On Thursday afternoon, the House Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force released a framework document laying out fifteen proposals for gun violence prevention legislation. It’s a good document, reaching beyond the mainstay proposals like an assault weapon bans to less heralded, but equally important issues like restrictions on the federal government’s ability to help state and local police track local guns. But the most unique proposals in the framework are also some of the ones most in need of improvement: its recommendations for supporting local efforts against gun violence.

Other recent gun violence proposals (like those from President Obama and Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]) have focused primarily on increased direct federal legislation. The Task Force proposal also contains significant federal proposals, but amps up the focus on how the federal government can support innovative state and local initiatives to reduce gun violence. It’s a smart approach — NRA-sponsored legislation limits both local ability to regulate guns and efforts to research their effects, but what evidence we have suggests state and local efforts really can make a dent in gun violence. A study of 54 cities, for example, found that ones with tighter and better enforced gun laws substantially reduced the diversion of guns to criminals.

The Task Force’s approach to local enforcement involves highlighting smart local initiatives and supporting them. For example:

1. Comprehensive, public health youth gun violence initiatives. The Task Force rejects “tough on crime” approaches to youth violence that involve the mass incarceration of kids in favor of “comprehensive, evidence-based prevention and intervention programs directed toward at-risk youth” created by “representatives from local law enforcement, schools, court services, social services, health and mental health services, businesses, and other community organizations.” This appears to be a reference to the “public health” gun violence reduction approach enacted in, among other places, Boston and Minneapolis, which has saved hundreds of lives that might have been claimed by gunfire.

2. Criminal firearm disposal. “Over time, gun owners may lose their eligibility to possess a weapon under state or federal law, often because of criminal activity or mental health issues. Innovative programs designed to facilitate the disposal of firearms held by prohibited persons can prevent gun violence,” the Task Force notes. It goes on to suggest that “the federal government should encourage states to create and utilize programs that allow local law enforcement to assist gun owners who do not have the legal capacity to own them, in the sale or transfer of their illegal firearms.”

3. Community-level gun reduction. The Task Force recommends that “Congress should take measures to encourage state and local governments to use federal funds” to support “various strategies to better engage local communities in removing illegal or unused guns from their neighborhoods, such as illegal gun tip hotlines and voluntary gun buyback programs administered by municipalities or local law enforcement.” This sort of clarity (it even goes on to name specific federal funds that could be used for this purpose) could improve the Task Force’s other suggestions for local law enforcement.

Unfortunately, not all of these proposals for improved local gun action are accompanied by proposals for how the federal government can actually accomplish those ends ends. While the second of the above suggestions does, neither the first nor the third clarifies how, exactly, it plans to use federal law to encourage states, cities, and counties to adopt the outlined approach. Expressing support in the abstract is nice, but absent some kind of federal program providing financial or some other sort of assistance to locales, it’s won’t do very much.

Lack of concrete action for its local support plans isn’t the only problem in the recommendations — for example, its section on “increased prosecutions of persons who violate federal firearms law” focuses more on gun purchasers rather than the real problem, crooked gun dealers willing to sell to criminals. But overall, the proposals are excellent steps in the right direction.

Since taking office, President Obama has quadrupled the number of openly gay judges on the federal bench — although this is as much a testament to America’s long legacy of discrimination as it is to Obama’s commitment to diversity. Prior to Obama’s presidency, there was one openly gay judge with a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. Today, there are four.

All four of these out judges, however, are district judges — the lowest ranking federal judges. To date, no openly gay lawyer has served as a federal appellate judge or as a Supreme Court justice. In his first term, President Obama nominated openly gay attorney Edward DuMont to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but DuMont eventually withdrew his nomination after 18 months of “one or more members of the [Senate Judiciary] Committee minority” obstructing his confirmation.

Yesterday, the President announced he would take another shot at placing an openly gay judge on this same court, nominating Department of Justice attorney Todd Hughes to fill a seat on the Federal Circuit.

It is certainly good news that the President wants to welcome an openly gay judge into the federal appellate bench, but it should be noted that the Federal Circuit is a specialty court that deals primarily with patents. Obama deserves praise for showing a greater commitment to diversity on the bench than any of his predecessors, but there are also many talented gay attorneys (or even some Obama-appointed district judges) who would make excellent court of appeals judges on courts of general jurisdiction.

In any event, the paucity of gay judges in this country gives the lie to a claim conservative superlawyer Paul Clement made to the Supreme Court in his brief defending the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act. Clement wrote that gay people should not have equal rights because they are too powerful.

Thursday afternoon, a group of California Senate Democrats rolled out a legislative package that would create what would likely be the tightest gun regulation system in the nation, ranging from sweeping prohibitions on semi-automatic rifles to restrictions on guns in the home. The proposal consists of ten points:

1. Ban all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines. California’s assault weapons ban only restricts the possession of semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines if they have an additional, “military-style” feature like flash suppressors. The new laws would tighten this law by banning all such rifles regardless of external features.

2. Ban possession of high-capacity magazines. California law bans the transfer, not possession, of magazines that can hold over ten bullets. This allows people wanting to skirt the law to buy the constituent parts and make the magazines themselves. The new law would close that loophole.

3. Ban “bullet button” conversion kits. State law defines “detachable magazines” as, in part, magazines that can be released “without the use of a tool.” Bullet button kits allow magazines to be released quickly by pressing a bullet into them, thus creating an end-around the intent of the assault weapons ban. The new provisions would ban such kits.

4. Bans shotgun-rifle combinations. It would ban this class of class of weapon.

5. Universal registration of all guns. The law would create “ownership records consistently across-the-board, ensuring all firearms are recorded” so that the background check system can prevent criminals from getting guns.

6. Background checks on ammunition. This provision requires a “full and complete” background check on ammunition sales, “building on” laws existing in Los Angeles and Sacramento.

7. Regulating gun loans. The legislators propose setting up an as-yet undefined regulatory system for the loan, as opposed to sale, of guns.

8. Prevent prohibited individuals from living in homes with guns. California’s Armed Persons Prohibition (APP) database lists people who can’t legally own weapons (as a consequence of criminal or mental health records) under state law. This addition would prevent people on the list from living in a house that has a gun.

9. Cracking down on people who can’t own guns legally but do anyway. Currently, 19,700 people who are on the APP list own guns. Police estimate that these people own roughly 39,000 firearms. This new law would authorize additional funding to enforce the law in this area.

10. Required safety training for handgun owners. People with concealed carry permits are required under California (and many other) state laws to pass a mandatory safety and firearm instruction course. This provision would require all handgun owners, regardless of permit status, to undergo a similar process.

In a National Review article Friday, voter fraud conspiracy theorist John Fund again attempted to mislead readers into thinking strict photo ID laws are necessary to prevent election stealing. But, in so doing, he inadvertently shows why these voter suppression laws are not needed.

Fund mocks voting rights advocates for correctly noting that Americans are more likely to be struck by lighting than to commit voter fraud:

Well, lightning is suddenly all over Cincinnati, Ohio. The Hamilton County Board of Elections is investigating 19 possible cases of alleged voter fraud that occurred when Ohio was a focal point of the 2012 presidential election. A total of 19 voters and nine witnesses are part of the probe.

Democrat Melowese Richardson has been an official poll worker for the last quarter century and registered thousands of people to vote last year. She candidly admitted to Cincinnati’s Channel 9 this week that she voted twice in the last election.

According to the Hamilton County Board of Elections, 564,429 voters are registered in jurisdiction. Even if every single one of those 19 alleged cases proved true, that would represent less than 0.0034 percent of the county’s voters.

In Richardson’s case, she told the television station that she had not intended to commit vote fraud and merely showed up to vote in-person as she was unsure her absentee ballot would arrive in time to be counted. The story notes that the elections board’s report “states poll workers should have updated the signature poll book by flagging ‘absentee voter’ next to the names of those who appeared on the list.”

Regardless of Richardson’s intent, however, the National Review’s bait and switch is obvious. Requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls would do absolutely nothing to prevent double voting like this — intentional or inadvertent. Richardson truthfully identified herself at the polls and voted in her own name. Fund attempts to lump all types of voter fraud in together, but does not identify a single one of the 19 alleged cases in which a voter committed in-person impersonation of another voter.

Furthermore, these cases show that the existing laws successfully catch those who vote twice. While she could not comment on the ongoing investigation, Hamilton County Deputy Director of Elections Sally J. Krisel told ThinkProgress that “Ohio has very clear laws about checking,” so if a voter is found to have cast an absentee ballot and attempts to vote in person, only one vote is counted. And, based on the Channel 9 report, the 19 questioned voters have been subpoenaed — meaning they will be prosecuted if they indeed committed voter fraud.

Fund snidely concludes: “But, of course, as you know there is no voter fraud. Pay no attention to that lightning coming out of Ohio.” While voter fraud does rarely exist, fighting these sorts of “lightning” with strict photo ID laws that disenfranchise legitimate voters is like banning orange juice to prevent jaywalking.

At least one person has been shot on the campus of Florida Atlantic University on Friday, a Boca Raton, Florida police spokesman confirmed to the local NBC affiliate WPTV. The station is reporting that the one known victim was transported to an area hospital and is expected to survive.

This is at least the fourth school shooting since the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut.

Michigan’s medical marijuana program is already proving to be a new source of income for the state, generating $6.3 million in profit in the last fiscal year out of the $9.9 million collected in application and renewal fees. The state says it will invest much of that back into the program, which employs 16 full-time workers, one manager, and seven temporary staff, according to Michigan Live. Medical marijuana was legalized in Michigan by ballot inititiave in 2008.

As in the 18 other states where medical marijuana is legal, Michigan’s system sits under a cloud of threatened federal prosecution. Although Michigan has not been at the center of high-profile crackdowns, several growers who were seemingly engaging in activity legal under state law were federally prosecuted and given jail time.

Now, as the state considers expanding the medical conditions that qualify for a medical marijuana card, it may also take up a bill to remove criminal penalties for any marijuana use, as a few particular cities have already done. Several recent court victories have rolled back attempts to limit the application of both the state’s medical marijuana law, and local decriminalization measures.

Since the Federal Elections Commission began tracking campaign contributions, the NRA Political Victory Fund (the National Rifle Association’s political action committee) has distributed more than $19 million to federal candidates. The top career recipients of that money who are currently in the U.S. House have been, unsurprisingly, among the most vocal opponents of any new gun violence prevention legislation advanced in the aftermath of the school shooting at Newton, Connecticut.

A ThinkProgress analysis of data from Political MoneyLine reveals that the top 12 House beneficiaries of NRA money include 10 Republicans and two Democrats. While neither of the two Democrats, Reps. Nick Rahall (D-WV) and John Dingell (D-MI) have embraced President Obama’s proposals for bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, both have at least expressed an openness to requiring criminal background checks before all gun purchases. The Republicans, however, have either led the charge against any new gun restrictions or have avoided taking any position. All 10 have received an “A” or “A+” rating from the NRA.

They are:

1. REP. DON YOUNG (R-AK) — AT LEAST $107,425

Young said last month, “I have serious concerns with the statements made today by President Obama and take issue with the President’s call for banning aesthetically altered rifles and shotguns and certain magazines. This is a dangerous limitation on a family’s ability to defend itself in the event they’re threatened. Perhaps in cities where the police response time tends to be more rapid, it is easy to forget how important a firearm is to keeping loved ones safe. However, in rural America where law enforcement is many miles away, a semi-automatic weapon could mean the difference between life and death.”

2. REP. STEVE CHABOT (R-OH) — AT LEAST $65,950

Chabot said last month, “I have serious concerns regarding many of the president’s gun control proposals. Further, I am disturbed the White House bypassed the American peoples’ elected representatives in Congress and implemented much of their agenda by executive order.”

3. REP. PETE SESSIONS (R-TX) — AT LEAST $64,000

Sessions said last month, “Going forward, I will continue to tirelessly defend Americans’ right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. In doing so, I will fight against the President’s unrelenting attempts to bypass Congress and further erode our Constitution.”

4. REP. LEE TERRY (R-NE) — AT LEAST $59,650

Terry said in a January radio interview, “We’ve seen several assaults on the constitution. This is just another one.” He said President Obama’s efforts are “unconstitutional,” adding “These aren’t going to curb the real issue. The real issue is someone with mental health issues gets a gun… these aren’t going to solve that problem… How many bullets you have in a magazine ultimately doesn’t solve any problem.”

5. REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R-VA) — AT LEAST $57,250

Goodlatte, who chairs the House Committee on the Judiciary, told CQ Roll Call in December that he does not favor tightening controls on firearms. “We’re going to take a look at what happened there and what can be done to help avoid it in the future, but gun control is not going to be something that I would support,” he said. Any gun violence prevention measures would likely require Judiciary Committee approval.

6. REP. JOE BARTON (R-TX) — AT LEAST $57,248

Barton said last month, “The Obama Administration’s plan amounts to a power grab. I will fight any legislation that further restricts qualified owners’ access to guns. I am also against the President using executive orders to circumvent the will of the people and infringe on the constitutional rights of my constituents. The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and when I took my oath of office I swore to defend the Constitution. I believe that violent crime must be reduced, but I will not support measures that infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

7. REP. HAL ROGERS (R-KY) — AT LEAST $51,725

Rogers has apparently said little publicly since Sandy Hook, but did say in December, “As we search for understanding and gain minute-by-minute explanations of how an unfathomable tragedy of this magnitude occurred, we must be judicious in our response.”

8. REP. TOM LATHAM (R-IA) — AT LEAST $49,750

Latham said last month, “while I always support having a vigorous and thorough debate on the important issues facing our nation, I continue to believe that we must ensure any Congressional or executive action pertaining to firearm regulations should not erode the rights we are guaranteed in our Constitution.“

9. REP. KEN CALVERT (R-CA) — AT LEAST $48,400

Calvert has reportedly refused to even discuss gun violence prevention until a full investigation of the Newtown shootings is completed.

10. REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH) — AT LEAST $47,800

Boehner, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has dismissed calls for quick House action on gun violence. “When the vice president’s recommendations come forward, we’ll certainly take them into consideration,” he said in December, “but at this point I think our hearts and souls ought to be to think about those victims in this horrible tragedy.”

After receiving more than $600,000 total over the years from the organization, expect these ten Republicans to be among the fiercest opponents of even the most commonsense measures to prevent future tragedy.

A 7-year-old boy in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, discovered a handgun in his backpack on Thursday afternoon.

The boy found the weapon and immediately alerted his teachers. It’s not clear how the firearm — a “.38-caliber handgun loaded with five rounds of ammunition,” reports the AP — made its way into the boy’s posession, though, since he claims to have carried the backpack with him in class all day.

This report continues to paint a picture of classrooms ready for warfare. In the months since the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting, reports have rolled in about parents arming their children or giving them bulletproof backpacks to use as protection against guns.