June Hellraiser Tina Johnstone

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


For Tina Johnstone, February’s landmark verdict in Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, in which a jury found 15 gun manufacturers guilty of irresponsibly marketing and distributing firearms, was the crowning moment in a seven-year struggle to curb gun violence.

The New York case held the manufacturers liable for saturating states that had lax gun regulations with more firearms than the legal markets there could support. The practice created a market for illegal resellers, who then introduced firearms into more strictly regulated urban areas, such as New York City.

Johnstone had more than an ideological stake in the case. In 1992 her husband, David, was shot and killed by a 16-year-old in San Francisco. Because of this personal tragedy, Johnstone signed on as the suit’s first plaintiff and helped lawyer Elisa Barnes organize the case.

Legal experts expect the victory to open the floodgates for similar suits, including one by Johnstone herself: In an effort to strengthen Barnes’ suit by limiting it to New York victims, she ultimately withdrew her name as a plaintiff, but plans to file a new suit in California later this year based on her husband’s shooting.

Litigation isn’t Johnstone’s sole vehicle for hellraising. When the Senate began debating the Brady Bill in 1993, she and a friend, Ellen Freudenheim, placed hundreds of pairs of shoes — symbolizing people killed by gun violence in New York state — on the sidewalk in front of then-Sen. Alfonse D’Amato’s Manhattan office.

This eerie protest planted the seed for the first Silent March. In September 1994, Johnstone and Freudenheim collected approximately 38,300 pairs of shoes from the families of gun-violence victims and assembled them in front of the U.S. Capitol. They have since organized two other Silent Marches.

Last year, Johnstone left her job at the Staten Island Botanical Garden to help run a newly founded, yet-to-be-named organization created to support grassroots gun control groups across the country.

Taking on deep-pocketed gun manufacturers and a formidable gun lobby is a challenging task, especially for a single mother of two. But while Johnstone admits to feeling tired, she is not about to give up. “If we had national gun licensing in this country, we would have fewer deaths,” she says. “It has to happen.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate