Our guest blogger is Julie Ajinkya, Policy Analyst for Progress 2050 Action at the Center for American Progress Action Fund

Protesters in India are demanding justice for the 23-year-old medical student who ultimately died as the result of a brutal gang-rape in the nation’s capital on December 16 by calling for a nationwide shutdown today. The savage attack immediately sparked mass protests across the country, with thousands of Indians pouring out onto the streets, continuing to demand that the government take swift action not only against the perpetrators, but also to make the country safer for women in general.

Protestors have said that political leaders would not be allowed to take part in the bandh, lest the public outrage become exploited for political gain. It remains to be seen whether Indian politicians will take the public cry for better protection of women’s rights seriously.

Here at home, some of our political leaders have decided to speak up in the fight to end violence against women — except, in the case of the House GOP, they’re on the wrong side of that fight. On Tuesday night, House Majority Leader Eric Canter actually killed the legislation that has done a huge amount to help victims of such violence. This is first time since its original passage in 1994 that the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has not been reauthorized, despite a long history of bipartisan support.

Why did this important piece of legislation die? Because some congressional Republicans opposed extending protections to three groups: Native American, undocumented, and LGBT victims of violence. If you thought that we had reached the point where sexual assault was finally considered an assault on humanity, no matter whom it involved, you were wrong — according to the House GOP.

The war on women is not over, folks. In fact, while we celebrate the gender gap that helped re-elect the President, the record number of women ushered into the Senate, and the host of restrictive laws against reproductive rights that were defeated, we cannot overlook the battles that persist to turn our country back in time.

Read more

Chris Williams, interviewed in "Code of the West."

Chris Williams, a medical marijuana grower from Montana, faces at least five years in federal prison after being caught up in a March 2011 federal raid on 26 dispensaries throughout the state. Montana voters passed an initiative in 2004 allowing distribution for medical needs, but marijuana remains illegal under federal law. Due to previous policies announced by the Obama Administration that federal resources would not focus on individuals operating within state law, Williams and his associates believed their medical marijuana business, “Montana Cannabis,” was in the legal clear. But after complaints from local citizens who could see marijuana plants being grown in greenhouses, the federal government decided to crack down.

Though Williams reportedly never handled them himself, several firearms were also found during the raid on Montana Cannabis. Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Taggard reasoned the weapons were used to protect the business’ operation — though Williams’ lawyer, Michael Donahoe, said they were the individual possessions of the other employees — and as a result charges of possessing a firearm in the furtherance of drug trafficking were added to the initial drug trafficking charges. The combined effect brought the total mandatory minimum sentence Williams was facing to over 80 years.

Eventually, the government proposed a deal reducing Williams’ minimum to 10 years in exchange for waiving his right to appeal. Williams initially refused the offer. But when a new deal was put forward in December of 2012, reducing the minimum to 5 years, Williams relented. He said his primary concern was for his 16-year-old son, a freshman at Montana State University: The new minimum holds out at least the possibility that Williams will be out of jail in time to attend his son’s college graduation.

Williams and his associates — Tom Daubert, Chris Lindsey, and Richard Flor — envisioned Montana Cannabis as a “gold standard” for medical marijuana dispensaries, and regularly gave tours to local and state politicians and law enforcement officials. Daubert, who has advocated for medical marijuana reform for years, was interviewed by ThinkProgress in October 2012 about his experiences. He and Lindsey both accepted plea deals to reduce their sentences, and had to testify against Williams at his trial as part of their agreements with prosecutors.

The 68-year-old Flor, who suffered from multiple medical problems including dementia and depression, was sentenced to five years in prison. He died in custody this past August.

Of all the people caught up in the March 2011 federal crackdown, Williams is the only one who took his case all the way to trial. In a letter to the Helena Independent Record, Williams wrote that his initial refusal to take a plea deal was a matter of principle. “I have decided to fight the federal government, because for me not defending the things that I know are right is dishonorable,” the letter read in part. “Every citizen has a responsibility to fight for what is right, even if it seems like the struggle will be lost.

Tom Daubert was one of the subjects of an award-winning documentary, “Code of the West,” and the filmmakers also shot a mini-documentary on Williams’ story for The New York Times.

An online petition was started for the White House to grant Chris Williams a full pardon. It met its December 12 deadline, garnering the 25,000 signatures needed for a response from the Obama Administration. As of November last year, President Obama had pardoned 22 people and given one commutation — a smaller total than any president since John Adams.

(Hat tip to Reason’s Jacob Sullum.)

A local Connecticut newspaper, the Stamford Advocate, has published an advertisement for a gun show next to an article about the reopening of Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The article details the resumption of classes for the Newtown, CT students following the death of twenty of their classmates in December’s tragic shooting. The children will now be learning at a former middle school that has been dubbed the new Sandy Hook Elementary.

Next to the story, however, the Advocate chose to run an advertisement for the “8th Annual East Coast Fine Arms Show.” The ad includes pictures of several older gun models and boasts of having “investment quality arms from all eras” available for purchase. The Stamford Advocate has apologized for its ad placement, saying “It’s insensitive, and it shouldn’t have happened. It was an oversight, and we apologize for it.” This isn’t the first time that a newspaper has printed a gun ad next to a story about Sandy Hook, however.

Since the Newtown shooting, advocates for stricter gun control have pressed for closing the “gun show loophole,” which allows private sellers to distribute firearms without any checks on the purchaser. (HT: Buzzfeed)

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and others like it have gained notoriety since the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin and a number of other similar cases. The laws, which exist in two dozen states, give gun-holders more authority to shoot and kill in self-defense and police wide latitude for interpretation.

Over a 10-year period there was an 8 percent increase in homicides in the states that passed Stand Your Ground laws, according to new research from Texas A&M University. The law did not deter burglary, robbery or assault either.

As to why this is the case, economist Mark Hoekstra told NPR that Stand Your Ground encourages more lethal force by lowering its costs:

“One possibility for the increase in homicide is that perhaps [in cases where] there would have been a fistfight … now, because of stand your ground laws, it’s possible that those escalate into something much more violent and lethal.”

In some instances the National Rifle Association has literally subsidized this cost by handling perpetrators’ legal bills in Stand Your Ground cases.

The sad paradox to reinvigorated public support for gun control is that demand for guns spiked in December after the Newtown massacre. According to the FBI, there were 2.8 million background checks in December, 49 percent more than the last year, beating the previous month’s record high.

The National Rifle Association and its allies did its best this year to stoke fears that the government is out to take away all guns. And since the Newtown shooting, the NRA managed to pin blame on everything except guns and called for more guns in schools.

President Obama has pledged action on gun control if Americans “decide it’s important.” In fact, recent polling from USA Today/Gallup show 58 percent of Americans back stronger gun laws.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY), a longtime proponent of gun safety, said that Americans don’t “need assault weapons” during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Thursday.

The vocal New York Republican discussed his efforts to force House Speaker John Bohener (R-OH) to bring a Hurricane Sandy relief bill to a vote, but not before agreeing with Joe Scarborough’s argument that lawmakers should move to limit the availability of assault weapons in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting:

SCARBOROUGH: But don’t you hear from Republicans, don’t you hear from conservatives… ‘Hey Congressman you know what, I want a handgun to protect my family. I want a shotgun, but do we really need assault weapons all across America?’

KING: Joe, I fully agree with you. I voted for the Assault Weapons Ban back in 1994. My father was a police officer. I really don’t know why people need assault weapons. I’m not a hunter but I understand people who want to hunt. I understand people who live in rough neighborhoods or have a small business and want to maintain a pistol to protect themselves as long as they’re properly vetted and licensed. But an assault weapon? Listen, I’m sure 99% of people with assault weapons are good Americans. But to give that potential to a mass murderer who would be able to outarm the police who as we saw could carry out the worst devastation? … Why the issue of an assault weapon should even be on the table, why we want to identify with that when it’s a vocal minority, but it is a minority who support these weapons.

Watch it:

King, who serves as the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, introduced a bill banning “knowingly carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of certain high-profile government officials” following the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords.

Scarbarough came out for stricter gun control in the days after the Newtown tragedy and President Obama has pledged to pursue new restrictions in the 113th Congress.