The PBS NewsHourHypersensitive to threats to “gun protection” measures (their word), Thursday evening was unpleasantly surprised by a federal appeals court ruling, based on the Supreme Court’s order that people under domestic violence keep their guns. the bridge Decision in June 2022.
Newshour Invited a journalist who specializes in what his organization calls the “gun violence crisis” to give his opinion. It’s part of a PBS pattern in which its reporters benignly emphasize the term “gun safety” (ie regulations and restrictions) and non-journalistically talk about the “deadly epidemic” of gun violence (as if guns are contagious) and “assault weapon misnomers.” ,” while downplaying all 2n.d Revised the right to bear arms as an old provision.
Newshour Co-host Amna Nawaz went straight to ideology in her lead interview with gun journalist Chip Brownlee trace:
Nawaz: One of the most conservative appellate courts in the country Overturned a federal law that prohibited people under domestic violence orders from possessing guns. The decision, which applies only to the 5th District of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, is just part of the larger legal ramifications of the US Supreme Court’s ruling in 2.n.d amendment last year, and it could signal how the court will decide firearms cases for years to come. Joining me now is Chip Brownlee, a reporter for The Trace, a nonprofit news organization that covers gun violence. Chip is welcome Newshour. Let’s start with its immediate effects. So does this mean that anyone in Texas or Louisiana or Mississippi who has a domestic violence restraining order can now legally own a gun?
….
Nawaz: So we should look at the reason these laws were in place in the first place, there’s a well-established connection between domestic violence and gun violence, right? Tell us about that.
BROWNLEE: Probably a quarter of all gun homicides in the United States are related to domestic violence or family violence in some way. About half of all women shot and killed by guns in the United States each year are shot and killed in domestic violence incidents. We know from research that having a gun in this situation increases the risk of a domestic violence homicide by nearly 400%….
Neither Nawaz nor his guest had much sympathy for the “fundamental” philosophy of the Constitution, lamenting the apparent ridiculousness of the Supreme Court’s 2n.d Amendment decision.
Nawaz: I found this line really interesting, Chip, in applying the new standards they say the law cites, ‘Our forefathers would never have accepted.’ So what are they basically saying, because domestic violence was not a crime in the 18th and 19th centuries then this law is unconstitutional?
Brownlee: “Well, yes….
Newshour Regularly pushes gun-fear. A small recent sample: Co-host Geoff Bennett opened the Jan. 23 show: “Good evening. We begin tonight with the deadly epidemic of gun violence in America — a problem that goes unnoticed. In California, authorities are trying to determine the motive behind this weekend’s shooting in Monterey Park.”
January 27, The Washington Post Reporter Ruth Marcus suggests that gun violence is contagious: “Until we stop this proliferation of gun violence, which is a uniquely, disturbingly American phenomenon, whether it’s mass shootings or individual shootings, We are suffering from an epidemic of gun violence.”
On February 7, Bennett used the meaningless, made-up term “assault weapons” to spread fear of guns: “And federal authorities thwarted an attempt by racially motivated extremists to use Assault weapon to bring down Baltimore’s electrical grid.”
Click “Expand” to read a partial transcript below:
PBS NewsHour
February 9, 2023
7:44:25 pm Eastern
Co-Host Amna Nawaz: One of the most conservative appeals courts in the country has struck down a federal law that prohibits orders for domestic violence victims to keep guns. The decision, which applies only to the 5th District of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, is just part of the larger legal ramifications of the US Supreme Court’s ruling in 2.n.d amendment last year, and it could signal how the court will decide firearms cases for years to come. Joining me now is Chip Brownlee, a reporter for The Trace, a nonprofit news organization that covers gun violence. Welcome to the Chip NewsHour. Let’s start with its immediate effects. So does this mean that anyone in Texas or Louisiana or Mississippi who has a domestic violence restraining order can now legally own a gun?
….
Nawaz: So we should look at the reason these laws were in place in the first place, there’s a well-established connection between domestic violence and gun violence, right? Tell us about that.
Chip Brownlee, The Trace: Perhaps a quarter of all gun homicides in the United States are related in some way to domestic violence or family violence. About half of all women shot and killed by guns in the United States each year are shot and killed in domestic violence incidents. We know from research that having a gun in this situation increases the risk of a domestic violence homicide by nearly 400%. So these laws, they were trying to prevent a person from having a gun if they were under this regulatory order. Because you can imagine if someone is tall enough to get a restraining order, they think they’re in an emergency, they need protection, and that’s probably the most dangerous situation anyone could be in.
….
Nawaz: I found this line really interesting, Chip, in applying the new standards they say the law cites, ‘Our forefathers would never have accepted.’ So what are they basically saying, because domestic violence was not a crime in the 18th and 19th centuries then this law is unconstitutional?
Brownlee: Well, yeah….