Zerlina Maxwell is a feminist writer and frequent guest on Fox News. Last week, while a guest on Sean Hannity’s show, Maxwell argued that arming women is not a way to solve the problem of rape. Among other things, she pointed out that “if firearms were the answer, then the military would be the safest place for women, and it’s not.” You can watch her full segment below:

In the wake of her appearance, Maxwell was bombarded with harassing messages calling for her to be raped or murdered, often in explicitly racist terms. She provided ThinkProgress with screenshots of three examples:

These kinds of online threats are not simply cowardly and repulsive, they also may be criminal. In New York, where Maxwell resides, a person who “[w]ith intent to harass, annoy or alarm a specific person, intentionally engages in a course of conduct directed at such person which is likely to cause such person to reasonably fear physical injury or serious physical injury, the commission of a sex offense against, or the kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment or death of such person or a member of such person’s immediate family” is guilty of stalking in the third degree, and may be punished by up to one year in prison. At least some of the attacks on Maxwell also could qualify as hate crimes, which would lead to a higher sentence.

Additionally, under federal law, “[w]hoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

Although the First Amendment normally forbids prosecutions for speech, the Constitution does not “encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

Last week, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) released a video condemning proposed assault weapons bans in Connecticut and at the federal level. The NSSF, the firearm industry’s trade association which is based out of Newtown, Conn., interviewed three Connecticut-Based gun manufacturers about how the bans, if implemented, would affect their businesses.

In the video, Joe Bartozzi, senior vice president and general counsel of O.F. Mossberg and Sons, said modern sporting rifles – a class of firearms that, depending on their features, are often referred to as assault weapons – are misunderstood. But soon afterward, Bartozzi said one of the reasons the modern semi-automatic rifle is so popular, particularly among young people, is its similarity to rifles used in the military:

We’ve got hundreds of thousands of servicemen and women coming back from theater – this type of platform, while not the same gun, certainly shares some of the same features and weight and ease of handling that they’re comfortable with. …I foresee the future being semi-automatic, lightweight, easy to carry, very accurate type of modern sporting rifle platform.

Watch it:

Bartozzi also condemned the practice of categorizing semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons” rather than “modern sporting rifles.” The industry has long criticized “assault-weapon” as a term that is inherently negative and confusing — though according to one gun buyer’s guide, it was the gun industry that first developed the term to describe types of semi-automatic firearms used by civilians.

The video was published in response to Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy’s statements that there are “clear, commonsense steps that we can take right now to enhance Connecticut’s gun laws,” including strengthening an assault weapon ban that includes any semi-automatic weapon that has at least one military-style characteristic. The proposed assault weapons ban bill, introduced by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, would ban all semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature, along with certain semi-automatic shotguns and handguns.

The NSSF has long been against an assault weapons ban, but until recently, supported universal background checks. The group does not have a big a public profile as the NRA but spent over $800,000 lobbying in 2012. The New Republic calls them the second most powerful group in the country fighting gun regulation.

Previously unreported tapes of Richard Nixon reveal the president once called for a ban on handguns.

The Associated Press reports Nixon took a hard stand during an exchange on May 16, 1972, the day after an attempted assassination on George Wallace:

“I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house,” Nixon said in a taped conversation with aides. “The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth.” He asked why “can’t we go after handguns, period?”

Nixon went on: “I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have handguns.”

Publicly, Nixon never called for this measure, though Nixon said he would sign a bill that banned on “Saturday Night Specials” — cheaply made and easily concealed guns. Beyond that Nixon took no further action, seemingly advised not to pursue the issue. At the time, Attorney General John Mitchell told Nixon, “the gun lobby’s against any incursion into the elimination of firearms.”

Pro-gun interests are only more powerful today through the National Rifle Association. Meanwhile, the debate on gun violence is a different conversation on what commonsense federal reforms could pass, such as a ban on assault weapons, large-capacity ammunition magazines, and universal background checks. Even if Nixon’s handgun ban were part of our political conversation today, it would not survive contact with the Roberts Court. Five justices held in District of Columbia v. Heller that handguns enjoy special constitutional status and cannot be banned in the home.

Nevertheless, one fact is unchanged 40 years since Nixon’s remarks: More guns increases the risk of violence and unintentional shootings.

Republicans, including Nixon and Ronald Reagan, have backed anti-gun violence measures, and yet President Obama’s commonsense, widely supported proposals have only met blanket resistance from the NRA.

The host of The Sportsman Channel’s “A Rifleman’s Journal” was shot and killed in Montana on Friday. The gunman, seemingly a jealous husband, then turned the weapon on himself.

It is not yet clear if the weapon used in the crime was obtained legally.

Gregory Rodriguez not only hosted his own hunting show. He was also an editor of Shooting Times and wrote for Guns & Ammo magazine. He was also the CEO of Global Adventure Outfitters, a hunting supply store. But that all ended Friday after the gunman found Rodriguez with his wife, who works an ammunitions manufacturer, together:

Police say that at around 10:30 p.m. the woman’s husband, Wayne Bengston, came to the house and then shot Rodriguez and brutally beat his wife.

Police say Bengston then drove off with his 2-year old son who had been sleeping in the house and drove away.

He left the boy unharmed with a relative and then drove to his house in West Glacier.

That’s where Flathead County deputies and a SWAT team found his truck.

Authorities say they attempted to contact Bengston with no success, and when they entered his house they found Bengston dead of a gunshot wound to the head.

The episode is a tragic reminder that even responsible gun owners can find themselves at the mercy of an unhinged gunman, and that National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre’s claim that, “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” doesn’t always hold up.

Rogriguez’s show was hunting-specific, but the Sportsman Channel does have a relationship with the National Rifle Association and its lobbying arm.

On Friday, South Dakota become the first state to enact legislation, in the aftermath of the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, explicitly authorizing teachers and staff in K-12 schools to carry firearms. The measure “leaves it up to school districts to decide whether to allow armed teachers” and requires those who wish to carry guns to “undergo training similar to what law enforcement officers receive.”

Still, the approach, championed by the National Rifle Association as a means to protect students in mass shootings, was widely opposed by school administrators and teachers themselves, who said the legislature missed an opportunity to engage in a broader discussion about gun violence and prevention. The educators don’t expect too many districts to take advantage of the new option:

Educators interviewed earlier this week remained unconvinced the legislation is needed.

Don Kirkegaard, superintendent of the Meade School District, said he has never been in favor of the bill and would have preferred a summer study session on school safety.

“We should be looking at the big picture and that may be part of the big picture, but it’s not something I’m going to promote,” he said.

Kirkegaard said a study session would have allowed educators to explore everything from facility designs to fire safety, all of which play a key role in safety. Such a session would have brought together “all of the players” for a more comprehensive safety plan, he said.

“I just wish … everybody would have talked a little bit together before we started passing legislation,” he said. “I don’t believe there will be very many districts, at least to begin with, who are going to jump at putting sentinels in a school until they’ve done a lot of research.”

South Dakota is not alone in allowing teachers to bring guns into the classroom. Utah permits concealed carry in public schools and several school districts in Texas also allow firearms in the classroom. In the months following the Newtown tragedy, “legislatures in other states, including Georgia, New Hampshire and Kansas, are working on measures similar to South Dakota’s.”