations and said that the organization is “considering all legal options” available and that “anyone involved in the illegal hacking should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

    According to the Huffington Post, Media Matters has sent letters to Fox News’ attorneys taking legal steps to ensure that any relevant information about Gabriel Sherman’s allegations is retained:

    Media Matters attorney Marc Elias sent letters Friday to attorneys representing Ailes and executives at Fox News and parent company 21st Century Fox, including executive chairman Rupert Murdoch and sons Lachlan and James Murdoch, who serve as executive chairman and chief executive, respectively.

    In the letters, Elias requested Ailes and executives at the media companies retain any information in their possession or control that would be relevant to allegations of surveilling Media Matters employees.

    Strupp reported in 2010 on Fox News management slanting Washington coverage to the right and cited anonymous sources at the network. Sherman wrote that Fox News wanted to find out who was speaking to Strupp. “This was the culture,” one Fox News executive told Sherman. “Getting phone records doesn’t make anybody blink.”

    In addition to Strupp, Elias also revealed in the letters that it “appears that Fox News Channel previously obtained telephone records of Media Matters founder David Brock in 1997.” Brock, a former Republican operative turned liberal Clinton booster, wrote a critical profile of Ailes that year for New York magazine. Brock started Media Matters in 2004 to combat what the group deemed conservative misinformation, with Fox News being one of its primary targets.

    “Media Matters takes these reports very seriously and is prepared to take all measures necessary to protect its rights, including initiating a lawsuit against Fox News Channel,” Elias wrote in a letter to the network. “We therefore demand that Fox News Channel take immediate action to preserve all information relating to the Media Matters Surveillance that is in the possession, custody, or control of Fox News Channel, including information held by third parties from whom Fox News Channel could obtain the information or over whom Fox News Channel exercises control.”

    Media Matters is similarly prepared to take legal action if necessary against Ailes and 21st Century Fox, according to the letters published in full below.