Events

In the aftermath of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, firearm regulation has understandably moved to the forefront of our national political debate. Even before Newtown, the tragic mass shootings in Arizona and Colorado, and the botched Operation Fast and Furious, had kept this issue in the news. But many now are indicating that this tragedy, its nature and how it has stunned our nation, pushes the issue to a tipping point.

While America has a tradition of private gun ownership for self-defense and sport, what can be done about the growing conflict between an individual’s right to own guns and the public’s desire to be safe from gun violence? The Second Amendment has long been one of the most divisive issues in American society. While there have been few national legal developments since the Supreme Court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), states have been adjusting their laws — and public facilities changing their security systems — ever since the Columbine school shooting in 1999, and litigation continues in the lower courts.

Unfortunately, national discussions of gun policy often devolve into sound bites, dueling headlines, lobbying campaigns, but accomplish little. Polarized, entrenched positions fail to constructively grapple with the fundamental policy question: How do we keep guns away from violent criminals? Should we focus on mental illness, background checks, assault weapons, or something else? In Living with Guns, former New York Times reporter and editor Craig Whitney re-examines the right to bear arms, why it was enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and how it came to be misunderstood. Whitney proposes pragmatic solutions to control gun violence rather than guns, and ideas to keep them out of the hands of the people whom everyone agrees shouldn’t have them. Commenting on this timely new book will be Alan Gura and Alan Morrison, who were on opposite sides of the Heller case.

Three years ago the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens United. Later, lower courts followed Citizens United in deciding SpeechNow v. Federal Election Commission, the legal foundation for Super PACs. The nation has now experienced mid-term and president elections governed by these decisions. This conference will examine the consequences of Citizens United. Did anything change? Our experts will then turn toward the future and ask what policies should be enacted (or not) in light of experience and Supreme Court doctrine.

9:00–10:30 a.m. - Panel 1: After Citizens United: Did Elections Change?

Moderator: John Samples, Cato Institute

Robert Bauer, Perkins Coie
Bradley Smith, Capital University School of Law
Ray LaRaja, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

 
11:00 a.m.–12:30 p.m. - Panel 2: The Future of Campaign Finance Regulation

Moderator: Michael Malbin, Campaign Finance Institute

Don McGahn, Federal Election Commission
Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law School
John Samples, Cato Institute

For more than 30 years, Colombia has been at the forefront of Washington’s international war on drugs. Cocaine production has fueled illegal armed groups and drug cartels whose wars against the government, Colombian society, and each other have cost the lives of tens of thousands of Colombians. However, since the implementation of Plan Colombia in 2001, violence has decreased significantly and the government has made great inroads in demobilizing or defeating the armed insurgencies. Drug production is nevertheless still high and much of it has been displaced to neighboring countries. The speakers will discuss the extent to which drug prohibition has fueled violence in Colombia, the effectiveness of interdiction and eradication efforts in tackling the illicit drug trade, and whether Colombia’s experience can be replicated in other countries such as Mexico.

This event is done in coordination with the Inter-American Dialogue.