NH ACTION ALERT: HB1589 Latest Amendment will shut down NES Classifieds
And my response (sorry, I'm long-winded)
Dear Rep. Levesque,
I do appreciate the quick response, and I appreciate your willingness to not vote on party lines as well as your willingness to consider the bill on its own merits. From your response, I assume you are receiving many angry emails and opinions about the bill. Please understand that I am not one of those, and my apologies if my email gave that impression. I simply see an onerous bill with little to no value, and want to explain my reasoning in coming to this conclusion.
People can become impassioned about a topic such as this, but I’ve done my best to consider this bill in a rational manner and I implore you to do the same. After all, long after the passions have died away we would still be dealing with the implications of the law. One may say that in the future, when people don’t see the need for the law, their representatives could strike the law out. I’d say that once a law is on the books, it’s pretty much guaranteed to be there forever. One only needs to look at the laws that currently exist to see my point. Federal income tax, for example, was originally a temporary measure. Most of us are filing or have started thinking about filing our income taxes, and I doubt the vast majority of us enjoy giving away our hard-earned income. J Yet federal income tax remains a fact of life.
My goal in contacting you is to provide you with a constituent’s viewpoint of the bill which you may not have yet considered, and I hope that you take my thoughts into consideration as you weigh the merits of HB1589 (and I’m also hoping my viewpoint isn’t “lost in the noise”).
If you will indulge me, I’d like to address the points that you raise in your response below.
The first point I’d like to address is your comment on the relative value of guns and people.
“. I believe that in our society we value our guns more than we value people's lives.“
I could not disagree more strongly with this opinion, and it saddens me that this is what you believe. But allow me to address this point in a logical manner. Non-gun owning Americans obviously place little value in guns, but would certainly act to save a person’s life. There is no doubt that non-gun owning Americans – who do make up a significant percentage of the population – place more value in people’s lives. As for gun owners: The vast majority of gun owners in America are law abiding citizens, and – as people who are reasonable enough to abide by the law – could be expected to act to save a person’s life. Unfortunately I am not aware of any study that correlates gun ownership to rescue work, and I don’t believe there is a correlation. I believe the Americans as a society *do* place high value on a person’s life than a piece of metal. But for gun owners specifically (which I believe your statement is unfairly directed towards), it is inarguable that the vast majority of gun owners will tell you that one of the primary reasons for owning firearms is to protect themselves and their families or loved ones from the criminal element that is, unfortunately, a reality in this world. Even Vice President Joe Biden has recommended owning a shotgun for self-protection. If self-defense is a primary reason for firearms ownership, the inevitable conclusion is that society simply cannot value guns more than people’s lives.
In my opinion, anyone who values a chunk of metal more than the life of a person is a sick and twisted individual indeed. In reality, that type of person is likely a criminal and – by definition – will not follow the law.
“. Purchase or transfer between family members and people you know are exempt. The purpose is NOT to eliminate illegal firearm purchases but to ensure that people are mentally competent to have fire arms.”
Current federal law requires a background check for purchases from a licensed dealer (and all dealers must be licensed), and has done so for decades. Background checks were enacted after the murder of Robert Kennedy, and was done so for the sole purpose of providing traceability on the firearm. The current system is the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) system, mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. As part of the background check, the purchaser fills out an ATF Form 4473. It is a violation of federal law to answer this form untruthfully. On this form, there is a question regarding mental competency. Allow me to quote the question:
“Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?“
You are then supposed to check yes or no to the question. The definitions associated with this question are provided on the form. You can find the form on the website or obtain the form from a local dealer (the new shop in Tabaco Heaven here in Brrokline, or State Line Gun Shop in Mason, for example) If you answer yes to this question, then you are prohibited from purchasing a firearm. If you lie on this form, then you violate federal law. Once the form is completed, the dealer contacts the ATF and a background check is performed. Assuming you are an upstanding citizen then the purchase is approved and the sale can then be completed.
The key point is that the goal of HB1589 as you state above is already addressed by Federal Law. It is already illegal for the mentally incompetent to own firearms.
At this point you may be thinking about the tragedy at Sandy Hook. As you know, HB1589 is being sponsored with Sandy Hook in mind. But let’s consider the reality, since long after the passion has died away, the law would still remain. Adam Lanza was already a prohibited person and could not purchase firearms on his own. In fact, he had tried to buy a rifle days before the massacre but was turned away. In this case the law worked. The law, by the way, *was* strengthened as the result of an earlier tragedy. Adam Lanza’s purchase was rejected specifically because the National Instant Criminal Background Check System was strengthened to better screen mental patients as a result of the Virginia Tech Massacre. When you state that
“In light of all the gun violence do we simply do nothing???“,
the answer has been a resounding No of course not! Something *has* already been done.
But ultimately the laws on the books didn’t stop him. Unfortunately, he obtained his weapons by breaking the law: Killing his mother and stealing her firearms. HB1589 would not have prevented him from obtaining those weapons. Further, Lanza again broke the law by entering the school grounds (a federally-defined gun free zone). At that point, Adam Lanza would have done anything to commit murder, and no law in the world could have prevented it. The only thing that could have prevented the tragedy was to have physically stopped him…either through better security measures or by the method that people like Charl Van Wyk or Jeanne Assam have used (I recommend you google them).
Since mental competency *has* been addressed in the past, what else can we do to protect our children? Over the past year, at least in Brookline, the focus has been on stopping perpetrators from getting at our kids. I have three young children who attend RMMS, and have a vested interest in my children being safe when I am not around to do so. However, I have been pleased with what the school has done this past year. As a result of the Sandy Hook tragedy, our school system reviewed their security measures and have acted on recommendations to strengthen security. The effect has been noticeable, and has gone quite a way in alleviating my concerns about the ability of a thug to get at my kids. If you haven’t already done so, perhaps you could contact the school district to learn exactly what measures they have implemented to address security concerns. I believe these approaches are more in line with the values of New Hamsphire than is a bill written by San Francisco attorneys.
And again, I must ask… As one of the safest states in the nation, is gun violence really a problem in New Hampshire? With so little gun violence, what could we hope to gain? Is this bill providing a solution to a problem that does not exist? I’m not sure if you know or not, and despite public perception, gun violence is down sharply in the past 20 years. In fact, gun related homicide rates are as low as they have been since the early 1960s. Explanations for the drops are unclear, but what is clear is that there is no correlation between gun laws and the homicide rate (see
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf ). A commonly held belief is that if a thug is intent on murder, lack of a gun won’t stop the crime.
“Having background checks is sensible and responsible. When you volunteer in a church , school or camp you are required to have a background check.”
To this I can only say that I question the validity of the comparison. The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally-protected fundamental right. A more valid comparison would be to compare to 1st Amendment protections and consider this: Do you require a background check to attend church (or not to attend church)? Do you require a background check to write an email? Do you require a background check to vote? These examples are all Constitutionally-protected fundamental rights, and laws affecting these rights are held to a much higher level of scrutiny than are the laws affecting background checks for volunteering at church, school, camp, etc..
. I know we can't agree with everyone on everything but there is always something we can agree on.
To this I whole-heartedly agree! We are each entitled to our opinion, but we do a disservice when we do not consider the viewpoints of others. I honestly do appreciate the time you’ve given to considering mine, and I have reciprocated by considering yours and responding in kind.
I would love to see gun violence disappear as much as anyone, but is controlling the tool the correct approach? A tool, after all, is just a tool, and is used for good or evil only based upon the desire of the owner. Far and away the greatest use of firearms in the country is for self-defense… unfortunately, it is the tragedies that grab the headlines. But if you dig further, you will find that, annually, firearms are used to *prevent* crime far more often than they are used to perpetrate crime. Setting aside the perception of a gun….Is limiting such a useful tool a good thing? If seatbelts save so many lives, would a law which hinders seatbelt use in any way make sense?
And again, I cannot stress enough…. What would HB1589 do that is not already covered by Federal and State law, or that have already been addressed by the security measures that have been implemented since the Sandy Hook tragedy?
I know there is a desire to do *something*. That cannot be ignored. However, from what I have seen and as I point out above, we *are* doing something to address the concerns that gave rise to this bill. I would suggest that a better way to continue doing something would be to prevent tragedies instead of giving thugs more opportunities to break laws when they are hell-bent on committing murder. I agree wholeheartedly that having background checks is sensible and responsible. But the matter of the fact is, background checks for gun sales are already in place and have been in place for a very, very long time. So again I must ask, what added value does this bill provide? Is there a better approach to achieving the goals that we all agree upon?
Thank you for your time. I apologize for the length of the email, but I felt compelled to address each of your points as best as I could.
Brookline, NH
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
