Reply from Ben Sasse

[Lmbass14]

Wrote him some time ago on 2A, and he finally got around to not answer the questions.  But it took him a page to do the non answer.




Senator Ben Sasse <donotreply@sasse.senate.gov>
1:16 PM (2 hours ago)


September 9, 2016


 
Dear Mr. X,
 
Thank you for contacting me about federal gun legislation. It is good to hear from you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond. 

             As you know, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affirms that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Our Founders rightly understood that government is not the source or author of rights, but that God gives us rights by nature. In order to secure those rights, “we the people” institute government. As a father and a husband, I have a natural right to defend my family and my property that pre-dates government, and I am a robust defender of our Second Amendment because it is a mechanism that the people use to retain and defend their God-given rights. When I was sworn in as a U.S. Senator, I took an oath that I would faithfully uphold all of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.
 
On June 12, 2016, a terrorist named Omar Mateen, who was influenced by the ideology of militant Islam and who affirmed the principles of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), killed 49 and wounded 53 in Orlando, Florida. We mourn the deaths of these innocent victims, all made in the image of God.
 
This attack reminds us that we are at war with militant Islam. We are not at war with all Muslims, but we are at war with individuals like Omar Mateen, who believe in killing in the name of religion. This religious ideology is bent on turning American cities into war zones. Militant Islam, whether it is the card-carrying members of ISIS or al-Qa’ida or its crowd-sourced attackers, must be defeated. To do this, we must develop an effective long-term military strategy that actually defines our enemy and is not afraid to speak the truth about who they are.
 
Unfortunately, the events in Orlando and elsewhere have been framed as a debate over federal gun laws. Instead, it should be a call to face the serious evolving terrorist threat for which history provides no template. This involves providing our armed forces and intelligence officials with the appropriate tools and overall strategy to combat terrorism and defeat our enemies. The horrific attack in Orlando is not the fault of responsible gun owners. Additional federal gun controls will not deter criminals or even terrorists determined to break the law, but they will hinder law-abiding citizens from defending their families and property. We should robustly enforce current gun laws and look for ways to ensure that criminals are not able to circumvent our laws.
 
Despite the fact that the Orlando shooting was an act of terrorism, the Senate held a series of votes to advance legislation related to federal gun laws. There were two proposals offered by Senator John Cornyn of Texas and Chuck Grassley of Iowa. Senator Grassley’s legislation sought to expand data used in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for background checks and put in place positive mental health reforms that would prevent individuals from obtaining a firearm who have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent or committed to a psychiatric hospital. Senator Cornyn’s legislation gave the Attorney General the authority to delay a firearm sale to a suspected terrorist for three days while a court adjudicated the issue. I supported both the Cornyn and Grassley proposals. Unfortunately, both of these measures failed to achieve the 60 votes to advance.
 
The Senate also held two votes to advance legislation offered by Senators Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Diane Feinstein of California. Senator Murphy’s legislation would have required a background check for every gun sale and it would make private gun sales between individuals illegal. It would have mandated also that states expand the data available for the NICS and would have withheld certain federal grants to states which are used to hire additional personnel, equipment, and training for law enforcement, if the states do not comply to the federal government’s satisfaction. Senator Feinstein’s legislation would have given vast authority to the Attorney General to deny an individual’s request to purchase a gun if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is engaging in terrorist activities. While citizens can appeal this decision after the fact, the Attorney General is also afforded the power to withhold any information that is deemed necessary for national security. I voted against both of these measures, which failed to achieve the required 60 votes to advance.
 
The Senate then considered legislation offered by Senator Susan Collins of Maine. Her legislation gave wide authority to the Attorney General to unilaterally deny gun purchases to individuals on certain lists maintained by the federal government. The legislation allowed these individuals to dispute the denial of their constitutional right only after the federal government had already made the determination to strip them of their right. I voted against this legislation, which also failed to achieve the 60 votes necessary to advance.
 
              Many have framed the policy debate as keeping weapons from terrorists. This is false. The debate was not about keeping terrorists from possessing weapons. Nobody disagrees that terrorists should be denied weapons. The debate was actually about who decides who the suspected terrorists are and how individuals are placed on lists. I believe that the Executive Branch, specifically the intelligence community, should use such lists to prioritize its work and keep us safe, but this does not mean that we should use any list to take away the constitutional rights of an individual without a judicial ruling in a court prior to denying the right. This is the due process required by the 5th and 14th amendments in the Constitution. It is fundamentally American - not a partisan issue - to oppose consolidating the power to strip an individual’s constitutional rights in any one official and protecting the Constitutional rights of Americans. Where would the consolidation of this vast power end? If we allow a single government official to deny the second amendment rights of an American, is there any reason why we could not consolidate this power in an official to deny other rights such as those protected by the First Amendment? 
 
The federal government's primary duty is to defend the United States from enemies foreign and domestic. As Congress continues to debate federal gun policy, I will continue to be a strong advocate for the Second Amendment. However, I remain committed to having blunt discussions that center on our national security and the real threats that come from our enemies. The votes in the Senate should never have centered on gun policy, but rather on the fight against militant Islam and the lone wolf terrorists who are inspired by their ruthless ideology. Make no mistake: this fight will be decades long. We will win. We will win because we are a people who believe in freedom and we are a people who are willing to fight and even to die to preserve our free society for all Americans.

             Thank you for contacting me about this important issue. I am honored to serve the people of Nebraska. Please do not hesitate to contact me again should you have any further questions or concerns.
 
                                                                                    Sincerely,
                                                                                     
                                                                                    Ben Sasse
                                                                                    United States Senator
                                                                                   

P.S. For more up-to-the-minute updates, follow me on social media by clicking on the icons above.

 

 

 

 

 



   

[shooter]

im probably missing something. but that read pretty good to me,   

[Kendahl]

... that read pretty good to me.

Me, too.

I fail to see the need for Grassley's bill. People who have been committed involuntarily to mental health facilities and people determined by a court to be mentally incompetent already are prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms. Therefore, they should already be in the NICS database. What would be an improvement is a bill to restore their gun rights if they are later determined to be competent and sane.

[Waltherfan]

I got the same one. I liked his answers.

[GreyGeek]

Me, too.

I fail to see the need for Grassley's bill. People who have been committed involuntarily to mental health facilities and people determined by a court to be mentally incompetent already are prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms. Therefore, they should already be in the NICS database. What would be an improvement is a bill to restore their gun rights if they are later determined to be competent and sane.

The SandyHook shooter, Lanza, was under psychiatric care but was not in the NICS database because of doctor-client privilege, and the doctor was not required, at the time,  to report him to the BATF, probably because the doctor never considered that Lanza would ever do what he did.  Except for the Muslim fanatics the common factor in every mass shooting is that the shooter had recently come off of SSRI psychotropic drugs..

The media and the Left in general is enamored by the claim that "Islam is a religion of peace" when, in reality, Islam means "submission".   Yet, the administration still refers to mass shootings by Muslims as "work place violence", and blames the guns.  It's like blaming pencils for spelling errors.

[depserv]

Lanza didn't buy a gun; he got one from his mother (before killing her with it).  His case reminds us that unless all of us are disarmed criminals and crazies will still be able to get guns.  other cases remind us that even if all of us are disarmed, as in France, criminals will still be able to get them.  And other cases yet remind us that even if gun control actually worked and only government and those who guard rich people had guns those intent on committing mass murder would not be deterred from doing so, because the biggest ones have all been committed with things other than guns.

[Dan W]

[RageTherapy]

Lanza didn't buy a gun; he got one from his mother (before killing her with it).  His case reminds us that unless all of us are disarmed criminals and crazies will still be able to get guns.  other cases remind us that even if all of us are disarmed, as in France, criminals will still be able to get them.  And other cases yet remind us that even if gun control actually worked and only government and those who guard rich people had guns those intent on committing mass murder would not be deterred from doing so, because the biggest ones have all been committed with things other than guns.

Even *if* gun control worked it wouldn't matter.   Self-defense is a RIGHT.  Owning firearms, if you do not misuse them, IS YOUR RIGHT.   It is the means by which a man or woman can defend themselves from others on a more equal playing field than physical prowess and is an essential tool for hunting, for sport and perhaps survival if the times and situation merit it.   Imagine if ancient civilizations banned fire to prevent arson. 

Of course, we are so decadent of a society, in the west, that we're well on the way to that.  http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/22/save-a-life-surrender-your-knife/

[GreyGeek]

Lanza didn't buy a gun; he got one from his mother (before killing her with it).  His case reminds us that unless all of us are disarmed criminals and crazies will still be able to get guns.  other cases remind us that even if all of us are disarmed, as in France, criminals will still be able to get them.  And other cases yet remind us that even if gun control actually worked and only government and those who guard rich people had guns those intent on committing mass murder would not be deterred from doing so, because the biggest ones have all been committed with things other than guns.

You're right, I had forgotten that.  The point still is that people suffering from the effects of SSRI withdrawal account for essentially ALL of the mass shootings in the last couple of decades, with the exception of those committed by Muslims because they felt obliged to adhere to their religious tenets.

It is astoundingly stupid to "surrender your knife to save a life", especially since the life that will be saved would be that of the aggressor, who would kill again after being released from a lenient sentence.   Those "raise awareness" folks are just virtue signaling from what they think is a higher moral ground.  Keep it up and they'll be signaling by decomposition from six feet under.

[depserv]

I think the Sasse letter looks good.  There is a caveat though to any expansion of what constitutes a mental defect that renders a person unable to legally own a gun:

It was established long ago that the insane should not be armed, but the problem is in defining what constitutes insanity, and how broadly the definition should reach.  Obama has proven that he would like to disarm as many sane people as he can, and will be as ruthless as he can toward that end.  Hillary is no different. 

So who among patriots would want a government run by a traitor like them being the one to define what constitutes a mental health problem serious enough to deny a person his right to be armed?  They will use any excuse they can find to disarm as many people as they can, and their use of political war strategies shows that they will disarm their ideological opponents if they can find an excuse to do so.  Obama's failure to do this is not due to any lack of effort on his part, but rather the result of loyal Americans defending their country from his aggression.

But if an Obama or Hillary had the power, we could see something like this: anyone who disagrees with the government is mentally defective and a potential terrorist, especially the right wing extremist (as in one who believes that the Constitution is and ought to be the law, and that it means what its words and authors say it means); for public safety, that citizen shall be denied his right to be armed (pending reeducation).  Or maybe those found guilty of the expression of certain thoughtcrimes, namely the ones deemed insensitive, micro-aggressive, racist, sexist, heterosexist, uniculturalist, Christian, and psychologically oppressive of the poor, as in hinting that some of them might be poor of their own making.  Anyone opposing the disarming of these groups is stopping government from taking the sensible gun control step of keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Given many things said by Obama, Hillary, and many others like them, this is not as much of an exaggeration as it might seem.  And in fairness I should admit that I think liberalism is a form of insanity, and it might make sense for liberals to be disarmed (and also kept away from sharp things, matches, etc.).  I would not want that written into law though, because unlike liberals I support the law, and I'm not a bigot like they are.  Liberal bigots, on the other hand, have proven over and over that they will do whatever they can to get their intolerance and hatred written into law.
 
Those duped into supporting gun control now could just as easily be duped into supporting broad definitions of groups deemed not emotionally sound enough to be armed, though it would have to be worded and presented right in order to be sold to them.  And it would come in steps as these things usually do, with no step as big as the difference between what we have now and the possibilities I suggested.

So while keeping guns away from the insane is a good idea, it is very important that our legislators be very careful in how they define insanity, and it is important that any such definition not be left up to unelected bureaucrats.

Senator Sasse seems to be fine as far as defense of the 2nd Amendment goes in any case.  What I don't like about him is his insistence on not supporting Trump (unless that has changed and I missed it).  Trump was not my first choice, but the next president will either be him or Hillary (unless something changes, which is unlikely).  So not supporting Trump is de facto support for Hillary. 

[RageTherapy]

We should not say simply "insane" but "insane with a serious capacity to harm others. "  There's all kinds of mental illness, and most of it does not represent threats to other people.

[CustomSatellite]

"If" and I mean "if" the officials we elect had the interests of the country as a collective in the forefront of their minds"and" they used the constitution as a compass to steer our proverbial ship, there would be a useful application of mental status as a disqualifier to purchase and possess firearms. Sadly, few legislators use the constitution as it was intended. Rather, a large number of them bring their personal bias toward portions of the constitution, namely the second ammendment in this case, with them and vote according to these personal biases and not according to rule of law.

I am an FFL in the northeast part of the state and I can tell you that NICS does not track court ordered mental patients. There are exceptions to this as individual states have the ability to report but not every state does and not every case in those states are reported. I can also tell you that I'm not in favor of using NICS for this because, given the fact that elected officials have personal agendas many of which involve registration and confiscation of firearms, it would be used by some as a means to further their agendas and take away the rights of law abiding citizens.

There is a measure in place already that would be quite effective if it was enforced in cases where a person described attempts a purchase of a firearm. Question "f" on a 4473 states the following:

f. 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? (See Instructions for Question 11.f.)

Simply checking "no" to this question and completing a bgc is a crime subject to the same criminal consequence as pergury. The problem is local law enforcement says it's a federal issue and the ATF doesn't care. Nor do they care, except in select cases, that a known prohibited person attempts to purchase a firearm and completes a bgc and is denied. This is also a criminal act but again it requires enforcement to be effective and with the exception of a few cases in the literally thousands of illegal attempts, this too isn't enforced.

Do you see a pattern developing?

It's sad because if we could trust our elected officials to do the right thing and the federal government would do its job enforcing the measures it already created, our civil rights wouldn't be in jeprody and many of the people who are obtaining firearms unlawfully wouldn't be.