Business
Column: The pathetic Senate gun deal is better than nothing — barely
Forty U.S. senators spent a lot of Sunday and Monday praising themselves for reaching what they known as “a commonsense, bipartisan proposal” on federal gun laws.
The information media and gun security teams fell into line, observing that the proposal, if enacted by Congress, can be “probably the most vital nationwide response in a long time to acts of mass gun violence,” mentioned John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Security.
Let’s hope the senators don’t break their arms patting themselves on the again. For anybody enthusiastic about enacting actually efficient measures to stem the tide of gun violence on this nation, the senators’ announcement is perhaps profoundly miserable.
That is the closest in a really very long time that the federal authorities has come to enacting reform that has any likelihood of getting a measurable impact.
— Garen Wintemute, UC Davis
Reasonably than standing as a bipartisan harmony on gun security, the proposal demonstrates how far we’re from attaining real gun security laws on the federal stage.
If that is the perfect that our federal lawmakers can do within the rapid aftermath of the murders of 19 schoolchildren in Uvalde, Texas, on Might 24, and after heart-wrenching, horrifying testimony from the households of victims and a physician who needed to confront the carnage, then we’re in a really unhealthy place.
E-newsletter
Get the most recent from Michael Hiltzik
Commentary on economics and extra from a Pulitzer Prize winner.
Chances are you’ll sometimes obtain promotional content material from the Los Angeles Occasions.
Let’s additional mood the senators’ enthusiasm with a dose of actuality: There’s no assure that any laws primarily based on this framework will cross the Senate. In truth, there’s no assure that any laws primarily based on this framework will even be drafted.
The gun foyer is aware of this. As my colleagues Nolan D. McCaskill and Jennifer Haberkorn reported, the Nationwide Rifle Assn. mentioned it might withhold response till the complete invoice textual content is launched.
However the NRA additionally mentioned on Twitter that it might “proceed to oppose any effort to insert gun management insurance policies, initiatives that override constitutional due course of protections & efforts to deprive law-abiding residents of their basic proper to guard themselves/family members into this or every other laws” — firing a shot throughout the bow of the bill-drafters, so to talk.
That doesn’t imply that there’s nothing optimistic within the proposal. Any crack in what has been the GOP’s unyielding opposition to firearms laws needs to be counted as progress.
“I’ve been working on this space for 40 years,” says Garen Wintemute, head of the Violence Prevention Analysis Program at UC Davis, “and that is the closest in a really very long time that the federal authorities has come to enacting reform that has any likelihood of getting a measurable impact. I’m inspired by the event.”
Let’s study the proposal, as outlined by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who negotiated its phrases with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).
The 20 senators who signed on comprise 10 Republicans, 9 Democrats and Sen. Angus King of Maine, an unbiased who caucuses with the Democrats. It’s additionally correct to notice that of the ten Republicans who signed on, 4 have already introduced their intention to not run for reelection and not one of the others are up for reelection this 12 months.
In some respects, the settlement is extra notable for what’s omitted than for what’s included.
A lot of it isn’t strictly about weapons in any respect. There’s assist for psychological well being companies for households and kids, together with the enlargement of psychological well being companies in colleges, funding for “faculty security sources,” no matter they’re, and funding for telehealth packages in psychological and behavioral well being.
The latter are packages that don’t contain reside face-to-face consultations, which ought to let you know a little bit bit about how efficient they is perhaps.
These are laudable so far as they go, and most have historically garnered GOP assist. However psychological well being has additionally been wielded by the gun foyer as a catch-all clarification for mass shootings that diverts consideration from the basic drawback of easy accessibility to weapons.
“The explanation to have a greater psychological well being prognosis and remedy system is just that the one we’ve got shouldn’t be good,” Wintemute instructed me. However utilizing that truth “to forestall different good proposals from going ahead is one thing I object to.”
Statistics recommend that psychological sickness performs a small function in interpersonal violence, Wintemute says, and folks with psychological sickness are way more weak to being victims of firearm violence than changing into perpetrators.
However psychological sickness performs an enormous function in self-harm and suicide, a facet of gun violence that’s typically overshadowed by experiences of mass slaughters and different manifestations of our gun tradition.
As for the precise gun-related provisions within the Senate framework, they don’t go almost so far as needed. The settlement would add instances of home violence, together with convictions and restraining orders, to the federal database for background checks of gun consumers. It additionally would require a search of juvenile justice and psychological well being data as a part of the background examine for consumers beneath 21.
The settlement would offer sources for states to enact and administer so-called red-flag legal guidelines, which may permit members of the family, co-workers and law-enforcement businesses to hunt to take away entry to weapons by people recognized as a possible hazard to themselves or others.
Wintemute’s program has been inspecting the effectiveness of red-flag orders in California and elsewhere and finds promising proof that they’ve prevented violent outbreaks.
Variations on the mannequin have been enacted in 19 states and the District of Columbia, together with crimson states akin to Florida and Indiana — most of them following the 2018 mass capturing at Marjory Stoneman Douglas Excessive Faculty in Parkland, Fla. In 9 different states, they’ve been rejected, and one, Oklahoma, really prohibits red-flag legal guidelines.
Giving states new sources could overcome a number of the persistent issues with red-flag legal guidelines, Wintemute says: Many individuals don’t know they exist, and a few legislation enforcement businesses aren’t effectively versed in what they are saying and find out how to use them.
These proposals don’t cowl all of the insurance policies that President Biden proposed in a nationally televised prime-time speech delivered after the Uvalde faculty bloodbath. In that speech, Biden known as for a renewal of the assault weapons ban that Congress enacted in 1994 and allowed to run out in 2004. He additionally known as for expanded background checks and a nationwide red-flag legislation.
Defenders of the Senate settlement will argue that its small steps will crack open the door to extra substantive laws sooner or later. That appears like wishful pondering, because it’s fairly conceivable that its drafters will see it as the top of the journey, not the start, and can wash their palms of the problem if and when any of its provisions are enacted.
That’s an issue, as a result of the report reveals that the way in which to stem gun violence is thru a multifactor bundle of legal guidelines, moderately than any particular person provisions.
California has achieved a firearm dying charge that’s among the many finest within the nation by enacting a complete gun security coverage that encompasses a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, a ready interval for gun purchasers and necessary background checks, bans on the acquisition of handguns and another firearms, a red-flag legislation and a ban on the acquisition of a couple of gun a month.
Put all of them collectively, and so they show that gun legal guidelines work, with out undue infringement of anybody’s 2nd Modification rights.
The negotiators will defend their settlement by way of U.S. politics, that that is the least they will do to fulfill the problem of a gun tradition that takes the slaughter of harmless kids in stride.
They’re proper. This is the least they will do — the very least, and never sufficient.
Business
Cookies, Cocktails and Mushrooms on the Menu as Justices Hear Bank Fraud Case
In a lively Supreme Court argument on Tuesday that included references to cookies, cocktails and toxic mushrooms, the justices tried to find the line between misleading statements and outright lies in the case of a Chicago politician convicted of making false statements to bank regulators.
The case concerned Patrick Daley Thompson, a former Chicago alderman who is the grandson of one former mayor, Richard J. Daley, and the nephew of another, Richard M. Daley. He conceded that he had misled the regulators but said his statements fell short of the outright falsehoods he said were required to make them criminal.
The justices peppered the lawyers with colorful questions that tried to tease out the difference between false and misleading statements.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked whether a motorist pulled over on suspicion of driving while impaired said something false by stating that he had had one cocktail while omitting that he had also drunk four glasses of wine.
Caroline A. Flynn, a lawyer for the federal government, said that a jury could find the statement to be false because “the officer was asking for a complete account of how much the person had had to drink.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked about a child who admitted to eating three cookies when she had consumed 10.
Ms. Flynn said context mattered.
“If the mom had said, ‘Did you eat all the cookies,’ or ‘how many cookies did you eat,’ and the child says, ‘I ate three cookies’ when she ate 10, that’s a false statement,” Ms. Flynn said. “But, if the mom says, ‘Did you eat any cookies,’ and the child says three, that’s not an understatement in response to a specific numerical inquiry.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether it was false to label toxic mushrooms as “a hundred percent natural.” Ms. Flynn did not give a direct response.
The case before the court, Thompson v. United States, No. 23-1095, started when Mr. Thompson took out three loans from Washington Federal Bank for Savings between 2011 and 2014. He used the first, for $110,000, to finance a law firm. He used the next loan, for $20,000, to pay a tax bill. He used the third, for $89,000, to repay a debt to another bank.
He made a single payment on the loans, for $390 in 2012. The bank, which did not press him for further payments, went under in 2017.
When the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and a loan servicer it had hired sought repayment of the loans plus interest, amounting to about $270,000, Mr. Thompson told them he had borrowed $110,000, which was true in a narrow sense but incomplete.
After negotiations, Mr. Thompson in 2018 paid back the principal but not the interest. More than two years later, federal prosecutors charged him with violating a law making it a crime to give “any false statement or report” to influence the F.D.I.C.
He was convicted and ordered to repay the interest, amounting to about $50,000. He served four months in prison.
Chris C. Gair, a lawyer for Mr. Thompson, said his client’s statements were accurate in context, an assertion that met with skepticism. Justice Elena Kagan noted that the jury had found the statements were false and that a ruling in Mr. Thompson’s favor would require a court to rule that no reasonable juror could have come to that conclusion.
Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said that issue was not before the court, which had agreed to decide the legal question of whether the federal law, as a general matter, covered misleading statements. Lower courts, they said, could decide whether Mr. Thompson had been properly convicted.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked for an example of a misleading statement that was not false. Mr. Gair, who was presenting his first Supreme Court argument, responded by talking about himself.
“If I go back and change my website and say ‘40 years of litigation experience’ and then in bold caps say ‘Supreme Court advocate,’” he said, “that would be, after today, a true statement. It would be misleading to anybody who was thinking about whether to hire me.”
Justice Alito said such a statement was, at most, mildly misleading. But Justice Kagan was impressed.
“Well, it is, though, the humblest answer I’ve ever heard from the Supreme Court podium,” she said, to laughter. “So good show on that one.”
Business
SEC probes B. Riley loan to founder, deals with franchise group
B. Riley Financial Inc. received more demands for information from federal regulators about its dealings with now-bankrupt Franchise Group as well as a personal loan for Chairman and co-founder Bryant Riley.
The Los Angeles-based investment firm and Riley each received additional subpoenas in November from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission seeking documents and information about Franchise Group, or FRG, the retail company that was once one of its biggest investments before its collapse last year, according to a long-delayed quarterly filing. The agency also wants to know more about Riley’s pledge of B. Riley shares as collateral for a personal loan, the filing shows.
B. Riley previously received SEC subpoenas in July for information about its dealings with ex-FRG chief executive Brian Kahn, part of a long-running probe that has rocked B. Riley and helped push its shares to their lowest in more than a decade. Bryant Riley, who founded the company in 1997 and built it into one of the biggest U.S. investment firms beyond Wall Street, has been forced to sell assets and raise cash to ease creditors’ concerns.
The firm and Riley “are responding to the subpoenas and are fully cooperating with the SEC,” according to the filing. The company said the subpoenas don’t mean the SEC has determined any violations of law have occurred.
Shares in B. Riley jumped more than 25% in New York trading after the company’s overdue quarterly filing gave investors their first formal look at the firm’s performance in more than half a year. The data included a net loss of more than $435 million for the three months ended June 30. The shares through Monday had plunged more than 80% in the past 12 months, trading for less than $4 each.
B. Riley and Kahn — a longstanding client and friend of Riley’s — teamed up in 2023 to take FRG private in a $2.8-billion deal. The transaction soon came under pressure when Kahn was tagged as an unindicted co-conspirator by authorities in the collapse of an unrelated hedge fund called Prophecy Asset Management, which led to a fraud conviction for one of the fund’s executives.
Kahn has said he didn’t do anything wrong, that he wasn’t aware of any fraud at Prophecy and that he was among those who lost money in the collapse. But federal investigations into his role have spilled over into his dealings with B. Riley and its chairman, who have said internal probes found they “had no involvement with, or knowledge of, any alleged misconduct concerning Mr. Kahn or any of his affiliates.”
FRG filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November, a move that led to hundreds of millions of dollars of losses for B. Riley. The collapse made Riley “personally sick,” he said at the time.
One of the biggest financial problems to arise from the FRG deal was a loan that B. Riley made to Kahn for about $200 million, which was secured against FRG shares. With that company’s collapse into bankruptcy in November wiping out equity holders, the value of the remaining collateral for this debt has now dwindled to only about $2 million, the filing shows.
Griffin writes for Bloomberg.
Business
Starbucks Reverses Its Open-Door Policy for Bathroom Use and Lounging
Starbucks will require people visiting its coffee shops to buy something in order to stay or to use its bathrooms, the company announced in a letter sent to store managers on Monday.
The new policy, outlined in a Code of Conduct, will be enacted later this month and applies to the company’s cafes, patios and bathrooms.
“Implementing a Coffeehouse Code of Conduct is something most retailers already have and is a practical step that helps us prioritize our paying customers who want to sit and enjoy our cafes or need to use the restroom during their visit,” Jaci Anderson, a Starbucks spokeswoman, said in an emailed statement.
Ms. Anderson said that by outlining expectations for customers the company “can create a better environment for everyone.”
The Code of Conduct will be displayed in every store and prohibit behaviors including discrimination, harassment, smoking and panhandling.
People who violate the rules will be asked to leave the store, and employees may call law enforcement, the policy says.
Before implementation of the new policy begins on Jan. 27, store managers will be given 40 hours to prepare stores and workers, according to the company. There will also be training sessions for staff.
This training time will be used to prepare for other new practices, too, including asking customers if they want their drink to stay or to go and offering unlimited free refills of hot or iced coffee to customers who order a drink to stay.
The changes are part of an attempt by the company to prioritize customers and make the stores more inviting, Sara Trilling, the president of Starbucks North America, said in a letter to store managers.
“We know from customers that access to comfortable seating and a clean, safe environment is critical to the Starbucks experience they love,” she wrote. “We’ve also heard from you, our partners, that there is a need to reset expectations for how our spaces should be used, and who uses them.”
The changes come as the company responds to declining sales, falling stock prices and grumbling from activist investors. In August, the company appointed a new chief executive, Brian Niccol.
Mr. Niccol outlined changes the company needed to make in a video in October. “We will simplify our overly complex menu, fix our pricing architecture and ensure that every customer feels Starbucks is worth it every single time they visit,” he said.
The new purchase requirement reverses a policy Starbucks instituted in 2018 that said people could use its cafes and bathrooms even if they had not bought something.
The earlier policy was introduced a month after two Black men were arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks while waiting to meet another man for a business meeting.
Officials said that the men had asked to use the bathroom, but that an employee had refused the request because they had not purchased anything. An employee then called the police, and part of the ensuing encounter was recorded on video and viewed by millions of people online, prompting boycotts and protests.
In 2022, Howard Schultz, the Starbucks chief executive at the time, said that the company was reconsidering the open-bathroom policy.
-
Health1 week ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
Technology6 days ago
Meta is highlighting a splintering global approach to online speech
-
Science3 days ago
Metro will offer free rides in L.A. through Sunday due to fires
-
Technology7 days ago
Las Vegas police release ChatGPT logs from the suspect in the Cybertruck explosion
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
‘How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies’ Review: Thai Oscar Entry Is a Disarmingly Sentimental Tear-Jerker
-
Health1 week ago
Michael J. Fox honored with Presidential Medal of Freedom for Parkinson’s research efforts
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
Movie Review: Millennials try to buy-in or opt-out of the “American Meltdown”
-
News7 days ago
Photos: Pacific Palisades Wildfire Engulfs Homes in an L.A. Neighborhood