The conversation with residents primarily covered the topics of gun control and education costs, and the congressmember, who said he was feeling optimistic about the dialogue, was eager to begin “following up on all the different issues.”
“I thought it was fascinating. It was very open and honest,” said Lowenthal, who represents California’s 47th district, after the event in an interview with the Signal Tribune. “They listened to each other, they respected each other, and it was a very positive mood. And we talked about a variety of issues. I think this is what makes government work. People have the ability to talk to their congressmember… We have to use that passion in positive ways.”
Guns
Lowenthal addressed gun control— or “gun safety,” as the congressmember prefers— specifically, two bipartisan bills: one that seeks to close the “loophole” for background checks; and another that would establish a “no fly, no buy” law for those on the federal watch list.
GOP Rep. Peter King of New York introduced and co-sponsored the two bills in the aftermath of the Orlando nightclub shooting in June.
Although background checks are necessary when purchasing weapons from a licensed firearms dealer, Lowenthal explained there is no such requirement when acquiring guns from an individual or independent party.
“There’s no reason why other people shouldn’t go through these procedures and to not close these loopholes,” the congressmember said during the event. “That would also enable us to have some coordinated registry that we know, when they are checking these background checks, if you should or should not have a gun.”
The “No fly, no buy” bill aims to extend the consequences of individuals on the federal watch list and limit them from purchasing weapons. Suspects on the list are already denied air-travel access.
Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people and wounded many others in the mass shooting in Orlando, was allowed to purchase assault weapons the week prior to the attack despite being on the federal watch list, twice, Lowenthal said.
“If you’re on the federal watch list, you should not be able to buy a weapon,” he said. “You can’t be not allowed to fly, but you’re allowed to go into a gun store and buy a weapon.”
One person in attendance questioned the need for military-grade weapons.
“I don’t understand how Congress and the United States as a whole… can stand for automatic-assault weapons,” the woman said.
Lowenthal agreed.
“It’s unacceptable, and, to me, the part that is most unacceptable is having access to military-style weapons to civilians,” he said. “That’s my biggest issue… it’s being driven by gun manufacturers who do not want any control over the sale of military-style weapons. That’s what it’s all about.”
In an attempt to focus on these two issues, Lowenthal recently participated in a 26-hour sit-in with 150 others in Congress.
The congressmember, who added that he is not suggesting by any means to get rid of second-amendment rights, called it “critical” to address problems associated with assault weapons.
“We have to have a national discussion on this,” Lowenthal said. “We should not be frightened of it. I’m not saying I know the best way to deal with it, and we’re not trying to take away people’s rights, but we don’t allow a person to go into a movie theater and scream, ‘Fire!’ Even though there is free speech… there are limits.”
Education
One mother in attendance expressed concern over the lack of involvement the parents have in a student’s academic career.
“These kids are coming out of high school at age 18, they are getting to the universities, and the universities are telling the parents that you cannot get involved because some law is out there that keeps the parent from getting into the business of the child in the university,” the mother said.
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, passed in 1974, protects the privacy of student-education records. Upon turning 18, a child’s right to privacy and access to those education records are transferred from the parent to the student.
One 18-year-old suggested that it’s best to maintain that privacy with students.
“My guess would be is that a lot of 18-year-olds do not want their parents to get involved with them,” he said. “And, you know, I’m 18, I’m legal, and I don’t want people getting into my business, and I understand.”
Lowenthal said he wasn’t familiar with the details of the privacy act and a parents’ involvement in a student’s curriculum, but he was interested in finding a solution. He explained that students are also interested in becoming independent when they become adults in an attempt to achieve greater financial-aid benefits.
“The question then becomes, what happens when their debts mount and students don’t know how they have done this, and how we are going to deal with this issue,” he said. “And, I’m not sure.”
A mother of two men who are 40 and 23 years old expressed concern at the amount of time it takes a student, on average, to complete college in the first place.
“The debt that these people come out with is incredible,” she said. “It took my youngest three years to get out of a city college, and he is a hard worker… I read the average is six years in California. Now, I do a lot of traveling, so when I’m in other states, I sit with the other woman, and I ask, ‘How long to get out of your junior college?’ and they say two years. It took my kid three, and he beat most of the kids in the California because the average is six.”
Lowenthal saw the audience’s concern about student loans as a call to action of sorts.
“Obviously, we have all the major issues like student debt, and we’re going to work on that and get back to them and see what we can do,” Lowenthal told the Signal Tribune. “This is a concern that could be happening all over this country, because everybody is talking about it… It’s kind of a call for me to keep working on this issue, and I’m their representative, they wanted me to know— not that they’re angry with me; they weren’t, but they wanted me to know about this issue and for me to work on that. And I heard them. I will do that.”
PACs
Andy Whallon, Lowenthal’s opposing candidate for the upcoming November election, was in attendance and handing out fliers that criticized the congressmember’s willingness to accept political action committee (PAC) contributions.
Whallon told the Signal Tribune that Lowenthal should “take a leap” and reject all future PAC donations.
“I think PAC money— even if you think it’s not distorting your vote, it does,” Whallon said after the event. “I think this is a perfect opportunity for the congressman to take a lead and say, ‘I’m not going to take any PAC money, and I’m going to only rely on donations from individuals.'”
Whallon did say that, regardless of stance, he was pleased to attend and hear the community’s concerns.
Lowenthal, who said in an interview that he thought it was “wonderful” to see Whallon at the event, said it was not the setting “to be talking about campaigns” but claimed that PAC contributions are necessary to benefit the district.
“If you look at his reporting, he doesn’t have any contributions at all from anybody,” Lowenthal said to the Signal Tribune. “I have raised a tremendous number of contributions for this district. I also accept money, as all candidates do, from environmental groups, from labor groups, and they can only give money if they file with the federal elections commission and set up a political action committee, or if you are an individual. So, I’m just following the law. But this is not the place to talk about that.”
