Reply from Congressman Ashford

[Lmbass14]

I wrote the Congressman about gun violence.  This is his reply.



January 20, 2016


Dear ,

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding legislative efforts to reduce gun violence. I appreciate your interest in issues facing our country and state.

I support the Second Amendment that guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms and believe that it is essential for common sense and responsible firearm policies to uphold our civil rights, while protecting Nebraska families from gun violence. It is important that extensive research be conducted and constituent input be heard in order to strike the appropriate balance between promoting safety and protecting our Second Amendment rights. I am confident this can be accomplished if we work together in a bipartisan and good faith effort.

On October 8, 2015, Representative Martha McSally (R-AZ) introduced H.R. 3722, the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015, that aims to keep guns away from dangerous individuals and expands mental health and law enforcement programs. I am proud to serve as an original cosponsor and lead minority sponsor of this bipartisan legislation that will strengthen our mental health and the criminal justice system. This legislation will target funds to improve responsiveness to mental health crises, give health care providers the tools they need to collaborate with law enforcement, and modernize the current background check system.

Also introduced this year by Representative Peter King (R-NY), is H.R. 1076 the bipartisan Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015 of which I am also proud to cosponsor. The bill prohibits the sale of weapons and explosives to those suspected of being engaged in terrorist activities.

Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me. As always, I am open to learning more from you and I appreciate you taking the time to express your views. You will find useful resources for keeping up with my work by visiting my website: www.ashford.house.gov. I am honored to represent you in Congress.

Sincerely,

Brad Ashford
Member of Congress

[Phantom]

It's a Canned Response. 

I got this "Same Exact" reply from him as you did. 

[SS_N_NE]

H.R. 3722, the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015, that aims to keep guns away from dangerous individuals and expands mental health and law enforcement programs.

Is anyone else concerned about the "mental health" laws? Similar to background checks...it seems like a good idea. The first issue is just opening another law to pack in a lot of other things. The next issue is determination of a mental issue and the resulting burden of proof when an individual believes they have been unreasonably accused (a typical guilty until proven innocent and lots of money for lawyers scenario). 

Considering the number of events over the years involving a mentally disturbed persons and mass killing...it seems necessary to create some sort of solution...but another law with that determines a person's Rights? It is this kind of thinking that has gone into so many gun control laws resulting in loss of Rights, confusion and expense that does little or nothing to correct the perceived problem.

These "we got to try something" laws just keep piling up and often do nothing more than waste tax money.  Law should start with a return on investment (ROI) report proving it has some capacity for being effective and kills the expense and law itself when the intended result fails. Some of these "try something" fiascoes are nothing more than spending with no chance of return on investment. 

[depserv]

"The bill prohibits the sale of weapons and explosives to those suspected of being engaged in terrorist activities."  [emphasis mine]

This is a very bad idea.  What this means is that government bureaucrats can put you on a list (which I believe is currently called the no-fly list) because they think you might be engaged in "terrorist activities," and if you are on that list you lose your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  As I understand it they don't even have to tell you why they put you on it, and there have been quite a few put on it accidentally.  I guess there is some kind of appeals process, but it's hard, long, expensive, and not guaranteed to work. 

Add that to what things are commonly being said by high level government liberals and their PR team the liberal press about so-called right wing extremists being as or more of a threat than Islamic terrorists, and you see how a law like this is likely to be used by a criminal government.  To a liberal, a person who believes that the Constitution is and ought to be the law, and that it means what its words and authors say it means, is a right wing extremist: what they call a right wing extremist I and many others call a patriot. 

This thing is the type of bait and switch scam that characterizes gun control: give government excessive power so it can pretend to protect us better from a very real enemy, and then government can (and most likely will) use that same power in its war on those they pretend to be protecting.  This phony law is nothing but a lie being used to give a corrupt government greater power to disarm its citizens.

Brad Ashford is a traitor, and those who voted for him are fools.

[hilowe]

(which I believe is currently called the no-fly list)

If I remember reading it correctly, Nobama was promoting this exact proposal in his words, but when you read the actual proposal, it wasn't the no-fly list they were referencing, it was the terrorist watch list, which is supposedly a much bigger list.

I'll have to do some looking tonight to see if I can find the references again.

[hilowe]

Found it.  It was Feinstein that proposed the legislation.  Here's the link to the text of the amendment: https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/2910/text

``(3) The Attorney General may deny a license application
     if the Attorney General determines that the applicant
     (including any responsible person) is known (or appropriately
     suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct
     constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to
     terrorism, or providing material support or resources for
     terrorism, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief
     that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with
     terrorism.''.

(B) ensure that terrorist watch list records are used in a
     manner that safeguards privacy and civil liberties
     protections, in accordance with requirements outlines in
     Homeland Security Presidential Directive 11 (dated August 27,
     2004).

No reference made in the entire amendment to the no fly list, only the terror watch list.

[depserv]

Found it.  It was Feinstein that proposed the legislation.  Here's the link to the text of the amendment: https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/2910/text

No reference made in the entire amendment to the no fly list, only the terror watch list.

Thanks for the correction.  The bigger list makes the law Ashford supports just that much worse.

[SS_N_NE]

Right after I posted my rant above...
I find this at the NRA-ILA:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160120/anti-gun-bill-rears-its-ugly-head-before-oregons-2016-legislative-session-convenes

Basically a mental health/restricted person bill in Oregon LC250.  Apparently it is reasonable belief that this is the new anti gun method.

To get the snitches needed to locate people with mental issues:

    The accuser is to remain anonymous
    The accuser is protected from civil liability for reports made in good faith
    The accuser is only subject to criminal liability for knowingly making false reports
    The accuser has no burden of proof or criteria to fulfill other than the accused is experiencing a mental health emergency and is a danger to themselves or others.

The accused person gets the following deal:

    The accused may not be notified unless they attempt to purchase a firearm
    May not be notified of who the accuser is
    May not be notified when the purchase restriction is to expire
    Is not subject to limits on how many times the hold may be renewed
    If the accused proves their competency, they may not know whether they are subject to future reports
    Places the burden on the accused to show by clear and convincing evidence they are not a “danger to themselves or others”.
    May require documentation from a mental health professional to help prove their competency
    Requires the accused to pay all filing fees if they chose to petition for relief