State congressional leaders Mace and Grooms answer the reader survey on gun violence solutions

Editor’s Note: This week we provide our readers with responses from State Representative Nancy Mace and State Senator Larry Grooms to The Daniel Island News reader survey on gun violence solutions. We have also asked representatives from other levels of local, state and federal government to respond and plan to provide their comments in future editions.

1. Do you support legislation that would ban the ownership of assault weapons like the one used in the Florida school shooting?

Nancy Mace (NM): No. Please note we already have laws on the books to prohibit gun purchases for violent criminals, felony offenders, criminal domestic violence offenders, and known drug addicts as a few examples; we need to also look at those adjudicated mentally incompetent. If someone threatens to shoot up a school, they shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm until they’ve been evaluated.

Larry Grooms (LG): No. I do not support an outright ban on that type of unmodified rifle. I do support appropriate limitations on the types of weapons that can be owned by certain individuals. I believe there is a fundamental right of gun ownership as a means of self-protection for law-abiding clear-thinking citizens. That includes the ownership of rifles.

2. Do you support legislation that would provide for arming classroom teachers?

NM: Right now there is no legislation in the House that would allow for teachers to be armed. However, I do anticipate legislation will be filed this session. Before I vote on such a bill I would carefully study any such proposal. But let me say this, I believe school districts, school boards and parents know what’s best for their children and schools at the local level. I would most likely leave that decision to them. That being said, many school districts already do have a similar function in place now with School Resource Officers (SRO) who are professionally trained law enforcement officers, armed on school grounds. I would support funding to ensure any school that wants one on site, has the ability to do so. Lastly, we need to have a real conversation about non-lethal and lethal counter measures in our schools.

LG: No. I do not support statewide across the board legislation that would arm classroom teachers. I do support efforts by local districts and other school officials to assess individual threats and to respond appropriately. Decisions to arm a teacher or other school officials should only be made on a case by case basis.

3. Do you support legislation that would prohibit the sale of guns to people with a history of mental illness?

NM: Yes, after the person has been afforded due process under the law and adjudicated with mental incompetence. Similar to how you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater, the Second Amendment is not absolute, we are allowed reasonable restrictions as such with an individual found mentally incompetent. Ninety-seven percent of crimes with a firearm are committed by individuals who stole the firearm. Most gun crimes are in metropolitan areas with the most gun control. So, we need to understand that responsible, law-abiding gun owners are not the problem.

LG: No. I do not support a permanent ban that would prohibit the sale of guns to people who have some sort of mental illness treatment in their past. There are many types and varieties of mental illnesses. Some are short lived and never reoccur, while others are chronic and last a lifetime. People who are not a threat to themselves or others should have the right to purchase a gun. The right of self-protection should not be denied to those who sought and received medical treatment for a non-recurring medical condition.

4. Do you support any limitation on gun ownership? YES or NO

NM: Yes, in matters of mental health incompetence, violent criminals, felony offenders, criminal domestic violence offenders, and known drug addicts, for example. I also believe someone who threatens to shoot up a school, shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm until they’ve been evaluated and adjudicated. This is just common sense - and what is only going to make matters more dangerous - is disarming trained, law-abiding gun owners.

LG: Yes. I support appropriate common-sense limitations on the types of firearms that can be owned by certain individuals. I believe there is a fundamental right of gun ownership as a means of self-protection for law-abiding clear-thinking citizens. Gun ownership for hunting and other recreational activities should also be protected. However, there are classes of weapons that should be tightly controlled for civilian use and there are other types of weapons that should only be possessed by the military. Gun rights should not be extended to criminals who have deprived others of their fundamental rights to life and property. Gun rights should not be extended to those with mental issues who pose a threat to themselves or others.

5. Do you think gun violence in schools and other public spaces can be prevented? If so, how?

NM: Yes. I want to point out that Nikolas Cruz made multiple threats to shoot up a school, but nothing was done about it. On Thursday I submitted a bill that is a companion bill to Senator Sandy Senn’s S431 which would make it a crime to threaten to cause injury, death or property damage to a school with a dangerous weapon. Senator Senn filed it a year ago in the senate. S431 passed out of committee Thursday. We can’t act soon enough on this. This is the first bill I’ve filed in the House. In South Carolina, we have Dylan Roof who failed a background check 10 days after the mass shooting at Mother Emanuel AME. Due to a loophole, he was able to purchase a firearm in three days when he should never have been afforded the opportunity. We already have prohibitions within the system to prevent guns from getting into the hands of bad guys. And sadly, the SRO and Broward County Sheriffs on site at Marjory Stoneman HS did not respond during the shooting. As in South Carolina and most recently in Florida, the laws in place weren’t good enough because they weren’t followed. I will take a pragmatic approach to this issue, looking at it from every angle while also respecting our constitutional rights. In order to strengthen our state laws, I’m exploring additional legislation, such as extending background check timeframes on purchases, regulations around the sale of bump stocks, age limits on certain firearms, additional funding for armed School Resource Officers at every school. I believe we should have a lengthy conversation about improving security measures and non-lethal and lethal counter measures at schools. For example, the use of flash bangs by school administrators or teachers who receive adequate training; ensuring limited entrances to school buildings and placing RFID chips on School ID cards so as to only allow students to enter those entrances; other measures might include bulletproof glass, outdoor metal detectors, a lockbox with a firearm for use by a trained school administrator, clear backpacks, etc. These are just a few I’ve begun to explore. I know we can do better, but let me be very clear: We are only as strong as the laws we follow.

LG: Criminal violence committed with guns can be prevented from occurring in schools just as it is being prevented from occurring in the White House, in the US Capitol and in thousands of government buildings across our country. Our children deserve no less than the same protections that I receive when working in our Statehouse. Criminal terrorists are not much different from foreign terrorists in that they attack when and where they feel safe to do so. Our post 911 society lives differently than we once did. We pass through metal detectors before entering most government buildings. We subject ourselves to various and sometimes intrusive searches before boarding commercial aircraft. We allow our government access to private information on those that may be colluding with foreign terrorists. We have changed the architecture, design, facility layouts for all military and federal facilities and we should do the same for school campuses. The question becomes how far do we go in securing our schools, businesses and homes. How far do we go in arming protectors to stand guard over us? How much freedom are we willing to sacrifice? Gun control advocates believe the answer is in passing stronger gun control measures. That notion might be appealing to certain politically active groups, but it will do nothing to advance the safety of our children and our citizens. If gun control measures worked as their advocates claim, then Detroit would the safest city in America but instead it is our country’s most dangerous. We need to apply the successful anti-terrorism principles to the criminal terrorism that is taking place on school campuses across the country.

6. Is there anything else you would like to add?

NM: Yes. I want to ask that folks carefully consider how they approach people when discussing some of these controversial subjects either in person or on social media. We should be rational and respectful in communicating our ideas and solutions without fear of emotional, social or, heaven forbid, physical reprisal. There is not a single person in our country who doesn’t prioritize the safety of our children, myself included. Neither the government nor our neighbor should ever infringe on our right of individual liberty to express our beliefs and opinions or our rights as individuals to responsibly own firearms.

LG: The natural right of self-defense is enshrined in the 2nd Amendment of our US Constitution. Our citizens have a constitutional and a natural right to defend themselves against criminals that prey on the weak and defenseless. This defense includes the possession and if necessary the use of a firearm. I firmly respect this right and will continue in my efforts to protect this right. The spread of criminal violence into the doors of schools is something that cannot be ignored. I am convinced that we must change the tone and rhetoric regarding gun rights versus gun control and concentrate on real measures that will keep our children and our citizens safe. By implementing successful strategies and applying common sense logic we can make a difference.