State lawmakers introduce new gun legislation in a tense legal climate.
“We need to call this federal judge out,” Gavin Newsom said at a June 2021 news conference. “He will continue to do damage. Mark my words.” | Jae C. Hong/AP Photo
California Democrats returned to Sacramento this week with a gun-safety agenda following a near-record year for U.S. mass shootings. But their legal obstacles loom higher than ever.
The Supreme Court this summer invalidated one of the state’s longstanding concealed carry requirements, and a federal judge in San Diego has blocked a series of the state’s restrictive gun policies. Meanwhile, Second Amendment groups will sue “anything that walks,” said Democratic Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, who chairs the Legislature’s Gun Violence Prevention Working Group.
As the challenges mount, it’s up to lawmakers to find a way around them, said Bob Hertzberg, a former California legislator whose bill could be heading to the Supreme Court.
“We have these horrible deaths every year,” Hertzberg said. “How do we as lawmakers try to figure out creative ways that reduce this horrible tragedy?”
A group of Democratic legislators insist they are unfazed by the legal threats as they pursue laws they know other blue states are likely to emulate. They’ve already introduced at least five bills, with more on the way. Here’s what you need to know about California gun safety advocates’ hopes for 2023 — and the obstacles they may face.
This year, advocates hope to tax the gun industry and defy the Supreme Court
Sacramento veterans and newcomers were quick to begin pushing gun laws in the new legislative session, with bills that target gun violence and the firearms industry. Catherine Blakespear, a first-year state senator, submitted one on the day she was sworn in.
Blakespear’s Senate Bill 8 is an open-ended intent bill that will seek to prevent gun violence; the senator plans to fill it in with details in the coming weeks.
Other lawmakers are advocating for do-overs of past legislation. State Sen. Anthony Portantino is back with Senate Bill 2, which is meant to protect the state’s concealed-carry law following the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in New York. His last effort to do so failed narrowly in the Assembly after some lawmakers questioned whether the bill would hold up in court. And Gabriel is again championing a tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition to fund gun violence prevention initiatives.
Gabriel also has a new bill that would allow Californians to add themselves to a firearms Do Not Sell list, and another that would prohibit those under domestic violence protection orders from owning firearms for three years after their order ends.
Even if the proposals make it out of the Legislature, their long-term fate will hinge on surviving a thorny legal landscape.
“If and when we pass this tax on the sale of guns and ammunition, I have no doubt that it will be challenged in court,” Gabriel said. “But the fact that someone’s going to file a lawsuit … that’s not a reason not to move forward.”
Phil Ting, a Democratic assemblymember from San Francisco, said he expects to see a legislative push this year to make more research on firearms and gun violence publicly available.
“The gun lobby’s pushed very hard to have no information,” Ting said. “They’d like this to be perceived as individual accidents and incidents, when we know that the more guns there are on the street, the more deaths there are.”
States must face reality of a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court majority
Lawmakers in California and elsewhere say they are eager to impose restrictions on guns after nearly 650 mass shootings across the country last year, the second-highest number on record. But the reality is that the legal landscape has never been more hostile to firearm regulations at the state level.
“California is, more than ever before, having a problem defending its gun control laws,” said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law expert at UCLA. “A lot of widely accepted, long-standing rules are now being called into question nationwide.”
In June, the Supreme Court didn’t just strike down a New York law that restricted concealed-carry permits in the state. The majority opinion in the Bruen case, backed by the 6-3 conservative majority on the high court, opened the door to challenges on a wide range of Second Amendment policies that restrict firearms. Gun rights advocates have already taken up the invitation, bringing challenges across the nation that are likely to prevail under the newly established framework set by the Supreme Court.
Just about any new legislation in California faces a likely challenge from advocates such as the Second Amendment Foundation.
“California and other states need to repeal anti-gun rights laws, not pass new ones, or we beat them in court,” said Alan Gottlieb, the organization’s executive vice president.
First up may be Senate Bill 1327, a bill modeled after a Texas law that allows private lawsuits against those who receive or help provide abortions. Newsom signed SB 1327 into law last year, with the express intent of inviting a legal challenge. As expected, California’s new law has already been overturned in federal court, and Hertzberg said he expects it to make its way to the Supreme Court.
Newsom versus Benitez — again.
California’s efforts to tighten gun restrictions have hit a wall with federal Judge Roger Benitez, an appointee of former President George W. Bush who overturned the state’s assault weapons ban in 2021. Benitez has earned a reputation for making controversial statements about gun policy, including the false claim that vaccines have killed more Americans than mass shootings.
For gun safety advocates, Benitez is a scary figure: Second Amendment groups have strategically filed lawsuits in his district, they say, because they know he will likely hand them a favorable ruling. He lurks in the minds of lawmakers, too: Gabriel said Benitez is “a great example of an extremely activist judge with views that are far outside of the mainstream.”
Several of Benitez’s rulings overturning state gun laws were under appeal before Bruen. Now, they’ve been sent back to him. “Years of litigation … and we’re right back down to square one with the same judge whose opinions were already overturned by the Ninth Circuit,” said Ari Freilich, Gifford Law Center’s State Policy Director.
When Benitez struck down SB 1327, it was déjà vu for both himself and Newsom, who have publicly antagonized each other. The governor blasted the judge after he initially overturned the assault weapons ban, calling him a “wholly-owned subsidiary of the gun lobby and the National Rifle Association.”
“We need to call this federal judge out,” Newsom said at a June 2021 news conference. “He will continue to do damage. Mark my words.”
Rethinking a century of gun policy
While lawmakers wait for the Supreme Court to clarify its interpretation of the Second Amendment, Benitez is already forcing state lawyers to defend California’s slate of restrictions. Last month, he asked lawyers to draft a 97-year history of gun restrictions in the state — beginning with the ratification of the Second Amendment and ending 20 years after the ratification of the 14th.
The request emerged from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, which stated that judges must employ an interpretation “rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history.”
The judge will use this history to aid his analysis — and to help determine the fate of gun safety laws in California, new and old.
Bruen has forced attorneys across the country to spend valuable time doing historical research on Second Amendment law, Winkler said. He called the surge in litigation a “huge burden” for state DOJs across the country.
The California DOJ declined to answer questions regarding the agency’s workload. But in a statement to POLITICO, a department spokesperson confirmed that the Supreme Court’s decision triggered a range of lawsuits.
For state justice departments across the country, Winkler said, more lawsuits mean more work.
“They have limited resources, and they have to expend those resources defending this gun law, rather than pursuing other cases,” Winkler said. “There’s only so many people you have working in the office.”
Wells Fargo Bank has suddenly dumped the accounts of a prominent gun dealer in Florida.
The financial institution abruptly closed both the business and personal accounts of Brandon Wexler over the Christmas holidays. Wexler is a longtime customer of the bank, having had personal accounts for over 25 years and business accounts for at least 14 years.
In a letter to the dealer, obtained by The Reload, Wells Fargo claims a review of the account deemed Wexler’s business “too risky.”
Wells Fargo performs ongoing reviews of its account relationships in connection with the banks responsibilities to manage risks and its banking operations. We recently reviewed your account relationship and as a result of this review we will be closing your above referenced account. The accounts are expected to close by February 9, 2023 or you may contact the bank to initiate closure at an earlier date. The bank’s decision to close your accounts is final. Please note the bank reserves the right to close the subject accounts sooner than February 9, 2023 if circumstances arise that warrant an earlier closing. Also be aware that some circumstances may delay the closure of your accounts to learn more refer below to what may delay account closure
A Wells Fargo representative gave a statement to The Reload and denied the bank closed Wexler’s accounts because of his industry.
Jennifer L. Langan, Head of communications for CSBB & Consumer Lending at Wells Fargo, disputed Wexler’s claim that the closures were due to his work as a gun dealer.
“Based on our analysis of the risk associated with this customer, we made a decision to close the accounts,” she told The Reload. “Our decision is not based on the industry.”
However, a second letter from Wells Fargo to Wexler indicates that isn’t a completely honest statement. The banking giant explicitly says the reason for yanking the business account is because their guidelines prohibit them from “lending to certain types of businesses.”
Wells Fargo performs ongoing reviews of account relationships in connection with the company’s responsibility to oversee and manage risk and its business operations. We have reviewed your relationship with Wells Fargo and have determined at this time to close your account, effective 12/23/22. As of the date of this letter you may no longer make purchases or take cash advances. The reason for this action is:
Banking guidelines excludes lending to certain types of businesses
The Wex Gunworks owner isn’t an unknown quantity in the industry or business in general. Wexler has been a go-to industry source for media over the years, including The New York Times, CNN and ABC. Given the longstanding relationship with Wells Fargo, Wexler feels certain this is a case of industry discrimination.
“I’ve been with them for 25 years,” he told The Reload. “I’m a professional fireman. I do everything the right way. It’s messed up.”
Wells Fargo has indicated in the past they intend to pull away from banking relationships with gun dealers and pro-second amendment organizations like the NRA.
Wexler says he is currently weighing his legal options.
“I don’t care about the money. It’s more about making a point here. The public really needs to know about this. It’s not right.”
You can easily identify a person who knows absolutely nothing about firearms and how to use them by any means but one of them is watching them speak about how police should use their firearms in a non-lethal way.
You’ve probably heard someone you know or, at least, someone online opine that police shouldn’t shoot to kill when they draw their firearms. Instead, they should wound people by hitting a leg or an arm. The most ignorant of this crowd ask “why not just shoot the gun out of the criminal’s hand?”
Our commander-in-chief, President Joe Biden, is apparently one such person. While giving a speech at the National Action Network’s Martin Luther King Jr. Day breakfast in Washington, the “leader” of the free world decided to weigh in on your local police force should be handling situations where a firearm is necessary.
“We have to retrain cops,” said Biden. “Why should you always shoot with deadly force? The fact is if you need to use your weapon, you don’t have to do that.”
Incredible.
Firstly, getting shot in the leg or the arm doesn’t guarantee one survives being shot. Hitting an artery is a solid way to bleed out swiftly if help doesn’t come soon enough.
That said, it’s pretty clear that Biden and people like him have watched one too many action movies. In cinema, the gunman of great skill retains an unchanging grim, if not uncaring expression as he casually shoots the extremities of his opponent, rendering them helpless and allowing him to get the info he needs. Even in the midst of chaos, he never loses his cool and his aim is always perfect.
In real life, adrenaline is shooting through the body putting the brain in fight or flight mode. The hands can get very shaky and one’s aim becomes less reliable. Even if the person wielding the gun is steady and aiming as best they can in these high-stakes situations, his target might be moving swiftly or even shooting back, making the shooter’s aim that much less accurate.
Hitting a limb is a gamble and the odds aren’t in favor of the shooter. The shot is likely to either miss or hit the larger part of the person’s body.
This is why police are trained to shoot at center mass when relying on deadly force. They aren’t trained to shoot to wound, it’s to kill. Anything else risks the life of the officer and runs the risk of hitting anyone behind the target.
Biden clearly doesn’t understand this because Biden, like many anti-gun Democrats, has little to no experience with firearms. He’s had all of his needs for protection taken care of for him. Yet he moralizes about what the people who protect us every day should do when in situations he’s never, and will never, be in.
This is just another example of a Democrat’s need to virtue signal in ignorance making it possible for people who know better to be put in danger.
How the Southern Poverty Law Center Quietly Pivoted to Gun Control
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- For more than 50 years, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc. battled segregationists, challenged Jim Crow laws, and bankrupted the Ku Klux Klan and other violent extremist groups. But ever since 2019, when the SPLC fired its co-founder and media frontman, Morris Dees, after accusations of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and racism surfaced, the nonprofit quietly shifted its focus. Now, rather than advocating for civil rights, the SPLC is fighting against civil rights, specifically those protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Today, SPLC’s press releases, position papers, and rhetoric make it nearly indistinguishable from any traditional gun control group, like Brady, Everytown or Giffords, with whom the SPLC has partnered on several occasions. But there are two major differences: The SPLC is flush with cash – far more than all other gun-control groups combined – and it still wields a powerful cudgel, its Hatewatch list, which it uses to publicly shame anyone – including members of the gun-rights community – who disagrees with its principles.
Although their numbers are dwindling, some members of the legacy media still regard the Hatewatch list as gospel, even though it is nearly always wielded against conservative groups rather than progressive ones like Antifa, which the SPLC defines as a “broad, community-based movement composed of individuals organizing against racial and economic injustice.”
It has become relatively easy for SPLC to marginalize gun owners and gun-rights advocates.
If someone opposes the government infringing upon their Second Amendment rights, they’re opposed to the government, which makes them antigovernment, in SPLC’s view. The nonprofit always adds extremist to any negative label like a dose of seasoning, so now the victim is transformed into an antigovernment extremist. Once labeled, SPLC quickly adds them to their Hatewatch list and publicly compares them to real antigovernment extremists. Within minutes the poor victim is associated with Klansman, Nazis, and actual terrorists, such as Timothy McVeigh. This process is lightyears worse than the tactics used by other gun control groups, which may call someone out on Twitter or in a position paper. This is professional character assassination, pure and simple, and it works. If you don’t think it can happen, ask Cody Wilson. The SPLC hit that poor young man like a freight train.
If you’ve ever wondered how the Biden-Harris administration can claim with a straight face that domestic terrorism and white supremacy are on the rise, take a look at the statements and testimony the SPLC provided them and their Jan. 6 Committee. The SPLC and the Biden-Harris administration have formed a symbiotic relationship. Each group buttresses the other’s spurious claims.
To be clear, SPLC’s newfound gun-control focus does not bode well for those who value their constitutional rights. The SPLC is the wealthiest civil rights charity in the country. Dees was well known as a wealth hoarder. In 2019, one nonprofit watchdog gave his group an “F” grade because it had amassed more than six years of assets, which were held in reserve. As a result, the nonprofit now has more than $800 million in net assets, offices in five southern states and approximately 250 employees, including 80 attorneys who have already started filing anti-gun litigation.
While SPLC dabbled a bit during Dees’ tenure, it did not fully embrace gun control until after he was fired. Why the group pivoted so quickly is not fully known. Some say it’s like any other progressive group that suddenly becomes leaderless, rudderless and in search of a purpose. When times are tough, default to guns. Others have speculated it is a carryover from Dees’ leadership style – he always sought sensational cases that would garner media attention, such as filing suit over a copy of the Ten Commandments displayed in a county courthouse, rather than using SPLC’s massive financial strength to combat more immediate problems such as homelessness, joblessness or crime, which are ravaging the minority communities the nonprofit claims to champion.
In addition, the group’s powerful lobbying arm, the SPLC Action Fund, spent more than $2 million last year lobbying in Washington, D.C. and state houses across the country.
As a result, SPLC has more financial and political power than all other gun-control groups combined, and it poses an extreme threat to Second Amendment rights.
Shadow mission
Officially, gun control is not part of the SPLC’s mission, which states that the group “is a catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people.” The term appears nowhere in SPLC’s most recent annual report, nor is it listed as a “program service accomplishment” on its 2021 IRS form 990.
Instead, the group has four “impact areas” and gun control is not among them: “protecting democracy, combating the incarceration and criminalization of communities of color, eradicating poverty and fighting extremism and white supremacy.”
Still, SPLC’s gun control platform mirrors that of most traditional gun control groups. In other words, they touch all the usual bases.
Stand Your Ground Laws
The SPLC partnered with the Giffords Law Center to produce a report condemning “Stand Your Ground” laws, which the two groups claim, “fuel racist, lethal violence” and cause “30-50 homicides every month.”
“Highlighting the systemic racism and sexism perpetuated by Stand Your Ground laws, the report calls for the repeal of Stand Your Ground laws in the 27 states where they are enacted and for laws to be passed overturning harmful court decisions that have imposed Stand Your Ground standards on eight other states,” the report states.
In reality, all Stand Your Ground laws do is eliminate a victim’s duty to retreat. The law allows the threat of deadly force to be met with deadly force, instead of legally requiring the victim to run away and possibly get shot in the back.
In Florida, rather than fueling “racist” violence, the law has been used more often by defendants of color than by white defendants.
Homemade Firearms
The SPLC has targeted homemade firearms and castigated Defense Distributed owner Cody Wilson, who released 3D printable gun files on his personal website. The group labeled Wilson an “antigovernment wunderkind.”
“Wilson stops short of direct incitement to violence, though he doesn’t voice opposition to mounting calls for violent reprisal against the state in antigovernment circles,” the report states.
The SPLC quickly added Wilson to its Hatewatch list, describing his ideology as “Antigovernment movement.”
UN Arms Control Treaty
Anyone opposed to the United Nation’s Arms treaty is a conspiracy theorist with twisted panties, the SPLC claims.
“Nothing spooks antigovernment conspiracy theorists like the United Nations and its international treaties – particularly when it comes to perceived threats to their right to bear arms,” the report states. “So naturally, far-right paranoiacs really have their panties in a twist over the proposed Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which would establish standards for the international trade of weapons.”
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
The PLCAA protects gun manufacturers and gun dealers by barring most lawsuits based on “the criminal or unlawful misuse of a [firearm] by [a] person or a third party, 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A).” It is often misunderstood and mischaracterized. It does not bar a lawsuit if a product is defective.
In a 2009 story, the SPLC admitted that a recent appeals court ruling upheld the PLCAA but added: “When hate criminals and others who shouldn’t have guns get their hands on them, it puts everyone at risk.”
Second Amendment Sanctuaries
More than half of the counties in the United States are now Second Amendment Sanctuaries and the list is growing, according to SanctuaryCounties.com, which tracks the nationwide movement. The movement is growing so quickly that the website’s owner, Noah Davis, has trouble keeping it updated. More than a dozen states have declared themselves sanctuary states.
These counties and states are “legally problematic and threaten to override the very democratic systems upon which the country was built,” the SPLC claims, adding that the sanctuaries are popular among “antigovernment extremists.”
“This wave of proposals is the direct result of hysteria around potential new federal and state gun laws and age-old conspiracies about Democrats’ desire to confiscate guns,” the report states. “These are the same fears antigovernment extremists have used to fuel and unify their movement for decades.”
Even Joe Biden disagrees. Biden has never kept his confiscatory plans secret.
“Our work continues to limit the number of bullets that can be in a cartridge, the type of weapons that can be purchased and sold … attempt to ban assault weapons, a whole range of things,” Biden said last month.
Gun Shows
Dees himself castigated gun shows in a 1996 book. He claimed, “militia leaders use gun shows to disseminate their anti-government strategy. Dees also notes that in its efforts to take its anti-government and anti-law enforcement message to Middle America, the National Rifle Association utilized gun shows as a key communications conduit. Dees writes that “amid tables laden with Ruger Mini-14 semiautomatic rifles, Mossberg shotguns, and Beretta 9mm pistols, and piled high with holsters, military ponchos, and camouflage uniforms, they peddle the idea of militias as a defense against a tyrannical government.”
While the SPLC has checked all the boxes on the most common gun control issues, it reserves its most extreme vitriol for gun-rights rallies and armed teachers.
Opposed to Freedom of Assembly
All gun owners are racist, Nazis, militia members, violent antigovernment extremists or all of the above, the SPLC would have the public believe, because at pro-gun rallies attended by thousands of people, one or two individuals may have a pin, a patch or a tattoo from one of these groups. It is the ultimate in guilt by association and it defies belief. The SPLC never mentions the thousands of law-abiding Americans who peaceably assemble in support of their Second Amendment rights. If there’s a Confederate flag or a III-Percenter tattoo anywhere in the crowd, the SPLC labels the entire group as extremists.
“Recent nationwide gun rallies tied to far-right extremists and attract hate groups,” one SPLC headline screamed.
“Gun-rights activists and antigovernment extremists are planning a protest in Richmond, Virginia, on Monday fueled by antigovernment conspiracy theories and accompanied by online calls for violence,” read the secondary headline on another SPLC story.
Whenever the SPLC is actually able to identify an extremist group, it usually has only a mere handful of members and no one has ever heard of it, but that never stops the nonprofit from ramping up the group’s potential for violence. Overhype has always been SPLC’s mainstay.
Another tactic is to make bold claims without supporting evidence or attribution. “The Lobby Day event, organized by the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), has drawn the interest of at least 33 militia groups from across the country,” the Richmond protest story claimed. Not one of the militia groups was identified by name, nor was the source of the information cited.
In a follow-up story, an SPLC report claimed, “At least 18 militias and 34 hate and extremist groups tracked by Hatewatch turned out for the protests that day, with some pledging violence in the face of proposed gun regulation by the Virginia General Assembly.” Of course, no evidence or attribution to bolster these claims was provided. Readers were left wondering: How do they know this?
Opposed to safeguarding students
One of the recommendations of the multidisciplinary commission that investigated the 2018 Valentine’s Day massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida was to arm teachers.
The 16-member commission was comprised of sheriffs, a chief of police, educators, child advocates, school board members, mental health professionals, a state senator and the fathers of two of the shooting victims.
In its 439-page report, the commission recommended that the state legislature should expand Florida’s School Guardian program to allow teachers who volunteer to receive training from their local sheriff on how to carry concealed firearms. But evidently, the SPLC knew better.
“Some elected officials are proposing common-sense solutions to create safe and supportive school environments. But in multiple Southern states, spurred on by the most toxic voices of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and President Trump, legislators are recommending a misguided and harmful approach that would turn teachers into police forces by allowing or asking them to carry guns,” the statement reads. “Having teachers bring firearms into their schools would make classrooms more dangerous, and would increase the chance of more innocent lives being lost. There are many steps we must take to make our schools safer and stronger, but putting guns into classrooms is not a serious – or safe – solution. Our children deserve better.”
Instead of arming teachers, SPLC said in a report five months after the killings and before the commission’s 439-page report was released that “the commission should focus on evidence-based approaches to discipline like Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, restorative justice, and social and emotional learning.”
“Placing more counselors, nurses and mental health professionals in schools, and conducting school climate assessments and behavioral health interventions, are additional and essential measures school districts can take to create the kind of welcoming and safe schools that foster learning and growth,” SPLC said.
Three months later, the SPLC and Giffords Law Center sued the Trump administration for “records detailing how it has unlawfully permitted the use of federal funds to arm teachers with guns in classrooms across America.”
“Turning teachers into armed guards is both reckless and insulting to the millions of American children and parents who want to see their schools become more safe – not less,” Adam Skaggs, chief counsel for the Giffords Law Center is quoted as saying in an SPLC press release.
In November 2018, the SPLC and Giffords sued the Duval County (Florida) Public Schools and the Duval County School Board over their decision to arm staff. The lawsuit claimed Florida state law prohibits anyone from carrying firearms on school property unless they are a law enforcement officer. The suit also states that while state law “requires every school to hire a ‘safe-school officer,’ it does not require those officers to be armed with guns.”
Florida is not the only state to be sued by the SPLC over armed teachers. Just five months ago, the nonprofit sued the Cobb County (Georgia) School Board over their decision to allow select personnel to carry concealed firearms on campus, on school busses and at school events.
“These school board members routinely enact school policies that are ineffective for the stated goals. To be clear, more guns, more police, and more punishment do not make schools safer. The new policy is not rooted in data, community input, or evidence-based solutions. And, not surprisingly, it will endanger lives and disproportionately impact students of color and students with disabilities who are already subjected to discriminatory discipline and over-policing in the district,” Mike Tafelski, SPLC’s senior supervising attorney said in a press release announcing the lawsuit.
Suspicious financials
According to the charity watchdog Guidestar, SPLC has more than $801 million in assets. The assets of Everytown, Giffords and Brady – combined – total $31 million, or around 3% of what SPLC has amassed.
SPLC’s most recent IRS form 990 confirms that the nonprofit is swimming in money, but the form raises more questions than it answers. The names of the nonprofit’s donors and the amount of their contributions are “restricted.” And there are very suspicious investments.
“The Center has ownership in several foreign corporations. However, the Center’s ownership percentage in these corporations does not rise to the level of reporting on the Form 5471,” the document states.
The nonprofit’s endowment fund is staggering. It has total assets worth more than $731 million. It was started shortly after SPLC was founded to ensure “that the SPLC has the financial strength to address, over the long haul, the entrenched problems our country faces.” Its assets consist of $10 million in cash plus bonds and an assortment of public and private equity funds.
SPLC’s salary structure is massive. As its critics have said, the nonprofit’s senior staff is extremely well compensated. SPLC’s interim president/CEO Karen Baynes Dunning received a salary and benefits package worth more than $386,000. The man she replaced, outgoing president/CEO Richard Cohen, received more than $413,000 in salary and benefits. The nonprofits chief fundraiser was paid more than $260,000. Its “director of teaching tolerance” made more than $200,000.
The average household income in Montgomery, Alabama, where SPLC’s headquarters is located, is $68,149 with a poverty rate of 24.24%.
The salaries of the nonprofit’s support staff, who voted to form a union shortly after Dees’ firing and successfully unionized last month, are not addressed in the IRS form.
“The SPLC’s work is supported primarily through donor contributions. No government funds are received or used for its efforts,” the nonprofit’s website states. “The SPLC is proud of the stewardship of its resources.”
‘Plantation’ boss
Morris Seligman Dees Jr., 86, may be the only nonprofit chief whose life and career inspired two Hollywood movies.
Corbin Bernson played Dees in the 1991 made-for-TV movie “Line of Fire: The Morris Dees Story.” Wayne Rogers of M*A*S*H fame played Dees in “Ghosts of Mississippi,” which was released in 1996.
Dees has been described as charismatic and has received dozens of accolades and professional awards, but he has also been the subject of many serious complaints. For decades the legacy media ignored any criticism, even when the complaints came from members of Dees’ own staff. Things changed in the early 1990s, when his hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser, launched an investigation into SPLC’s finances and how Dees and other senior managers treated their predominantly Black support staff.
Jim Tharpe, the Advertiser’s former managing editor, recounted the details of his newspaper’s investigation in a column he wrote for the Washington Post, which was published shortly after Dees was fired.
“SPLC leaders threatened legal action on several occasions, and at one point openly attacked the newspaper’s investigation in a mass mailing to Montgomery lawyers and judges. Then they slammed the door,” Tharpe wrote.
After three years of investigative reporting, the Advertiser published an eight-part series titled: “Rising Fortunes: Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center.”
The journalists uncovered a plethora of problems inside the nonprofit, including “a deeply troubled history with its relatively few black employees, some of whom reported hearing the use of racial slurs by the organization’s staff and others who ‘likened the center to a plantation’; misleading donors with aggressive direct-mail tactics; exaggerating its accomplishments; spending most of its money not on programs but on raising more money; and paying its top lavish salaries.”
Dees and his staff denied all wrongdoing, launched an aggressive damage-control campaign and condemned the series. It’s an age-old tactic: when someone can’t handle the message, they attack the messenger. It didn’t work. In 1995, the series was named as a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.
In his Washington Post column, Tharpe calls on the IRS and the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to investigate the SPLC.
“Any investigation should take a close look at the SPLC’s finances. It should look at what the center has told donors in its mail solicitations over the years. And it should take a close look at how that donor money has been spent. Investigators should also look at how SPLC staffers have been treated over the years. Where was the center’s board when this mistreatment was going on? And why did no one step up sooner?” Tharpe wrote.
Tharpe was not alone in his criticism of the nonprofit. Bob Moser, who worked as a staff writer at SPLC from 2001 to 2004, recounted similar concerns in a column he wrote for The New Yorker, which was published shortly after his former boss was shown the door.
“For those of us who’ve worked in the Poverty Palace, putting it all into perspective isn’t easy, even to ourselves. We were working with a group of dedicated and talented people, fighting all kinds of good fights, making life miserable for the bad guys,” Moser wrote. “And yet, all the time, dark shadows hung over everything: the racial and gender disparities, the whispers about sexual harassment, the abuses that stemmed from the top-down management, and the guilt you couldn’t help feeling about the legions of donors who believed that their money was being used, faithfully and well, to do the Lord’s work in the heart of Dixie. We were part of the con, and we knew it.
“It wasn’t funny then. At this moment, it seems even grimmer. The firing of Dees has flushed up all the uncomfortable questions again. Were we complicit, by taking our paychecks and staying silent, in ripping off donors on behalf of an organization that never lived up to the values it espoused? Did we enable racial discrimination and sexual harassment by failing to speak out? ‘Of course we did,’ a former colleague told me, as we parsed the news over the phone,” Moser wrote.
At the time, the SPLC did not publicly address the reasons for Dees’ firing. Then-president/CEO Richard Cohen issued a short statement shortly before Dee’s bio was scrubbed from the SPLC website.
“As a civil rights organization, the SPLC is committed to ensuring that the conduct of our staff reflects the mission of the organization and the values we hope to instill in the world,” Cohen’s statement reads. “When one of our own fails to meet those standards, no matter his or her role in the organization, we take it seriously and must take appropriate action.”
Shortly after Dees’ firing, the Alabama Political Reporter and several other local news sites obtained copies of an internal SPLC email, which was signed by numerous employees.
“Specifically, the employees’ email alleged multiple instances of sexual harassment by Dees, and it alleges that reports of his conduct were ignored or covered up by SPLC leadership. A subsequent letter from other SPLC employees demands an investigation into the alleged coverup of Dees’ alleged harassment,” the APR story states. “The emails noted that multiple female SPLC employees had resigned over the years due to the harassment and/or the subsequent retaliation by SPLC leadership when they reported the incidents.”
Dees, according to these news sources, denied any wrongdoing.
Anti-gun Democrat
The SPLC has never been able to achieve its stated goal of nonpartisanship. It is a far left-leaning organization from the top down.
According to his personal campaign donations, Dees has a long history of supporting Democratic candidates, including John Edwards, John Kerry and Bill Clinton. Earlier in his career, he served as finance director for George McGovern’s, Jimmy Carter’s and Edward Kennedy’s presidential campaigns.
Nine months after he was fired, Dees was linked to an anti-NRA group, which listed him as its founder on its now-defunct website, according to the Montgomery Advertiser.
Dees denied that he founded the group – The Association for Responsible Gun Ownership (TARGO) – but admitted he did support the group’s goals. He told the newspaper he joined another anti-gun group and was asked to help with TARGO.
Dees said he did not know what tactics the groups would use against the NRA. “We’ll fight them any way we can,” he told the newspaper. “We’ll work closely with other gun control groups.”
Inciting violence
On Aug.15, 2012, Jessica Prol Smith was working as a writer and editor at the Christian nonprofit Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., when her office was suddenly locked down because of a security threat.
An armed assailant, who was later convicted of terrorism and other crimes, entered the building with the intent to kill as many staffers as he could. He later admitted he brought 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches, which he intended to smear on his victims’ faces as a political statement. He had chosen the Family Research Council because the SPLC listed it as a hate group.
Thankfully, an unarmed security guard managed to subdue the assailant and hold him until police arrived, but he was shot once in the arm during the takedown.
Ms. Prol Smith agreed to answer questions about the SPLC. Here is the exchange:
How dangerous is SPLC’s Hatewatch label?
“The SPLC’s Hatewatch label is deceptive and profoundly dangerous. The group did some good work decades ago, when it fought segregation in the South. But for years, now, the SPLC has chosen to smear its political opponents and lump mainstream conservatives together with violent neo-Nazis and the KKK.
That’s obviously an effective fundraising strategy but it destroys our ability to get along with neighbors, friends, or family who don’t share our identical beliefs.
The SPLC also doesn’t appear to show any remorse over the reality that their ‘hate’ label has inspired violence. Back in 2012, a troubled young man took a cue from the SPLC hate list, packed his backpack with ammo and Chick-fil-A sandwiches and decided to target the Christian nonprofit where I worked. He planned to shoot the place up and smear sandwiches on our lifeless faces.
When I reflected on the incident and told my story in 2019, the SPLC responded by repeating their smear and fundraising off of it.”
Do you have any advice for people who find themselves on the Hatewatch list?
“It’s uncomfortable to be smeared as a hater and a bigot, but I think it’s possible to care too much what others think of you and your convictions. My Christian faith has taught me that it’s possible to be thoroughly loving and meticulously civil—but still face irrational abuse for speaking truth. If you’re the praying sort of person, I’d suggest praying that the SPLC’s leaders benefit from a redemptive, Damascus-road experience.
It’s reassuring to know that federal courts, former SPLC employees, and even some reluctant progressive advocates have been dismissing the SPLC’s Hatewatch label as subjective and, in some cases, a total scam.
But while the ‘hate’ labels harm dialogue and hold far too much influence in politics and corporate America, I’m optimistic that the SPLC’s strategy of abuse and deception isn’t ultimately a winning one.”
What is your reaction that the SPLC has now shifted to gun control?
“The SPLC has shown an appetite for fundraising off of the fears of liberals so it’s hardly surprising that they’ve expanded their portfolio to include gun control. Passions understandably run high when American citizens debate gun policy and I have very little confidence that the SPLC will help this debate be more constructive.”
In your opinion, will Dees’ firing change the SPLC, or will it continue on unchanged?
“As long as they are alive, people and their organizations can change, but I’m hardly optimistic that the SPLC will improve because Dees is gone. Mr. Dees may have contributed to the corruption and discrimination, but the SPLC is making a financial killing by fanning the culture wars in an aggressive and uncivil manner. Just a brief glance over recent blog posts lead me to believe that—at least for now—they’re going to paint ‘HATE’ in big red letters over anyone and anything they don’t like.”
Uncertain future
Dees may be gone, but his legacy still permeates throughout the nonprofit he co-founded 51 years ago, because he hired many of SPLC’s senior staff. The nonprofit’s future is uncertain. Will the SPLC continue with Dees’ style of partisan attacks on Second Amendment supporters, or will it chart a new course or resume its original mandate? It’s not clear. The SPLC did not respond to requests seeking their comments for this story.
It is hoped that the once-vaunted nonprofit will return to its original mission.
“During its formative years, the Southern Poverty Law Center did some great work. They took on the Klan, Nazis and the Aryan Nation, but nowadays they seem hellbent on conflating law-abiding gun owners with these hate groups,” said Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. “This needs to stop, and quite frankly they should be ashamed. The SPLC should return to its roots and its original core values. This country can always use another true civil-rights watchdog. We don’t need another gun-control group. We’ve got more than enough of those already.”
This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.
About Lee Williams
Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.
House Bill 76 & Senate Bill 172 CRIMINALIZING the failure of a victim of gun theft to report having his or her firearms stolen. [unenforceable, according to the State Police]
House Bill 88 & House Bill 447 further TAXING the sale of firearms and/or ammunition and firearms accessories. [higher taxes? in Texas? lol]
House Bill 123, House Bill 136 & Senate Bill 144 so-called “red flag” GUN CONFISCATION legislation requiring firearms surrender without due process. [no due process… yeah, maybe they could get away with that in Illinois]
House Bill 155, House Bill 236, Senate Bill 170 & Senate Bill 370 BANNING private firearms transfers between certain family members and friends, requiring FFLs to process these transactions that would include federal paperwork for government approval at an undetermined fee. [yeah, we just love getting the feds’ noses stuck in our bidness in Texas]
House Bill 817, House Bill 925 & Senate Bill 32 BANNING the manufacture, sale, purchase or possession of commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. [there aren’t enough body bags to enforce this little wet dream]
House Bill 197 & House Bill 632 BANNING the sale or transfer and possession of standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. [see the point above]
House Bill 179, House Bill 216 & House Bill 244 RESTRICTING long gun open carry, with limited exceptions. [you mean, over and above the restrictions we already have, and that most Texans hate like poison and mostly ignore?]
House Bill 298 establishes a 3-day WAITING PERIOD for firearms sales. [uh huh — I know we’ve got a lot of Californians come here recently, but we still ain’t California yet]
House Bill 887 CRIMINALIZING the practice of home-building firearms. [sorry, I need to go get another hanky]
House Bill 925 requiring enforcement of a whole host of newly-established firearms restrictions through PRIVATE CIVIL ACTIONS. [once again, this isn’t California or New fucking York]
House Bill 1092 REPEALING Texas’ firearms industry non-discrimination act from the 2021 session. [considering the margin by which the latter was passed in 2021, that ain’t gonna happen either]
Senate Bill 205 REPEALING Texas’ campus carry law. [because of all the dozens of mass shootings on Texas campuses over the past few years, maybe?]
Senate Bill 253 STREAMLINING signage requirements for posting areas off-limits to gun owners, making it easier for property owners to ban carrying on-premises. [actually, that we have any such signs at all is something I and others intend to take up with our legislators]
As one may recall, the CCIA was enacted this past summer by Gov. Kathy Hochul and her fellow gun controllers in the state legislature after the Supreme Court struck down New York’s “may-issue” licensing scheme as part of the landmark Bruen decision.
In that case, the high court affirmed that one’s right to keep and bear arms extends beyond one’s home into the public square.
Moreover, it found “may-issue” licensing schemes to be unconstitutional. That is to say, government officials cannot arbitrarily deny concealed-carry permits to law-abiding citizens on the grounds that they don’t have a sufficient “proper cause” to exercise this fundamental right.
Irate with the SCOTUS ruling, Gov. Hochul responded by pushing out the draconian CCIA that required applicants for concealed carry permits to do all of the following:
Display “good moral character”
Disclose their social media accounts for review
Have in-person interviews with law enforcement
Provide four “character references”
Undergo 18 hours of combined training, a tremendous increase from the existing 4-hour requirement
The CCIA also banned firearms in a wide-ranging list of “sensitive locations,” which sought to, in effect, make the entire state a gun-free zone.
Gun-rights groups immediately filed suit against the CCIA on the grounds that it violated the Bruen decision. A federal judge — Judge Glenn Suddaby — agreed, saying the CCIA imposed “unprecedented constitutional violations.”
And in November, Judge Suddaby enjoined the following provisions via a temporary restraining order (TRO):
Requiring good moral character
Requiring the names and contact info of spouses and other adults in the applicant’s home
Requiring applicants to disclose social media accounts for review
The restrictions on carrying in public parks, zoos, places of worship, locations where alcohol is served, theaters, banquet halls, conferences, airports and buses, lawful protests or assemblies, and the prohibition on carrying on private property without express consent from the owner
Gun Controllers fought back and appealed the case to the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The 2nd Circuit decided in December that while it was deciding the matter it would put a stay on Judge Suddaby’s preliminary injunction (TRO).
Put quite simply, the CCIA would go back into effect. In short, it’s on again.
The Gun-rights groups that sued then asked the Supreme Court to intervene and block the 2nd Circuit’s stay on the original injunction granted by Judge Suddaby.
The high court this week declined to do so. But two justices on the bench — Justice Alito and Justice Thomas — made it very clear that this fight was far from over.
“I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case,” they wrote.
“Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal,” they added.
The clock is ticking now for the 2nd Circuit. If it fails to come to a reasonable decision soon, the high court may step in, as Erich Pratt, the Senior Vice President for Gun Owners of America indicated in a press release obtained by GunsAmerica.
“While we would have hoped for immediate relief from the Court, this statement from Justice Alito is incredibly reassuring, in that the court is completely prepared to step in and re-assert the Bruen precedent should lower courts fail to properly, and in a timely manner, apply it in judicial cases where Second Amendment rights are being restricted,” said Pratt.
“We look forward to continuing the fight against New York’s draconian law,” he added.
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — With the stroke of his pen, Governor JB Pritzker made Illinois the ninth state to ban assault-style weapons.
The governor and supporters of the measure say the passage is long overdue.
“Today, I couldn’t be prouder to say that, ‘we got it done,’” Pritzker said. “We got this done for all the victims. The spouses, the children, parents, friends, and loved ones who are no longer with us, and for those who have survived mass shootings.”
Passing gun legislation is never easy. After a private battle that lasted for days, Democrats, who control the legislature, moved forward. Pritzker’s signature comes after the Illinois House voted to pass an assault weapon ban. The 68 to 41 vote took place after the Senate approved an amended bill on Monday that bans the sale, delivery, and purchase of assault-style weapons.
Owners of such guns can keep them, but they must register them with state police by Jan 1. Failure to do so is a misdemeanor and then a possible felony for subsequent offenses.
Also, the sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines — more than 10 rounds for long guns and 15 rounds for handguns — are banned.
Illinois State Police will be allowed to update the ban list periodically.
Before the vote, Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch claimed victory.
“It’s time that we protect Illinois communities. It’s time that we protect Illinois families,” he said.
Republicans rallied against the measure calling it unconstitutional.
“Unfortunately, this bill again is not going to stop gun violence. It is not going to protect our most vulnerable neighborhoods or our most vulnerable children,” said Illinois Rep. Toni McCombie.
“We have constitutional rights in our country. They protect our freedoms from the government. They are not rights that are given to us by the government,” added Illinois Rep. Patrick Windhurst.
The lone Republican ‘yes’ came from outgoing House Minority Leader Jim Durkin, who said he hoped his vote would honor the mass shooting victims at Highland Park’s Fourth of July parade.
