Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

My reply to Rep. Mike Thompsons response to me.


Subdeacon Joe

Recommended Posts

Dear Mr. Thompson,

In response to your recent reply to my letter, I took the liberty of copying your text and splicing my comments in among yours.


"Thank you for contacting me about legislation to prevent gun violence. As chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me on this important issue as I work on a comprehensive approach to reduce gun violence while protecting law-abiding citizens’ right to own legal firearms.
As a responsible gun owner, I am sure you agree that we must do everything in our power to reduce gun violence. On this, you and I are 100 percent in agreement."


Again, Mr. Thompson, there is no such thing as “gun violence.” That is a term coined by people like you in the lobby to eliminate our civil rights to bring about the emotional connection of guns and violence, and lead people to think that all violence involves firearms. A big lie tactic on your part. I agree that we need to do “all we can to reduce VIOLENCE.” Which has been falling steadily for the past 20 years. Except, of course in places where Democrats hold sway and have enacted restrictions on honest citizens.

"We may disagree on the approach to reduce gun violence, but recent polls show that most Americans and many gun owners believe we should:
• make sure everyone who buys a firearm goes through a background check (no one wants convicted criminals or people with a history of dangerous mental illness to have access to guns),"


A recent report by the DOJ shows that less than 1% of the firearms used in crimes are bought using the so-called “gun show loophole.” Tell us how you are going to get background checks on the guns illegally bought out of the trunk of a traveling drug dealers car at 2 a.m. That is the problem. As for the mentally ill, all that has to be done is to tweak the existing patient confidentiality laws that prevent them from being in the NICS database. This would end up covering all but about 5% of all gun transfers in the US. That 40% lie that you and the president keep spouting is just another typical cooked numbers “study” that hides the truth."

"• crack down on "straw-purchasing," the process by which someone legally purchases a firearm for the purpose of transferring it to a friend who is barred from gun ownership (someone with a history of domestic abuse, for example),"


Mr. Thompson, the Vice President has told us that the government DOES NOT ENFORCE THE LAW on illegal straw purchases now. Why would making them even “more illegaller” change anything. How about we try actually enforcing existing law before we go piling on new ones? Or does that make too much sense?


"• take aim at gun trafficking and create federal penalties for both those who purchase and traffic these guns, and"


May I assume from that that you are going to initiate an in-depth investigation into Holder and the BATFE, and their dealings with forcing honest gun dealers to sell to criminals, to make sales to obvious straw purchasers, and such? Will you also be investigating Obama’s connection to all of it?


"• enforce the laws currently on the books and prosecute prohibited buyers who attempt to purchase guns, "


Gee……isn’t that what the eeee…vvvillll NRA and other “gun nuts” has been screaming for? How about you just try that first?


"• ban assault magazines, which hold more than 10 rounds and allow a shooter to inflict mass damage in a short period of time without reloading,"


No. Miller is clear. Heller is clear. Firearms “in common use” both in military and civilian use are protected by the 2nd Amendment. The first Assault Weapon Ban did nothing. There is not one shred of evidence that any bans of scary black rifles (and, as “a veteran who used assault rifles” you know that the AWB has nothing to do with real assault rifles) did anything to reduce crime or violence. On NJ sheriff noted that even before the last AWB, his officers had more chance of being killed by a tiger than by a criminal with an “assault weapon.” You know as well as I do that an AWB is just a first step toward a total gun ban.


"• close the holes in our mental-health system and make sure that care is available for those who need it."

A noble effort, indeed. But not really part of the discussion.


"The Supreme Court made it clear in District of Columbia v. Heller that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. I will never give up my guns and I will never ask law-abiding individuals without a history of dangerous mental illness to give up theirs. But it is important to understand, as conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Heller, there is no constitutional problem with laws forbidding firearms in places such as schools or with laws prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from carrying guns. This ruling provides people on both sides with an opportunity to work between the extremes and within the confines of the Second Amendment to pass legislation that will reduce gun violence and keep our communities safe."


There may not be constitutional problems, but there sure are other problems with creating safe kill zones for criminals, don’t you think? And I don’t think that anyone would argue that keeping firearms out of the hands of individuals that, as individuals, have been adjudicated to be either criminals or mentally ill and a danger to society. Note that that is on an individual, case by case basis, not the blanket prohibition that you and others are seeking.


"This debate isn't a choice between protecting the Second Amendment or reducing gun violence. It is about the willingness of a responsible majority to do both."

Again, I give you West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 - The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

The Second Amendment, and indeed, all of the Bill of Rights, is beyond your reach, Mr. Thompson. Straight out of the United States Supreme Court. The rights protected by the Bill of Rights are off the table, not to be touched. They don’t change with the political and social whims.
Rest assured, I will continue to contact you about this so long as you continue your attempt to skirt the Bill of Rights and strip us of our civil rights.


Cordially,

Link to comment

Good reply. The only point that I would make is that "clos(ing) the holes in our mental-health system and make sure that care is available for those who need it" is part of the discussion. It is in a lot of ways the 'real' issue that should have been addressed after Sandy Hook. Gun Control became the topic not only because any gun violence will bring out the 'Brady Bunch', but also it is an easier topic to address - demonizing guns is easier than admitting we have failed to properly address mental health in this country.

 

In the early 70's governor Ronald Reagan of California started shutting down the state's mental health facilities. That was the beginning of California's homeless problem. Many of the people in the state's care really were incapable of taking care of themselves. Once they were dumped on the street, that is literally where they stayed. Fast forward a decade or so and the continued presence of these people, and the infrastructure that arose to support them without really dealing with the issue, resulted in it being 'acceptable' for other people to live the same lifestyle for economic reasons. I sometimes wonder if the state and its economy really benefited from those early cost-cutting moves in the end - I suspect we are are paying more and the homeless are not getting any real benefit.

 

As a Californian, I wouldn't mind a Federal law that over-rode state law mandating an instant background check and no waiting period. Even at gun shows and non-FFL transfers at the shows, the check could be one of the services provided by organizers. It's just the devil is always in the details.

Link to comment

Good reply. The only point that I would make is that "clos(ing) the holes in our mental-health system and make sure that care is available for those who need it" is part of the discussion. It is in a lot of ways the 'real' issue that should have been addressed after Sandy Hook. Gun Control became the topic not only because any gun violence will bring out the 'Brady Bunch', but also it is an easier topic to address - demonizing guns is easier than admitting we have failed to properly address mental health in this country.

 

In the early 70's governor Ronald Reagan of California started shutting down the state's mental health facilities. That was the beginning of California's homeless problem. Many of the people in the state's care really were incapable of taking care of themselves. Once they were dumped on the street, that is literally where they stayed. Fast forward a decade or so and the continued presence of these people, and the infrastructure that arose to support them without really dealing with the issue, resulted in it being 'acceptable' for other people to live the same lifestyle for economic reasons. I sometimes wonder if the state and its economy really benefited from those early cost-cutting moves in the end - I suspect we are are paying more and the homeless are not getting any real benefit.

 

As a Californian, I wouldn't mind a Federal law that over-rode state law mandating an instant background check and no waiting period. Even at gun shows and non-FFL transfers at the shows, the check could be one of the services provided by organizers. It's just the devil is always in the details.

 

 

As I recall my state history, the law that did all of that either passed under Pat Brown, or within a few days of RR taking office. It was a civil rights issue about a patients right to refuse treatment and to be able to self release. And also to not be held against their will by the State.

 

Patient advocacy groups also pushed for a less stringent definition of a patient being able to care for himself. It went from able to hold some sort of job to, basically, be able to put some clothes on and put food into his mouth.

Link to comment

The law in question was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. It was passed by the legislature in 1967 and signed by Governor Reagan early in his first term. Similar to our current governor's idea to move prisoners from state prisons to city and county jails, the LPS Act tried to restrict patients from going into state hospitals and encourage community systems to take up the slack, thus reducing state expenses.

 

Based on the passage of the legislation Gov. Reagan adjusted the state budget and abolished 1700 state hospital staff and closed several facilities.

 

Unfortunately, the community facilities relied on self commital and most patients who need mental health services really don't want it. Also, local and Federal funding for the community facilities started to dry up.

Link to comment

The law in question was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. It was passed by the legislature in 1967 and signed by Governor Reagan early in his first term. Similar to our current governor's idea to move prisoners from state prisons to city and county jails, the LPS Act tried to restrict patients from going into state hospitals and encourage community systems to take up the slack, thus reducing state expenses.

 

Based on the passage of the legislation Gov. Reagan adjusted the state budget and abolished 1700 state hospital staff and closed several facilities.

 

Unfortunately, the community facilities relied on self commital and most patients who need mental health services really don't want it. Also, local and Federal funding for the community facilities started to dry up.

 

The LPS was not so much to "restrict patients from going to state hospitals" as to prevent forced commitments and "warehousing" of patients. It was a very "progressive" bit of patients civil-rights reform. And, it made sense to adjust the budget in light of the greatly reduced patient load once all the provisions of LPS went into effect. Since the ability of the state to force people into treatment and been curtailed, and people had a right to refuse to be held or medicated, the staff became redundant.

 

Basically, the bi-partisan Lanterman®-Petris(D)-Short(D) Act, which was such a leap forward for patients rights, and was in line with what the ALCU was starting to push for, was another "good idea" that let loose the Law of Unintended Consequences. Here is the Legislative Intent, from leginfo.ca.gov:

 

WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE

 

 

SECTION 5000-5120

 

 

5000.  This part shall be known and may be cited as theLanterman-Petris-Short Act.5001.  The provisions of this part shall be construed to promote thelegislative intent as follows:   (a) To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntarycommitment of mentally disordered persons, developmentally disabledpersons, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminatelegal disabilities;   ( To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons withserious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;   (c) To guarantee and protect public safety;   (d) To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;   (e) To provide individualized treatment, supervision, andplacement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabledpersons;   (f) To encourage the full use of all existing agencies,professional personnel and public funds to accomplish theseobjectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessaryexpenditures;   (g) To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentallydisabled persons from criminal acts.

It took away a lot of power from the State. And the backers of it worked on the assumption that the mentally ill would make the rational choice to seek help on their own.

Link to comment

The LPS was not so much to "restrict patients from going to state hospitals" as to prevent forced commitments and "warehousing" of patients. It was a very "progressive" bit of patients civil-rights reform.

:

:

It took away a lot of power from the State. And the backers of it worked on the assumption that the mentally ill would make the rational choice to seek help on their own.

 

 

 

Imagine that, not being rational enough to know you weren't rational. ;)

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.