Gun control me­a­su­res ex­pec­ted to win in four sta­tes

Times of Suriname - - ENGELS -

USA - Gun control-re­la­ted bal­lot me­a­su­res in four sta­tes are ex­pec­ted to pass on Tues­day, opi­ni­on polls show, af­ter gun sa­fe­ty ad­vo­ca­tes pou­red a mas­si­ve amount of mo­ney in­to bac­king the ini­ti­a­ti­ves.

In Mai­ne and Ne­va­da, re­si­dents will vo­te on whe­ther to man­da­te uni­ver­sal back­ground checks for fire­arm sa­les, in­clu­ding pri­va­te hand­gun trans­ac­ti­ons. If tho­se two me­a­su­res pass, half of all Ame­ri­cans would li­ve in sta­tes that have such ex­pand­ed checks. Eigh­teen sta­tes and Was­hing­ton, D.C., have al­rea­dy ap­pro­ved si­mi­lar laws. (Grap­hic: Gun is­sues on the bal­lot he­re) Vo­ters in Was­hing­ton sta­te, me­an­w­hi­le, will con­si­der al­lo­wing ju­d­ges to bar pe­o­p­le from pos­ses­sing guns if they po­se a danger to them­sel­ves or to others, such as ac­cu­sed do­mestic abu­sers. In Ca­li­for­nia, a re­fe­ren­dum would ban lar­ge-ca­pa­ci­ty am­mu­ni­ti­on ma­ga­zi­nes and re­qui­re cer­tain pe­o­p­le to pass a back­ground check to buy am­mu­ni­ti­on. The U.S. Con­sti­tu­ti­on’s Se­cond Amend­ment pro­tects the right to bear arms, and gun rights ad­vo­ca­tes fier­ce­ly con­test any at­tempt to re­strict that free­dom. The vo­tes in Re­pu­bli­can-le­a­ning Mai­ne and Ne­va­da re­pre­sent a key test of the gun control mo­ve­ment’s de­ci­si­on to turn to a sta­te-by-sta­te stra­te­gy af­ter ef­forts to pass na­ti­on­wi­de le­gis­la­ti­on fai­led in Con­gress. Op­po­nents in Mai­ne and Ne­va­da say the laws are con­fu­sin­gly writ­ten and would bur­den legal gun ow­ners whi­le do­ing no­thing to stop cri­mi­nals. “We know to­day that the pla­ce whe­re cri­mi­nals are get­ting guns, the black mar­ket, they aren’t sub­jec­ting them­sel­ves to back­ground checks,” said Ry­an Ha­mil­ton, a spo­kes­man for the Na­ti­o­nal Rif­le As­so­ci­a­ti­on-back­ed op­po­si­ti­on in Ne­va­da. “It doe­sn’t tar­get cri­mi­nal be­ha­vi­or, it tar­gets law-abi­ding be­ha­vi­or.” But pro­po­nents say back­ground checks are wi­de­ly back­ed by the pu­blic and would sa­ve li­ves. Jen­ni­fer Cro­we, a spo­kes­wo­man for the pro-ini­ti­a­ti­ve cam­paign in Ne­va­da, said re­search had shown ne­ar­ly one in 11 pe­o­p­le who pur­cha­sed guns on­li­ne would have been bar­red from do­ing so by a back­ground check.

( UK - Prin­ce Harry has at­tack­ed the “ra­ci­al un­der­to­nes” of press co­ver­a­ge of his gir­lfriend Meghan Mar­kle in an ex­tra­or­di­na­ry sta­te­ment in which he warns that he fears for her sa­fe­ty.

The prin­ce said “a li­ne has been cros­sed” in re­por­ting of his re­la­ti­ons­hip with the 35-year-old Ame­ri­can ac­tor, who li­ves in Tor­on­to. “So­me of this has been very pu­blic,” his spo­kes­man said in a sta­te­ment. “The smear on the front pa­ge of a na­ti­o­nal news­pa­per; the ra­ci­al un­der­to­nes of com­ment pie­ces; and the out­right sexism and ra­cism of so­ci­al me­dia trolls and web ar­ti­cle com­ments.” The sta­te­ment con­firms for the first ti­me that the pair are in a re­la­ti­ons­hip but laun­ches a po­werful and un­pre­ce­den­ted at­tack at the me­dia by the prin­ce. “Prin­ce Harry is wor­ried about Ms Mar­kle’s sa­fe­ty and is dee­ply dis­ap­poin­ted that he has not been ab­le to pro­tect her,” it said. “It is not right that a few months in­to a re­la­ti­ons­hip with him that Ms Mar­kle should be sub­jec­ted to such a storm. “He knows com­men­ta­tors will say this is ‘the pri­ce she has to pay’ and that ‘this is all part of the ga­me’. He stron­gly dis­agrees. This is not a ga­me – it is her li­fe and his. He has as­ked for this sta­te­ment to be is­sued in the ho­pes that tho­se in the press who have been dri­ving this sto­ry can pau­se and re­flect be­fo­re any fur­ther da­ma­ge is do­ne. He knows that it is unu­su­al to is­sue a sta­te­ment li­ke this, but ho­pes that fair-min­ded pe­o­p­le will un­der­stand why he has felt it ne­ces­sa­ry to speak pu­bli­cly.”


Newspapers in Dutch

Newspapers from Suriname

© PressReader. All rights reserved.