In the wake of the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, much has been said on the subject of gun control. In Maine, our attention was recently focused on Justin Dean and his three-hour, Rambo-style Portland walkabout, carrying (legally) a loaded assault rifle with a 30-round ammo clip, resulting in dozens of 911 calls and hundreds of terrified residents.
Virtually everyone has now weighed in on the issue of “gun control,” from the National Rifle Association CEO frothing at the mouth, advocating for guards with guns in schools, to extremists on the other end of the spectrum pushing for the confiscation of all guns.
As immortalized in an old Buffalo Springfield song lyric, we are at a point in our history where, “There’s battle lines being drawn. Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.”
Everyone is wrong. The issue isn’t guns. The issue is us. We are “wrong.” We are broken.
Here’s an example: For almost 30 years now, I’ve worn contact lenses. A short while ago, I tried to order new contacts and was reminded by the contact lens company that I needed to renew my prescription before they could sell me contacts. Why? In 2003, the government decided that I could no longer be trusted with the possession and use of contact lenses on my own.
With the passage of HR 3140, Congress decreed that I, along with approximately 36 million Americans, could no longer manage the health and safety of my own eyes.
The Fairness to Contact Lens Consumer Act, signed into law by George W. Bush on Dec. 6, 2003, included a provision that makes it illegal for anyone to purchase new contact lenses without a prescription. And to get a new prescription, you must visit and pay an optometrist to puff your eyes with a burst of air, dilate them with a painful chemical and shine a bright light into them, all in the name of healthy eye care.
In many states, it is the “law” that this must be done at least once a year. In Maine it is a period not to exceed 24 months.
How did the U.S. government get in the business of legislating how often I must pay my optometrist to check my eyes before I am allowed to buy a little lens that is more than 50 percent water?
First, the Contact Lens Association hired lobbyists to help push for a new federal law. Then, Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., the chairman of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, introduced the Contact Lens Consumer Health Protection Act.
“Contact lenses are regulated medical devices requiring a valid prescription from a licensed doctor,” he said. “Third-party vendors that overfill prescriptions or who do not verify the prescriptions they are filling endanger the health and welfare of the customers they purport to serve. My legislation will ensure the proper balance of consumer choice and the health and safety of the American public.”
Interesting.
Whitfield sponsored a law that makes it mandatory for every contact lens wearer to “register” with an optometrist before they are allowed to buy contact lenses. It also requires every contact wearer to submit to a new exam every one or two years to verify that they qualify to wear contacts based upon what he described as the “safety of the American public.”
This is the same representative that voted against HR 2122, the “Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act.” This is the same representative who opposes any new restrictions on assault weapons and opposes any type of registry for gun owners.
How can it be possible for the same political leader to pass legislation making contact lenses “regulated” with the requirement that all users submit to a qualification exam every two years (or less) based upon “public safety,” yet oppose even the most moderate changes to our gun laws?
In America, every single contact lens wearer and every single contact lens is regulated and reviewed every 24 months by federal law. And since 2003, how many protests have there been?
It was perfectly legal for James Holmes, the murderer of a dozen people in a Colorado movie theater last year, to go online and purchase 6,000 rounds of ammunition (most used for his AR-15 assault rifle) without any background check, yet it is illegal for me to purchase two Acuvue contact lenses without an exam and the approved legal documentation.
None of this suggests that eye health is not important or worthy of regulatory involvement. It is. But when one elected official advocates for “the safety of the American public” on one issue (eye care) and seemingly ignores it on another (gun policy), it is fair to ask why.
Could money be the answer? The American Optometric Association gave more than $1,076,920 in political donations last year ($7,500 to Whitfield) to advance their interests. The NRA donated many millions (more than $41,000 to Whitfield over the years) to advance its interests.
The failures of our politicians must be considered the failures of each of us.
We must tell, not ask, Gov. Paul LePage to meet with the leaders of Maine’s House and Senate right now to work on important issues. We must tell, not ask, President Barack Obama to make the tough decisions needed regardless of political priorities.
To do these things, we must commit to a common purpose: not to complain. Not to attack those with different views than ours. But to act, engage and educate ourselves in ways that will inspire thoughtful, balanced solutions.
Stephen Woods is currently the chairman of the Yarmouth Town Council, the owner and CEO of TideSmart Global and a declared candidate for the 2014 Maine gubernatorial race.
I am impressed by the thoughtfulness and preparation that went into this column I am also equally impressed the BDN allowed someone with an IQ above freezing be allowed to write about gun control. This is the type of discussion that we need, not knee-jerk “repeal the 2nd Amendment” mentality of some of our “finest” educational leaders. Well done Mr Woods.
Caleb – I appreciate you taking the time to post your comments. SMW
Actually, it’s a weak column.
First, an AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. It is a semiautomatic rifle and nothing more.
Second, the U.S. and Maine constitutions prohibit the government from infringing on an invidual’s right to bear arms. There is no constitutional right to contact lenses.
Third, the so-called assault rifles are behind knives and hands and feet as the weapon of choice for murderers.
I don’t think we need to regulate guns because contacts are regulated, maybe we need to not regulate contacts!
First: the designation “assault rifle” is moot. The issue is high capacity weapons (30-100 rounds) that shoot rapid fire (60+ shots a minute.) “Bear Arms” never defined what type of “arms” as musket rifles were the guns of the day. Should the public be able to now possess tanks, missiles, grenades, machine guns, Apache Helicopters? No.
Second: both the U.S. and Maine constitutions have been “amended” hundreds of times over the last 236-years to reflect changes in society. (See: slavery and women’s vote). The application of the word “infringe” does not mean that it is a right without limits or parameters. (See: above) In regard to your observation that, “there is no constitutional right to contact lenses,” I disagree with your supposition; As a nation of laws, all of our federal laws (including the contact lens “law”) are built upon the legal framework/authority of our Constitution. Without such a basis, why did Congress even need to pass a “law” in 2003 on this issue?
Third: Yes, “hands and feet” (feet, less so) are connected to many horrible crimes, including murder. Sadly, we will never be able to eliminate horrible crimes in the U.S. or in Maine. But, if some thoughtful changes are made to our gun laws that reduce some “mass murders” in any way, why not even discuss that option?
I was a proud member of Troop 8 Boy Scout with a merit badge in “rifle shooting,” and I was a gun owner for many years, and I fully support the 2nd Amendment within the scope of guns for personal protection, target shooting and for hunting. But, in my opinion, the NRA does NOT represent public policy on this issue – they primarily represent the economic interests of gun/ammo businesses.
Even though we don’t agree with other on this issue, thank you for taking the time to share your views
SMW
(Author of the “weak column”)
All this talk about ‘gun control’ is just Big Media’s way of distracting the public from the real need for ‘media control’ to protect the children. Don’t let cynical media profiteers push ‘violence porn’ that only inspires fresh lunatics to run amok themselves.
More hyperbolic exaggeration, as usual.
No, just an object lesson in Progressives’ lack of self-awareness (and sense of humor).
i gave up on contacts after that law. my prescription hadn’t changed in 10 years, and i wasn’t wasting more money to spend even more afterwards. If i assume a risk to me and only me, its none of the governments buisiness
All good points re gun control, but the background on contact lenses was a little off. Contact lenses have always been regulated by the FDA as prescription medical devices, and have always been labeled “dispensing without prescription violates Federal law.” Justified or not, the FDA decided 40 years ago that contact lenses deserve the same regulation as prescription drugs. I happen to believe that the drugs I take are “none of the government’s business” but hold your breath and let’s see how far we get with that.
The “Fairness” law came about because doctors’ offices were refusing to release prescriptions, not because people were buying lenses without a prescription. That was already illegal.
There was an escalating problem, one that persists despite the 2003 law. Sellers were promoting the misconception that lenses with cosmetic tints and no optical correction were “nonprescription” and therefore could be sold in beauty shops and convenience stores.
A couple of Canadian provinces have deregulated lenses. If Canada has anywhere near the same number of lawyers as the US, it will only take a few cases of keratitis or corneal scarring to restrict sales again.
I think that we’re both correct. One important issue is that for decades, Contacts were glass and much more of a “medical device” under the law. Now, the majority of Contacts are made out of hydrogel materials and much safer in regard to abrasions – but still some risk of infection/irritation. But, in some ways, no more risky that toothbrushes and poor dental care. My larger truth was/is that the same Congressman who argued “safety” and MORE regulation in one case (contacts) and “safety” and LESS regulation in another (guns/ammo) – actively takes money from both.
Amid all the hostility, polarization and blame that has come out of this tragedy, Woods’ insistance of shared sacrifice and responsibility is advice we should all heed. The perspective on regulation (contact lenes versus guns) is an interesting one; if we do not stand up and make our voices heard (read the news, write to public officials, attend meetings or at the very least, vote), then we cannot and should not expect the kind of change that will ultimately make our communities more safe.
Joe – Thank you for your thoughtful comments. SMW
I bought some contact lenses at a online retailer (contactlensesplus.com) with no prescription and no questions asked. I think they are registered outside the states, but the lenses that came were fine. I know my prescription and have check ups when it suits me, not the govt.
Although lensed eyeglasses have less potatnial problems there don’t seem to be similar restirctions on framed lenses. That said, I’ve gotten annual eye checkups for decades when I discovered tghat myo[pic people are at greater risk for gluacoma (I’ve had glasses for 63 years). So far, no problems, knock on wood.
google ‘clinton arsenal license’ click on Handgun Control minutes from 1993 and you will see why gunowners do not trust gun control advocates. they have no intention of comprising, they want to ban everything.
You reference “they” twice in your post. I’m not they. The families in Newtown are not they. It’s not 1993. It’s 2013, and “we” as Mainers and Americans should be able to discuss this issue with mutual respect, courtesy, empathy, and compassion. That’s all I’m saying….
Thank you.
if you think the people who’s names are attached to that HCI document and others like it aren’t involved in this discussion or if they are going to discuss this with mutual respect then you obviously are playing the part of the ostrich. The same people who pushed the ineffective ban in 1993 within a week of sandy hook regurgitated the same misleading information backing the same proposals. Documents like the one above clearly show how they want to demonize and ostracize gun owners. They want to make ANYONE who has 1 or 1000 firearms out to be a part of the problem or just as a “gun zealot”.
That’s funny, we have the same issue with mental health. Someone needs a doctor to determine that someone is actually ill or has a disorder, then it has to be enough to qualify for disability. The state will deny the first claim, meanwhile they lose family support, and money to finance a doctor. Some may be put into more danger not being able to carry a weapon as they are normal enough. Not all of them qualify for disability. How can we take away rights without at least some sort of compensation???
Some are dangerous. How do we determine that???
Some disorders were not even diagnosed until more recently. I know an adult who was not diagnosed with Asperger’s until adulthood. I know a set of parents who said something wasn’t right with their child at age 5, like connections were not being made in the brain. They got nothing from a doctor until adulthood, they finally got a personality diagnoses. This person was difficult. Hospitals won’t keep them. They couldn’t hold a job and still did not qualify for disability. What do we do?
People are also quick to judge, right or wrong. People are mean. People backed into a corner or made fun of all the time, what happens? Some commit suicide or attempt suicide, and some come out fighting…..
I also think we need to learn more about mental illness, disorders, and personalities.
Yeah, people who are legally blind do not get disability, but are just as disabled without corrective lenses? They are expected to be able to afford being normal????
The way laws are now a person who chooses to go on medications for a mental illness can go off medication, by choice forgettfulness, not have a renewal prescription, travel to get meds, or money etc., and become unstable, get a gun and load it up into a car intended to hurt someone somewhere???
Someone who has been accused of being ill, even after an involuntary evaluation needs no medications to be stable, never hurt themselves or others, yet cannot carry a firearm???
I think that is ironic, and wonder where are priorities lie?
Perhaps you could write more coherently so we could figure out what you’re trying to say.
I’m not sure that the failure of the politicians who I vote against is necessarily *my* failure, but your point is taken. Prescription medical devices (and milk) are more tightly regulated, and I don’t immediately ask why. But it’s the start of an important conversation.
We as Americans own our democracy. For more than 236-years, brave men and women have fought and died for the freedoms that we all enjoy. My point is that too many people “blame” politicians – when in fact, we the people, should take more active responsibility for the entire political/governmental process. Voting once or twice a year is no longer enough.
Your point about regulation is right on. Cars are tightly regulated, phones, food, etc. – all based upon a premise of “public good.” Somehow, the 2nd Amendment, adopted in 1791, has evolved into more of a polical issue, than a basic public safety, “what’s best for the public” issue.
The fact that even asking for a “discussion” on gun control issues is met with such emotion, means something beyond the topic itself.
Thank you for your comments.
It is met with huge emotion, and it does’t always serve us well. Tho if I suggest that I have a problem with my minor child’s doctor being unable to give her Tylenol without my permission while giving her other sorts of treatment–which I must pay for–without it, there would be equal doses of emotion.
I believe the more emotional the subject, the more it needs an airing in The Middle.
there are typically emotional and logical reactions to all problems. Cars and food are especially regulated by the government. They have gotten more expensive and not necessarily gotten safer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/health/11food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Phones have minimal government regulation. The cell phone industry is booming and phone prices are falling and quality of phones is improving. This is more of a free market vs controlled markets argument but my point is government laws and regulations more often then not don’t help.
Society wants to believe the government is magical and can wave its legislative wand and fix problems but what problems has government fixed in the past 100 years and what problems has it created?
Stephen Woods you should educate yourself on the use of proper terminology. A civilian AR15 is not an Assault rifle.
Army
intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70 from November 1970
“Assault
rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge
intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.”
Also there is already a mandatory gunshow background check so that bill was not a necessary law. FFL’s are 100$% required to do NICS checks at gunshows. Though private sales at gunshows are only regulated by whatever the state law on private sales are.
I think this can be considered a reasonable new gun regulation: All private sales must go through an FFL to complete a form 4473 and an NICS background check. Though the likely hood of this stemming the sale of guns purchases through straw purchases for prohibited persons, by unscrupulous people, is a slim prospect.
Steve, this is a refreshingly, well written, and interesting POV. Thanks for getting me thinking about how many freedoms are being whittled away by well-meaning legislation riding on the emotions of well-meaning constituents. I would make a few comments, since that is what a comments section is for. First, the rep from KY is an American and has his opinion. That is a freedom we all enjoy. Second, all legislation is about money and the names of bills are usually the opposite of their intentions. The Affordable Care Act is not, and the Consumer Health Act is not for consumers – it is for manufacturers. Do a search on lawsuits against contact lens manufacturers/suppliers and you will find tens of thousands of suits from anti-trust to liability to recalls. This is your answer to why – it does not matter who created the bill. Third, in reference to gun control, the facts for 2011 show we do not need any more. Homicide by weapons down more than two percent. 358 homicides by rifles. The CDC site lists death by guns as 15th. Compare that to 9878 homicides (drunk drivers) by motor vehicle and look at where death by motor vehicle is on the list. Isn’t it high time for background checks for car buyers? 60 day waiting periods? A ban on all vehicles with an automatic transmission? No vehicle can carry more than ten gallons of gas? If I sound like an idiot, it’s because I’m trying. That’s what gun control advocates sound like as they whittle away at our freedoms.
Thank you, Steven Woods!
Fascist decisions for sure….
Mr Woods, would you be so kind as to share with us just exactly what your definition of “Assault Rifle” is, please. The definition is purposely “unclear” as it is primarily based upon the gun “looking evil” and not it’s function.
Could you also point us to the Constitutional ammendment, granted to all Americans, by our creator, ensuring that our right to own contact lenses, shall not “be infringed” or in Maine, shall “not be questioned.
How come President Obama, and media star David Gregory get to send their children to schools with armed guards, and I can’t? Are their kids more important than mine?
The biggest reason you have to have a prescription to buy contact lenses, or prescription meds, is to ensure vast profits for the pharmaceutical and medical supply industry, who pay good money to the politicians in order to maintain that “monopoly”. And all this is based upon the idea that the individual is too stupid to make decisions in his own behalf, the ideology that has driven the “statist agenda” of the last 40 years.
You are free to work on ammending both the US and the Maine constitution, if you wish. I would have far more respect for you if you took that more honest approach to the elimination of our constitutional rights than just simply demand that Obama and a corrupt Congress do it for you.