Students across the country have been blowing up social media feeds advocating for gun control since school shooter Nikolas Cruz killed 17 people last week – but can they force change? We also give you the latest on the Russia probe indictments; have you ever moved because of your political beliefs?; and more.
In the fight for gun control, can a nation of high school students make a difference this time?
Gun control advocates are calling for a national walkout at schools across the country.
The planned March 14th event follows last Wednesday’s mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida high school. The organizers are calling on Congressional and state legislators to tighten gun restrictions.
How far might the walkouts extend and will they have a political effect?
Guest:
Sergio Bustos, senior editor of POLITICO Florida; he’s been following the story
Florida school shooting reignites push for gun legislations. We debate 2 of them
Less than a week after a school shooting in Florida where 17 people were killed, California lawmakers are calling for legislative gun control measures that they say would have prevented the violence.
California Senator Dianne Feinstein said last week that she will introduce Federal legislation that would require someone to be 21 or older to buy a firearm. Currently, Federal law restricts the sale of handguns to anyone under 21, but “long guns” are exempt from this restriction.
Another preliminary proposal comes from Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) which seeks to expand an existing law that would allow coworkers and school staff to apply for a court order to remove guns from people who might pose a danger to public safety. The existing law allows judges to remove a gun from someone’s possession for up to 21 days.
What are the constitutional issues raised by these measures? What are the second amendment concerns? Do you think these measures would prevent future violence?
Guests:
Lindsay Nichols, federal policy director at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun safety organization headquartered in San Francisco
Michael Hammond, legislative counsel at Gun Owners of America, a gun rights organization based in Springfield, VA
As the investigation continues, a look at the latest on the Russia indictments
The Department of Justice charged 13 Russians and 3 companies on Friday in an indictment that revealed interference in the 2016 election which favored President Trump’s campaign.
As reported by CNN, the Russian government denied on Monday that it had meddled in the election. While Trump did not speak publicly about the indictments over the weekend, he did send out about 20 tweets on the subject, one of which blamed former President Obama for not stopping the interference.
As PBS reports, Internet Research Agency – one of the indicted companies – allegedly had “a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and acted toward that goal.”
So what does all this mean for the Russia investigation? Larry speaks to reporters following the story for the latest.
Guests:
Darren Samuelsohn, senior White House reporter for POLITICO; he tweets
Ron Elving, senior editor and correspondent on the Washington Desk for NPR News; he tweets
State Senator proposes new law that would ban pay-per-signature bonus in ballot qualifying process
Paid signature-gathering has been a part of the ballot initiative process since its inception in Oregon the early 20th century, but a California Senator is aiming to change that by proposing a bill that would ban signature-gatherers from collecting payment on a per-signature basis.
Fullerton Democrat Josh Newman says that signature-gatherers are already powerful agents for advancing ballot initiatives, and that paying them only incentivizes them further to go to any lengths to get a signature. “Too often,” he says, “this includes misrepresenting the purpose of the petition or straight out lying to get voters to sign. This is fraud, plain and simple, and it damages the integrity of the process. Voters have a right to know that what they are signing is actually what they will be voting for on the ballot.”
If passed, the bill would levy a fine of $25,000 or $50 per signature, whichever is greater, against the organizations that employ the signature-gatherers who are being paid per-signature. The signature-gatherers themselves could also be fined up to $1,000 for participating. The bill would not prohibit paid signature-gathering altogether, just the practice of being paid for each signature gotten.
Critics of the bill say this proposal could face significant legal and constitutional hurdles as it moves through the legislative process. Similar bills have been proposed in the past but have ultimately been vetoed by the governor at the time.
Today on AirTalk, Larry speaks with the state senator behind the bill and an expert on signature-gathering for ballot initiatives to explain how this would change the process.
Guests:
Josh Newman (D-Fullerton), California State Senator representing Senate District 29, which encompasses portions of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino counties including Anaheim, Chino Hills, Fullerton, West Covina and Yorba Linda; he is the author of SB 1394, which would prohibit signature gatherers from being paid per-signature
David McCuan, professor and chair in the department of political science at Sonoma State University
As Peter Thiel packs his bags for LA, AirTalk asks: have you ever moved because of your political beliefs?
It was reported last week that one of Silicon Valley’s giants Peter Thiel, known for numerous ventures including co-founding PayPal, being the former CEO of eBay and investing early in Facebook, is moving to Los Angeles in order to escape the liberal bubble of San Francisco.
Thiel, who leans libertarian and has endorsed President Trump, is moving some of his organizations to L.A. as well, though his future plans here an unclear. The irony of Thiel becoming an Angeleno to get away from liberals is not lost on some writers. But his relocation has inspired us to ask: have you ever moved to or from a place because of your political leanings?
Would you move to a city in order to be with more like-minded people? Or have you ever moved somewhere for the opposite reason – because you wanted to encounter different viewpoints from the ones your already hold?
Call us at 866-893-5722.