This week as the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) or more commonly known as the Motor Voter Law marks its 20^th anniversary. For many, it’s difficult to remember when  voter registration did not occur through motor vehicle office,  public assistance, disability or armed forces recruiting office or by mailing in their voter application.  These are just some of the ways that the NVRA has helped to register millions of person each year and to particularly bring low income persons in the process. Before the passing of the NVRA in 1993, voter registrations were lower in 1992 than in 1972.  Many states barriers to registering voters—a Democratic right. The NVRA has greatly helped to making registering and changes registration information, simple and easier.

Although the NVRA has successfully helped to register millions of eligible voters, voter registration rates are no as high as they could be.  There is still work to be done and additional ways to increase voter registration.   The GOP has fought efforts to increase voter registration in many states, as seen from the 2012 election.  Many states have implemented same day registration which allows persons to register and vote on the same day.  Other states have limited the time for registering before becoming eligible to vote.   States that allow for same day voter registration and voting have consistently higher voter turnout.  In the 2012 election, according to demos.org, four of the top five states for voter turnout had same day registration. The average turnout in same day registration states was over 10 percentage points higher than in other states, according to demos.org. Currently, as of this writing, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Maryland and Colorado now have same day voter registration.

Modernizing the voter process and allowing national same day voter registration for federal elections should be the next step. Specific communities with lower voter registration rates should be identified with voter registration outreach.  A few recommended ones are expanding the NVRA into the Affordable Care Act Health Benefit Exchanges, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Indian Health Services for Native Americans.

The 20^th anniversary of the NVRA is just a reminder that the fight is not over yet to overcome barriers to voter registration.  Making   voter registration easier is still a fight that is ongoing.   And by the efforts of the GOP, it will be a fight that continues into the future.

Photo Courtesy of Color Lines
Early Voters in Miami

Monday, May 20^th marks the 20^th anniversary of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA or “Motor Voter”). The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on May 20, 1993. It allowed Department of Motor Vehicles to register persons to vote at the same time that they came to renew or obtain a new driver’s license. The law also allowed voter registration at other public agencies such as for persons obtaining disability services, food stamps and other social services to reach out to a greater segment of the population. The law has been essential in increasing voter registration opportunities and standardizing the process of removing voters from the registration list.

Thanks to the NVRA, millions of Americans have been able to register to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles and other public agencies.  The Motor Voter laws were designed to streamline the process of obtaining a driver’s license along with registering to vote.  Motor Vehicle offices were able to accomplish a dual purpose.  These laws are just one of the many ways to make it easier to register to vote.

With many Republican lawmakers’ attempts to disenfranchise voters and make it more difficult to vote, it is time to celebrate this historic moment in voting rights.  Making the vote easier to access is the fundamental premise behind the Democracy that we fight for here and in other countries.

We can still do better in terms of making voter registration easier to accomplish for Americans.  The Voter Empowerment Act re-introduced in 2013 would allow for online registration and registration to students at all college and university campuses that receive federal aid.  Currently, the State of Washington allows for online voter registration.   We also need to make federal voter registration easier for those who are elderly, disabled and unable to register in person.

Twenty years ago, the National Voter Registration Act was one step in the right direction to increase options for Americans to register to vote. But, we can and must do much better to ensure access to voter registration.

In less than one month, the second degree murder trial of George Zimmerman is scheduled to begin on June 10.  And already the city of Sanford, Florida is expecting huge crowds on both sides of the case—those in support of George Zimmerman and those who support Trayvon Martin.  It is being seen as a case of huge race and class proportions based on what transpired or did not happen on the night of the murder.  If George Zimmerman had been arrested on the night of the murder of Trayvon Martin, this case would more than likely have generated very little publicity.  It would be a murder trial of the killing of a 17 year old by a neighborhood watch person.

By allowing George Zimmerman to remain free until April 11, 2012 following the February 26^th murder of Trayvon Martin, this trial now has huge racial overtones.  In those 44 days, a public outcry occurred in the mainstream media and online due to the killing of Trayvon Martin, a young black male, who was walking in a gated community with a bag of Skittles and an iced tea, en route to the residence of his father’s fiancé.  Without the large lapse of time before the arrest, there would not be the sensational trial that is about to begin. So what we will now experience is a trial of national racial proportions, an O.J. Simpson case in reverse.  And what should be on trial is a second degree murder of an unarmed 17 year old walking with a bag of Skittles and carrying iced tea, killed by a neighborhood watch person.  The race and class implications would still exist, even if Zimmerman had been immediately arrested, related to the seemingly unwarranted suspicion created just by a young black male walking in a gated community.

A lot of potential evidence has been leaked through the media.  Yet, the trial has not begun and much of what has been leaked may never be presented to a jury.  Only two people really know what happened on the night of the murder but only one is alive; And Zimmerman, the remaining living one, and his defense team will attempt to portray the victim, someone he never met before, as an aggressive teenager who was out to kill him, if he didn’t kill him first.  Zimmerman will undoubtedly assert that he cried out for help fearing for his life before shooting Trayvon Martin in self-defense.

The trial may have its share of side show issues in the way of school records, use of marijuana by the victim, school discipline issues, Facebook postings, character faults and virtues of the victim and defendant. Marijuana will be in evidence because it is contained in the autopsy report. And the State’s medical examiner will testify about his toxicological findings.  Character of the victim will be on trial by the defense, if allowed by the judge.  Of course, that’s a double edge sword that can also backfire with a jury.  Even if Trayvon Martin was not a star student, had issues in school, had marijuana in his system at this death and had fights as a teenager, do these really have anything to do with why he was killed on February 26, 2012?

State of mind of the defendant in asserting self -defense is an issue.   George Zimmerman asserts that he was fearful for his life and that Trayvon attempted to reach for Zimmerman’s gun.  That’s where the audio of someone’s voice heard screaming may come into play.  Apparently, two state’s experts disagree on whose voice is heard on the audio tape.  One concludes that it is Trayvon Martin’s voice. Another expert concludes that it is a combination of Trayvon and George Zimmerman’s voices.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the hearings.  The presiding judge must rule on whether any audio expert may testify.

Scars on the back of the head of George Zimmerman indicate a fight occurred and that he was apparently either on the ground or struck in the head.   No piece of evidence indicates if Trayvon Martin exhibited deadly force against Zimmerman.  It is all circumstantial evidence.

There is the direct testimony of Zimmerman, should he take the witness stand.  If he takes the stand, the defendant’s character faults will be on display.  Remember his credibility suffered a substantial blow when he decided to be less than truthful and honest surrounding his bail hearing and bail issues.  His defense team knows they cannot rest on his testimony alone.

There are a lot of what ifs in this case.  However, what ifs do not constitute evidence.  Except no matter how I try to objectively view the case as a defense attorney and former prosecutor, I am still left with several major what ifs.  What if George Zimmerman had heeded the neighborhood watch patrol instructions to patrol the neighborhood without carrying a fire arm?  And what if George Zimmerman had obeyed the 911 dispatcher’s advice and not have followed Trayvon Martin.  What if George Zimmerman had not taken the law into his own hands instead of just reporting his suspicions to the police and awaiting the police officers’ arrival? What if George Zimmerman had been arrested on the night of the killing?

We can’t turn back the hands of the clock with what ifs.  We can only play it forward with a jury trial.  The jury trial is set to begin on June 10.

Debbie Hines is a Washington, DC based practicing trial attorney, former Maryland prosecutor and member of the Supreme Court bar who is an expert in criminal law, high profile criminal cases, gun laws, death penalty cases and voting laws.  She often addresses legal issues at the intersection of race and crime.

His petition for writ of habeas corpus based on ineffective assistance of counsel has 19 arguments.  It seems as if his present attorney is throwing everything up against the wall and hoping that something will stick.  And if it were not for the bias against O.J. Simpson due to his acquittal of Nicole Brown Simpson’s murder, he might be able to win his argument. He only needs one successful argument in order to win a new trial.

The case stems from the 2007 robbery of dealers in a hotel room in Las Vegas who Simpson said were trying to sell items that were stolen from him.  Simpson did not testify at his trial for armed robbery, although he claimed out of court that he did not know the other co-conspirators were bringing guns to the hotel room.  Simpson was not armed.  But Simpson claimed in 2008 and now that his lead attorney, Yale Galanter advised him in advance that he was within his rights to take goods and property that he believed  were stolen from him.   Ironically or maybe not so ironic, the armed co-conspirators are no longer serving any jail time.  Four of the co-conspirators pleaded guilty and testified against Simpson.   Clarence “C.J.” Stewart faced a jury conviction alongside Simpson but later was granted a new trial after his conviction and given probation.  Simpson is the only one serving jail time.

So this time he’s arguing ineffective assistance of counsel which is heard before a judge and not a jury. It will be decided by Judge Linda Marie Bell.  It is rare for a defendant to win on a post trial conviction motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel.  Yet, in the case of O.J. Simspon, the case seems to warrant some merit.

First, he alleges that his attorney was in Las Vegas on the day of the robbery and that they had contact prior to the incident.  In fact, O.J. says he had dinner with his attorney the night before the incident.  While O.J. Is not one to believe, there are some facts to show that his lead attorney, Galanter  and the prosecutor may have wrongfully stipulated events to the trial judge.  At the robbery trial, the prosecutor and the defense attorney entered into an agreement that there were no phone calls between the defense attorney and O.J. in the days leading up to the robbery.  The prosecutor now states that  was not true.

One newspaper account states, “the other prosecutor, Chris Owens, testified about discovering phone calls between the two but hiding that fact from the judge. He identified at least 10 calls in the days preceding and on Sept. 13, 2007.”

Both prosecutors described an agreement with the Simpson defense that was read to the jury saying there were no calls.  This bears on whether O.J. relied on statements by his attorney in entering the hotel room to retrieve the items which he believed to be stolen from him

Yet most troubling is the assertion that O.J. Simpson may not have been provided with the details of any plea bargain.  Failure to advise a client of a plea bargain would amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. Mr. Galanter, the lead attorney is expected to testify on Friday.  Since the hearing harbors on the non-assistance or ineffective assistance of counsel, the attorney client privilege is waived by O.J. in asserting his claim.  This means that his former attorney may testify about  any and all statements that his former client told him.  There are  always two sides to any story.  And on Friday, at least one other side of the story will be told.

It’s official and the results are in regarding the U.S. Census Bureau’s evaluation on the demographics of the 2012 election. And for the first time ever and since the data has been taken, blacks outvoted whites.  66% of blacks voted versus 64.1% of whites according to the new Census results issued last week. This was no easy task as the GOP tried everything in their power to dissuade and disenfranchise  African Americans from voting by enacting  restrictive voter ID laws in over half of the states.  As Pennsylvania State Senator Mike Turzai said the goal was to give the win to Mitt Romney.  Instead, it backfired and blacks came out in groves to outvote whites and re-elect President Obama to his second term.   And black women outvoted all groups according to the Census.   Having spoken out on these voter ID laws and disenfranchisement efforts, it is particularly rewarding to feel that all efforts played a part in getting out the African American vote.

According to  the report, “besides the record rate that African-Americans voted at, non-whites made up 26.3% of all voters, another all-time high. The share of the non-white population is also expected to rise from 33.9% to 37.8% in 2020 and 54.8% by 2060, according to Census Bureau projections.”

There are several take aways from the results.  If the Republican party is to make inroads in the Presidential election of 2016, they need to do some soul searching about their efforts to disenfranchise minorities.   The results are in and cannot be ignored.  Reports have indicated that Mitt Romney was relying on the 2004 data regarding the turnout of blacks.  That data is now obsolete.  This is a new day for America.  Asians and Hispanics also voted in large numbers and overwhelmingly for President Obama.

African Americans must continue to fight the oppressive voter ID laws.  In several states such as Pennsylvania, the new laws although passed in 2012 will not go into effect until 2014 due to court litigation.  The fight is not over on these voter ID laws.  And many minorities were disenfranchised due to the new voter ID laws, long waiting lines, provisional ballots and confusion concerning the requirements for voting.   Everyone who cares about democracy must continue to fight any laws and restrictions that make voting difficult for segments of our population.   The fight is not over on these voting laws despite the outcome of the 2012 election.

African Americans must continue to vote at this same pace for the 2014 election. Of course, that’s much easier said than done.   Organizing groups must educate and persuade minorities that the 2014 Midterm election is important for the legacy of President Obama. In order to complete his work, there must be folks in Congress and the U.S. Senate who can vote for his priorities.  Despite all of the obstructionism of the GOP controlled U.S. Congress, there has been major legislation passed but much more can still be done—depending on the 2014 election outcome.  The education process to persuade voters to come out again in 2014 begins in earnest now.

The  link to the U.S. Census Bureau report can be found here.

Photo Courtesy of AP

The State of Mississippi becomes the latest reason to end the death penalty.  A Mississippi man, Willie Manning was scheduled for death by lethal execution on Tuesday evening May 7 after the Mississippi highest court rejected DNA tests to take place.  And this denial occurs despite the FBI’s admission that its original analysis of the evidence for the trial testimony contained errors.  The Justice Department sent three letters calling certain aspects of the trial testimony of two F.B.I. experts “erroneous.” Manning was convicted of killing two college students in 1992. Manning’s lawyers argue that no physical evidence ties him to the crime.  Attorneys for the Innocence Project argue that it is unfathomable that an execution could take place in the absence of now known DNA testing that could prove whether Manning committed the crime or did not commit it.  The Mississippi highest court refused to consider a DNA test of the evidence.  And  then just 4 hours before his scheduled execution, the Mississippi Supreme Court delayed the execution “until further notice.”

Ironically, in a similar Maryland case, former death row prisoner, Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted of rape based on testimony of eyewitnesses.  He was sentenced to death. Ultimately, when advances in DNA testing became available between the time of his crime and his wait on death row,   Bloodsworth was allowed a DNA test of his case. And as a result, his innocence was proved. Kirk Bloodsworth is now a free man who advocates for the repeal of the death penalty.  Bloodsworth served several years on death row before his release and exoneration.

Sending one innocent person to their death is too many.  In Maryland, a Commission on Capital Punishment found that for almost every 9 persons sent to death row, one innocent person has been exonerated.  Nationally, 130 innocent persons have been condemned to die since the early 1970’s. Some have been exonerated by DNA evidence. In Troy Davis’ case, there was no DNA, only tainted witness testimony.  In the Mississippi case of Willie Jerome Manning, there is lack of DNA testing  that is available now.

The death penalty does not serve the victim’s families or our society.  The death penalty does not serve the families of the victims who often wait often decades for their perceived “justice.  One victim’s mother advocates for repeal of the death penalty.  Vicki Schieber, the Maryland mother of a daughter who was brutally raped and killed in 1998, has testified before the US Senate and several states, including New Jersey which abolished the death penalty in 2007.  She says she never wanted the death sentence for her daughter’s killer even though she was pressured by the prosecutor to endorse it.

New Jersey became the first state in over 40 years to abolish its death penalty in 2007.  And in 2013, Maryland became the 18^th state to pass legislation banning the death penalty. The momentum is growing and now is the time to keep it going. The Supreme Court has moved towards limiting the death penalty forbidding the death penalty for juveniles and mentally retarded and banning for crimes that did not involve killings.  In 2007, the Supreme Court placed on hold all executions for eight months while deciding if lethal injection is a cruel and unusual punishment.  The Supreme Court ultimately decided lethal injection was legal.

The death penalty has not been a deterrent to crime, is expensive, racially biased and unfair. Taxpayers spend millions on a failed system. One Maryland commission found that pursuing a death penalty case is three times more expensive to taxpayers than pursuing a non-capital punishment case.  In death sentences, almost half of those receiving the death penalty are black. The prison population is over 40% black men while black men make up only 6% of the population.  Life without parole should replace the death penalty as the most severe punishment in America.  All available means to prove guilt or innocence must be explored in all death penalty cases. Troy Davis’ execution in 2011 marked the beginning of a new resurgence in this country to end the death penalty. The fight must continue to move forward to repeal the death penalty.

Last week’s legal news centered on Jodi Arias, George Zimmerman,  Kermit Gosnell and Amanda Knox.  After months of agonizing testimony over the murder of Jodi Arias’ former boyfriend, the jury finally got the case for deliberations.  CNN”s Headline News carried daily coverage of the trial testimony.  Despite the viewers’ demand for a real life murder drama, the case is not one that should demand coverage of any prominent significance, in my opinion. And often cases that should demand media coverage fail to receive it. The case of the Gosnell trial is in the latter category.

Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortion doctor is now charged with five murders, including that of one woman and four babies who were born live after he allegedly performed abortions beyond the period of weeks for a legal abortion.  Three counts of murder were dropped by the judge during the trial for insufficient evidence. Gosnell is said to have ran an abortion house of horrors on women of color of lower socio-economic means.  According to the Grand Jury Report on Kermit Gosnell, this case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women, regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors, in addition to allegedly overdosed and infected patients in a filthy place of business, ironically named the Women’s Medical Society.  Gosnell was the only doctor and no nurses practiced with him for the decades that he practiced in West Philadelphia.  He was a last resort for many women of little means and he performed outside the law—thus he is alleged to have committed murder.  Abortion is legal but Gosnell performed outside the legal limits of the law. What he performed was not legal. He is charged with intentional killings of viable babies.

Gosnell offered no defense in his trial.  And a jury will decide his fate.  The Philadelphia jury has been deliberating since last week. The Grand Jury report of his alleged transgressions are quite graphic. And even as a former prosecutor having read murder Grand Jury testimony, the Gosnell Grand Jury report contains the most graphic of all Grand Jury murder testimony and photos.  Both Kermit Gosnell and Jodi Arias are awaiting a jury verdict and are facing the death penalty, if convicted.

The Trayvon Martin case goes to trial on June 10. And George Zimmerman was back in the news with his lawyer’s assertion that the Zimmerman defense does not plan on using the Stand Your Ground defense.  They intend to rely on a traditional self -defense approach in the trial. But there’s a devil in the details of attorney Mark O’Mara’s election to proceed with self -defense instead of Stand Your Ground.  The prosecution had pressed Zimmerman’s attorney for a decision of Stand Your Ground. Although, O’Mara delivered his election to the judge, he stated that the law does not require him to make an election prior to trial and asserting that the Stand Your Ground defense would be available after the trial started in his opinion.  While I tend to agree that the defense should have made the pre-trial election before the trial, I don’t think they had an indefinite time period to assert a Stand Your Ground defense.  Nonetheless, if Zimmerman is convicted following his June trial, O’Mara has set up a ground on appeal on the timeliness of making and going forward with a Stand Your Ground defense.

And Amanda Knox was back in the news last week with her interview with Diane Sawyer.  Knox is being tried again for the murder in Italy of her roommate.  The Italian’s court to retry her comes after a conviction, an appeal and an acquittal.  Obviously, the Italian courts do not have the equivalent of double jeopardy as the U.S. constitution forbids being tried twice for the same offense—after an acquittal.  But Knox did not persuade anyone of her innocence by her weak interview with Diane Sawyer. She obviously is on air to promote her new book on her ordeal.  However, she would be better remaining silent on the case.  Her demeanor was lackluster and unemotional.

Stay tuned for the week’s update on the latest legal trials and legal news.

For many senior citizens who are struggling to make it from month to month, the sequester cuts Meals on Wheels programs. For those recently affected by disaster, the  sequester cut FEMA and threatens to cut disaster relief. For those working parents struggling to afford child care, the sequester cuts subsidiaries for 30,000 children. For many families who are struggling to stay in affordable housing, the sequester cuts affect rental assistance and programs aimed at preventing homelessness.  Yet, Congress chooses to think of itself first and prevent any inconvenience to their going home trips. Even Senator John McCain stated “I think we have our priorities a little bit skewed here.”  And Ellen Hollander, president and CEO of Meals on Wheels stated “it’s perplexing that we’re saving programs that are inconveniencing others , but we’re not saving programs that are saving lives.”  And cancer doctors like Dr. Willia Nibley from Utah states that he would invite anyone from Washington to look at his patients and explain why waiting for a flight is a bigger deal than waiting longer or traveling farther to get chemotherapy.

Until we fix what’s broken in Washington, the sequester will continue to affect families and everyday people.   And what’s broken in Washington is our present Congress. 2014 is the next Congressional election.  And we must start thinking now of how to replace those members of Congress who think more of giving gifts to themselves rather than helping to give jobs and necessities  to the American people who they are elected to serve.

The programs and jobs cut by sequester are not hand -outs or entitlements.  They are agencies and programs that help everyday Americans to succeed.  And speaking of jobs, when will Congress fix the economy and job situation.  Despite some improvement in the economy, some people have just stopped looking for jobs.  And others are still waiting on Congress to help clean up the economy. But like Senator John McCain says, Congress has its priorities a little skewed.  In reality, the Republican controlled Congress has its priorities aimed at itself and not the American people.

Last week the Boston Marathon bombing caused terror all over Boston and surrounding areas leading up to the shooting death of one suspect and the arrest of his younger brother.  President Barack Obama described the Boston Marathon bombing as an act of terror and stated his Administration may invoke the public safety exception to Miranda, allowing FBI officials to question the suspect without reading him his Miranda rights to remain silent and seek advice of any attorney.  Presently, the suspect is not in any condition to communicate due to his medical condition.  The Federal Public Defenders say they will represent him.

The issue of terror raises many concerns. Terror comes in many shapes, forms and sizes. For those living in the Washington, DC area in October of 2002, for three weeks, the DC Sniper, John Allen Muhammad and 16 year old Lee Boyd Malvo held the entire DC, Virginia and Maryland area in terror as they randomly killed 10 persons in three jurisdictions and injured three others while on their three week killing spree at gas stations and shopping malls.  Persons were afraid to pump gas in their cars as the two shot and killed persons pumping gas, going to school, at shopping centers, waiting for bus transportation and performing other routine tasks. Montgomery County Public Schools, District of Columbia Public Schools, and private schools went into a lockdown, with no recess or outdoor gym classes. Other school districts in the area also took precautionary measures.   The suspects were arrested just days before the 2002 Marine Corp Marathon.

And for those children and teachers in Newtown, Connecticut, students on the campus of Virginia Tech, movie goers in the theater in Aurora, Colorado and shoppers in  Tucson, Arizona at the shopping center to hear then Rep. Gabby Giffords, terror and fear rang out in all those places too.  And in many urban cities and communities throughout the country, gun violence causes many persons to live with a perpetual sense of fear every time they leave their homes and sometimes while inside their homes. Many fear their children will be shot while en route to school, coming home from school, playing in a neighborhood playground, sitting on the steps of their porch or inside their home where a stray bullet could come through a window.   For many of those living in communities where gun violence is more the norm, they already live in a shelter at home situation every day out of fear. The feeling of terror that was felt in Boston can be the same feeling experienced by those of mass gun violence incidents and random gun violence experienced in this country on a daily basis.  The main difference is how we react to the terror.

In regards to the Boston Marathon bombing, I listened to the Sunday morning talk shows following the arrest where several legislators talked about delaying the Immigration bill, in light of the bombing.  The reason indicated by one was to allow for more time to review the bill to see if other restrictions might be imposed.   Yet, many of these lawmakers who will want to review the evidence surrounding the Boston bombings to see if tighter security laws can be enacted are  probably many of the same ones who voted to defeat the gun bill’s background checks.   Those same lawmakers who support failing to provide Miranda and other rights to the Boston bomb suspect are probably some of the same ones voting against gun control who want to ensure the 2nd amendment and right to bear arms is not infringed.  Yet, they are willing to infringe on other rights afforded under the Constitution.

Until we treat gun violence  in this country with the same intensity as we do bombings, persons will continue to be killed at an alarming rate in this country due to gun violence.  Gun violence is the terror that exists in many urban cities across the country on a daily basis.  And although mass gun violence has stretched to places like Newtown, Connecticut, Tucson, Arizona, Virginia Tech University and Aurora, Colorado and includes many urban communities, our lawmakers still fail to see guns create terror and fear too.  And just like with bombing incidents, we will not be able to avoid all gun incidents with legislation.   Yet, gun violence deserves the attention to the terror that it also invokes among us.  And passing universal background gun checks, banning some assault weapons and limiting magazine cartridges would have been a good start.

The final vote on the Manchin-Toomey background checks amendment was 54-46.  The Manchin-Toomey plan would have expanded background checks to include private sales at gun shows and all Internet sales, while continuing to exempt most sales between family members and friends.  A proposed bill to ban assault weapons failed. And the bill to limit magazine cartridges to no more than 10 also went down in flames.  The NRA’s attempt to lessen restrictions on concealed handguns also failed.

President Obama spoke on the failed vote at the White House Tuesday evening. “All in all, this is a pretty shameful day for Washington,” he said.  Congresswoman Karen Bass  (D. CA) asked what does it say about our democracy when a few special interests are able to cloud out the wishes of the majority of the American people.

The battle is not over. Progressives vowed to fight even harder saying another vote will be scheduled. In round 2 of the gun battle, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords will hold a press conference on Thursday to discuss and address the Senators who voted against the bill.  Having almost lost her life due to senseless gun violence. Giffords has found another voice in speaking out in support of gun control.  Others such as the vocal families of the Newtown victims also vow to continue the fight until we can say we did all we could to help prevent another Newton tragedy from occurring.  Nothing is fail proof.  But with no further actions to control guns in the wrong hands and continuing the same course of action, the same results are likely to occur.

On another fight on the state level, the NRA vowed to fight the Maryland gun control bill in court instead of by referendum. During the recent Maryland General Assembly which just concluded, Maryland passed sweeping gun control legislation.  But if the NRA has its day in court and wins, Maryland may have to reverse its course.

The fight is not over. This is a war and the first battle was won by the NRA.  The war must be won by the will of the American people. And the fight for sensible gun control legislation continues.