The public outcry to quell the proliferation of mass shootings in the U.S. has reached near deafening levels in recent years as the lethal combination of renewed legal access to semi-automatic weapons and an increasingly disillusioned population has come to a head.
Advocates charged with ending this epidemic of violence focus on two public policy solutions: gun control legislation and increased funding for mental health programs. While these efforts are laudable, more realistic and immediate approaches must be taken in order to save lives now.
Indeed, President Joe Biden’s administration has taken steps to address violent extremism in the wake of the Capitol riots on Jan. 6, 2021. However, federal authorities have seemingly paid little attention to mass violence that is not necessarily motivated by “political or social goals.”
Federal laws that govern these crimes have not been amended to sufficiently investigate and prosecute cases of homegrown terrorism. Domestic actors now pose a larger threat to carry out attacks in America than foreign terrorist networks, including Islamic extremists, according to studies cited by the National Institute of Justice.
Insufficient laws and dedicated federal resources have allowed mass shooting incidents to skyrocket over the past decade by 141%, as domestic extremists increasingly use firearms in terrorist attacks. However, only one out of a total of 40 incidents of mass murder in 2023 was ideologically motivated, according to the Anti-Defamation League. Thirty-nine others incidents in which four or more people were killed, not including the assailant, were not carried out by domestic extremists.
This trend also holds historically: A 2020 study of lethal mass shootings in the U.S. from 1982 to 2018 also found only 40% had a “religious, social, ideological or political motive” and were meant to intimidate a “wider audience” — prerequisites for a violent act to be legally defined as terrorism by the Justice Department.
The gap between ideologically and non-ideologically driven mass murders in the U.S. is problematic for law enforcement. And the difference between how international and domestic terrorists are treated is even greater. While suspected domestic extremists can be placed on a terrorist watch list and tracked by the FBI, there are virtually no other legal tools available to federal authorities that can’t be used against non-terrorist criminals, according to a study published by The Michigan Law Review. Individuals who coordinate with or provide “material support” to foreign terrorist groups, on the other hand, are subject to a separate legal procedure that allows law enforcement to more easily obtain authorization for wiretaps and search warrants.
A breakdown of the law highlights three separate legal categories of mass murderers or mass shooters in order of law enforcement’s investigatory leeway and sentencing enhancements for those convicted: 1) international terrorists; 2) domestic terrorists; 3) non-terrorists. This is backwards in light of post-9/11 trends. According to a 2021 report by New America, only one lethal incident of Islamic terrorism has been carried out by a non-U.S. citizen or resident since Sept. 11, 2001. During the same period, 165 people have been killed at the hands of a perpetrator motivated by an ideology with domestic origins. Additionally, homegrown ideologies drove violent extremists to murder 598 people in the U.S. from 1990 to 2020, according to The Journal of Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society.
Domestic terrorism is defined in 18 U.S. Code Sec. 2331(5), but no law exists that prohibits or sets penalties for tactics often used in such cases, like discharging a semi-automatic weapon into a crowd. International terrorism provisions, on the other hand, don’t require a particular motive for certain acts of violence to be considered terrorism, if they are committed “transcending national boundaries”. This is according to a paper on U.S. terrorism laws authored by Dr. Francesca Laguardia, Professor of Justice Studies at Montclair State University.
A new domestic terrorism statute is needed to remedy these unjust differences, says former U.S. Attorney David Hickton, who points to recent incidents of right-wing extremist groups demonstrating terrorist-like behavior and not being held accountable.
“The most urgent and direct reform needs to be to eliminate the gap in the law which gives comfort to domestic terrorists who can cite Hitler, Naziism, white supremacy and the overthrow of the U.S. government with impunity to justify acts of violence,” Hickton wrote in an email exchange. “When you storm the Capitol, threaten to hang the vice president and kidnap or harm the speaker of the House, you are a terrorist”.
Congressional Democrats like Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois seem to agree with this logic. In 2023, the Senate Judiciary chairman reintroduced the “Domestic Terrorism Act” to establish “offices” within the Justice Department, FBI and Department of Homeland Security that would monitor, investigate and prosecute domestic terrorism cases exclusively. An identical bill passed the Democratic-controlled House in 2022 but was ultimately voted down by Republicans in the Senate.
Legislation like Durbin’s would help curb politically motivated attacks by giving federal law enforcement more authority to investigate and make arrests after-the-fact, according to Dr. Laguardia. Prosecutions of domestic terrorism cases would increase along with sentencing requirements, which may deter others from committing similar acts.
A comprehensive approach to stopping modern-day violent extremism must also include reforms to the law itself, however. Laguardia suggests “mass murder” be added to the list of specific terrorism crimes listed in U.S. Code 18 Sec. 2332. Designating a crime as terrorism when four or more people are targeted for the purposes of furthering a political ideology, for example, would provide federal law enforcement the ability to conduct surveillance and make arrests before an incident occurs.
Curtailing the mass shooting epidemic is a separate legal issue and would require an independent statute that precludes the shooter’s motivation or intention. This may be worthwhile given most mass shooters aren’t terrorists and could be applied in a constitutionally appropriate manner in cases where a federally regulated firearm is used.
Adding “use of a firearm” to the list of terrorism crimes would be an alternative to this, making proof of intent unnecessary, but may be problematic given a polarized political climate.
“The federal regulation of guns is under attack and currently unknown legal territory,” Laguardia said when asked about this approach. “Adding firearms charges to the list of terrorism crimes would create a firestorm, and likely hasten the erosion of what few regulations we’ve held onto.”
With mass shooting incidents reaching an all-time high of 656 in 2023, the public must demand more action from Congress to address the perpetuation of mass violence in America that hurts innocent people virtually every day — the gun lobby or any other political faction be damned.
Featured image: Photo by Colin Lloyd on Unsplash
Comments 1