Judging Roy Moore

I have been giving some though to the allegations against Roy Moore.

Even before these allegations were made, I already believed Roy Moore is one of the few politicians around even less qualified for office than Donald Trump. Unlike Trump, Roy Moore has already been removed from office for misconduct not once, but twice. His misconduct was not some trivial nonsense not related to his job – he was removed because he refused to follow orders from higher courts. When any government official refuses to obey lawful court orders, that’s bad enough. But Moore was a Justice on the State Supreme Court whose refusal to follow orders disrespected the very office he held, and that shows a lack of character and integrity.

Now, I do not for one minute think the Washington Post made these allegations up in an effort to discredit the judge. Their investigation was very thorough. They interviewed over 30 people in order to corroborate the allegations. They were very transparent and complete in their reporting. Regardless of whether you agree with their editorial board on its opinions, the news department at the Post is completely separate from the editorial board, and has a stellar reputation for its integrity and professionalism that runs back many decades.

I also believe the women who made these allegations. They have nothing to gain by coming forward at this time. Their stories are believable, and the dates and times match up with verified events. What makes these women even more believable is that their allegations do not include actual rape or forced sexual acts other than one attempt to get the girl to touch his underwear. If one were to make these stories up, the more lurid and outrageous the behavior, the greater the slander would be.

But here is where I have some issues:

In this country, we are innocent until proven guilty. Since the statute of limitations has long since run out on all of these allegations, there will be no criminal charges, and no trial to prove his guilt.
I realize that we are not talking about legal prosecutions. We are talking about public opinion and an upcoming election. But I would still like to know the whole story before passing judgement.

The timing of these allegations immediately arouses some suspicion. After all, it’s been 40 years. Why now? It’s easy to think that these women came forward because of a political agenda, but I doubt that. At least one of them appears to be Republican and voted for Trump in the past election. A more credible explanation for the timing is that it seems to coincide with the current changing of attitudes toward sexual harassment we are seeing with the release of allegations against other public figures in the past few weeks.

There is another point to consider. Unlike the allegations against Weinstein, Spacey, Trump, C.K., and others whose sexual improprieties were much more recent and continued until the allegations were made public, all of the allegations against Moore allegedly occurred 40 years ago, and there are no allegations of his behaving inappropriately (sexually) since that time. By all accounts, he has been happily married and faithful for over 35 years.

However, he was no kid when these acts allegedly happened. He was 30 years old, and an attorney. He definitely should have known better.

But how appropriate is it to judge and punish someone for alleged bad acts that occurred forty years ago, but has led an exemplary life since that time? There is a reason we have statutes of limitations on almost all crimes except murder. Had any of these women come forward back then, he could have been properly tried, convicted, punished, and given a chance to rebuild his life.

In this case, however, it may indeed be appropriate to consider these allegations. For, if they are true, we are not talking about a mistake or a lapse in judgement. We are talking about a man in a position of power taking sexual advantage of children. This shows a complete lack of character. While you can atone for bad acts and not repeat them, you cannot change your character; you can only mask it. And let’s not forget it was the children’s fear of his power over them that prevented them from coming forward at the time.

I don’t live in Alabama, and I won’t be voting in that election. The voters of Alabama will have to make up their own minds as whether to believe the women or believe Judge Moore. It may come down to a question of character, and, as I stated at the beginning of this post, Judge Moore already demonstrated on at least two occasions that he is not a man of character and integrity.

Use Common Sense, People: Demand Universal Background Checks

I thank God that a good and decent citizen was armed and willing to take on that madman in Texas yesterday.  If he had not intervened, who knows how many more people would have died?   We are blessed to live in a free country.  But freedom is not free.  We have the right and the duty to defend ourselves, and I’ll be damned if I will allow any politician to ever force me into a position where I have to take a knife to a gunfight.  Don’t ever doubt my support for the Second Amendment. 

But I also believe in common sense gun control laws. Background checks must be universal and without exception.  There should be a reasonable waiting period before you can take possession of a gun.  Last month, I stated this on my Facebook page and asked for comments from anybody who disagreed.  None did.  Even the NRA once supported universal background checks. 

In 1999, Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, stated to a Congressional Panel, “We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone.”

Supporting background checks does not mean you don’t support the Second Amendment. Supporting background checks does not mean you want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Background checks cannot take guns away in any event since they are done before you even get the weapon.

Last month, the Las Vegas shooter used bump-stocks in his shooting spree, which allowed him to kill many more people. Bump-stocks are legal because of a loophole in the law outlawing automatic weapons.  This could have been fixed by a one-page bill that could have been passed quickly and easily by Congress.  Several such bills were introduced.

But Paul Ryan blocked them.  His reason?  “This is better handled at the regulatory level.”  What a crock!  Isn’t this one of the same politicians who is constantly complaining about over-regulation and government bureaucracy?   He is just scared to do the right thing and has taken the coward’s way out by trying to pass the buck. 

What even worse, The Trump Administration has actually WEAKENED laws already on the books.  Earlier this year they REMOVED a requirement that the SSA coordinate with law enforcement to insure that those with disqualifying mental health issues would be flagged when a background check was performed.

We ALL need to take action.  

Call or write your congressman.   

Call or write the White House.    

Call or write the NRA.   

Now, anybody can complain about what is not working, but few have any answers. 

But I do have an IDEA.  Here is what I would like to see implemented:

First, let’s distinguish between the needs of most gun owners and the needs of gun enthusiasts.

I would propose that a background check be required before any one is allowed to purchase or possess a firearm.  That would not only include gun shows, but private transactions as well, even including gifts from family members and friends. No exceptions. Second, I would enact a 30-day waiting period before anyone could take possession of a firearm.  The 30-day waiting period could be waived by a judge if circumstances warranted.  Once you pass a background check and wait 30 days, you can purchase a firearm, but not an assault rifle or military-grade weapon.  You would also be limited to four guns per year.

Now, for the gun enthusiasts and collectors, I would propose a second program.  There would be a National Permit and would replace state concealed weapon permits.  To get the permit, you would have to pass a much more thorough background check with stricter requirements, take a gun safety course, and carry liability insurance.  But, once you have the permit, you could purchase a gun without any waiting period, and the merchant would only have to make a quick call to verify that the permit is still valid.  Permit holders could also take an extended safety course and would be allowed to purchase assault military-grade weapons, and would not be limited to four guns per year.  These National Permits be valid nationwide and would permit holders to carry concealed weapons wherever concealed weapons are allowed to be carried in each state. (States would still have to right to limit locations where they could be carried.)

All the background checks would be done through a single process, and all law enforcement agencies and courts would be required to report arrests and convictions to this single point. THIS IS NOT THAT HARD TO DO.  Private companies that provide background checks to employers already do this on their own.


Now, before people start writing their objections, read the remarks below:

I know we will never completely prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.   But every time we do prevent one, that means lives have been potentially saved.

I also realize that the only time we seem to talk about gun control is after one of these mass shootings.  It’s ironic that, in most cases, gun control laws probably would not stop them. These madman are crazy, but usually not stupid. They have the determination, time, and are willing to spent the effort to get guns illegally. They know they are probably going to die during the act, so they are not worried about breaking any laws.  (In yesterday’s case, a better background system might have prevented this tragedy.  This was a person who should never have passed a check.)

Background checks will not stop people who have no criminal past or history of mental illness.  But Universal Background checks will prevent common criminals from easily obtaining access.  They have already stopped over 3 million of them.  If we close the loopholes, we could stop many more. 

Waiting Periods will allow enraged persons time to cool down, and possibly allow deranged people more time to be noticed and helped by those around them.  A 30 day waiting period for the average person is not unreasonable.  If you are in a situation where you need a gun quicker than that, you probably are in a situation where you need more help than a gun would provide.  If you have time to get to a gun store, you have time to get to take actions that will not require the immediate use of a gun.