Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) Told Me the NRA Has Not Bought Her Votes

Caption: Maria Houser Conzemius preparing for a very cold IdidaRide at the Sag Wagon Bar in Cedar Rapids in early February 2017

I wrote a letter to Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) criticizing her acceptance of $3,124,273 from the National Rifle Association (NRA). She's one of the top 10 recipients of NRA $$ in the U.S. Senate. I suggested in a postcard to her that her votes for the NRA's extremist gun rights agenda are bought and paid for.

Sen. Ernst wrote back to me saying, "As to your concern about the amount of money in politics, let me be clear that I receive contributions from many individuals across the spectrum. In this case, the National Rifle Association has contributed to my campaign because they support where I have stood on the Second Amendment. But let me be clear, the funding that I receive from individuals and groups across the state and country is a direct result of the stances I take. Not the other way around. I will always stand on my belief and principle, regardless of where the political winds might blow."

It's one thing to support the Second Amendment, which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was adopted December 15, 1791. According to Thom Hartmann, the Virginians James Madison, Patrick Henry, and George Mason were concerned that "slave patrols," organized groups of white men who disciplined enslaved African Americans who left their plantations, needed to remain armed and, therefore, the Constitution needed to clarify that states have the right to organize white men in militias. Most white men 18-45 years of age were required to serve on slave patrols. The fear of government tyranny due to a weaponless populace was also a factor in adopting the Second Amendment. I thoroughly believed in the wisdom of the Second Amendment, but now I'm more afraid of being shot by some lunatic with an AR-15.

The NRA has gone too far to suit me. The so-called "right" of people receiving Social Security disability benefits due to serious mental health issues like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Major Clinical Depression to buy firearms doesn't pass the common sense test. Both Senators Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) voted "yes" to allow Social Security [Supplemental] Insurance (SSI) and "standard" Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) recipients with serious mental health issues to buy firearms. In fact, Sen. Chuck Grassley sponsored the bill in the Senate.

Grassley stated that "'Repealing this regulation [forbidding mentally ill individuals on SSI and SSDI from buying firearms] will merely ensure that disabled citizens' Second Amendment rights are, in fact, protected." Republicans argued the rule, which was vigorously opposed by gun-rights and disability groups, would unfairly stigmatize people with disabilities and strip them of their Second Amendment rights without due process. In fact, I agree that disabled persons have the right to privacy. But where does the right to privacy end and the rights of society to be safe begin?

Within the past few months, a veteran with PTSD who was expelled from a PTSD treatment center in California for being too dangerous to continue residing at the facility came back with a weapon and held a number of people hostage. After letting most of the hostages go, the vet shot and killed three of the administrators who expelled him from the treatment center.

Should he have had a firearm? Shooting events by mentally disturbed individuals would seem to indicate otherwise. Why do police and the FBI find problems with these individuals and put their weapons back in the house with them with a promise from a parent or friend's family that they/he will keep the guns away from the deranged individual? Nikolas Cruz, the shooter who killed 17 students, teachers, and coaches at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Valentine's Day, had a key to the locked gun cabinet where his AR-15 was stored by the family he lived with.

Travis Reinking, the recent Waffle House shooter, got his AR-15 back because his father, who was ordered to keep Reinking's guns away from him, gave the AR-15 and other guns back to his son. At that point Travis Reinking, who had already showed many signs of delusions and paranoia, was able to kill four people and wound four more. The FBI is considering pressing charges against Reinking's father. I hope they do.

Sen. Grassley gets money, $232.337, from the NRA. Is he also standing on principle like Sen. Joni Ernst when he sponsors a bill to put guns in the hands of the seriously mentally ill?

President Trump, who bragged on the campaign trail that he's too rich to be bought, got $30.3 million from the NRA for his presidential campaign. He almost broke with the NRA on some of the NRA's extremist agenda after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas massacre that killed 17 students, teachers, and coaches on 2/14/18. He proposed raising the age for buying assault weapons until the age of 21 and calling for universal background checks.

Then top NRA brass had lunch with Trump in the White House, and surprise! Trump caved. He got back into line with the NRA's agenda and called for arming teachers in schools instead, just like all the other lily-livered, bought-and-paid for NRA funding recipients do in Congress.

Does the dog (the NRA) wag the tail (elected officials who take NRA money) or does the tail wag the dog? Sen. Joni Ernst would have me believe that the tail wags the dog. She may well have started out as a Second Amendment supporter given her service in the military. But to vote for a bill allowing Social Security disability recipients with serious mental health issues like PTSD and Major Clinical Depression to buy firearms? Both Senators Ernst and Grassley voted for that bill. That's the NRA talking, not the common sense of either senator. I assume they have common sense, but the lure of NRA dollars to their campaigns seems to override whatever common sense they might have.