From the Unfortunate Juxtaposition Department, Governor Dennis Daugaard is away in Connecticut trying to convince gun manufacturers that South Dakota is a great place for guns. Meanwhile, South Dakota law enforcement scrambles to deal with gunslingers whom we shouldn't trust with guns.
First, a guy with a history of domestic violence and alleged mental illness shoots two people and himself in Clear Lake:
Brett M. Pommer barricaded himself in his home after allegedly shooting two females before 9 p.m., according to the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office. SWAT teams from Codington County and Highway Patrol found Pommer’s body after no contact was made when they attempted to negotiate.
...Three women, including Pommer’s then-wife, have filed protection orders against him since 2003. Pommer and his wife divorced earlier this year with the wife citing adultery and irreconcilable differences, according to Deuel County court documents. The couple had married in 2005 and lived at 925 Third Ave., the same address where the shooting took place.
Last September, Pommer’s wife filed a protection order against him in Deuel County after he allegedly threw their son on a basement couch while the two were watching TV, according to court documents. His wife stated in the documents that they were in the process of getting a divorce and Pommer was bipolar and did not always take his medication [Dalton Walker, "Clear Lake Shooting Suspect Had History of Domestic Violence, Documents Show," that Sioux Falls paper, 2013.06.18].
And in West River, police have to shoot a rifle-toting two-time three-time DUI convict and parole jumper:
Travis Will Ross, 43, was shot after he brandished a rife at two Pennington County deputies and a South Dakota Highway Patrol trooper about three miles east of New Underwood on U.S. Highway 14/16.
...According to the South Dakota Department of Corrections, Ross was paroled from a third-offense felony DUI conviction on Nov. 30, 2012. He was paroled to Newell, but was listed as absconded from parole on March 27.
Ross had two third-offense DUIs in just over two years, according to court records.
Ross received a probationary sentence for a third-offense DUI arrest in Pennington County in June 2009, but violated his probation. As a result, he was sentenced to two years in prison in November 2009.
He was apparently on parole when he was again arrested for third-offense DUI in Jackson County in August 2011. That arrest earned him an 18-month sentence that was served consecutive to his parole violation [Andrea J. Cook, "Man Shot by Officers Wanted for Parole Violations," Rapid City Journal, 2013.06.19].
As far as I can tell, South Dakota law doesn't prohibit guys like Pommer and Ross from possessing firearms, because holy cow, you never know when you'll need bipolar child abusers and habitual drunks to join the militia and fight North Korean invaders. You've got to be convicted for a crime of violence or felony drug activity to lose your gun rights in South Dakota. Domestic violence will forfeit your gun rights for just one year.
So come on in, Colt, Stag, and friends! The shooting is fine in South Dakota!
Third time DUI offenders only lose their drivers license for a year, too.
I worry much more about being run over by a drunk than shot by one. Alcohol abuse doesn't necessitate violence, and so should not be a factor for infringing on the right to bear arms (especially on a permanent or long-term basis).
Domestic violence is a different story. But again, should a history of domestic violence justify permanent removal of rights to firearms? Should a history of mental health issues permanently limit one's ability to own a firearm?
Connecticut is now saying even if you willingly seek treatment for mental health issues, you lose your right to bear arms. What kind of message does that send?
I'll bite: A guy can do a lot of damage with a car. A guy can do a lot of damage with a firearm. Operating both requires personal control. If one demonstrates an inability to control oneself (e.g., stay sober), can we make an argument that one should not be allowed near such dangerous equipment?
This Governor is not the first to recruit firearms manufacturers. To my way of thinking this is a shame. Making money on pain and suffering. Much like Vidio Lottery.
"Connecticut is now saying even if you willingly seek treatment for mental health issues, you lose your right to bear arms. What kind of message does that send?"
So your right to bear arms is more important then my right to not get shot by somebody with mental health issues?
It's a worthwhile conversation to have, Cory.
If a person is a habitual drunk, but ~doesn't~ ever drive drunk, should he have his drivers license revoked? If someone is a non-violent alcoholic, there's no cause to say his/her rights to own firearms should be revoked.
We could argue the morbidly obese lack personal control as well. Does that mean they shouldn't be able to operate motor vehicles or own firearms?
It's reasonable to sculpt our policies of limiting freedoms based upon where the abuses actually reside, and make them proportional to the risk. Is it right to say one domestic violence charge should prevent a person from owning a firearm for more than a year? More than five? A lifetime?
I'm no more willing to expansively restrict people's right to own firearms than I am to expansively suspend the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures without due process.
Owen,
If we penalize people who willingly seek help, will they be likely to seek help?
If everyone who signed up willingly to AA automatically lost their drivers license, do you think people would willingly join? If people who went to drug rehab got jail time for doing drugs, do you think they'd go?
You have every right to be free from bullet holes. But if someone has the presence of mind to reach out for help, should our society punish them for doing it?
I'm sorry, but if I had to reach out for help, but knew doing so would mean I could never hunt again, I'd be in an even worse place. You may scoff, but hunting with my family & friends is a huge part of my overall mental wellbeing. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Our legal system is so clunky; we don't distinguish between people who are violent or dangerous to others, and those who might be dangerous to themselves. We ought to.
US is spending $1.5 Billion to build a computer facility to store phone and other records. 3,000 people were killed by terrorists 12 years ago. In the meantime, something like 120,000 people have been killed by drunken drivers. Since the kids in Connecticut were shot to death in the school, 5000 more US citizens have died in gun violence.
All the $billions spent on capturing messages may have save a few dozen lives, but even that may be an exaggeration.
Meanwhile congress is still trying how to stop 10 million illegal aliens from polluting the USA and has a half dozen or so committees investigating the IRS instead of the mediocre laws Congress writes for the IRS, and the US House has now voted something like 32 times to kill "Obamacare".
Might there be something wrong with the US Congress?
Because of Mr. Pommer's domestic violence history, I believe he has lost his right to bear arms under federal law. SD should create a database of those who have lost their right to bear arms and report those names to the federal government. It would be relatively easy to get a list of these names from court system computers. But we don't make that list and we don't report that list to the feds. Rep. Hunhoff tried to do something about that, but the GOP killed his bill this year.
Shouldn't South Dakota cooperate to keep guns out of the hands of those who are ineligible to bear arms? The GOP apparently would rather see guns in the hands of barred individuals than cooperate with the federal government to prevent this.
Wayne B,
I'd admire that someone has reached out for help but I don't see why until that person has recovered, we can't restrict a person from buying a gun. Now I'm talking about someone with a violent illness.
I also think that somebody would go for help to help there overall life not just because they don't want to lose their license.
A person convicted of a DUI can lose his license and if he completes treatment and the court orders he can get his license back.
I realize that people will still be able to get guns just like people will drink and drive. But we have to try to do something.
I'm not unwilling to entertain ideas, Owen. By all means, if someone is dangerous to others, I don't disagree that while they're receiving help, their access to firearms should be limited/restricted entirely.
But the law Connecticut created said minimum 5 years after someone willingly checks in to a mental health facility. Someone may suffer from acute situational depression, be suicidal, and need immediate help... but once that situation and the crisis has passed, there's no good reason to say their right to own a gun has been forfeited for 5 years.
For others, who suffer serious violent mental illnesses, it may never be right to own a weapon.
But our legal system is painting in broad strokes, and they're not allowing for the nuances which should be taken into consideration.
I still don't think people will seek help if they know they'll get punished for it. When someone's CAUGHT and given a DUI, it makes sense to revoke their license, and mandate AA to get it back. But to mandate anyone who volunteers to go to AA before ever getting a DUI that they must surrender their license? I don't think you'll see many participants.
I think you're comparing apples to oranges a bit Wayne.
If a person hasn't done anything and goes in to get help for a possible mental illness I agree that nothing should happen. But if he goes in and the doctor decides without intense thearapy this person could hurt himself or someone else I think he shouldn't be able to go buy a gun unless a doctor says he's healed.
The alternative is to wait until this person shoots a person or people and then take away his gun. Seems a little late then.
A lot of "if's" for sure.
But back to what Cory wrote about. For some reason it just seems wrong to try to attract gun businesses from a state where such a horrific shooting occured. Maybe its just me
Good. Bring them all here. Guns are not the problem. Stupid people are.....case in point..... Chicago.
If a drug company wanted to come to SD do we turn them away because people abuse OxyContin? If GMC wants to build a plant in Sioux Falls we tell them no because people drive their product when drunk? Your whole theory is idiotic liberal blather. A free society has people who misbehave. You chose to make this an issue because as a liberal democrat, you are too blind to think for yourself.
well Wayne I'll give you credit. We might disagree but we were having agood friendly discussion.
Then along comes right0winger like Jesse. Name calling is the only thing he knows how to do. No your Jesse your the blind one
Owen, I notice you don't take issue with my premise. You simply do exactly what you accuse me of doing. Ironic.
your analogies are poor. a drunk driver hasn't walked into a school and killed 26 people.
But I'm sure I'll be ripped for saying that. I was having a good discussion with Wayne. No name calling just talk.
then along came you.
I am not talking about specific acts. The premise here is that we should not encourage firearm companies to move to SD because a mentally ill person shot someone here. Now you want to equate Newtown as a reason not to allow them here? Why? Drunk drivers have certainly killed children. Lots more than guns. And again, you believe it is okay to "name call" someone you disagree with and fail to see the irony in your post.
Wayne, you're right: we don't want to get too expansive in restricting rights. But the DUI analogy may stick better than my comment-question suggests. My general statement that demonstrating a lack of self-control may forfeit right to use dangerous equipment opens the door to the examples you give of simple drunkenness or obesity. But let's keep it specifically behind the wheel. We don't yank a license from the guy who seeks treatment or even from the guy who gets busted walking home drunk. We yank the license from the guy we catch driving while intoxicated. (Hey, this just sprang to mind: if the game warden finds hunters drinking too much beer, do the hunters lose their hunting licenses? Could we take away their right to carry a gun?)
Now to extend the analogy (no one makes law this way, I suppose, but this is fun!), I seem to recall being told in driver's ed that a car is like a loaded weapon and that we have to treat it with the same respect. If cars and guns are similarly lethal, could we justify tying them together? If you drive drunk, we can't trust you with either a car or a firearm?
Jesse, I see nothing idiotic, blind, or inherently "liberal" (in the shorthand negative connotation you apply to it) about limiting industries based on moral concerns and the externalities their products impose on society. We do it with firearms, gambling, tobacco, alcohol, and pornography, setting limits on where such activities may take place and who may participate. Our conservative state legislature does it in its continuing rejection of proposals to develop a horse slaughter plant in South Dakota. We can oppose the construction of a large fertilizer plant near any South Dakota town out of concern that it might explode due to careless corporate practices. We can oppose running the Keystone XL pipeline through South Dakota out of a desire to fight the national addiction to oil.
Maybe we should compare firearm manufacturers to slot machine makers. Both produce a product of limited utility and significant social risk. Both produce a product that, when misused, can lead to person ruin. Rather than devoting our resources to those industries, why not direct more of our resources to industries like farming/food processing, residential/commercial construction, auto/bike manufacturing, etc., that have more net social utility?
But Cory, I think you're glossing over the answer you provided in your own argument:
"But let's keep it specifically behind the wheel. We don't yank a license from the guy who seeks treatment or even from the guy who gets busted walking home drunk. We yank the license from the guy we catch driving while intoxicated."
So why would we yank the right to possess firearms from the guy who's got an alcohol problem, but doesn't have a problem with violence? If we can't preemptively remove drivers licenses from drunkards until they get behind the wheel, why should we make a special exception for firearms? If it's that hard to restrict a privilege, it should be at least as hard to restrict a right.
I'm not glossing; I'm just trying to draw a reasonable line. We agree that we don't like pre-emptive Minority-Report-style restrictions. I'm just wondering if we could draw a "dangerous equipment" line that equates automobiles and firearms in terms of expected responsibility/sobriety of operation.
Privilege vs right: I'm going to rewalk old ground here, but automobiles provide much more daily utility than guns, yet we treat automobile operation as a privilege revocable for all manner of infractions and treat gun ownership as a much-harder-to-violate right. Why is that?
Called the Second Amendment. Nothing in constitution about cars.
The Constitution isn't always right. I'm asking whether the relative utility of cars and guns shows that the Constitution is a little out of touch with modern reality.