Let’s get this over with…

I’ll go ahead and say it. We all knew it was coming. Edward Lindsey has been announcing that he’s going to be ‘announcing something’ for about 3 weeks and now he’s officially in. But saying ‘no’ from the get-go.
You see, I used to be in his district. I wrote him an email voicing my concerns about students and campus carry and his office he sent me an ever-so-long and pretty painful, 6 page email about Sandy Hook, what some professors have said about mental health, some studies related to Newtown, “A quick look at the Constitution” (ironic, eh?), and then some ‘suggestions’ on where we should go. After tracking through the nonsense with my weed whacker, I was left with his propositions:
This is a direct copy-paste from his email regarding his stance on the 2nd amendment. Any bolding was done on my part.

  1. How do we strengthen the established public policy prohibiting individuals with dangerous mental disorders and criminal records from possessing firearms?
    1. Standardize and expand the screening of gun purchasers.  We have gaping holes in our screening process to identify individuals who are barred from owning guns either because of mental health problems or past criminal conduct.  An estimated 40% of gun purchases occur through private sales and 80% of criminal acts involving guns occur from a weapon procured in a private transaction.  Therefore, all sellers of firearms – including sellers at gun shows — should be required to screen purchasers.
    2. Gun manufacturers, who profit from the sale of their product, should bear greater responsibility for monitoring and insuring that retailers who sell their product are doing so in compliance with the law.
    3. Toughen laws against anyone who knowingly or negligently allows someone who is not permitted to possess a gun from obtaining one and committing a crime.  This includes going after so called “straw purchasers” and requiring that the lawful owner of a gun report any theft promptly to the police.
    4. Enforce existing gun laws.  Each year, thousands of individuals are found to be attempting to purchase a firearm who are barred under law from being allowed to so; however, only a tiny fraction are ever prosecuted.
    5. Reform our approach to mental health to better assist the sufferer, and protect society by identifying those individuals who should not be allowed to possess a firearm.
  1. How do you promote safe firearm use, possession, and storage?
    1. Require purchasers of semi-automatic rifles demonstrate an understanding on how to safely handle and store such rifles.  This can be done by demonstrating evidence of having completed an approved gun safety course, passing a gun proficiency and safety test, or being in the active or reserve military or law enforcement.
    2. Require that purchasers of ammunition and magazines for semi-automatic rifles to show identification and the above evidence when purchasing these items.  This requirement would ensure over time that already existing owners of these weapons also pass the safety course.
    3. Similarly, laws already granting permits to carry a concealed weapon should also include a requirement that applicants take and pass a gun safety course in which he/she demonstrates an understanding on how and when to safely use the weapon, and where a concealed weapon can legally and safely be carried.  A concealed weapon may be valid protection but before carrying one into a public place someone should demonstrate that they are proficient in handling the weapon – including when not to use it.  We require a showing of safe handling of automobiles before one can drive on public roads, carrying a weapon in public should be no different. There are also locations where a concealed weapon cannot be legally carried and the permit holder needs to be aware of those locations.

Bless your heart. All I see are a bunch of proposed regulations on a God-given right. I guess that ‘quick look at the Constitution’ was quicker than originally thought? And please don’t try the ‘well you have to get a driver’s license to drive a car!’ argument. Blah blah blah. Driving a car is a privilege. Owning and carrying a weapon is a fundamental right.

I’m sorry, sir. The correct response to my initial email should have said: “I support the 2nd amendment unconditionally.”


4 thoughts on “Let’s get this over with…

  1. Representative Edward Lindsey

    To my friend PC:

    I think you left a couple of details on my record on the Second Amendment this session. As Majority Whip this session I guided through the House both HB 512 and SB 101. Either of these bills would grant the right to carry guns on campus by permit holders and also enlarge other places where permit holders may carry guns in Georgia. Once passed, either bill will greatly enhance the rights of gun holders and public safety. It is my hope that the Senate will eventually agree to the House position and allow the proposal to become law.

    I should also point out that I do not support the present U.S. Senate proposal regarding background checks and support conservative Senators attempts at a filibuster. The bill is overly burdensome on non commercial transfers on firearms and does not provide protections against using the information gathered through background checks to create a de facto gun registration which I adamantly oppose. More importantly, I do not feel the U. S. Senate proposal does anything to address the root causes of the tragedy at Newtown or Colorado, which is how do you handle mental illness in our society.

    My e mail to you and others who wrote me after the Newtown tragedy set out clearly areas that I opposed as unworkable and unconstitutional. These included any attempt to ban semi automatic weapons or large capacity magazines.

    As a gun owner, I do support promoting gun safety and responsible gun ownership. After the Newtown tragedy, I felt that it was incumbent for us to consider how to do this and I exchanged with you and others possible suggestions and received some excellent feed back. After many discussions with you and others, I agree with the concern that we should not have the government mandate safety requirements as a prerequisite to a permit or ownership. I agree that that would be an infringement on the Second Amendment. However, I do feel that we can still encourage safety programs by allowing for tax credits to gun owners who take safety programs and periodically refresh their skills and knowledge. I believe that this approach both protects Second Amendment rights and promotes safety in our society.

    As you and your readers can see here, I do not do well with short bumper sticker answers. I like to have give and take discussions with constituents. I feel that is the best way to learn what my constituents are thinking and how to come up with solid possible legislation. This is how I have acted as a state representative and how I will act as your Congressman. We may not always agree but I will always listen. I believe you deserve that from the people you elect to serve you.

    Take care and keep it up. I enjoy your blog.

    Representative Edward Lindsey

  2. Pingback: Tax Credits for Gun Safety — Peach Pundit

Have something to say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s