Now It's the Navy Yard: Here We Go Again

On September 16th Aaron Alexis, a civilian contractor working for the Navy, came onto the campus of the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. Unbeknownst to anyone he was carry a Remington 870 shotgun that he legally purchased at Sharp Shooters gun store and firing range. This shotgun is often called a “riot gun” because it has a short barrel and can carry 6 to 10 shells at a time; this makes it particularly useful for law enforcement in riots and other crowd control.

Unfortunately we’ve also learned it’s an effective weapon for a lone shooter to kill lots of people in a short time. By the time law enforcement shot and killed Mr. Alexis, 12 other people lay dead, and several more were wounded.

It feels a little local to me. I grew up in Woodbridge, Va. (about 20 miles south of Washington D.C.). My father was a government employee for his career and my sister is currently a civilian employee of the Army. The gun store that sold the shotgun is 10 miles from my childhood home and Kathleen Gaarde (who was one of the people killed) lived 3 miles from my high school.

I’m struck by how routine these events have become. The National Rifle Organization continues its undefeated run of blaming everyone but themselves and making clear that any politician who strays from their message will be targeted for reelection.

Mr. Alexis came to September 16th with a long history of mental illness, but also an honorable discharge from the Navy and the ability to get a job as a contractor. It’s frighteningly easy to look at his mental illness, proclaim that “those people shouldn’t have guns,” and pretend there is nothing else to do.

There is much else to do and somewhere we need to find the moral courage begin the job of keeping us safer. I confess I’m weary of politicians who dare not speak the truth out of a fear of losing their jobs. While there is no good reason for cowardice, keeping your job at the expense of human lives is particularly bankrupt. These riot shotguns are not meant for hunting game: they are designed to kill people and they are very good at that. It makes sense for the military or law enforcement to have access to these guns but there is no good rationale for civilian ownership.

I’m not one on those “anti-gun nuts.” I understand that people own guns for a variety of reasons: some are collectors, some are hunters, and some are protecting home and family. I don’t collect guns, I don’t hunt, and I don’t own anything I would kill to keep. But I do respect the rights of those who do collect, hunt, or protect.

OK, now what do we do with gun ownership among the mentally ill? It that really as easy as that? No, it’s not. The term “mentally ill” is simply vague, and current legislation is all over the map. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has a web page that lists (state by state) laws that prevent the mentally ill from owning guns. According to this, the federal government prevents giving a gun to anyone who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” Most state laws follow the same requirement: you can’t own a gun if you’ve been institutionalized or been found by a court to be mentally ill.

Mr. Alexis had several run ins with the law, but in none of them was his mental capacity examined. To that extent, the gun shop in Lorton did nothing wrong in selling him the shotgun.

So how do we prevent people who are mentally ill from getting guns? I think we should keep looking at this issue, but recognize that there’s never going to be a bright line. Mr. Alexis showed signs that indicate he may have been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. In his delusional mind he thought he was he was being controlled by low frequency electromagnetic waves.

The world of mental illness is much broader than that. Mental illness also covers people who suffer from depression, bipolar disorder, and many other illnesses. Our brothers and sisters who live with these diseases often don’t seek help because of prejudices and the fear of being labeled “crazy.” They have learned that seeking help can often cost them jobs, friends, and social standing. In the ongoing attempt to protect their profits, the NRA wants to throw this group under the bus, and it works against those of us who want to take the fear out of seeking treatment for mental illness.

We can all agree that people who think they are being controlled by low frequency waves shouldn’t own a gun. But what about someone who seeks treatment for depression who knows that his quest will put him on a list that makes him too crazy for gun ownership? What if he comes from a family of deer hunters? If he seeks treatment, his entire family will know about it because he won’t be able to hide the reason he can’t buy a gun. Will it make him afraid to seek treatment, and turn managed depression into uncontrolled depression?

Certainly we need to keep guns out of the hands of people who are dangerous. But this needs to be paired with reasonable gun control. If the next shooter has access only to guns that require frequent reloading, this would save lives. It wouldn’t in any sense impair people who want guns for collecting, hunting, or protecting. We don’t need guns whose only purpose is to kill large numbers of people in a short time.

Be assured I’ll reference this article the next time there is a mass shooting.

Time to Move On Bob

Last month I wrote about San Diego’s current mayor, Bob Filner. He was elected last November and has been in office since December. Previous to that he served in the U.S. House of Representatives. Beginning last month a cascade of women have accused him of sexual harassment and abuse. One of them, Irene McCormack Jackson filed a civil suit against the mayor.

On July 26th he called a news conference; many of us expected he would resign. Instead he admitted that some of his actions were “wrong” but denied charges of sexual harassment. He also said he was going to seek treatment for this, while maintaining his role as mayor. On July 30th the city council voted a resolution that the city would not cover his legal bills; Filner responded by saying it was the city’s fault because he had not received training in sexual harassment (oddly he appeared to know enough about it to deny guilt).

The beginning of this month he left his office, purportedly for treatment; he returned after one week, and then took some vacation time. He has not acted in his official capacity since the July 26th news conference.

Shortly after that conference a recall campaign was started. It requires over 100,000 signatures to be gathered in 39 days, the San Diego city clerk estimates that a recall election would cost the city between $3 million and $6 million.

In the last few days word has come out there Bob is looking for a deal. Most of us assume he will resign in return for a negotiated settlement of any lawsuits that the city would pay for. Most of us find that pretty distasteful, but it may be cheaper than the cost of a recall.

Bob should man up and do the right thing: admit what he did, resign, and suffer the consequences. Of course, if he were a real man, he wouldn’t have abused the women around him.

Pay No Attention to the Little Man in the Mayor's Office

Yes, San Diego has once again made headlines, and not for a good reason. Earlier this year we elected Bob Filner as mayor of the city. He is a democrat and I tend to support his positions, but I was uneasy pulling the lever for him. Previous to this he served in Congress for nearly 20 years and he had a reputation as a hothead with a hair trigger temper. In 2007 he was charged with assault after an altercation in the baggage area. The woman who got in his way appeared in ads for Bob’s opponent during the election.

Now we are hearing about charges of sexual abuse. Allegations in the last few weeks paint a picture of a man who, for example, suggested that a female employee should come to work without panties. There are also charges of groping, kissing, etc. Last week he acknowledged that he has acted “inappropriately” and that he needs help. Shortly after this he answered specific charges by saying he is entitled to “due process of law.” When one of his employees came forth yesterday, Filner denied the charges.

OK, let’s sort this out. Mayor Filner states that he is entitled to “due process of law;” that phrase comes from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. It only applies to criminal proceedings; to the extent that nobody has seriously suggested the mayor be arrested, due process doesn’t apply.

The mayor needs to resign. The charges point to a pattern of behavior that is simply unacceptable and it makes day to day operations difficult. The women who work near him now need to worry about their own safety as a first priority, not the business of the city.

A common misconception with men like this is that they see this as a perk of being powerful. In reality these are men who are weak and want to be powerful and think this will do it. It’s inconceivable to the rest of us, but they honestly don’t think this kind of abuse is unwelcome or frightening. When confronted they downplay it, suggest they were “just kidding” or “just fooling around.”

It’s not playful or welcome. It’s unacceptable and does not serve the people of San Diego.

My Field Trip to Washington DC

Each year Nancy and I travel to her Pedriatic Convention the first week of May. She goes to meetings while I get to play and explore. It works for me. This year the convention was in our Nation’s Capital.

Going to Washington is always a return trip for me as I grew up just south of there in Woodbridge, Virginia. I didn’t fully appreciate this at the time, but school field trips to the Smithsonian Institution, the Capitol, and the National Zoo (which is part of the Smithsonian) were things I could take for granted. Only as an adult did I realize that most people paid to enter museums.

We stayed at a hotel that was close to several landmarks. Not only the Capitol and National Mall, but also Ford’s Theatre. It’s not an exaggeration to say that I walked my shoes off.

No matter how many times I walk these streets, I am moved. The role of governing this country is not for the feint of heart but it is honest. Nancy and I were able to get into the Senate gallery to watch the debate on taxing internet purchases. It wasn’t what most Americans expect: most of the Senators walked by the counter and gave a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” while everyone else was congregated in small group discussions. It’s not exactly Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

But it’s transparent. Any one of us can find out how our senator voted and we can vote against him (or her) in the next election. They can’t do this in Cuba or North Korea.

In the last few decades it’s become fashionable to see our government as the enemy and the taxes we pay as extortion but it’s not true. We pay our taxes to take for granted the freedoms we don’t think about. As I walked around Washington I was struck by the buildings I passed: the Department of Agriculture makes sure the food I eat is safe. The Justice Department ensures that my rights are as protected as the wealthiest of us. And the Library of Congress and National Archives makes sure the most valuable our most valuable documents will be preserved. It’s worth it.

I’m grateful to our Founders and I’m also proud of all the men and women who have worked as government employees since. They have preserved and protected our history and values; ironically they have also preserved the right of malcontents to criticize their existence.

I know they don’t recognize this, but I do. Thank you.

Boston Strong and Proud

A few weeks ago I went to see one of my hospice patients. It was an ordinary visit, and the fact that she had the TV on wasn’t much of an issue: she often mutes the TV when I see her. That day the mute TV caught our attention. I hadn’t paid much attention to the fact that the Boston Marathon and Patriot’s Day was April 15th.

Now I’ll never forget it. On that day, in that place, two men decided to strike a blow. Tamerian and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev planted two bombs that exploded about 3:00 PM at Copley Place, the finish line of the marathon. The bombs were intended to kill as many people as possible and were scheduled when the largest number of runners were crossing the finish line. On one level it worked: the bombs killed Martin Richard, Krystle Campbell, and Lingzi Lu. A few days later Sean Collier died in the line of duty during their capture.

No doubt the brothers thought this would bring Boston to its knees. Clearly they didn’t fully understand Boston. It’s a tough city: it was here that the Sons of Liberty started. They survived the Boston Massacre and the closing of Boston Harbor after the Tea Party.

I lived in Watertown in the early 1980s and I can tell you that no attack can do what they intended to do. The people of Boston are more resilient than anyone can imagine; they are stronger than anyone can imagine; they are more stubborn than anyone can imagine.

Of the two suspects, one is dead and the other is in custody. We are going to understand what happened and why, and we are going to judge the remaining suspect. We are going to move forward.

Boston will go on. Terrorism will not.

America, Stop Listening to the NRA

After the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School the National Rifle Association went silent for a few days. Many of us were hoping they would either remain silent or consider a dialogue about gun safety. So much for that hope. NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre responded by saying that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The NRA is now calling on Congress to put an armed guard in every school in America.

That’s right: the answer to gun violence is more guns.

Years ago one of the NRA’s tag lines was “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Clearly gun violence happens only in combination of guns and people; I used to joke that the difference between the NRA and me was that I wanted to eliminate the guns and the NRA wanted to eliminate the people. I didn’t realize how right I was until now. They argue that the world is divided into good people and bad people, that bad people will always have access to guns no matter what we do, and (we) good people have to make sure we’re not outgunned.

Their “reasoning” is silly (and dangerous) on so many levels. First and foremost, we simply can’t divide our nation between good people and bad people: it’s not that simple. The overwhelming majority of us would never dream of turning a gun on anyone and I’ll admit that even nations that have restrictive gun laws haven’t completely eliminated gun violence. But we have way too many murders in this country only because there is easy access to guns, and guns that are too powerful for any other use.

Sandy Hook is a good example. We still don’t know the shooter’s motive but we do know what happened. His mother legally owned a number of powerful weapons. He had access to them and used them to kill 26 people and himself. If assault weapons were illegal there is no indication that he would have had the interest or opportunity to obtain them illegally. Whatever rage, loneliness, or other demon lived in his soul may have found a violent outlet, but it wouldn’t have killed 20 children and 6 adults.

Second, the NRA “solution” likely would not have worked. The shooter shot his way through the front door of the school. Had there been an armed guard in school he would have had to be at the entrance the shooter used (did your elementary school have only one entrance?) and be able to accurately fire the first shot. In my previous post I spoke of Texas Congressman Louie Gohmer’s suggestion that if the principal had been armed she could have prevented this. Yes, but only if she was carrying the gun and was able to outshoot an assault rifle.

And finally, we need to stop listening to the voices who insist that more guns equal more safety. The shooter’s mother was killed by her own weapon, and any gun in a school has the potential to be used accidentally. Lock it up? Sure, but that makes my point: any gun that is secured won’t be instantly available if needed.

We don’t need more guns. We need to get rid of the these “personal weapons of mass destruction.” Yes, I made that up.

And again, we need to tell our representatives that the NRA may target their seats, but they cannot target my vote.

It's Time to Stop the Moment of Silence. It's Time To Do Something

You would have to live in a cave not to hear about the events on Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. It’s been an awful weekend for anyone with a conscience.

I have lots of feelings about this, but I have to confess I keep coming back to the issue of gun violence and the Second Amendment. I’m one of the people who believe that the 2nd Amendment mandates only a National Guard. Alas, the Supreme Court found in the case of District of Coumbia vs. Heller that there is an individual right to private gun ownership.

I’m willing to concede the right to own guns for hunting or protecting your home and family. I don’t have any desire to hunt and I worry that a gun for my own protection could be used against me (as it was with the shooter’s mother Nancy Lanza). But this allows for a fairly narrow slice of the guns we own. If you want to hunt you will probably use a rifle or a shotgun. Rifles normally carry 5 rounds before needing to reload. Shotguns need to be reloaded after one or two shots. If you’re hunting game this makes some sense.

If you have a gun for personal protection your needs can be met with a simple revolver. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night it’s hard to imagine that 6 shots won’t do what needs to be done.

I’m troubled by the proliferation of assault weapons. The last few decades have shown us rifles and handguns with incredibly high firepower. Adam Lanza showed up at Sandy Hook Elementary School with three guns: a Bushmaster Assault Rifle, a Glock 9mm pistol, and a SIG Sauer 9mm pistol. According to news reports he had hundreds of bullets and could have killed every teacher and child in the school. He shot himself only when he heard the sound of sirens. There are variations but the Bushmaster clip holds 30 rounds and is easy to reload.

Is this what our founders had in mind? I don’t think so. High power guns with huge clips are not designed for hunting or protecting. They are made for mass violence and they are incredibly successful. Had the shooter needed to reload after only 5 or 6 shots someone might have been able to disarm him.

We keep having the massacres, and yet we keep having these weapons. Why? The NRA and other gun lobbies are incredibly successful in convincing a small but powerful number of us that banning these guns won’t solve anything. They are also successful in telling our lawmakers that they will defeat any candidate who opposes them. The Sunday news shows covered the massacre and had no trouble finding people like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Senator Dianne Feinstein talking about the need for sensible gun legislation. The pro gun lobby was largely silent; the exception was Texas Representative Louie Gohmer who said that if the school principal had been armed she could have stopped the massacre.

Talk radio was not silent. Rush Limbaugh said this on his show Monday: “[P]art of the [liberal] agenda that was being advanced was, of course, gun control. And there was glee, there was excitement at the opportunity that was presented here.” Sorry, I can’t bring myself to link to Rush’s page. You can find it on the transcript on his web page.

I’m pretty outraged at being told that my reaction to this massacre was glee. This is not an opportunity to talk about sensible gun control, the massacre is reason we need to have this discussion.

For those of us who favor sensible legislation about guns, it’s time to move. It’s time to write to our representatives and tell them that we will support sensible legislation, no matter how much the NRA tries to block it. We need to tell them that we will not vote for NRA backed candidates, no matter how much money they spend.

We need our legislators to know that our vote is safe.

My prayers are with the victims.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 10: There He Goes Again (Hopefully for the Last time)

It’s been five days since the election and binders have been written about what happened and why. The day after the election Governor Romney held a conference call with major donors (that CNN and other news organizations joined) about what happened. This was his chance to be magnanimous, thank his supporters, and move on. That’s what he did in his concession speech.

Instead, he stated that President Obama won the election by pandering to the voters. He said (and this comes from multiple sources on a few different phone calls):

  • What the president, president’s campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote
  • With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift
  • Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women
  • And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008

The best part of this? I don’t even need to react because other Republicans already have.

Newt Gingrich said this: I just think it’s nuts. I mean, first of all, it’s insulting. The job of a political leader in part is to understand the people. If we can’t offer a better future that is believable to more people, we’re not going to win.

Piyush (Bobby) Jindal: [A winning strategy] does not involve insulting [voters] and saying their votes were bought. I’m proud to have campaigned for him across the country, but I absolutely reject what he said. Look, we as the Republican Party have to campaign for every single vote. If we want people to like us, we have to like them first. And you don’t start to like people by insulting them and saying their votes were bought.

Lindsay Graham: Rhetoric like this keeps digging a hole for the Republican party. We’re in a big hole. We’re not getting out of it by comments like [Romney’s]. When you’re in a hole, stop digging. He keeps digging.

To this I add only this: Justice is not a gift. Providing people what they need is the role of government. I’m grateful Romney lost.

PS: You can still order Romney campaign stuff on his webpage.

It's Still Not Settled But Going In the Right Direction

Yesterday I blogged that Scott Peters is pulling ahead of Brian Bilbray. It’s still too close to call, but every day Scott’s advantage gets bigger. Last Thursday Scott was ahead by only 565 votes. By Monday Scott was ahead by 1899 votes; Tuesday Scott was ahead by 2660 votes, and today he’s ahead by 2948 votes. Every day his lead increases. I have to confess a little satisfaction here. When I moved to San Diego in 1997 Brian Bilbray was my congressman in the 49th district and was reelected in 1998. In 2000 Susan Davis defeated Brian. He then moved to the 50th district and ran for the seat vacated by Randy “Duke” Cunningham who was in prison. It seemed like a safe Republican seat. It was until Randy and Brian ran. To be fair, the district changed after the 2010 census (including my home) and included more Democrats. In any case I’m celebrating the fact that I’ve been able to turn Brian out twice