Good Morning,
My name is Neil Alexander, and I live in Selma.
I oppose the addition of an assistant district attorney whose only job is to prosecute gun violence and other gun crimes.
You may ask, “Why? Are you opposed to stopping gun violence?”
My answer is, of course I’m against gun violence. But I do not differentiate between baseball bats, kitchen knives, closed fists, rocks, tire irons, or guns. I am opposed to violence and force of any kind.
Again you may ask, “Why then deny the DA additional resources to fight violence? An additional prosecutor will allow us to put other prosecutors on other cases. Another body, you know.”
I respond that if the DA is not prosecuting violent crime regardless of weapon type, then we need to get another DA. The fact is, the grant you are seeking does not help the DA with violent crime.
The DA has been adequately prosecuting violent criminals already. And at the last commisioner’s meeting, it was acknowledged - I believe by commisioner Hauge, the there was funding left over from the levy.
The fact is, that according to the 1998 FBI Uniform Crime Reports, all violent crime in Josephine County is a little over 1/3rd the rate of the national violent crime rate. Also, according to the US Department of Justice, guns are used in only about one quarter of all violent crimes.
Violent gun crimes are relatively rare here in Josephine county. Sure, they happen, but there simply is NOT ENOUGH GUN SPECIFIC CRIME TO WARRANT A DEDICATED PROSECUTOR.
Let’s look at the requirements of the Grant, shall we? The new prosecutor is to be used for prosecuting gun violence and other gun crimes.
Other gun crimes. That is, crimes that are NOT robbery, rape, murder, and assault.
Ultimately, a prosecutor prosecutes a PERSON. Since the DA is already prosecuting violent criminals to the best of its ability. I can only wonder at the necessity of a separate prosecutor solely concerned with firearms. Even though he ostensibly releases resources for other crimes, the fact is that there simply is not enough gun violence in Josephine county to warrant this position.
In order to earn his pay, he’ll have to [by definition] prosecute gun crimes and ONLY gun crimes. There aren’t enough violent gun criminals in Josephine county to warrant a specialist so who is left?
Well, people who are NOT violent criminals. People who may have a firearm in their car for protection, but don’t have their paperwork in order for whatever reason.
Someone who purchases a firearm from a newspaper advertisement - only to find out the gun is stolen - since it’s not possible to find out beforehand about the firearm prior to purchase since the government refuses to put a stolen firearms database online, or available to “civilians”.
People who may run afoul of Salem’s or Washington’s newest 2nd amendment intrusions that may or may not pass this year, or may have passed last year, but it’s too damn confusing to try to retain, since it’s always in flux, and overlaps or doesn’t with a hundred other Federal or state laws that may or may not have been overturned yet by whatever circuit court has jurisdiction.
Rather than twiddling his thumbs, is this dedicated prosecutor going to do the same thing the Illinois state police have resorted to? Setting up and entrapping otherwise law-abiding people? This is not a paranoid rambling, this was gleefully trumpeted by the Chicago Tribune last April.
There are hundreds of conflicting laws regarding firearms in the United States and Oregon. It is not possible to follow them all. This prosecutor will know that. The people who will then be targeted by this prosecutor will be non-violent, normally law-abiding, productive, taxpaying voters. Also known as “non-criminals”.
And what exactly is the jurisdiction of this prosecutor? He can’t prosecute anyone for a federal violation, even though it’s federal money that is being used to pay his salary. So if he’s not able to PROSECUTE a federal crime, does he merely become a toady for the federales? Informing them to swoop in when a federal violation of some sort occurs?
As a taxpayer, and a firearms owner, I find it offensive that my money is used to assault these people - these non-criminals- in this fashion.
Your debate at the last meeting centered around technical monetary issues.
I submit to you that money is irrelevant. This is not even a legal issue. This is a moral and ethical issue. It is clear to a thinking person that the purpose of this grant is to harass non-violent, productive citizens.
If you vote for this, you are advocating nothing less than that. Please do not attempt to hide behind saying that laws were violated. The morality -or the lack thereof- is the same.
Thank you.
Copyright ©2001
by Neil Alexander All rights reserved.