Why Australia’s gun laws wouldn’t work in the US | Did You Know?

Back in 1977, Australia was generally pretty relaxed about guns. “Do you notice anything unusual or different about me?” “You’re looking very nice today, you’ve had a haircut?” Fast forward 19 years, and it’s a different
story. It was, and still is, the worst mass shooting in Australian history. Less than two weeks after the Port Arthur
massacre, the prime minister at the time rallied the eight states and territories together to push through strict gun laws and a gun buyback scheme. Public opinion was mixed. But the number of deaths and mass shootings has dropped dramatically since then, and the country’s strict gun policy is often quoted as a success story for how to implement gun regulation. So if it has been so effective, why haven’t
more countries adopted a similar approach? A lot has to do with a country’s gun culture, and whether gun ownership is seen as a “You know, a big problem with the US is they have this cultural and legal concept that it’s okay for people to have guns for self-defense, and that in other industrialized countries is not really part of the legal or social
context.” Rebecca Peters is one of the world’s leading gun control experts, and she helped lead the national campaign to reform Australia’s gun laws after Port Arthur. “The thing you have to try to keep in mind is what’s going to have the greatest impact in terms of reducing the number of people injured and killed by guns.” There are an estimated 857 million civilian-held firearms in the world. It’s hard to know for sure what the exact number is, but it’s an increase of more than 200 million firearms compared to a decade before that. And the majority of those guns are in the United States. When you adjust for population size, it also has the most guns per capita. It’s a stark difference compared to other
developed countries. And the US also has a lot more firearm violence. The thing is, while we mainly hear about mass shootings, when you start categorising gun deaths, the vast number of them are actually suicides. “Whether it’s an attack on another person
or it’s an attack you know an attempt against your own life, the thing about a gun is it’s
very not negotiable. So does more guns mean more deaths? Studies have found a correlation between gun
ownership and gun violence. But you have to look a bit deeper than that. Take Finland for example. Rates of gun ownership in the country are high, but the rate of gun homicide is relatively quite low. Why is that? “The big, big difference between Finland
and the US is that in Finland people own shotguns for hunting because Finland is a big hunting country, and they do have a lot of shotguns, but they do not have a lot of handguns.” It’s not only about the number of guns,
but the types of guns as well. In the UK, semi-automatics were banned and registration was mandatory for shotguns after the 1987 Hungerford massacre. But it took it a step further after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, banning the private ownership of handguns. If you look at Australia, the number of guns now is actually around the same number as what there was around the time the gun buyback took place. But the rate of gun violence is also much
lower. “That’s because the types of guns that
are available, semi-automatics are not available, and also because the new rules have changed the distribution of who owns guns.” Depending on where you live, it could take a few months or just a few hours. In Australia, you need both a licence and a permit. To get the licence you need to, among other things, give a “genuine reason” for having a firearm — and no, “personal protection” won’t cut it. You also need to apply for a permit for every firearm, and to register it. A key part of the laws is the waiting period. Even after you’ve done all the paperwork, you need to wait at least 28 days before you can do anything more. New Zealand also requires you to apply for a licence, which involves a long vetting process. An interesting element of their laws is that, as part of the process, authorities will get in touch with someone close to you. “And that’s especially important when you think about domestic violence because the people who are perhaps best placed to say something about whether it’s a good idea for that person to have a gun or not is often the people who have been their wife, their girlfriend or their partner.” Both Britain and Canada have similar laws, where again you must provide a reason for owning a firearm and character references, as well as go through a background check. One country with very little gun violence is Japan. They still have guns around, about 380,000 of them in fact. It’s just really hard to get one. First, you: Look, you get the point. It’s hard to argue with the results. From 2010 to 2014, in a country of more than 125 million people, there were less than 40 gun homicides. That’s about the same number the US had
every 30 hours in 2014. And that could be because the country has the loosest gun laws in the developed world. In general, you just have to pass a basic background check, though some states do have stricter laws. One of the reasons gun laws in the US have remained the way they have is because of a uniquely American factor — And it’s not that people aren’t in support
of stricter gun laws. In fact, many gun owners in the US support stronger bans and universal background checks. The problem is, because voting isn’t compulsory, these opinions don’t mean anything unless you can rally people to vote. The NRA are a powerful voice when it comes to voting, providing guides which grade and endorse certain political candidates. Which means candidates find themselves trying to please the powerful gun lobby, sometimes going to weird lengths. No, seriously. It’s one part of the US’s distinct legal environment. The country acknowledges the legal right to own a gun, through the Second Amendment. And just passing a stronger nationwide gun law through Congress is hard. For a bill to become federal law, you have
to go through their bicameral system. This is similar to a lot of other countries. It gets more complicated though – in the US, you also need the President to sign off on it. Basically this means that, without majority support, there are plenty of points in the process for the bill to be defeated. Whereas in New Zealand, their parliamentary system is unicameral. This means the government of the day controls the agenda with little obstruction, so it’s a lot easier for laws to be created. At the end of the day, while the restrictions and buyback in Australia pulled most firearms out of circulation, it hasn’t eliminated all gun violence. And the experience of countries like Britain and Japan wouldn’t necessarily work in a country such as the USA, because of cultural and political differences. But the stats are pretty clear that stronger gun reforms — no matter how strict — can make a difference. “There are bad people who decide to
do bad things, but the thing is to design laws that make it much more difficult for
the criminals to follow through with that plan.”

‘Deal with the Devil’ Ep. 8 Preview | Power Season 6 | STARZ

I want you to leave the street
behind you or it’s gonna be too late Tariq. Just like you did, huh? Be careful, ’cause after today, everything you do,
is being watched. If anybody gives you a hard
time, especially the cops, you just come and tell me. The feds are closing in
LaKeisha. You’re loyal to Tommy,
but is he loyal to you? Your father is capable of
whatever he sets his mind to. Just like you.

This is what an international arms deal looks like

we’re just pulling for the line about to
come into lab the Latin American Aerospace Defense expo so we can expect
to see a whole lot of guns we’re just outside of Rio central where
lad is taking place and it’s actually kind of funny because 1981 this was a
site of a bombing attempts by the military that was trying to sew
insecurity to justify the military dictatorship didn’t work but now it’s
funny that were here to check out a whole bunch of weapons yeah yeah yeah I mean it’s hard to tell exactly how
many different companies there are we got a lot on the other side and actually
shows us the exhibitors list and this list is huge a lot of people in the world to make
weapons go figure oh here we go into the pavilion i can
already see a whole bunch of bullets ok so we just found a condor booth this is
the non-lethal weapons company that has been supplying the Brazilian forces
these are a lot of the weapons we’ve seen during the protest the past few
years here in Brazil so this is a selection of various less-lethal weapons
Condor calls them non-lethal in the u.s. we call them less lethal because they
are in fact people we’ve seen a lot of these kinds of weapons united states
we’ve got teargas we’ve got rubber bullets we’ve got expanding foam rounds
one of the big issues with less lethal rounds is that there’s much less
scrutiny when an officer fires one of these exhaust tell that I’ve never
handling on before well 100x that you are listening to now is a
portable rechargeable battery power unit and is rated for a seven hundred meter
range i’m pretty sure i was shot with one of these ones you think this technology will become
global different local we’ve been here all day we’ve seen a bunch of different
weapons we’ve seen different government officials and different military’s what
this place just feels super corporate and I guess if there’s one thing I’ve
learned is that whether it’s on a comic book or selling a machine-gun invention

Carrying a GUN… AT WORK??? – The Legal Brief

Welcome back to The Legal Brief, the show
where we CRUSH the various legal myths and misinformation surrounding various areas of
the gun world. I’m your host Adam Kraut and today we’re talking
about guns in the workplace and I don’t mean disgruntled postal employees. The NRA Board of Directors election is right
around the corner. I know a lot of you are very interested to
hear about my stance on the problems gun owners face. Head on over to my website adamkraut.com to
learn more about my views on the issues. The link is in the description. Guns in the workplace has been a hot topic
over the past couple of years. Many employers specifically prohibit firearms
from being carried by employees. The information is usually found in their
employee handbooks, posted signage, etc. What many of you want to know is whether an
employer can legally do this and what recourse or options do you have? You may be surprised to know that there is
currently no federal law regulating whether an employer can prohibit firearms at the workplace. Some states have stepped in with their own
laws to regulate the conduct of employers and to protect employees with so called “parking
lot gun laws”. These laws prohibit employers from banning
firearms from the parking lot of their premises, but still allow them to regulate whether an
employee may carry at work. So what are you left with? If the state you live in does have such a
law in effect, you’ll want to know exactly what it allows you to do. For example, Kentucky has a parking lot gun
law in effect. The law states that “No person, including
but not limited to an employer, who is the…occupant of real property shall prohibit any person
who is legally entitled to possess a firearm from possessing a firearm…in a vehicle on
the property.” So if you are legally allowed to posses a
gun, you can have one in your car. The law also provides that “An employer that
fires, disciplines, demotes, or otherwise punishes an employee who is lawfully exercising
a right guaranteed by [the law] and who is engaging in conduct in compliance with [the]
statute shall be liable in civil damages.” So if you’re in compliance with the law and
your employer takes action against you for having a firearm, you are able to seek relief
in court. It also has four instances where a firearm
may be removed from the vehicle or handled. These instances are in the case of “self-defense,
defense of another, defense of property, or as authorized by the owner, lessee, or occupant
of the property.” In essence, the law allows for an employee
to keep a firearm in their vehicle but only under certain conditions. Unfortunately, many states still do not have
such a law in effect, and even then, the law might not protect you in every case. As an example of someone who may not be protected
under the law, a case was brought to the 6th Circuit, where a UPS employee was terminated
for having a firearm on company property. Bruce Holly experienced car trouble on his
way to work. His supervisor gave him permission to take
the car to a repair shop. Prior to leaving, Holly asked his co-worker
if he could place his handgun in the co-worker’s car, since he was not comfortable leaving
it unattended at the repair shop. Not a bad idea. Worthy of noting for the law’s purpose, Holly
had a concealed carry permit. The co-worker agreed and they transferred
the handgun from Holly’s car to the co-worker’s in the UPS parking lot. Ultimately this made its way to management
and Holly was terminated. Without digging too deep into the case, the
6th Circuit looked at the law regarding firearms in cars on employer property. Holly challenged the termination under several
provisions, one which made it unlawful for a private employer to “prohibit employees…holding
a concealed deadly weapons license from carrying concealed deadly weapons…in vehicles owned
by the employee.” The Court determined that Holly did not fit
within the clearly defined parameters of the law to fall under its protection, that being
“in vehicles owned by the employee,” as the firearm was transferred from his car to another
employee’s. It also rejected his argument that the removal
of his firearm from the vehicle fit into one of the four statutory exemptions that we just
covered. As such he had no form of recourse against
UPS. The link to the full decision and discussion
is down in the description. We see that in Bruce Holly’s case, removing
the firearm from his vehicle pulled him outside of the statute’s protection. Other states have broad protections. For instance in Oklahoma employers cannot
prohibit firearms from parking lots, as long as the person is not a convicted felon and
tkhe vehicle is locked. It does authorize employers to restrict all
other areas. And then there are states like Pennsylvania,
that has no law protecting employees at all. As Tim Stewart found out leaving a firearm
in your vehicle when company policy prohibits it, in Pennsylvania, is a surefire way to
lose your job and not have any recourse. Keep in mind, employment law plays a part
in some of this. In an at-will employment state, you can be
fired because your supervisor doesn’t like that you wear a blue shirt. If you want to know the specifics about Tim’s
case there is a link in the description. So what does this mean for you? First, you need to identify whether your state
has a law in effect that would protect you if you were to take a firearm onto your employer’s
property. Second, if there is a such a law, you need
to determine if there are certain permissible actions, for example, Kentucky’s four instances
where the removal of a firearm is authorized by law. If there are, then you need to ensure compliance
with them, otherwise you may no longer be protected by the statute, as was the case
with Mr. Holly. If you live in a state where there is no such
law, you need to determine whether your employer has any policies against firearms in the parking
lot or premises. If there are, you need to research whether
there are legal repercussions for violating the policy or just potential loss of employment. Which for some, is pretty devastating. Interestingly, some states have prohibited
employers from searching their employee’s cars for firearms, like Florida. Others states, like Georgia, allow it in a
situation that would lead a reasonable person to believe that accessing the vehicle is necessary
to prevent an immediate threat to human health, life or safety. And when it comes to liability, the can of
worms is opened. If an employee commits a crime or act of violence
with a firearm they brought to work, employers can be sued under different theories of negligence. It could also potentially have Worker’s Compensation
ramifications. It remains to be seen that if you are the
victim of workplace violence but were denied the ability to carry a firearm, whether or
not you or your estate would be able to successfully sue your employer under theories of negligence. So what’s the takeaway? You’ll need to see if your state has any laws
in place that protect your ability to have a firearm on company property, including the
parking lot. If there isn’t and you choose to bring a gun
anyway, you need to be aware of the risks, which could include losing your job with no
recourse against your employer. As we saw earlier, even if there is a law
in place, the recourse you have may be limited, especially if you aren’t in direct compliance
with the law. So be smart when deciding whether or not you’re
going to carry to work. Tired of old wives tales being whispered around
the gun counter? Make sure to share this video with your friends. Don’t forget to hit that like button and if
you havn’t subscribed already, you better make that happen. Hang out on Facebook? Be sure to join us on the TGC Nation Group. Check out my website adamkraut.com. And as always thanks for watching!

Walmart announces big changes to its gun, ammo sales


Seriously? Register Every Gun in the US? – The Legal Brief

Welcome back to The Legal Brief, the show
where we CRUSH the various legal myths and misinformation surrounding various areas of
the gun world. I’m your host Adam Kraut and today we’re taking
a look at the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act. Prepare to get angry. Earlier this year, everyone’s favorite Congresswoman
Sheila Jackson Lee introduced the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act. The bill itself was introduced at towards
the end of July and only recently did the text become available. So what does the bill do? First, it would authorize the Attorney General,
through the ATF, to establish a system for the licensing of firearms or ammunition and
for the registration of each firearm present in the US with ATF. You heard that correctly, she wants every
gun in the US to be registered. For the registration system itself, it would
require the owners to identify the make, model, serial number, date acquired, where the firearm
is or will be stored, and identify themselves. I’m already sensing if this somehow were
passed, there’d be a lot of responses about the bottom of some lake somewhere. Owners of firearms would also have to file
a notice that specifies the identity of individuals to whom the firearm might be loaned. The AG would be responsible for establishing
and maintaining the database of all firearms registered. Even more amusing, is that the contents shall
be accessible to not only federal, state and local law enforcement, branches of the armed
forces, and state and local governments but also all members of the public. All members of the public…nothing could
possibly go wrong with that…And this is just the registration part… The licensing aspect would require the AG
to issue a license to anyone over 21 who passes a NICS check, undergoes a psychological evaluation
that concludes they are not psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm, completes a
training course that is at least 24 hours long and demonstrates that they will have
in effect an insurance policy. Nothing like adding a license, psych eval,
mandatory training and insurance to exercise a constitutionally protected right. But it gets better, license types also include
those for antique firearms and “military-style” weapons. The bill also describes the requirements for
the psych evaluation, which includes, at the discretion of the psychologist, the evaluation
of other members of the household. They must also interview the person’s spouse,
former spouses, or two individuals who are a member of the family or an associate of
the person applying for a license. The bill also includes provisions for the
denial, suspension or revocation of a license. On top of that for the first 5 years, the
license expires yearly, after which it switches to a three year renewal cycle. And let’s not forget the insurance provision. The bill would require that the AG issue an
insurance policy to anyone who has applied for a license and paid the required fee. It’ll only cost $800 a year. F*%k the poor, right? The bill also prohibits a person from possessing
firearms or ammunition unless they are carrying an issued license, with the firearm being
registered to them. If it is registered to someone else, they
better have notified the AG and be within the time period specified. It’d be unlawful to transfer a firearm or
ammunition to anyone without a license and if you’re giving a gift, you better notify
the AG of that too. And you better have that insurance. Penalties for violations range from a fine
of $5,000-$150,000 and 5 to 25 years imprisonment. And as a final blow, the bill would make it
unlawful to possess .50 caliber ammunition and “large capacity” magazine feeding
devices. As you can see, this bill would create a whole
host of constitutional concerns. On top of that, it would disproportionately
affect the poor. I mean, clearly they don’t have a right
to self defense…That sounds like something Joe Biden would say. That’s it for this episode, if you have learned
anything from this show, help us out and hit that like button, and share it with your friends. Don’t forget to get subscribed and if you
enjoyed the video, consider supporting us via the links down in the video description. And as always, thanks for watching!

PA Governor Executive Order – The Legal Brief

Welcome back to The Legal Brief, the show
where we CRUSH the various legal myths and misinformation surrounding various areas of
the gun world. I’m your host Adam Kraut and today the Pennsylvania
Governor put YOUR guns in his sights. Last week, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolfe
signed executive order 2019-06. The order’s subject was entitled “reducing
gun violence”. After a few recitals, the order gets into
the details. First on the list is the establishment of
a Senior Advisor for Gun Violence Prevention who will be appointed by the Governor. The senior advisor’s job is to coordinate
the Commonwealth’s gun reform agenda. Let me repeat that last part, gun reform agenda. Next, the order states that within the Pennsylvania
Commission on Crime and Delinquency or PCCD, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention will
be established. It’s purpose is to work to eradicate gun violence
from a public safety perspective. The order also directs that the office will
collaborate with the Division of Violence Prevention, coordinate a system of focused
police deterrence in neighborhoods and cities where violence is most extreme, and work with
other Commonwealth agencies and stakeholders on community gun violence prevention and lost
and stolen firearms reporting requirements for law enforcement. But we’re not done creating new offices yet. In the Department of Health, the Division
of Violence Prevention will also be created, with the purpose to eradicate and prevent
gun violence from a public health perspective. The Division will collaborate with the Office
of Gun Violence Prevention and administer the Department of Health’s new and existing
violence prevention programs. Additionally, the Department of Health is
directed to create a Violence Data Dashboard that will collect and provide data on the
scope, frequency, locations, and populations affected by violence, including data on the
number of victims of gun violence, rates at which gun violence occur in locations, and
contributory factors. The order also adds additional responsibilities
to certain executive agencies. The Department of Health, is also tasked with
a Suicide Death Review Team to conduct multidisciplinary reviews of suicides, provide data to the Dashboard,
and make recommendations to prevent future suicide related deaths in Pennsylvania. The Department of Human Services will direct
the Suicide Prevention Task Force to make recommendations on actions to reduce suicides
by gun. And the Pennsylvania State Police will enhance
and expand its efforts to identify and deter potential sources of gun violence, develop
gun violence prevention training, and draft guidelines for local gun buyback programs. Which begs the question, how can you buy back
something you never owned? Additionally, within the Commission on Crime
and Delinquency, a special council on gun violence is to be established. The purpose is to study and make recommendations
to reduce and prevent gun violence. Council responsibilities include 1) adopting
a public health and community engagement strategy that includes gun owners, health care professionals,
and victims of gun-related incidents, that will provide direction, duties, and responsibilities
to the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, 2) reviewing current background check processes
for firearms purchasers and make recommendations for improvement, 3) reviewing best practices
and make recommendations that keep weapons from dangerous individuals, 4) identifying
and define strategies across Commonwealth agencies to align resources to reduce gun
violence, and 5) providing the PCCD and Senior Advisor with recommendations to reduce incidents
of community violence, mass shootings, domestic violence, suicide, and accidental shootings. Let’s not forget the composition of this council. It will include representatives from the Children’s
Advocacy Center Advisory Committee, Criminal Justice Advisory Committee, Mental Health
and Justice Advisory Committee, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Committee, Victims’
Services Advisory Committee, School Safety and Security Committee, Sheriffs and Deputy
Sheriffs Education and Training Board. I wonder if there was a committee meeting
to decide what committees will be on this council. Additionally, it will include one representative
from each of the four legislative caucuses of the General Assembly, in addition to the
Secretaries of Education, Health, and Human Services, State Police Commissioner, Executive
Director of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, and the Director of
the Office of Homeland Security. The Governor is also free to appoint ex officio
members at his pleasure. The executive order creates a number of new
positions within the Government to research and make recommendations to prevent “gun violence”. If I had to guess, placing things under the
Department of Health is an attempt to create data that will be later used to push gun control
laws under the guise of public health. That’s it for this episode, if you have learned
anything from this show, help us out and hit that like button, and share it with your friends. Don’t forget to get subscribed and if you
enjoyed the video, consider supporting us via the links down in the video description. And as always, thanks for watching!