I wrote Pres. Trump, my senators and representative

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
30,384
On the site to write President Trump the message is limited to 2000 characters, so I sent the four sections as separate messages. Both my senators had "Second Amendment" as a topic choice, but my Rep did not, so on his page I picked "crime and law enforcement".

Here is the text, if anybody wants to steal any of it:

My comments are in four sections: "red flag laws", proposed changes to background checks laws, proposals to require firearms registration, and proposed magazine capacity limits.

RE PROPOSED "RED FLAG LAWS":

Currently every state has laws permitting involuntary commitment of persons determined a threat to themselves or others as a result of mental illness, with strong due process protections. But very few of the people to whom such laws would apply actually get the treatment they need, because there are not enough beds available. So one thing we can clearly do right now is to provide more mental health beds.

Also, many jurisdictions have laws that actually work AGAINST keeping potentially dangerous people off the streets. The best example of this is the Parkland shooting. Andrew Pollard, the father of one of the victims, has just published a book that details how the policies in Broward County contributed to the mass shooter being able to carry out his act. These policies, formulated and/or encouraged by the last Administration, had predictably disastrous results. We need to review all policies relating to treatment of criminal activities by minors. Also, while I understand the logic behind sealing minors’ criminal records from the general public, they should NOT be sealed to law enforcement.

Further, not all relevant agencies even pursue leads provided by concerned citizens now. The mother of the Dayton shooter told local police she didn’t feel her son should be able to own firearms, the officer replied that if he’s over 21 with no police record he can legally buy one, without any further investigation of the mother’s claims.

I have serious due process concerns about red flag laws. It’s significant that the “no fly list” was just determined to be unconstitutional because it denies due process to people on the list. Any red flag law would have to require at least two unrelated parties to report the person under penalty of perjury, require a hearing before a judge where both the reporting parties and the person would appear and present their evidence, and there would have to be serious penalties for fraudulent reports.

RE PROPOSED CHANGES TO BACKGROUND CHECKS LAWS:

Every sale through a dealer, whether in a store, online, or at a gun show, already has to go through a NICS check.

Every interstate sale between individuals also has to go through a NICS check.

We have seen in a number of cases that jurisdictions or agencies have failed to report actionable information to NICS, for example the church shootings in Charleston and Sutherland Springs. I understand that a law was already passed to do something about this, are we monitoring the results? What penalties are in place for non-compliance?

I just heard today that the Manchin-Toomey bill is proposing to add the NICS requirement to online and gun show sales between same-state residents, while specifically leaving same-state transactions between friends and relatives exempt. I haven’t read the text of the proposal. HOWEVER, people who engage in criminal activity are not going to comply with this law anyway, so I fear it’s just a “feel-good” piece of legislation – the Odessa shooter failed the NICS check so he found a guy who was illegally assembling guns for sale (i.e. with neither a manufacturer nor a dealer license) who was happy to sell him one. The seller was already violating existing laws, it’s highly unlikely one more law would have stopped him. Illinois has had a legal requirement for a background check on private sales for several years, with ZERO effect on the crime rate, because criminals by definition don’t obey laws.

RE PROPOSALS TO REQUIRE FIREARMS REGISTRATION:

Registration has to be totally off the table, it’s just an intermediate step to confiscation. In 1931 Germany’s Weimar Republic decreed gun registration out of a sincere benevolent desire to reduce street violence, but warned that the records must not fall into the hands of radical elements. Unfortunately, those radical elements — the National Socialist Party led by Adolf Hitler — attained power in 1933 and used those very same records to disarm political opponents, rendering them incapable of resistance. Disarmed German Jews paid the price in the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom, a major step in the road to the Holocaust. Imagine how different Kristallnacht would have looked if the Jewish business owners had been up on their roofs with long guns like the Koreans in the L.A. Riots. And significantly, although more to the calls to ban AR-15's than to the registration issue, the reason the Koreans had to defend their homes and businesses themselves was that the LAPD told them they couldn’t do anything. That was right here in America, less than 30 years ago.

RE PROPOSED MAGAZINE CAPACITY LIMITS:

This is ridiculous and could cost innocent lives. Recently there was a case where a home was invaded by FOUR armed criminals, the owner used his AR-15 to defend himself and I believe two were killed. Unlike in the movies, sometimes a home invasion is more than one bad guy. And a bad guy does not always just fall down dead from one shot, even if the defender manages to hit him. Check out some surveillance videos of actual attacks: In real life the bad guys will be shooting at the defender, causing him or her to have to move around to avoid being hit, and they themselves will be moving around creating moving targets, and even if hit may either not fall down or may get back up again. Having to reload after 10 shots could cost the defender valuable time and even his or her life.
 
I GOT MY "SOUNDS GREAT!" IN 1ST !! LoL

:cool:When I mention sunset clause(s) I mention that, I am not :eek:scared to look at the facts of the efficacy of a new law, yea or nay, in 10 years:cool:...
 
Excellent. I just fired off another message to my representatives.

Your constituents that you represent want to remind you that we do NOT want additional forms of gun control. With over 2,000 gun laws on the books as it is we are already buried in layers of arbitrary laws. Mainers voted NO to expand background checks in 2016. It is a broken system that would put unnecessary burden and cost on Maine citizens to exercise a Right. Maine is the safest State in the U.S. not in spite of our "lack" of gun control but because of it. An armed society is a polite society. That's why every mass shooting (which does not happen in Maine by the way) happens in gun free zones while police departments and gun shops don't have mass shootings because the more armed the populace the more of a deterrent it is to would-be shooters. We urge you NOT to support any additional gun control bills, especially expanded background checks or so called "red flag" bills.
 
Welcome to Nevada where we have two Senators who would love to see the banning of any semi-auto firearm, hopefully 2020 will change that back in our favor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top