More from Mr. Thompson

[Subdeacon Joe]

Got another response.

Dear Mr. Lovell:

Thanks
for your follow up regarding gun violence prevention measures. As
always, I appreciate hearing your views, and it sounds like we’re not
too far apart on this issue.

First, you note that straw purchases are
one of the most common ways that prohibited persons obtain firearms. I
agree that these purchases pose a dangerous threat, and I believe that
we must focus on ways to prevent such unlawful transfers. On
February 4, 2013, Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced the
Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013 (H.R. 452). I am a cosponsor of
this legislation, which is aimed specifically at cracking down on
illegal gun trafficking and straw-purchasing. As a matter of fact, as
chair of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, I held a public hearing
on this when two New York fire fighters were shot and killed when
responding to a fire. The fire was started by the shooter, who couldn’t
pass a background check so he obtained a gun through a straw purchase.
He then shot and killed the firemen when they arrived.

You and I will have to agree to disagree
on the subject of assault magazines. As a combat veteran who served in
Vietnam, I know that high-capacity magazines serve a legitimate purpose
in our military. But I believe that these assault magazines, which allow
a shooter to inflict mass damage in a short period of time, have no
place in our society.

It is true that recently, many of the most
horrific shootings have occurred in "gun free zones" like elementary
schools. But this is not the case across the board: two men, former Navy
SEAL Chris Kyle and his neighbor Chad Littlefield, were shot and killed
at a Texas gun range in February of this year. In September, a gunman
killed 12 people on a military base at Washington's Navy Yard. Joseph
Deaser, a gun store owner, was shot in his shop in Roseville, California
-- in March he testified before Congress that he was supportive of
efforts to “expand our background check requirements and allow safe and
sane ownership to good honest American gun owners.”

Finally, my bill (H.R 1565) does not treat
honest citizens as criminals. H.R. 1565 only extends background checks
to advertised commercial gun sales - it does not impose a "blanket
prohibition" on the sale, purchase, or ownership of firearms by
law-abiding citizens, because I do not believe that every law-abiding
citizen with a gun is a "thug bent on doing harm." As a gun owner, I am
fully supportive of Americans' Constitutionally-protected right to bear
arms.

You and I may disagree on some of the
issues regarding guns and gun ownership. However, I believe we can both
agree that it is our responsibility to do all we can to protect these
law-abiding citizens by ensuring that criminals and the dangerously
mentally ill are prevented from obtaining firearms. Doing so with
background checks will ensure that law-abiding individuals will continue
to be able to purchase firearms though all commercial sales.

Thank you again for your thoughtful reply to my letter, I hope my response addresses some of your concerns.

[Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L]

one thing he forgets it's not the Goverments job to protect me.

 

KK

[Blackwater 53393]

Mr. Thompson fails to mention or recognise that the Washington Navy Yard is in fact a "Gun Free Zone", as is Fort Hood!!

 

His generalities are what lets the uninformed remain misinformed!!

[Subdeacon Joe]

My reply, in Georgia size 18 below.

 

December 11, 2013


(address redacted)



Dear Mr. Lovell:

Thanks for your follow up regarding
gun violence prevention measures. As always, I appreciate hearing your views,
and it sounds like we’re not too far apart on this issue.

First, you note that straw purchases
are one of the most common ways that prohibited persons obtain firearms. I
agree that these purchases pose a dangerous threat, and I believe that we must
focus on ways to prevent such unlawful transfers. On February 4, 2013,
Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced the Gun Trafficking Prevention
Act of 2013 (H.R. 452). I am a cosponsor of this legislation, which is aimed
specifically at cracking down on illegal gun trafficking and straw-purchasing. As
a matter of fact, as chair of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, I held a
public hearing on this when two New York fire fighters were shot and killed
when responding to a fire. The fire was started by the shooter, who couldn’t
pass a background check so he obtained a gun through a straw purchase. He then
shot and killed the firemen when they arrived.

In other words, you are going to make something that is already illegal even more
illegaler. And you still exempt the most
common straw purchase, that of having a family member such as wife, sister,
brother, buy the firearm and hand it over.

 

You and I will have to agree to
disagree on the subject of assault magazines. As a combat veteran who served in
Vietnam, I know that high-capacity magazines serve a legitimate purpose in our
military. But I believe that these assault magazines, which allow a shooter to
inflict mass damage in a short period of time, have no place in our society.

 

So you do want to condemn the honest citizen facing multiple attackers into a
helpless victim. The thug in V. Tech did something like 17 magazine changes. So,
I suppose that if your ban on design capacity magazines (no such thing as an
assault magazine, unless you are talking about the Millwall Brick) passes, and
there is another atrocity, you will push for a limit on the number of magazines
that can be owned.

It is true that recently, many of
the most horrific shootings have occurred in "gun free zones" like
elementary schools. But this is not the case across the board: two men, former
Navy SEAL Chris Kyle and his neighbor Chad Littlefield, were shot and killed at
a Texas gun range in February of this year. In September, a gunman killed 12
people on a military base at Washington's Navy Yard. Joseph Deaser, a gun store
owner, was shot in his shop in Roseville, California -- in March he testified
before Congress that he was supportive of efforts to “expand our background
check requirements and allow safe and sane ownership to good honest American
gun owners.”



Um….that Navy Yard
shooting was in a gun free zone. The
thug illegally brought a shotgun onto that base. And, nice attempt to twist my words, but I
never said that all shootings take place in gun free zones. I said that the mass shootings that grab the
headlines and attention of people like you to push your anti-gun agenda happen
in gun free zones.

Finally, my bill (H.R 1565) does not
treat honest citizens as criminals.

Garbage. We have to prove to the State (government at
any level) that we are NOT criminals.
That, sir, is assuming that we ARE criminals. It also continues to make us beg from the
State permission to exercise a civil right. In which case it is no longer a
right, but a privilege to be doled out by the State at its whim.

H.R. 1565 only extends background
checks to advertised commercial gun sales - it does not impose a "blanket
prohibition" on the sale, purchase, or ownership of firearms by
law-abiding citizens, because I do not believe that every law-abiding citizen
with a gun is a "thug bent on doing harm." As a gun owner, I am fully
supportive of Americans' Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms.

Again, it is just the first step. What, when
all your restrictions on our civil rights happen, and there is another atrocity
committed, will you then push for? What is the next step you and other
gun-banners will take to do away with the uninfringable civil rights protected
by the 2^nd Amendment? You
make the claim that you are “fully supportive,” yet you join with others in
heaping restrictions on the rights protected by the 2^nd.

 

You and I may disagree on some of
the issues regarding guns and gun ownership. However, I believe we can both
agree that it is our responsibility to do all we can to protect these law-abiding
citizens by ensuring that criminals and the dangerously mentally ill are
prevented from obtaining firearms. Doing so with background checks will ensure
that law-abiding individuals will continue to be able to purchase firearms
though all commercial sales.

Thank you again for your thoughtful
reply to my letter, I hope my response addresses some of your concerns.

Again, what other civil right
enumerated in the Constitution must we beg permission to exercise, Mr.
Thompson? You rail that asking something
as simple as an ID being shown at a polling place is taking away someones right
to vote, but you have no trouble at all requiring ID, background checks,
waiting periods, etc. on a civil right that is enumerated and carries the
protective clause “shall not be infringed.”
Which is even stronger language than the “Congress shall make no …; or abridging the…” found
in the 1^st Amendment. A
scholar of the Constitution in the early 1800s said of the 2^nd that
“the prohibition is general” and that the 2^nd may be appealed to if
either a state government or the federal government moved to infringe on the
civil rights protected by that amendment.

 

Cordially,

 

Joseph Lovell

 

 

At work I was thinking about another note to him, following up some points I missed.

 

[Subdeacon Joe]

My letter this evening:

The Hon. Mr. Mike Thompson

Dear Sir,

A few things I neglected in my note to you this morning.

First, why is it that you never publicly acknowledge the net positive effect private ownership of firearms has on society? To listen to you, or read your words, the majority of uses of firearms are criminal uses. But study after study shows over 2,000,000 defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year. Most of those show closer to 2,500,000 DGUs/year. That is over 6000 crimes per day prevented. But you never mention that, and seem to go out of your way to ignore it. Even if we take the US Dept. of Justice low-ball figure of about 650,000 that is still far more crimes prevented than lives taken.

Second, why do you never put things into perspective? If we assume that there are 310,000,000 people in the US (which is low), and that there are a total of about 140,000 injuries and deaths by means of firearm (which is much higher than reality) - all causes, criminal, accident, and suicide - that means approximately 0.045% of the population face the prospect of being injured or killed by means of firearm.

Continuing to put things into perspective, if we assume that roughly 100,000,000 of us own firearms (which may be low), and we treat that (higher than real life) number of 140,000 injuries and deaths by means of firearm each as a unique criminal act, committed by 140,000 unique individuals (a false assumption, but giving you every benefit of the doubt and trying to high-ball the numbers in your favor) that means that only about 0.135% of all firearms owners abuse their civil rights by misusing firearms to the criminal harm of others.

And because of that 0.135% you and others like you are working hard to infringe upon and abridge our specifically enumerated and protected civil rights. Pushing an agenda that is contrary to Miller (1939), Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), and likely a fair number of other decisions clearly spelling out that the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment are individual rights, not dependent on membership in an organized militia, and affirming that the honest citizen is allowed to buy, possess, and carry firearms "in common use." Miller (1939) supports the view that arms of use in the organized militia are protected and Heller (2008) makes the same comment about firearms in the civilian section of our society.

And, again, I must ask, "When you bans and restrictions don't prevent the next atrocity, what further bans and restrictions will you propose?"

Cordially,

Joseph Lovell