Morning Briefing
Summaries of health policy coverage from major news organizations
Playing Both Sides? Corporations Straddle Lines Of Gun Debate With Open-Carry Requests
The New York Times: Stores Could Just Ban Guns, But Open-Carry Foes Back Requests As A Step
David Amad, a gun rights activist and the vice president of Open Carry Texas, is not especially bothered by Walmart’s recent announcement that it is “respectfully requesting” that customers not openly carry guns into its stores. Mr. Amad said many of his group’s 38,000 members had carried their guns openly into Walmart stores since the retailer made the policy public last Tuesday. None have been asked to leave. “They are ducking the issue,” Mr. Amad said of Walmart. “They are trying to get the gun haters to leave them alone, while at the same time leave us alone when we carry in their stores.” (Corkery, 9/9)
The Washington Post: White House Weighs Controversial Plan On Mental Illness And Mass Shootings
The White House is considering a controversial proposal to study whether mass shootings could be prevented by monitoring mentally ill people for small changes that might foretell violence. Former NBC chairman Bob Wright, a longtime friend and associate of President Trump’s, has briefed top officials, including the president, the vice president and Ivanka Trump, on a proposal to create a new research arm called the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA) to come up with out-of-the-box ways to tackle health problems, much like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) does for the military, according to several people who have been briefed. (Wan, 9/9)
The New York Times: Republicans Want Stricter Gun Laws. Republican Voters, That Is.
Vast majorities of Americans — Democrats and Republicans, men and women — support stricter gun laws, the polls found. They’re even open to the kinds of programs once considered dead on arrival in political circles, including banning sales of military-style assault weapons and creating a mandatory federal buyback program for those weapons. Perhaps most significantly, the issue is starting to scare people. (Lerer, 9/9)
And in other news —
Reuters: Democrats Press For Stricter U.S. Gun-Sale Checks, Trump Non-Committal
Democrats in the U.S. Congress pledged on Monday to intensify pressure for stricter gun-sale background check legislation, citing strong public backing for the measure, but received no sign of support yet from President Donald Trump. With Congress returning from a long summer recess, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi again urged the Republican-controlled Senate to promptly approve a bill clamping down on unregulated gun sales through the internet and at gun shows. (9/9)
CNN: Texas Shooting Highlights Dangers Of Guns Sold Without Background Checks
The recent shooting in and around Odessa, Texas, is shining new light on an old problem: In some states, a person barred from owning a gun under the law can still buy one in a private sale, without a background check. The West Texas shooter, Seth Ator, 36, failed a background check when he tried to purchase a gun in 2014, because he had been deemed "a mental defective" by a judge, according to law enforcement sources. He was later able to buy a gun from a private seller. He killed seven people and wounded 25 others on August 31 before being apprehended and killed by the police in a shootout. The person who sold Ator his gun is being investigated as an unlicensed dealer, according to a law enforcement source. (Griffin and Katz, 9/9)
The Associated Press: NRA Sues San Francisco Over Terrorist Declaration
The National Rifle Association sued San Francisco on Monday over the city's recent declaration that the gun-rights lobby is a "domestic terrorist organization." The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses city officials of violating the gun lobby's free speech rights for political reasons and says the city is seeking to blacklist anyone associated with the NRA. It asks the court to step in "to instruct elected officials that freedom of speech means you cannot silence or punish those with whom you disagree." (Pane, 9/9)
