Jump to content

IL Congressman Rodney Davis Responds to IL Gun Owner


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts on gun violence. The horrific shootings that took place in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, demonstrate the need for us to come together to enact change, to better enforce our laws, and to strengthen our mental health policies. As someone who experienced a mass shooting, this issue is extremely personal to me.

 

On the morning of August 3, 2019, a 21-year-old individual shot and killed 22 people and injured many others at a Walmart in El Paso. Police took the individual into custody. In Dayton, on August 4, 2019, a 24-year-old opened fire at the entrance of a bar fatally shooting nine people while injuring several others. Police killed the shooter at the scene of the crime. In both the El Paso and Dayton shootings, the shooters passed a background check and legally purchased their firearms. The changes proposed and passed by House Democrats earlier this year would not have stopped these heinous acts from occurring.

 

For this reason, Congress should work in a bipartisan manner to enact lasting change that will make a difference. Some pieces of legislation I support that accomplish this goal include H.R. 744, the Protecting Our Communities and Rights Act of 2019, and H.R. 838, the Threat Assessment, Prevention, and Safety Act. H.R. 744 is a bipartisan red flag bill that empowers states to establish laws enacting extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) that do not infringe upon an individual’s constitutional rights, ERPOs allow law enforcement or family members to petition a court to limit an individual’s access to firearms if the individual poses a significant threat to themselves or others. If the red flag law is passed in Congress, it would be the most significant gun control legislation passed in twenty years. H.R. 838, a bipartisan bill having support of 57 Republicans and 57 Democrats, helps states and local communities reduce possible threats by developing behavioral threat assessment and management systems. Both the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Capitol Police use these types of systems to prevent attacks. When combined, these pieces of legislation ensure that individuals who should not have guns do not, and that law enforcement is better able to coordinate and communicate in times of crisis.

 

Furthermore, to address the issue of gun violence the federal government should better enforce current law and strengthen access to mental health services. Under a Republican-controlled Congress, I helped pass three pieces of legislation that the President signed into law achieving this purpose. First, in 2016, Congress passed H.R. 34, the 21st Century Cures Act, legislation that overhauled our mental health laws so that we as a nation can better assist individuals struggling with mental health issues. Secondly, in 2018, Congress passed the STOP School Violence Act, legislation that strengthens school security. Thirdly, and also in 2018, Congress passed the FIX NICS bill, legislation that improves our criminal background check system to ensure information barring an individual from purchasing a firearm is up to date.

 

I believe enacting change and better enforcing our current laws will help increase safety, but measures passed in Washington alone will not prevent every tragedy. We must do all we can to ensure units of government, from the local to the federal level, work together to prevent future tragedies. Be assured, I’ll keep your concerns in mind as Congress continues to address the issue of gun violence in America. I continue to pray for all of the victims in El Paso, Dayton, and beyond.

Sincerely,

 

0e1d2132-0ab9-48de-872b-087eb2fd6642.jpg

 

Rodney Davis

Member of Congress

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Vote Republican if you support gun rights...

 

Not working anymore, is it guys? So what's next?

 

It still works a whole lot better than voting the other way, especially at the National level.

 

Yes it does. And that's their "ace in the hole".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In reading his statement, it appears that he is trying to walk the line while resisting additional gun control schemes. Probably a smart move. The dems think that his seat may be in play. With census redistricting in the works, dem control of the process, and an opposing candidate who wasn't far behind last time, they may be right. I'd rather he sound bipartisan and get reelected; but be on our side than be pure as blowing snow and not get elected. Him extolling his 2nd amendment support at the coffee shop is nice; but having that vote in congress is what counts.

 

Last election, I think I asked some if they would prefer Kirk or Duckworth. Even RINOs count towards having the majority and having the majority is pretty big. Now, I ask if you would prefer Rodney (on the hot seat for voting against gun control bills) or a Dem (Dirksen Londrigan) who is strongly endorsed and supported by Dick Durbin?

 

https://will.illinois.edu/election2018/13th-congressional-district

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/election-results/illinois-13th-congressional-district/

 

https://www.wglt.org/post/davis-wins-re-election-13th-congressional-district#stream/0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of us were discussing the so called Red Flag laws the other day. I understand the premise behind it but the focus is all wrong. I can somewhat agree that there could be a need to separate someone who is having serious mental issues from something that could prove to be deadly. But unfortunately, instead of focusing on getting the person the help they need, they just focus on illegally removing weapons from the location and that's it. If they were serious about making a difference, instead of focusing on the guns, take custody of the individual and have him/her taken for an emergency evaluation. If proven through the evaluation that he/she is truly a danger, then the decision to confiscate the guns can be decided. There would be no issue as the person involved is getting the help they need and not on the premise and would be safer for everyone. But this whole thing as it stands now is rife for abuse as has been pointed out numerous times. A SJW could make a false allegation just to have guns confiscated. With my suggestion, I think the abuse would drop because the guns are not immediately confiscated and the SJW wouldnt get appeased. But coming in the middle of the night and storming the house is also not necessary and dangerous for everyone involved unless there was an extreme emergency. And there are better ways that it could be handled even in pre dawn hours.

 

I dont know why this isnt part of the discussion. Another problem I see that would arise is if other people live there and legally own firearms. By having the firearms confiscated, it denies the others their constitutional right to those firearms. That would need to be addressed as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . . I understand the premise behind it but the focus is all wrong. I can somewhat agree that there could be a need to separate someone who is having serious mental issues from something that could prove to be deadly. But unfortunately, instead of focusing on getting the person the help they need, they just focus on illegally removing weapons from the location and that's it. If they were serious about making a difference, instead of focusing on the guns, take custody of the individual and have him/her taken for an emergency evaluation. If proven through the evaluation that he/she is truly a danger, then the decision to confiscate the guns can be decided. There would be no issue as the person involved is getting the help they need and not on the premise and would be safer for everyone. . .

 

I dont know why this isnt part of the discussion. . .

 

 

This was our biggest argument! We presented it to every single legislator, in committee, to the Dem. and Republican legal counsels, and even the legal counsel in the Gov's administration. We were fought hard for this. However, every single person, including legal counsel with federal experience, kept saying this can not be done because of civil rights????

 

The only time a person with obvious signs of being a danger to themselves or others can be taken into custody and taken for mental evaluation is when an officer observes the behavior and then they can only take the person to an emergency room for health/mental check, the process proceeds from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that there does have to be some kind of a basis for an emergency evaluation as well. It cant be just a complaint and an automatic emergency evaluation because that process is also a situation that could be abused. Especially here in Illinois having to deal with the ridiculous FOID cards which could put a constitutional right in jeopardy. But if the talking heads feel there is a "justified" basis to confiscate weapons, they should also have a duty to ensure that help is provided to the accused. What is to prevent someone who has been labeled mentally ill and dangerous from acquiring another gun or butcher knives, a car or any other host of objects that can be turned into a weapon...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...