Resources


PDA






Pages : 1 [2]

nfafan
February 11, 2013, 07:44 PM
Meanwhile, my reply back to the most boring senator in the known universe after his auto-reply;


Dear Mr. Casey,

Thank you for the acknowledgement of our communications with your auto-reply, but I think we have a problem here - and I know that you don’t want to be a problem to your constituency here in Pennsylvania.

First off to your opening points, Yes – we are ALL horrified and repulsed by the events in Newtown.

But… What was being hidden behind a smokescreen of anti-gun rhetoric is the fact that a vidiot-gaming nutcase took his mother’s LEGAL guns - purchased and owned LEGALLY under onerous Connecticut laws – and then ILLEGALLY used them to ILLEGALLY kill his own mother before ILLEGALLY killing the Sandy Hook children.

What part of ILLEGAL action is not understood here?

The mother’s body hadn’t even officially been discovered yet before Biden’s anti-gun ghouls were already in the cameras relishing the Sandy Hook blood to push their agenda against LEGAL guns.

I am not going to get into the Second Amendment/Founding Fathers yadda yadda – as I know that YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND exactly what “shall not be infringed” means. And we intend to hold you to it.

If it appears you did not understand “shall not be infringed”, we – as your employers here in PA - will arrange during the next election to give you ample time away from work to learn about the Second Amendment.

To be sure; YOU do not have the political capital to survive going against US voters here in Pennsylvania - your EMPLOYERS - the ones who ELECTED YOU.
As for the others;

• Crazy Uncle Joe Biden has NOTHING to lose with his dimwitted double-barrel blathering – he’ll fade into the sunset to go play pinochle with wacky Howard Dean.
• Obama has NOTHING to lose; he will dethrone Klinton as the official orator of the left.
• Chuck Schumer will remain “in like Flynt” unless proven to be an agent for Hamas.
• Sens Feinswine and Boxer, and Nancy Pelosi are entrenched forever; ditsy ************ns will gladly re-elect their three Macbethian witches even with video proof of a boiling cauldron of dead gay babies.

But for you; we will be watching YOUR vote, and we too, will vote. So unless YOU intend for your privileged Senate career to end with a run for election as a dogcatcher – you need to stand tall and VOTE AGAINST ANY new gun control laws of any kind introduced in the Senate.

Understand that this isn’t like the pointless “ban laws” of the past – we have the Internet now for fast, mass communications. I intend to make sure my message to YOU is posted to every message board I know of so that fellow gun owners know of this.

We are and will be watching – and voting.

Sincerely,




Dear Mr. xxxxxxxx:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about recent proposals related to guns. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

As you know, on December 14, 2012, an individual in Newtown, Connecticut forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and opened fire on teachers and staff in the building. In total, the perpetrator murdered 20 students between the ages of six and seven years old, as well as six adults, many of whom heroically sought to stop the shooter and save the lives of children. Like many Americans, I was deeply affected by the scope and brutality of this act. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

The motives that led to this senseless massacre will likely never fully be comprehended. However, I believe that all public officials have a responsibility to work to prevent such an event from occurring again. This incident reflects a complex problem that requires a comprehensive strategy, including funding for law enforcement officers and the mental health care system. Too many individuals with mental illness are not receiving the services they need and tragically, sometimes a small number of these individuals turn violent. I have supported access to affordable and accessible mental health services for all Americans and I will continue to review proposed solutions to improve our mental health system. As lawmakers consider an appropriate response to this challenging issue, we should consider all of the factors that could prevent such heinous acts.

As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania has a fine hunting and sporting tradition, and I will defend the right to bear arms as it is enshrined in our Constitution. I will continue to back the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense, recreation, sporting and collection. However, I also believe that the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School highlights very serious dangers posed to public safety by the misuse of certain weapons and technology originally developed for warfare. According to reports, the shooter was able to kill many children and adults very quickly because he possessed a military-style semiautomatic weapon. He also allegedly used magazines containing up to 30 rounds of ammunition and carried hundreds of rounds more. After much reflection and careful study of the issue, I have decided to support a federal assault weapons ban as well as legislation restricting high capacity magazines. In light of what occurred at Sandy Hook, these are two measures that will lessen the chances that this will happen again. Before supporting such a law, I would first and foremost ensure that it did not unduly abridge the right to bear arms as established by the Second Amendment.

Our Nation has already begun a critical dialogue as we examine what steps must be taken to prevent this type of tragedy in the future. On January 17, 2012, President Obama unveiled a package of proposals to reduce gun violence, which included strengthening the system of background checks, reinstating the assault weapon and high-capacity magazines ban, improving school safety and expanding access to mental health services. I look forward to reviewing these proposals in detail and to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this complex issue.

On January 24, 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would explicitly permit the possession of affected firearms that were owned prior to the bill’s enactment; firearms that are manually operated; firearms used by military, law enforcement and retired law enforcement; and antique weapons. Further, this legislation lists 2,258 hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns that are entirely exempt from the ban.

This legislation would ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of all semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of seven specified military features. S. 150 would further ban semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of certain listed military features, as well as ammunition magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds. The Assault Weapons Ban would also regulate the transfer and storage of permitted, grandfathered weapons and allow local law enforcement to use certain federal funds for voluntary gun buyback programs. The Assault Weapons Ban was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that should this legislation come before the full Senate for consideration, I will have your views in mind.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

P.S. If you would like to respond to this message, please use the contact form on my website: http://casey.senate.gov/contact/
__________________
In a victim nation, a classroom full of dead children is morally superior to a teacher holding a smoking gun knowing she just protected her students.

If you enjoyed reading about "Resources" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Warrior1256
February 11, 2013, 08:20 PM
Typical reply from the senator. But your reply to him was fantastic!

ZeSpectre
February 12, 2013, 09:09 AM
Letter sent to Va 6'th District Mr. Robert Goodlatte
-----------------------------

Mr. Goodlatte;

I write you as a citizen who is gravely concerned about the attitudes being taken towards American citizens and their rights and freedoms. While I am both angered and saddened by the actions of a few loose cannons in our society this cannot and must not be allowed to change the core beliefs upon which this Nation and the Commonwealth of Virginia were founded.

I would like for you to stand strong against the poorly considered and emotionally driven gun control policies being rushed forward and ramrodded through the judicial process without consideration as to the economic and legal impacts of the vast majority of citizens who have not, and will never, commit any sort of crimes.

Universal background checks sound like a good idea, but anyone who doubts the abuse that would follow such a de facto gun registration list should study more history including the confiscation actions taken by California in the 1990s even after they expressly promised no such actions would happen.

Modern semi-automatic rifles (media labeled with the pejorative "Assault weapons") and their magazines are extremely common, middle-of-the-road equipment, and exactly the kind of items that the Second Amendment protects. A vote to ban or restrict either is a vote against our own Bill of Rights.

As a constituent, I expect that you will do me the courtesy of letting me know how you are going to vote on gun-control bills that institute universal background checks or that ban or restrict either so called "assault weapons" or their magazines.

dukelubas
February 12, 2013, 12:03 PM
I received the same exact response yesterday and it made my blood boil. I've been going over my response in my head ever since and I keep re-writing it (in my head) going from shear raging passion to a more rational response. I fear that even responding will fall on deaf ears. HOW DO WE GET THROUGH TO THESE PEOPLE? Something tells me that we are NOT going to change an anti's mind no matter how much we try and even IF we were to get them to sway to pro, it'll only be to save their hide so they can get re-elected. Holding a vote over a representative's head is not what I call a good compromise.

On another note, here's the response I received from Toomey. A bit better, but it doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

Dear [redacted],


Thank you for contacting me about gun control. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, January 16, 2013, President Obama announced a variety of gun policy measures in response to the Newtown, CT killings. I therefore value knowing your views on this important issue, which is important to me as I carefully review the President's proposals. Like many Pennsylvanians, I believe that Second Amendment rights are important and must be protected, but there may be areas of agreement with the White House that can be addressed to improve public safety. I also believe that people who use guns in an illegal manner or harm others with them should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

That said, we have consistently observed that mass killings are the result of serious mental illness. We therefore need to better protect ourselves from mentally ill individuals who seek to carry out such atrocities, including improved background checks. We also need to review and improve how we take care of the mentally ill. As I continue working with my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle on public safety, please be assured that I will keep your views about firearms in mind.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.


Sincerely,


Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania

Pilot
February 12, 2013, 12:21 PM
I received the same responses after two seperate emails to Casey, and one to Toomey. I agree, Toomey's isn't much better.

I also sent a few emails to Jim Gerlach, my Rep, and his wasn't much better.


Dear Mr. Pilot:

Thank you for your contacting me regarding your thoughts on gun control. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, in the aftermath of the school shootings in Newtown, CT, Vice President Joe Biden was charged with leading a task force including members of advocacy groups, teachers, elected officials, and sports and wildlife conservationists to prepare recommendations for President Obama on how to reduce gun violence. On January 16th, President Obama unveiled this broad package of measures that range from legislative proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips to Executive Orders to improve incentives for states to contribute records to federal background check systems established under existing law. I look forward to the President bringing these plans to Congress where I hope to have an open and honest discussion with my House colleagues and constituents about how to protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens while, at the same time, preventing those who lack the ability and competency to responsibly use firearms from obtaining and using them to harm innocent victims.

Let me make it explicitly clear that my policy positions and votes on legislation are driven and determined by what I believe will be in the best interests of the over 700,000 constituents who I represent in the Sixth Congressional District of Pennsylvania. Our constituency is made up of individuals with a diverse range of opinions and beliefs on all issues, including polarizing and sensitive topics such as gun control, and it is my responsibility to take into consideration all of these thoughts and opinions before making any final decision as to how I will vote on legislation.

With that being said, during my tenure in Congress, I have supported legislation to preserve and protect the constitutional rights of our citizens, including those rights provided under the Second Amendment. However, as is the case with every bill that comes to the House floor, I will evaluate each piece of legislation and weigh the costs, benefits and expected impact of such legislation against the concerns and views of my constituents and one's Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Thank you for contacting me regarding this important issue. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance to you or your family in the future.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,

Jim Gerlach
Member of Congress


So, he doesn't vow to uphold the Second Amendment, he will weight the costs and benefits against the concerns and views of his constituents. Meaning if he perceives many of his constituents are for gun bans, he will vote for them even if it violates the 2A. Just great. :mad:

viper7342
February 13, 2013, 01:40 AM
The following is a response to the email message I sent to Senator Joe Donnelly from Indiana, it is better than I thought it would be especially since he is a Democrat, I havent as yet received any response from my other Senator.

Dear Mr. Montgomery,



I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, and I have voted to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Like all Americans, I was shaken to my core by the senseless murders of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut. It is only reasonable for all of us to consider ways to reduce the likelihood of a tragedy like that happening again.

Whether a gun owner or not, a Democrat or a Republican, everyone would agree that we can take steps to reduce violent crime without sacrificing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. My concern is not those who follow the law, but those who do not. For this reason, I will not support legislation that would ban the sale of assault weapons to those who obey the law. I will, however, give serious consideration to proposals that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, while preserving the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.


It is a privilege to represent you and all Hoosiers in the U.S. Senate. Your continued correspondence is welcome and helps me to better represent our state. I encourage you to write, call, or email if my office can ever be of assistance. You can also check out my Facebook page and follow me on Twitter by visiting my website

LNK
February 14, 2013, 08:48 AM
Dear LNK,

Thank you for contacting me about gun control legislation.

Like millions of people across the country, I was heartbroken by the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School last December. I do not know how to explain the deaths of twenty innocent children or why six heroic teachers had to make the ultimate sacrifice for their students.

I also grew up in family that used guns. My older brothers hunted, and I learned to shoot when I was in grade school. I have great respect for the role that hunting and guns play in many communities across the country and believe there is a place for responsible gun ownership in our society. But I also don't think anyone needs military-grade assault weapons to hunt or Rambo-style high capacity magazines to protect their family from intruders.

That's why I support a comprehensive set of reforms to reduce gun violence. I strongly support reauthorizing the expired ban on federal assault weapons and high capacity magazines. I also support closing the loopholes in federal background checks for gun shows and private sales. The President has put forward a slate of proposals to help address gun violence and gun safety, and I support those efforts as well.

There is no one way to stop gun violence, and there is certainly room for disagreement on the steps that we should take. But I hope that we can agree that we have a responsibility to ourselves and to our children to take the steps we can to stop the violence. I believe that a reauthorized assault weapons ban and the President's proposals represent a responsible path forward. I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to look for other steps we can take to protect our children and families from these terrible tragedies. I believe that is my responsibility as a United States Senator -- and as a mother and grandmother.

Sincerely,

Signature


Dear Elizabeth,

Thank you for your response. I see we are going to disagree about the the steps needed to prevent further tragedies like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. Let me ask you a simple question. Were you intent on committing a heinous crime like Sandy Hook, (remember this is hypothetical), and there were two places just about the same. Would you choose the one where there were guarantees that your victims could not fight back, or would you choose the one where they might be armed people to resist? The fact that you think you can legislate behavior is ridiculous! Might as well pass a law banning mass shootings. It will accomplish the same thing. I know it is easier to punish law abiding citizens than it is to tackle a real problem. Like mental health.


I must tell you that as a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, I took a very similar oath that you did as a United States Senator. I don't believe the Oath has an expiration date. Let me refresh your memory, yours-

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Mine-


"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

After reading your response, I couldn't help but question my readings of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So I read them again. I can't seem to find the part about hunting. As a lawyer you must have had some classes on the Constitution? Did you not read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? I am pretty sure the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Says. "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."

I am pretty sure the Founders intended the Second amendment to remind those in "power" of the peoples right to bear arms. You seem willing to restrict that right. There is a process in the Constitution to change the Constitution. Feel free to follow that route if you so choose. By subverting that process by incremental legislation is the wrong path. I hope you take the time to do some reading and thinking for yourself, instead of being a rubber stamp to the people in office, whichever party they belong to.

Thank you for your time,
LNK
United States Citizen

bikerdoc
February 14, 2013, 09:26 AM
Keep at it my friend. Organize against her if you have to. No politician wants to be defeated and have to get a real job.

Sapper771
February 14, 2013, 09:45 AM
Excellent reply !

MacTech
February 14, 2013, 01:16 PM
Just received this from McGowan, he's a strong anti, must be ousted in the next election

Thank you for your note. The reality that one man killed 20 children and six adults in a matter of minutes says to me that we must do better. The safety of my two grandaughters is more important to me than an individuals ability to have any guns or ammunition he choses. I do not beleive that having two hundred million guns in our country makes it a safer or healthier place to live.

Let's work together to ensure the safety of our people and the rights of gun owners.

Representative Paul McGowan

Akita1
February 14, 2013, 01:31 PM
Amen brother - well done!

Billy Shears
February 14, 2013, 01:45 PM
I hate to be a doomsayer, but in the case of Elizabeth Warren, it's a lost cause. You might as well copy a page of the phone book and send it to her. It was have as much effect. She is a hard left liberal ideologue. And no matter how much you organize against her, she's going to stay in office. Ted Kennedy, who was as slimy a politician as ever sat in the senate chamber, was not only responsible not only for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, his behavior in the aftermath of the car crash that killed her was contemptible, cowardly, and self-serving in the extreme. The people of Massachusetts saw fit to keep sending him back to Washington to represent them for the next 40 years. It didn't matter how much of a scumbag he was, you see. He was a reliable liberal, and in liberal Massachusetts, that's all that mattered.

In the last election, the people of Massachusetts chose to unseat precisely the sort of moderate republican they all say they wish there were more of, and turn the seat over to a hard left ideologue with severe character and integrity issues. That's how leftist the whole state is. Warren could say she supports door to door searches and confiscations of all firearms, and I am 100% confident that she would still be reelected in Massachusetts.

The state is lost, as far as the vote on the ASW ban in the senate goes. Kerry and Warren are both going to vote yes, and there is nothing short of divine intervention that's going to change it.

LNK
February 14, 2013, 01:52 PM
I know, but at least I can tell them how I feel. I know it is a waste of time, and you are right about it being a lost cause. I have always been hard headed though. Kerry may not be there to vote. Secretary of State has no senate voting rights...


LNK

OneWound
February 14, 2013, 08:15 PM
One thing I would like to state is that Senator Tom Harkin (D) is quitting his life in the Senate when re-elections. That being said, here's the reply I got from him about an e-mail I shot him about the AWB and magazine bans, (I don't know how to correctly quote it so anything in " " is what he said)
"Dear XXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me regarding proposed gun safety measures and mental health reform. I appreciate hearing from you about these important topics.

Like all Americans, I was deeply saddened by the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. What added to our grief as a nation was that it also came on the heels of mass gun shootings in Colorado, Arizona, Wisconsin, and the senseless acts of violence that occur every day throughout our country. In light of all of these events, it is apparent that far too many Americans, including children, are needlessly losing their lives. We must come together as a country to prevent future tragedies and the senseless loss of life, and to ensure that no American lives in fear.

On January 17, 2013, the President put forward a specific plan to protect our children and communities by reducing gun violence. The plan includes legislative and executive action that combined would close background check loopholes, ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, equip schools with safety resources and equipment, and increase access to mental health services.

As a hunter, I know that the recreational use and collection of guns is important to many Iowans and I will continue to work to protect the rights of law-abiding American gun owners. But we need to ask whether people need unlimited access to any arms, including those capable of shooting hundreds of bullets in a very short time. We can support gun rights while continuing to support responsible legislation to reduce crime and make our schools and communities safer. Each of these goals is important and I believe that they can be accomplished simultaneously.

That is why, over the years, I have consistently supported common-sense measures to protect our communities. For example, in the past, I have voted in favor of legislation to close the loopholes on criminal background checks on gun purchases at gun shows, and to require gun manufacturers to include child safety locks on guns. I have also voted against a blanket liability exception for gun manufacturers and sellers.

The tragedy at Newtown also shined a light on the state of our country's mental health care system. Over the past several months, I have heard from many Iowans about this issue, and their voices have been joined with people across the nation, including President Obama, calling for us to take a hard look at improving access to mental health services. In so doing, it is important to combat a common, insidious misconception that people with mental illness are inherently violent. In fact, individuals with mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators. We must remember that this unfounded stereotype is an impediment to reform, not a window into it.

With this in mind, on January 24, 2013, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, I convened a hearing to assess the state of America's mental health. We heard from expert government witnesses, as well as health care providers, mental health agencies, and patients. To view a webcast of this hearing, please visit http://www.help.senate.gov.

The hearing highlighted some of the shortcomings of the mental health care system. To begin with, mental health illnesses are chronic diseases that disproportionately affect young people under the age of 24. Yet the system appears to be failing some of these people. Less than half of children with an identified mental illness receive treatment, and the average gap between the onset of symptoms and the receiving of treatment is nearly a decade. Failing to diagnose and treat mental illness early in life seriously - and needlessly - aggravates adult mental health illnesses.

Shortcomings in diagnosis and treatment also spill over into other areas of society. For instance, a student struggling with a mental illness, like depression or anxiety, faces additional difficulties maintaining good grades and graduating on time. Our prisons are also overburdened by people who should be receiving treatment and substance abuse counseling as part of their rehabilitation.

We know that when individuals with mental illnesses receive appropriate treatment and support, they can recover and lead productive, healthy lives. I am currently examining proposals to strengthen access to mental health services in our communities, in schools, and in the clinical setting. In addition, as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds federal health initiatives, I plan to take a close look at opportunities to strengthen funding measures. I am also heartened at the reforms we have already made. The landmark health insurance reform law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), provides nearly 30 million previously-uninsured Americans with access to health insurance plans that will be required to include coverage for mental health and substance abuse services. Integrating primary care and mental health services will reduce barriers to care and lessen the stigma of mental illness.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to let me know how you feel on any issue that concerns you.


Sincerely,





Tom Harkin
United States Senator"
I'm thinking about replying to this, any ideas on what to say so I don't make myself look like an idiot and sound factual? My ideas were to start off on statics about how 3% of long rifles are used in gun-related crimes, and how .6% is actual 'assault weapons' blah blah. I would also like to use how a woman could use 30 cartridges to defend herself, and why she would need it, etc. Any ideas on what to add?

lefteye
February 14, 2013, 08:59 PM
His statements about the "gun show loophole" disclose his ignorance about the subject. Sales by people who are not FFLs do not require a 4473 or NICS, regardless of where they occur. FFL sales require a 4473 and NICS regardless of where they occur. Criminals who possess a firearm have committed at least two crimes, their first conviction earned their status as a criminal; their second crime is the possession of a firearm.

Fortunately Harkin is retiring. Iowa's next senator needs to read and understand the 2nd, and McDonald and Heller.

beefyz
February 14, 2013, 09:07 PM
I, also from Pa, got the SAME sick rhetoric from this lame excuse of a man, a coward and traitor to his state and country, who dangles from the strings of the great messiah & puppetmaster. His father before him also stank as "governor" of this once proud state. The caseys are a lost cause. Don't even waste your time writing to him . He is more concerned with the rights of illegals, welfare cheats and sundry other entitlement groups who form the basis of his electorate.

Solo
February 15, 2013, 03:59 PM
Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to assault weapons legislation. I respect your opinion on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view.

Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, and I have watched this problem get worse and worse over the 40 years I have been in public life. From the 1966 shooting rampage at the University of Texas that killed 14 people and wounded 32 others, to the Newtown massacre that killed 20 children and 6 school teachers and faculty, I have seen more and more of these killings. I have had families tell me that they no longer feel safe in a mall, in a movie theater, in their business, and in other public places, because these deadly weapons are so readily available. These assault weapons too often fall into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged.

I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited or that it precludes taking action to prevent mass shootings. Indeed, in the same Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms , District of Columbia v. Heller , the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited. That is why assault weapons bans have consistently been upheld in the courts, both before and after the Heller decision. I believe regulation of these weapons is appropriate.


Once again, thank you for your letter. Although we may disagree, I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on this issue continues. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.


Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Dear Senator Feinstein,

With regard to assault weapons falling into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged too often, I seem to recall that your own website issued a press release last July (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=9a687f6b-29a3-4b14-b77b-b8d0d4535aaa) stating that the number of individuals shot with assault weapons was 750 people, of whom 350 were killed, since the Federal Assault Weapon Ban expired. It had been 8 years since the 2004Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired at that point. 750 individuals divided by 8 years equals 93.75 people shot per year. 350 deaths divided by 8 years equals 42.5 deaths per year. To put this into perspective, that's about as many people who died from bee stings on an annual basis.

I would strongly support allocating more resources to improve our mental healthcare system, law enforcement agencies, corrections and rehabilitation programs than enacting an assault weapons ban.

Best regards,

Rayman1968
February 15, 2013, 04:31 PM
Despise that woman....

blackrussian
February 15, 2013, 04:50 PM
I find the mention of the 1966 Austin shooting ironic, since an armed civilian was in the party that went up into the tower.

Shadow 7D
February 15, 2013, 04:55 PM
And that all the killing in that (except the shooter)
happened BEFORE the 'good ol boys <- many of whom were veterans)
went home and got their rifles and STARTED RETURNING FIRE to keep him pinned down
an armed response PREVENTED a worse masacare, like we see happening now days.

OneWound
February 15, 2013, 08:32 PM
I may have the opportunity to meet Senator Harkin, any ideas on what to ask if we get on any issues?

alsaqr
February 15, 2013, 08:37 PM
Senator Tom Harkin in rated F by GOA:

http://gunowners.org/113srat.htm

razorback2003
February 15, 2013, 08:59 PM
Ask her if she still has that US Marshal commission to carry her own pistol. That would be a funny addition to the letter.

Texan Scott
February 15, 2013, 09:34 PM
Ask her if she recalls that Harvey Milk was murdered by a public official with a police-issued .38, and if so, why her AWB proposal exempts public officials and law enforcement.

Billy Shears
February 15, 2013, 09:59 PM
Tom Harkin is one of those idiots whose ability to get reelected gives me a low opinion of the electorate. He's exactly the sort of politician who ought to be run out of town on a rail, not elected to high office. He just went on record saying we don't have a spending problem. Our economy is stalling, our credit's been downgraded, and looks to be again, and we borrow nearly half of every dollar we spend. But we don't have a spending problem.

His stance on guns is no different and no better. He's ignorant on the subject, and seems neither interested in or even capable of being educated about them. He's too doctrinaire. Like Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Lautenberg, and a few others, he's a lost cause. There's no question you can ask him that will make a difference, nor anything you can say. His mind's made up and no one here is going to change it. He'll support the most draconian anti-gun legislation that comes up for a vote. It strikes me as wiser to focus time, effort and money elsewhere, where it might have some effect.

baz
February 15, 2013, 10:27 PM
I think I forgot to post this on THR, but Mark Pryor from Arkansas has been very noncommittal in his response to my emails. IOW, he'll support gun control if he thinks it will get him reelected.Another Razorback here. I guess I think it would be the other way around with Pryor. He knows he has a tough fight ahead for reelection, and that he has to be seen as pro 2nd Amendment to get reelected. Or, at least cannot be seen as blatantly anti. I think that works for us in the short run, but it is also why he needs to be replaced in 2014. We need someone who will stand up for the 2nd Amendment as a matter of principle, and not just to keep getting elected. I don't trust Pryor at all. He's a follower in the Senate. In the near term, he will be torn between wanting to do what the Democratic leadership wants him to do, and his knowledge that he doesn't stand a chance of getting reelected if he supports an AWB or mag cap limits. My fear is that, like some Republicans, he would go along with UBC and claim that his opposition to AWB and mag cap limits demonstrates his 2nd Amendment bona fides. We need to keep the pressure on him. And then vote him out in 2014, like we did Lincoln in 2010.

theriflespeaks1863
February 16, 2013, 02:52 AM
I wrote and called my Rep., Mr. Reid Ribble, a couple weeks ago.

Here's what I got:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=179803&stc=1&d=1360997428

Whish he would've come out a little stronger, but at least he seems to be on the right page. Other WI members should write and let him know he needs to take a firmer stance!

-Chris

Ryanxia
February 16, 2013, 12:46 PM
Definitely has to go. What part of Maine is he a representative of?

ZeSpectre
February 16, 2013, 04:31 PM
From: "U.S. Senator Kaine" <senator@kaine.senate.gov>
Sent: Fri Feb 15 18:25:36 EST 2013
To:
Subject: Reply from Senator Kaine

Letterhead
February 15, 2013



Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me to share your views on proposals to reduce gun violence. I appreciate hearing from you.

No one can deny that gun violence is a serious problem in this country today. We owe it to the victims of the growing number of mass shootings to vigorously debate specific and comprehensive proposals that can keep our communities safer. The right approach focuses on many issues - improvements to the mental health system, better security protocols and common sense rules about gun use, including keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals.

When I was on the Richmond City Council in the 1990s, our city was mired in an epidemic of gun violence that included the city having the second-highest homicide rate in the United States. The most successful step we took was implementing Project Exile, a program that involved federal prosecution and tougher penalties for gun crimes that were previously treated more leniently in state courts. Celebrated by diverse groups engaged in the gun violence debate - including the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign - the program helped drive down Richmond's homicide rate by nearly 60 percent within a few years.

In 2007, the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech revealed glaring weaknesses in campus security protocols at colleges and universities, in our mental health system and the gun background check system for gun purchases. In a bipartisan spirit, I worked with then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell to immediately improve our background check system and issued an executive order ensuring that those adjudicated to be mentally ill and dangerous would be entered into a national database and barred from purchasing weapons. We also changed standards for mental health treatment and increased funding for community health programs while dramatically improving campus security and efforts to assist college students suffering from mental stress.

In January I attended a round-table event in Richmond with Vice President Biden on gun violence, to talk about the lessons learned in Virginia and the need for a comprehensive approach to these problems. As your U.S. Senator, I will work to bring that kind of comprehensive approach that will strengthen the safety of our communities, while protecting our Second Amendment rights. As a gun owner who worked with others to constitutionally guarantee Virginians the right to hunt, I know that you can be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment without tolerating the gun tragedies that are too often a part of our daily lives.

Concerning specific proposals, I am a strong supporter of universal background record checks. This is the only way we can enforce existing laws that prohibit dangerous individuals from purchasing guns. I am open to supporting legislation placing reasonable limits on high capacity magazines, combat-style weapons and gun trafficking if they are carefully drafted.

Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as Congress continues to debate strategies to reduce gun violence. Thank you once again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Signature

Tim Kaine
==================================================

As you can see, Kaine was a lost cause when he was our governor and things haven't improved at all. Still, I keep hammering him with emails.

TenDriver
February 17, 2013, 05:49 PM
Attachment removed, rotated, and posted below.

If this is not readable, please delete. The response is favorable and leaves little room for interpretation.

Derek Zeanah
February 17, 2013, 06:05 PM
OK, that's just painful. Rotated here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=179907&stc=1&d=1361138735

TenDriver
February 17, 2013, 06:06 PM
Sorry about that. Didn't realize it was sideways. iPhone fun.

alsaqr
February 17, 2013, 09:04 PM
Sessions is a good friend of gun owners.

bigfatdave
February 18, 2013, 12:01 PM
RE: email response from Feinstein
"Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, and I have watched this problem get worse and worse over the 40 years I have been in public life. "
Maybe the problem is DiFi? Makes as much sense as any of HER theories.

hso
February 18, 2013, 01:35 PM
Let's stay focused on the letters and what use we can put them to instead of ranting about DiFi or other politicians. Identify the enemy and leave the comments out of it.

avs11054
February 20, 2013, 07:21 PM
Response I received from Sen. Jeff Flake from AZ


Dear avs11054

Thank you for contacting me about gun control legislation.

In the wake of the tragic December 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, there has been a surge in the introduction of congressional legislation attempting to address gun violence. A ban on assault weapons, restrictions on ammunition and magazines, and increased background check requirements have all been proposed.

As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and I do not believe that our society needs more laws restricting gun ownership. What we really need is to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, while ensuring that those who break existing laws are fully prosecuted.

To that end, I support more effective and broader background checks for those purchasing firearms. For example, the state of Arizona has more than 120,000 records of mentally ill individuals barred from buying guns – but Arizona has not shared those records with the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which checks the names and records of would-be gun buyers to determine if they are disqualified from receiving firearms. At the same time, it is incumbent upon lawmakers to ensure that those eligible to buy guns can do so without untimely delays. I therefore am opposed to universal background checks on private sales, which would be extremely costly and apply to private transfers between family members, friends, neighbors, and even firearms passed down through wills.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so again in the future. I also encourage you to visit my website, which may be found at flake.senate.gov.

allaroundhunter
February 21, 2013, 02:58 AM
After writing to Senator Cornyn, I received this response:



Dear Mr. XXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me regarding federal firearms laws. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.

As a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, I believe it is essential to safeguard the law-abiding citizen's constitutional right to own and use firearms designed for legitimate purposes such as hunting, target shooting, collecting, and self-protection. Restricting this right runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed that citizens would retain the right to keep and bear arms.

It is encouraging that the Supreme Court has upheld the will of our Founders and re-affirmed the ideals our country was established upon. The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller provides a greater guarantee that Americans' Constitutional rights remain secure from federal government intrusion. I was proud to sign an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in that case stating an individual’s right to bear arms is fundamental. This historic ruling continues to have implications far beyond the District of Columbia. In 2010, the Supreme Court decided in McDonald v. City of Chicago to strike down the arbitrary gun ban in Chicago—and thereby affirm that the Second Amendment safeguards against state and local encroachments on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General, I have firsthand knowledge of crime-fighting policies that work, and I believe that citizens' Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. Rather, we must focus our attention on the source of violent crime: criminals who use firearms to commit crimes. I believe that strictly enforcing the law—and meting out tougher sentences for career criminals and those who use firearms when committing crimes—will reduce crime more effectively than gun or equipment bans, which primarily serve to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working with my colleagues to protect our Second Amendment rights. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

If anyone is concerned about him, I hope this sets fears to rest. He is on our side, and he has proved it in recent 2A issues.

Sergei Mosin
February 21, 2013, 04:58 AM
Senator Johanns of Nebraska is on our side, but he is retiring from the Senate after the 2014 elections. The early favorite to replace him is Governor Heineman, who is also pro-2A.

Green Lantern
February 21, 2013, 09:46 PM
Ugh...nobody can say so little using so many words like Kay Hagan. I've been hitting Popvox hard of late, so I can't honestly say what this is in regards to, and she does not give many clues either....

Thank you so much for contacting my office. I greatly appreciate hearing from you, and I hope you continue to share your opinions and ideas with me. I am honored to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and it is important to me that my office is open and accessible.

Whenever I am asked to evaluate an issue, I look at all perspectives and interests so I can make the most informed decisions possible. I have always felt that elected officials should do more to work across the aisle to pass legislation that benefits all Americans. I have strived to promote bipartisanship among my colleagues in the Senate, and I pledge to continue working with individuals from all political backgrounds as I champion the interests of North Carolina.

I take great pride in my moderate record, both in the United States Senate and the North Carolina Senate. Throughout my career in public service, I have been particularly dedicated to advocating for middle-class families, making sure our children have access to quality education and promoting fiscal responsibility. North Carolina is the most military-friendly state in the nation, and I will work to continue this tradition. My own family has a strong military background, and I am so proud of our brave men and women serving in the armed forces.

As legislation comes before Congress, please feel free to contact me with your concerns, questions, and ideas. I have always said that constituent service comes first. As I tackle issues in the Senate that are important to our state, I want as much input as possible from the citizens of North Carolina.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns. If you would like to stay informed on my work in the Senate, you can sign up for my e-newsletter, follow me on Twitter at @SenatorHagan, or visit my Facebook page.

Form replies are bad enough, at least they could make ones based on actual ISSUES....

Duhshooter
February 23, 2013, 06:43 PM
While the Senator says he supports the 2nd amendment, as others here have pointed out, he is for increased restrictions on gun ownership. In my opinion, Warner only says he supports the 2nd amendment because it is politically necessary for his campaign. If you check his voting record, he has voted almost straight Obama doctrine, Obamacare, etc. He bills himself as a moderate, but don't believe it.

I have had personal contact with this man on several occasions and my own opinion is, I will definitely vote against him.

NosaMSirhC
February 23, 2013, 07:32 PM
While the Senator says he supports the 2nd amendment, as others here have pointed out, he is for increased restrictions on gun ownership. In my opinion, Warner only says he supports the 2nd amendment because it is politically necessary for his campaign. If you check his voting record, he has voted almost straight Obama doctrine, Obamacare, etc. He bills himself as a moderate, but don't believe it.

I have had personal contact with this man on several occasions and my own opinion is, I will definitely vote against him.

ANYONE that thinks Mark Warner is Pro 2A needs a check up from the neck up....

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

barnbwt
February 24, 2013, 12:08 AM
Here is my mini-essay to John Cornyn. Normally I try to keep them to a couple sentences, but the Background Check issue really demands more detail because it seems "reasonable" superficially. My arguments are 1. NICS cost 2. Punishment of prohibited persons pinging NICS for firearms sales 3. The risk posed by databases of personal info, and the new legal landmine facing gunowners. In bold is probably the most important portion of the letter--something Cornyn is hopefully smacking his more unprincipled republicans over the head with already.



I would like to thank you for your commitment to protecting law-abiding firearms owners from additional restrictions that seek to further curtail the lawful use and possession of our property.

The long-awaited legislation put forth in reaction to the terrible school shooting last year appears to be finally coming to a vote soon. Expanding the requirement for NICS background checks to all firearms sales appears to be the aim of the proposed legislation.

I know I can count on you to vote against such unnecessary legislation, which does no more to prevent illegal sales than the currently unenforced statutes, but places an additional monetary burden and legal liablity on lawful gunowners.

As I am sure you as a gun owner already know, NICS checks are not free unless the transferred firearm is bought from the store doing the check. Forcing all sales to go through the check will do nothing but inflate gun prices more and discourage lawful transfers. Most dealers charge at least 30$ for a transfer. This rate will go up as dealers' demand for checks is forcibly increased.

The NICS database service is at its limit and delays transfers for days during peak demand. It would be completely swamped by private in-state transfers. Increasing their funding would be required--money that would be better left unborrowed.

NICS checks currently flag thousands of prohibited persons attempting to purchase firearms, but few to none are ever prosecuted. Deterred by NICS but without punishment, they turn to black market firearms; the majority of crimes using guns are committed by individuals who obtained them illegally.

Large collections of personal data like the transfer forms kept by dealers present a significant security risk to gunowners. Dealers completing them must retain their forms for 10 years, subject to BATFE inspection during that period. There is also the risk of those ignorant of the new laws becoming ensnared by a private transfer to a friend that makes them suddenly a felon. Completely unnecessary risks to law-abiding citizens, for absolutely no benefit.

Please continue to stand with gunowners by voting against additional ineffective gun laws, and work to try and convince some of your fellow lawmakers to turn against what may seem like politically convenient measures against gunowners.

Remind them that the general public will have long forgotten about the new gun-law by the mid-term elections--but gunowners now paying another $30 for each gun transfer will remember clearly.

Thank you for your time, and for your service to our state and our nation.

TCB

chemist308
February 25, 2013, 09:43 PM
I received an email response from House Rep Matt Cartwright. Based on my read, I do believe he is in need of our loving support to steer him back to right path and ensure we are represented. Could you help here? His contact info is found here:
https://cartwright.house.gov/contact/email-me

Dear Mr. ********,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your thoughts on gun safety and your support for the Second Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue and I'm glad to have the opportunity to respond.

As a Congressman I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and as a former trial attorney I have the deepest respect for our nation's laws. The tragic shootings in Connecticut, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Colorado have thrust gun safety into the spotlight and I recognize that this is a sensitive issue fraught with emotion.

Our country has a long and proud tradition of gun ownership and having owned guns myself I recognize the important role they play in our history and in the lives of many Americans today. I respect the rights of hunters and those who use guns for recreational purposes as I too enjoy shooting. I also recognize the need for individuals to protect their homes and their families. I do not seek to punish the many responsible and law-abiding gun owners but rather seek to find a balanced approach during this discussion on gun safety. We must protect our Second Amendment rights while keeping our children safe.

I was recently appointed to the Gun Violence Task Force and will work towards solutions to prevent future tragedies, including ensuring sufficient access to mental health services. I will approach this assignment with an open mind, and am looking for input from all sides of the issue. I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind as we continue this debate.



If you would like to stay connected to our office with the latest news, legislation, and other useful information, please sign-up up for my e-newsletter or visit my website. Thank you again for reaching out, and please do not hesitate to contact my office with any future questions or comments.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Matt Cartwright
Member of Congress
MC/SB

DeadMoneyDrew
February 25, 2013, 10:38 PM
I got back the forum letter gun responses from Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) and Rep. John Carney (D- DE at-large). Carper's response isn't too bad. Carney's is LOLterribad. That's not unexpected since Tom Carper seems to vote his mind while John Carney tends to do whatever he is told.

Here's the reply from Tom Carper:

Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts about ways to reduce gun violence and your concerns about reinstating the ban on military-style assault weapons. I appreciate hearing from you about this matter.

Let me begin by saying that I mourn the horrific loss of life at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the wake of the December 14, 2012 shooting. As parents of two sons, my wife Martha and I can only imagine the pain that these families are going through. Our thoughts and prayers will remain with them and with the victims of other shootings that have occurred and reoccurred across the country.

Since the Sandy Hook shooting, more than 900 Americans lost their lives from gun violence and more will continue to die each day that we do nothing. While no single change in the law will bring closure to these grieving families or completely prevent future violence, we have a duty to examine the facts, hear from a wide spectrum of experts and try to reach a consensus on ways to reduce gun violence. Trying to develop a consensus on this issue has been difficult and elusive, but that can no longer be an excuse for inaction.

As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and I believe that law-abiding citizens have the right to bear and own arms. I have a long family history with firearms. My ancestors were craftsmen who developed a firearm known as the Carper rifle 150 years ago in West Virginia. My father was an avid outdoorsman and gun collector. When I was young, he taught me to hunt and fish in the hills of West Virginia. I'm a gun owner and have taken my sons trap shooting as part of their introduction to firearms training in the Boy Scouts.

My family also has a great deal of admiration for law enforcement personnel. My father worked most of his life as a claims adjuster for Nationwide Insurance, and he had the opportunity to interact with law enforcement officers throughout his career in the insurance industry. During that time, he gained a great deal of respect for those men and women who were willing to risk their lives every day for their fellow citizens. Having an appreciation for law enforcement is just one of my father's values that I carry with me to this day. Just as importantly, my father taught me to use common sense in all aspects of my life, and I believe this credo should be followed when debating gun control legislation as well.

On December 19, 2012, President Barack Obama tapped Vice President Joe Biden to lead a task force that would get the facts and come up with some common sense ways to reduce gun violence. Over several weeks, Vice President Biden met with various stakeholders—victims of gun violence, law enforcement, mayors and governors, sportsmen and hunters, educators, mental health experts, the video game and movie industries, and the leadership of the National Rifle Association—and compiled a list of recommendations to address this issue.

On January 16, 2013, President Obama unveiled these recommendations, some of which would be achieved through executive action and others that would require Congressional approval. For example, the President put forward a proposal to eliminate the loopholes in the current background check system. Over the years, just about everyone I've spoken with agrees that keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals is the right thing to do, and strengthening background checks is a sensible way to do it. The President also recommended looking at reinstituting the ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that have been used all too often in mass shootings and strengthening the ban on armor-piercing bullets. Many of these weapons were intended for the battlefields of war, not our neighborhoods, and I believe that we're long overdue to revisit this matter in the halls of Congress. While these recommendations meet the common sense threshold, they also adhere to the Second Amendment. To view President Obama's proposal, please visit the following link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

I also believe that stricter gun control isn't the only solution and I am encouraged that President Obama's recommendations take a comprehensive approach. Helping people get the mental health treatment they need, making sure cops have the resources they need to prevent gun crimes, and improving school safety must continue to be part of this ongoing conversation. In fact, as Delaware's governor, I implemented the School Resource Officer Program to protect students and address juvenile delinquency and drug abuse. I am pleased that Governor Jack Markell (D-DE) has continued to build on this program, and on September 10, 2012, he signed into law SB 233, the Omnibus School Safety Act. This legislation creates a formal statewide framework for school safety plans and requires the Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security to work with schools, districts and first responders to develop up-to-date safety plans for Delaware's 219 public schools.

Should the Senate consider measures of legislation in the coming weeks, I expect my colleagues to do what is right—to put partisan politics aside—and focus on real solutions to gun violence. I stand ready to work with the President and my Senate colleagues to help strengthen our laws to help prevent future tragedies, like those in Newtown, Connecticut, Aurora, Colorado, and others before from happening again.

Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should I have an opportunity to consider measures of gun control legislation in the future. Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or other matters of importance to you.


Sincerely,

Tom Carper
United States Senator

DeadMoneyDrew
February 25, 2013, 10:39 PM
Here's the standard party-line-toeing response from Carney:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the debate Congress is currently having about our nation's gun laws. I appreciate your input and thoughts on this incredibly important issue.

As you may know, federal law currently allows for the purchase of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that can fire 20 rounds in 10 seconds. In most states, there is no requirement to undergo a background check before purchasing one of these guns or magazines from a private seller at a gun show.

In an effort to address this, President Obama and Vice President Biden have put forward a comprehensive plan to reduce violence in the United States by keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and getting military-grade weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines off our streets. The plan would also increase access to mental health services and provide teachers and counselors with the training they need to identify mental illness in young people.

We can uphold the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms -- while taking reasonable steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and ensure that military-grade weapons aren't being used to kill law enforcement officials and innocent people.

As someone elected to uphold the Constitution, I take seriously the Second Amendment and the rights of Americans to own guns and defend themselves. When the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment gives our citizens the right to keep a handgun in their home, Justice Antonin Scalia, perhaps the court's most conservative justice, stated that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

In the past, many elected officials have been reluctant to support stronger gun laws, but I hope that the recent tragedies across America -- from Connecticut to Colorado -- will spur bipartisan passage of common sense proposals like universal background checks for gun purchases and a ban on military-grade weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me regarding this serious matter. I take seriously the trust Delawareans have placed in me and my responsibility to represent them in Congress, and I look forward to serving you in the coming years



Sincerely,

John Carney
Member of Congress

Trent
February 26, 2013, 07:56 AM
Received from Tricky Dick's office.

Emphasis added where applicable.


February 25, 2013

Mr. XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me about gun violence prevention. I appreciate hearing from you.

Americans are entitled to own and use guns responsibly. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees this right. In 2008, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down the District’s handgun ban and affirmed Second Amendment rights. However, the Court also noted in its decision that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable limitations.

Within this context, we must work to pursue policies and enforce existing laws to protect Americans from becoming victims of gun violence. Strong penalties for violent crimes involving firearms should be part of any effort to reduce gun violence. I have consistently supported tough crime control and prevention initiatives since coming to Congress.

I support efforts that address illegal possession and use of firearms. Common sense restrictions such as bans on multi-round magazines and assault weapons are supported by law enforcement officials who patrol our streets. I also support universal background checks to prevent the transfer of firearms without a background check by non-licensed gun sellers.

We must institute common-sense limits, such as barring those with a history of mental instability, those with a history of violent crime or who are subject to restraining orders, and those whose names have been placed on a terrorist watch list from owning weapons. Straw purchasers and gun dealers should face firm penalties. There should be limits on how many firearms may be purchased in one month. Those who own firearms that are within the reach of children should have protective locks on their weapons.

Although we may disagree on this issue, I will keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate considers gun violence prevention measures. I will continue to uphold the right to bear arms and do not seek to diminish the ability of Americans to do so. We must strike a balance between protecting our constitutional rights and preventing senseless acts of violence that have led to the loss of countless lives in Illinois and across America.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to stay in touch.

Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

RJD/bc

sota
February 26, 2013, 08:18 AM
ever thought of inviting him to your house? you could lock him in your basement for like 10 seconds. the guy would die of fright/heart attack. problem solved? :D

Trent
February 26, 2013, 08:20 AM
What I sent back. I copied a LOT of the legislators on this, as well as my local rep, and the NRA-ILA.



Mr. Durbin;

As a father of 5 wonderful children, and a successful business owner in Illinois, I enjoy the opportunities this country and State provide for raising our families.

But your politics trouble me deeply, Mr. Durbin.

I grew up poor. After my father shot himself, my mother joined up with a man who became quite an abusive step-father – I bear the scars to show for it two and a half decades later. The five of us (including siblings) lived in a one room basement house, off of welfare, and whatever money my mother and step father raised selling cocaine. By the time I was 14 I moved out and lived with my grandparents. The psychological scars of my youth were hard to bear, and I dropped out of high school at age 18.

That fall I found out I was going to be a father, and took my GED test, passing. With a loan of $100 from my grandfather, I took an ad out in the local paper and started a small computer repair company. Which grew in to a larger software development operation. 17 years later, I now have several employees, customers all across North America, which including a prestigious list of fortune 100 and 500 companies. I am a very successful employer, a very successful entrepreneur, and pay (more than) my fair share of taxes.

I relay my successes in life, against all odds, not to invoke some sort of emotional response. I relay these facts of my past to illustrate that I have earned – unequivocally – the right to speak my mind as a person who is not adverse to struggles and hardship. I have lived through the very worst that life could throw at me, and I have flourished.

And I will say one thing, very clearly, so that you can understand it.

I do not now, and will not ever, tolerate tyranny, in whatever form it takes, Mr. Durbin.

Your politics may fly in Chicago, where you congregate with your corrupt peers and have shared black-tie dinners with past Governors who are currently residing in prison, but these politics are quite unwelcome in downstate Illinois.

I have a right to raise my 5 wonderful children with the same values and heritage that was passed down to me from my grandfather. HIS values are what I carry forward in life. He raised me out of the ashes of my youth, he corrected the flaws in me. He instilled respect for my elders, he taught me the value of a dollar, he taught me my ethics and morality, that hard work pays off, and goodness to strangers and neighbors is rewarded with bonds of friendship and brotherhood.

My grandfather is in his 80’s now, and does not have the strength or endurance or youth to carry on a struggle against our Government. But I sure as hell do. And I have the means, economically and logistically, to struggle against your particular brand of political oppression.

I would strongly advise you to review your policies and correctly adjust and adapt those views to reflect your constituents – there are millions of gun owners in the State of Illinois you are up against on this issue.

Or… you just might find yourself running against someone who is very eager (and very well-funded) to displace your corrupt, oppressive views next time you are up for election.

Have a wonderful day, sir.

Trenton xxxxxxxxxx
Federally Licensed Collector of Curio and Relics of War

ATBackPackin
February 26, 2013, 08:23 AM
The part that upsets me the most about politicians like that is how they go on about "How they support the 2nd Amendment". They do not have to agree with me, but how can you respect anyone who is that blatantly dishonest?

Disgusting!

Trent
February 26, 2013, 08:33 AM
They do not have to agree with me, but how can you respect anyone who is that blatantly dishonest?

Disgusting!

You can NOT in good conscious respect them. Period.

I'm only one person, and can only do so much. I doubt he reads what I wrote. His secretary or staff will probably intercept it.

But if he DOES read it, I hope that what I wrote sits in the back of his mind, nagging at his consciousness.

Next time he's up for re-election his opponent (if pro-gun) will receive a healthy campaign contribution from yours truly. THAT is a fact. Durbin needs to go the way of the dodo bird.

We only get two senators in congress, and 95% of the land mass in Illinois disagrees with his view.

alsaqr
February 26, 2013, 08:38 AM
Dick Durbin as a long time anti-gunner. After losing both houses of congress in the 1994 election, anti-gun politicians found it expedient to declare support for our Second Amendment rights while concurrently acting to erode those rights.

ole farmerbuck
February 26, 2013, 08:40 AM
Trent, VERY GOOD JOB!!!!! I wish I could put on paper what I think like you can. ;)

Trent
February 26, 2013, 08:45 AM
Farmerbuck;

Oh if I *really* spoke what's on my mind I'd probably have State Troopers knocking on my door right now.

I toned it down a lot. :)

And, to be honest, Politicians aren't really afraid of the lone peckerwood that lives in the hills with too many guns. They have bodyguards and law enforcement to protect them from that; it's a non-issue to them.

But they ARE afraid of people with money financing the people that run against them.

If it meant the difference between winning and losing, I'd sell off 75% of my gun collection to get the antigunner out of office, just to save the other 25% for my children.

radiotom
February 26, 2013, 08:49 AM
Multi-round magazines? Really getting extreme aren't we?

sansone
February 26, 2013, 08:56 AM
thanks trent.. I'm hesitant to speak my mind because emotions get the better of me.. Our 400+ dictators have not a shred of honesty. They manipulate the english language to the point of useless dribble. They all must be fired

blkbrd666
February 26, 2013, 09:25 PM
Here's the canned response from Sanford Bishop of Georgia. A better response than the one from Saxby Chambliss.

Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me about the individual right to bear a firearm enshrined in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. I appreciate hearing your views on this important issue, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

You will be pleased to learn that I received an A rating from the National Rifle Association for the 112th Congress (2011-2012). I have been a strong proponent of Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, so that law-abiding adults can exercise their Constitutional right to purchase and own firearms for the protection of their homes and families, collecting, target shooting, and hunting.

For example, I have been a sponsor of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. This legislation would permit any person with a valid concealed carry permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. I also have supported legislation which would roll back unnecessary restrictions and reform the operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Finally, I strongly agree that the Second Amendment guarantees individual rights to own and use firearms as opposed to collective rights to do so.

Again, I greatly appreciate your contacting me about this matter. I trust that you will continue to share your thoughts with me on other matters of concern. If I can ever be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call on me.

With warmest regards, I remain

Sincerely yours,

Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.
Member of Congress

Walkalong
February 26, 2013, 09:38 PM
Alabama - Jeff Sessions (R) - Pro-Second.One of the good guys. He should get re-elected with no problem, but we need to support him and make sure.

DeadMoneyDrew
February 26, 2013, 10:29 PM
Odd. Chris Coons gets an F from the NRA, but his auto-response doesn't mention anything about banning certain guns or restricting magazine size. Not sure how to interpret this one.

Dear Drew:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on gun control with me. I was deeply saddened to learn of the tragic shooting at the New Castle County Courthouse and extend my heartfelt condolences to the victims and their families. I was moved to hear of the heroic Capitol Police officers who risked their lives protecting those waiting in the courthouse lobby. At this difficult time, I also remember the families and victims of other mass shooting tragedies, including Newtown, Connecticut, Aurora, Colorado, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) and elsewhere, as well as victims of gun violence in Delaware and beyond.
I agree that the right to bear firearms, protected by the Second Amendment, is a fundamental freedom. In the wake of yet another unimaginable tragedy, however, we are reminded that no freedom is absolute. I am carefully considering a range of options to address gun violence that include strengthening mental health care, improving gun safety, and exploring ways to improve our system of background checks to ensure that violent criminals and those with mental illness cannot harm their fellow Americans. With all legislation that comes before the Senate, I will be certain to closely weigh the public safety interests of society with the civil liberties and freedoms afforded to all citizens.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I am honored to represent Delaware in the United States Senate and truly value hearing from Delawareans on issues of concern. My website, www.coons.senate.gov, can provide additional details about my work in the Senate, including legislation and state projects. I value your input and hope you will continue to keep me informed of the issues that matter to you.

Sincerely,
Christopher A. Coons
United States Senator

Librarian
March 6, 2013, 12:58 AM
California has http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml

It's pretty intuitive to use.

ETA There is, however, an oft-encountered 'gotcha' in reading CA bills.

The Legislature uses text font conventions to indicate existing, deleted, and added text to the bill documents. In bills as submitted, existing law is shown as plain black text, new text is BLUE ITALIC, deleted text is RED STRIKEOUT. (Older web site versions do not use the colors.)

Frequently someone will look at a bill and see existing law, and be very disturbed about something thought to be 'new'.

Then, as bills are amended, new versions are published - but the conventions are applied relative to the prior version of the bill. That is, unmodified additions from the prior version are displayed in plain black, just as existing law is, and unmodified deletions are, well, deleted, and no longer show as changes.

See my Calguns thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161873) on how to read a bill.

Buzzard II
March 6, 2013, 10:18 PM
From the castboolits forum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=9RABZq5IoaQ

hso
March 7, 2013, 10:26 AM
How do we put this to use? "FYI"s are interesting, but the purpose of this forum is to provide clear implementable plans for other members to put to use.

I think the least we can do is to link this and other videos that break the Anti stereotype about 2A supporters. Include the Sheriffs' video to show LE support 2A. Include articulate young people, women, artists, ...

http://www.urbancure.org/mbarticle.asp?id=290&t=Blacks-speak-out-against-gun-control
http://www.urbancure.org/mbarticle.asp?id=296&t=Never-Again-Protect-the-Second-Amendment
http://www.urbancure.org/mbarticle.asp?id=291&t=Preserve-gun-rights-save-black-lives

Ryanxia
March 7, 2013, 11:10 AM
That's a great idea HSO. Make sure everyone knows there are all forms of gun owners; moms, dads, veterans, minorities, etc.

RustHunter87
March 7, 2013, 11:37 AM
every American should watch this ,that last speaker really hit the nail on the head

ThorinNNY
March 8, 2013, 10:51 AM
Wonderful message! How do we get it to the people who REAALLY need to see it?

archigos
March 8, 2013, 12:18 PM
Just received a reply to my submission of the letter through Ruger to Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH):
Thank you for contacting me regarding recent gun control proposals and other efforts to reduce violence. I appreciate hearing from you.

Like all Americans, I was shocked and deeply saddened by the murders of innocent children and educators in Newtown, Connecticut. As the mother of two young children, it is difficult to imagine the pain felt by the parents of the children who were murdered. My thoughts and prayers remain with the victims, their families, and the Newtown community.

As President Obama said, "no single law or set of laws will eliminate evil." In the wake of this horrific tragedy, I welcome a renewed and thoughtful discussion in Washington and across the country about how we can best prevent senseless acts of violence.

Moving forward, we need to be careful to ensure that we do not infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. As a former murder prosecutor, I believe our focus should be on enforcing current federal laws to ensure that criminals and those who are "adjudicated as a mental defective" by reason of being a danger to himself or others (as defined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives at 27 C.F.R. Section 478.11 and prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(4)) do not possess firearms. We also should engage in an honest discussion about improving our mental health system, while working with law enforcement and local community leaders on school safety measures. These are areas where I believe we can achieve bipartisan consensus.

On January 16, 2013, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum outlining proposals to reduce gun violence. These proposals include a so-called "assault weapons" ban, universal background checks, prohibiting high-capacity magazines, increasing access to mental health services, and school safety measures. Subsequently, on January 24, 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced S. 150, a bill that would ban 157 firearm makes and models and also limit magazine capacities to 10 or fewer rounds. Other proposals may be offered, and I will certainly review each carefully.

First, any discussion about reducing violence must begin with our Constitution. Our Bill of Rights clearly protects the right to self-defense. The Second Amendment to the Constitution states: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In 2008, the United States Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570) that the Second Amendment does, in fact, confer an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

As well as respecting constitutional limits, I believe that our laws should protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. I appreciate that many New Hampshire citizens possess firearms for recreation, hunting, and self-defense. In fact, my husband, who is an Iraq war veteran, often participates in shooting competitions at our local fish and game club. Based on my experience as a prosecutor, I do not believe we will stop criminals or mentally ill individuals intent on illegally obtaining and misusing firearms by restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

With those principles as a guide, I do not support a so-called "assault weapons" ban or arbitrary limits on magazine capacities as contained in Senator Feinstein's bill. This legislation is very broad, banning many common models of semi-automatic firearms lawfully owned by citizens, including three very popular models of rifles. While the legislation would grandfather current firearm owners, allowing them to keep the newly banned guns, it would also take the unusual and confiscatory step of requiring the forfeiture of those firearms to the government upon the owner's death.

It is important to understand that there was an "assault weapons" ban in effect from 1994 to 2004. A report submitted in 2004 to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Institute of Justice evaluated the effectiveness of the ban. That study, conducted by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania, found no statistically significant evidence that either the "assault weapons" ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders.

I do believe that there are improvements we should make to our existing background check system to stop criminals and others prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law from obtaining them. For example, all federally licensed firearms dealers are required to contact law enforcement to conduct a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) search regardless of where they sell the firearms. However, there is a deficiency in what records are being entered into NICS. Although it is illegal to sell or transfer a firearm to an individual who is adjudicated as mentally incompetent, many states, including New Hampshire, are not entering all relevant records into NICS. It also appears that in many states, including New Hampshire, once an individual is in the system as mentally incompetent, there is no way to appropriately petition to be removed from this list if he or she has received treatment and is deemed to have recovered.

Following the Virginia Tech tragedy, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA; Public Law 110-180) was enacted to, among other things, encourage states to make more records available for use during NICS background checks. However, according to a July 2012 Government Accountability Office report, only 12 states dramatically increased the number of mental health records available for use during NICS background checks, and most states made very little progress in entering these records. As of October 2011, there were four states that had not submitted any mental health records at all, and 17 states that had submitted fewer than 10. New Hampshire had only submitted two records. Some states have not entered these records because of concerns that privacy laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA; Public Law 104-191), prevent them from providing mental health records to NICS.

We must eliminate legal barriers to ensure that records of individuals who are adjudicated as mentally incompetent get included in the NICS index. We also need to more effectively enforce current laws. Astonishingly, according to the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, of an estimated 80,000 people who failed background checks under NICS in fiscal year 2012 (e.g., fugitives, domestic abusers, felons, and mentally ill individuals), the DOJ prosecuted only 44 for attempting to purchase a firearm-essentially sending a signal that individuals who are prohibited by law from owning a gun won't be punished for breaking the law by trying to obtain one.

While I believe there is much we can do to improve our background check system and enforce existing laws, I do have concerns with "universal" background check proposals that retain the records of law-abiding citizens in a way that could be used to create a firearms registry that would infringe on privacy rights. I also believe we should respect the current rights of law-abiding citizens to transfer their firearms to family members.

Finally, any discussion of how we stem violence must address the deficiencies in our mental health system. We should re-examine our laws to ensure they are effective. Having worked with law enforcement, I recognize that there are not enough treatment options for mentally ill individuals. A 2006 DOJ study found that 56 percent of state prisoners, 45 percent of federal prisoners, and 64 percent of local jail inmates suffer from mental health challenges. There appears to be a bipartisan consensus that there is much more we can do to improve our mental health system.

That is why I have joined Senator Al Franken (D-MN) in introducing the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Act, which would expand mental health services available to inmates. I also worked with Senators Mark Begich (D-AK) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to introduce the Mental Health First Aid Act, which is designed to expand mental health first aid training in communities across the nation.

In the weeks ahead, I am willing to work with any of my colleagues who are serious about finding solutions that will prevent mass shootings without infringing on Americans' Second Amendment rights. With a firm commitment to our Constitution, I will carefully review and evaluate all proposals to reduce violence. While there are no easy answers to address mass gun violence in our society, there are steps we can take right now to ensure our background check system is fully enforced while working to improve early intervention with mentally ill individuals.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator, it is important to hear from you regarding the current issues affecting New Hampshire and our nation. Please do not hesitate to be in touch again if I can be of further assistance.

Ryanxia
March 8, 2013, 01:50 PM
Sounds pretty good. Still not 100% on her stance for universal background checks though. Might want to fire off another e-mail/mail/phone call and let her know we do NOT support a universal background check.

xquercus
March 8, 2013, 11:01 PM
A few weeks ago I wrote Senators King and Collins of Maine urging their no vote on S 150 or any other gun control legislation being discussed in the senate. Today, I received this response from Senator King. It's an interesting read. While it sounds like he will not be supporting any AWB-type legislation, he is now a co-sponsor of both S. 443, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act and S. 34, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. His letter, sent as part of a mass mailing, follows:



Thank you for contacting me to share your views on guns and gun violence; I appreciate your taking the time to be in touch. I have received thousands of letters, emails and phone calls from Maine people on this issue and have personally met with gun owners and representatives of Maine's sportsmen's community as well as Maine citizens who have long advocated for stronger gun laws.

I have listened in order to understand the various points of view in this debate and to search for practical, effective steps that can be taken to lessen the toll that guns take in our society (some 30,000 deaths each year) while respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

I am sending this response to everyone who has written or called so that people on both sides of the debate can better understand my approach to this complicated issue. Though you may not fully agree with my conclusions, I want to you know my thinking and how I am reaching my decisions.

Our experience here in Maine proves that access to guns doesn't necessarily mean an increase in gun violence. Our state has a relatively high rate of gun ownership but a comparatively low level of gun crime. I believe Maine's experience speaks to the long-standing heritage and traditions of the hunting community and of our gun-owning citizens which has instilled a standard of responsible firearm ownership that is passed down from generation to generation.

(For a fascinating and well-balanced discussion of the role that the culture of gun ownership can play in this issue, I suggest an article in the February 15 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Why the Gun Debate is Off Target by Dan Baum).

As you know, there are many ideas currently under discussion that seek to address the problem of gun violence in various ways. In thinking about these proposals--and Maine's experience--I start with the premise that the most important single thing we can do is to keep guns out of the hands of people who are demonstrably not responsible and pose a danger to themselves or others. Along these lines, I have recently co-sponsored two bills: S. 443, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act and S. 34, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act.

The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act targets straw purchasing and gun trafficking, two common ways that criminals acquire firearms. Unclear language in current laws regarding these practices means that they amount to little more than lying on a government form, which is difficult to prosecute and carries minimal penalties. This bill would strengthen that language and increase the related penalties, allowing law enforcement and the Justice Department to crackdown on these dangerous practices.

Currently, individuals known or suspected by the FBI to be involved with terrorist activities can purchase firearms or acquire an explosives license. The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act would add these individuals to the existing group of people prohibited from buying firearms or obtaining an explosives license. I recognize that there are rare cases where an individual may wrongly be identified as a known or suspected terrorist. This bill contains a vital element of due process which allows a denied individual to challenge and overturn any such mistake.

I support the effort to implement universal background checks, with common sense exemptions such as transfers within families. Currently, 40% of gun sales fall outside the instant check system, which makes little sense and actually disadvantages licensed gun dealers in Maine and elsewhere. I am still reviewing ways that we can make these checks more effective, but I believe there is a clear need to close the current loopholes in order to keep guns out of the hands of those proven to be dangerously mentally ill or criminally violent. Taking further steps to prevent these individuals from getting firearms can be accomplished without creating a national gun registry or limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I am also considering the possibility of limiting the size of ammunition magazines. In the recent gun massacres, a jammed magazine or the time necessary to reload has often provided the opportunity to stop the shooting.

After a great deal of thought, however, I still have serious concerns about the proposed ban on so-called assault weapons--principally because I just don't think it will work. I believe that such a bill places too much emphasis on the cosmetic appearance of particular firearms rather than their actual functionality.

Banning guns because they look a certain way will not, in my opinion, have a significant impact upon gun violence. In addition, manufacturers made minor adaptations which rendered the previous ban largely ineffective, and I expect the same thing would happen this time around.

It is important to emphasize that these weapons have exactly the same firing mechanism as the common semi-automatic hunting rifles owned by thousands of Maine residents. Although their looks may be more menacing, these weapons do not shoot any faster, farther, or with more power than conventional hunting rifles. In addition, the vast majority of gun crimes--over 90%--involve handguns, not rifles, assault or otherwise.

The answer to gun violence does not lie solely in tougher gun laws, however. Equally important are the questions that recent incidents raise about the breakdown of community and the adequacy of our mental health system to identify and treat potentially violent individuals. We clearly need to do a better job understanding and reporting mental illness so that we can enforce existing laws.

Thanks again for your message. I know how strongly people feel about these questions--on both sides--and am working hard to find positive steps that will diminish the terrible toll of gun violence while also respecting the Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Maine and across the country. Not an easy task, but one I'm convinced we can accomplish.

Best Regards,

ANGUS S. KING, JR.
United States Senator



P.S., Many of you have written expressing the view that the Second Amendment is absolute and prevents the passage of any kind of gun laws whatsoever. Without getting into a long discussion about Constitutional interpretation, this view is not supported by Supreme Court opinion or the general history of our Constitutional law.

Probably the best example of this history is the apparently absolute prohibition on infringements on freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”) which has long been interpreted to have limits--that free speech does not include the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater, for example.

Likewise, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Second Amendment to allow the regulation of certain kinds of guns and gun commerce. Fully automatic (Tommy) guns and sawed-off shotguns have been heavily regulated for 80 years, for example. This governmental power was reconfirmed as recently as 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller which declared the District’s heavy restrictions on handguns unconstitutional. Following the heart of the opinion which struck down the District’s law, Justice Antonin Scalia went on to make this point very clearly,

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

thecarfarmer
March 12, 2013, 02:43 AM
Just hit the 'Send' button on this five minutes ago...

Congressman Larsen,

In response to your statement: "...I continue to hold my position that Congress should reinstate the assault weapons ban and ban high-capacity ammunition clips above 10 rounds per clip. These military-grade weapons serve no legitimate purpose in civilian life...", the Second Amendment was not written to be limited to what you may feel is a 'legitimate purpose in civilian life'.

It was written to allow the populus to be armed, and armed with military-grade weapons, nonetheless. Pure and simple. I can understand that this doesn't sit well with politicians. It probably wasn't ever intended to.

According to the FBI's statistics, a rifle (and this includes rifles of all sorts - not limited to those with high capacity magazines) is a whole lot less likely to be used to kill someone than a bladed instrument, blunt instrument, or bare hands/feet.

If you care to, you may look up the statistics yourself:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

If you are successful in limiting the amount of firearms, or their capacity, what's next? Warning labels on knives? Not allowing me to buy a meat cleaver (These slaughterhouse-grade cutting implements serve no legitimate purpose in civilian life...) or a framing hammer?

Of course not. Because, knives and baseball bats don't really pose a threat to a government with auto-firing carbines.

So, how about following the intent of the Second Amendment, as opposed to attempting to eventually circumvent it by a series of iterations of laws designed to dilute it?

Sincerely, William J. Nielsen

PS: modern firearms generally use a removable box magazine, which holds rounds of ammunition inside; a clip is a device which bands/holds a number of rounds together, usually to be inserted into either a fixed or removable magazine. I mention it, because, if you're going to be making decisions regarding firearms, I'm sure you'll want to sound well-informed on the subject


--- On Mon, 3/11/13, Congressman Rick Larsen <rick.larsen@mail.house.gov> wrote:


From: Congressman Rick Larsen <rick.larsen@mail.house.gov>
Subject: Responding To Your Mail
To: [address redacted]yahoo.com
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013, 3:40 PM



Dear William :



Thank you for contacting me about steps we can take to prevent gun violence and make our communities safer. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.



Within the halls of Congress my colleagues and I are taking part in an important debate on the most effective manner of protecting the American people from gun violence. From the attack on Congresswoman Giffords that left six dead to the shootings in Colorado, Wisconsin, Oregon and Connecticut, it is too painfully clear that we must take meaningful action to make our communities safer. The 2008 Skagit County mass shootings that killed six brought this type of tragedy to our home. No single law can prevent the actions of a madman, but that is no excuse to not take action.



I continue to hold my position that Congress should reinstate the assault weapons ban and ban high-capacity ammunition clips above 10 rounds per clip . These military-grade weapons serve no legi timate purpose in civilian life and as such, I have cosponsored legislation that aims to remove these unnecessary weapons from our streets.



We must close the gun show and private sale loopholes and strengthen background check requirements to make sure criminal s and the mentally ill are unable to purchase guns. I am proud to have jo ined my colleague, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York, in sponsoring legislation that would provide for universal background checks to any individual wishing to buy, sell, or transfer a gun. Similarly, I support legislation that strengthens our ability to track the illegal flow of guns that too often fall through the cracks. This is not a matter of tracking gun ownership for those individuals who legally have the right to possess firearms, but is about identifying illegal activity that threatens our collective safety.



Legislation on gun safety is part, but not all of the solution. Mental illness has been shown to be a factor in some of these mass shootings. Mental illnesses are often misunderstood and under-diagnosed. Health providers need to give mental health the same attention that physical health is given. Congress should direct more research into mental illness and provide more funding for effective care of mentally ill patients. The Mental Health First Act, which I am a cosponsor of, seeks to address the short falls that exist in mental health training.



We have not seen the last of violent crimes in our country, but if Congress and the President act, we can make our communities safer and shrink this cycle of violence.

If you are interested in receiving periodic updates about my work in Congress, please sign up for my newsletter by clicking here. I also invite you to follow me on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.

Sincerely,

Rick Larsen
United States Representative
Washington State, 2nd District


Anybody else want to email Mr. Larsen?

-Bill

RX-178
March 12, 2013, 11:04 PM
When the appropriate response to a person who is advocating, or committing treason, through the willful disregard of their oath to uphold the Constitution, is a tersely worded email...

Well I don't even know how to finish that sentence, but it sure is depressing :(

OilyPablo
March 13, 2013, 07:37 AM
Larsen is a true gun and Constitution hater. Simply start a campaign to vote against him and vote for his opponent next year.

Twmaster
March 14, 2013, 04:45 AM
Old news here.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=707956

JSolie
March 14, 2013, 04:08 PM
Got this from my Representative earlier today. Wish my senators shared his views, but alas, they don't (and introduce bills like S.150)

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding gun control efforts. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

As you know, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states that "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." Our Founding Fathers preserved the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment for purposes of self-defense and as a safeguard against tyranny.

In the aftermath of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, Senator Diane Feinstein introduced S. 150, a bill which would regulate assault weapons. Previously, Congress passed an assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban in 1994, which expired in 2004. S. 150 would define assault weapons as any firearm which can accept a detachable magazine and has one military feature (collapsible stock, etc.) or a firearm which can hold more than 10 bullets. It would also ban magazines and clips with capacities larger than 10 bullets. This wide definition would outlaw numerous weapons currently owned by private citizens. Companion legislation has yet to be introduced in the House.

I am concerned with the overly broad definitions being employed to designate which firearms are deemed an 'assault weapon' in current proposals. Misnomers such as 'military accessories' serve only to unnecessarily frighten the public at a time when we should be working to solve the root causes of violence and mass-casualty shootings. There is no conclusive evidence that the previous such ban had any significant impact on crime levels, and I am concerned that adding a multitude of new gun laws may only prove to burden law-abiding gun owners with new hurdles while overlooking the true causes of gun violence.

I have been and will continue to be a solid supporter of our Second Amendment rights, in fact I have an A rating from the NRA. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution grants the right to law-abiding citizens to own firearms. This essential right must be protected to guarantee safety and freedom. Banning assault-weapons, imposing waiting periods, and creating large bureaucratic databases of gun owners has done nothing to prevent the scourge of illegally obtained weapons, which are the primary cause of serious crimes.

Once again, thank you for your correspondence. Rest assured, as a gun owner, I will continue to preserve our Second Amendment rights. I hope you will continue to contact me regarding issues of importance to you and your family. In the meantime, I encourage you to visit my website at www.calvert.house.gov and sign up for my weekly e-newsletters. For urgent updates on critical issues, follow me on Twitter (@KenCalvert) and check out my Facebook page (Congressman Ken Calvert).

Sincerely,

KEN CALVERT
Member of Congress

Jake L
March 15, 2013, 04:13 PM
One more instance of a Democrat who shouldn't be voted for by anyone who values the right to keep and bare arms.

Akita1
March 18, 2013, 09:13 PM
Dear Mr. XXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me about protecting Second Amendment rights.

I grew up on a ranch and have been a hunter since I was a boy. I have had guns all my life. I support a person's constitutional right to bear arms. I support the Second Amendment.

In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to military service, and to use that firearm for traditional lawful purposes like self-defense within the home. This is the law of the land.

I appreciate hearing your views on this subject. Hearing from you helps me to better serve you in the Senate.

Sincerely,
Bill Nelson

hso
March 21, 2013, 09:48 PM
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/03/the-assault-weapons-ban-as-understood-by-a-second-amendment-scholar.html

This is a great example of a constitutional scholar explaining the constitutional context for why an AWB can not work. Better yet it is on a respected PBS program and is very honestly handled.

We can take each of these points and incorporate them into our letters and discussions on the 2A/AWB.

SabbathWolf
March 21, 2013, 09:53 PM
how do I watch it?

docnyt
March 21, 2013, 10:19 PM
Wow great find there hso. This is the most rational RKBA discussion I've seen. It helps that the host's demeanor was calm and neutral.

SabbathWolf
March 21, 2013, 10:54 PM
I can't find the actual video. How do I watch it? What do I click on?

beatledog7
March 22, 2013, 12:04 AM
Their politics are usually pretty nearly opposite mine, but there is one thing I have always liked about PBS "anchors," whether on radio or TV; they don't scream at their audience.

This interviewer and guest are a shining example of how a dialog should be undertaken. The guest is dead on in her analysis, and the host doesn't berate her. Brilliant work from both.

tjd78z
March 22, 2013, 02:06 AM
Great video, thanks for sharing!

CapnMac
March 22, 2013, 04:22 AM
Sabbath, the web design there is not smart.
The words " examined the gun debate." Just before Judy Woodruf, are, in fact a link to the video.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/news/gun-debate/

SabbathWolf
March 22, 2013, 05:07 AM
Sabbath, the web design there is not smart.
The words " examined the gun debate." Just before Judy Woodruf, are, in fact a link to the video.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/news/gun-debate/
LOL...

Thank you. I guess I'm not that smart either sometimes.

silvermane_1
March 22, 2013, 05:40 AM
dang i missed it, but the Newshour on PBS is the only (other than local news) news i watch on TV.

willhickey
March 22, 2013, 03:20 PM
My friend Kevin posted a thread below but I thought I'd leave a link in the sticky thread as well. BillTrack50.com (http://billtrack50.com) makes it easy to search legislation across all 50 states.

SabbathWolf
March 22, 2013, 03:46 PM
I'm not sure I liked how she called the National Guard the Militia?

Downeast
March 22, 2013, 06:43 PM
I couldn't watch it on the link provided but found the same video on youtube and was able to watch it, it's good stuff.

Twmaster
March 22, 2013, 07:10 PM
That was a surprisingly level headed discussion considering the program.

Thanks for the link.

Arbo
March 22, 2013, 07:13 PM
great find.

Furncliff
March 23, 2013, 08:54 PM
Thanks OP.

zmoore1991
March 24, 2013, 02:12 AM
Great video. Obama might be thinking twice about that funding to PBS now, though...

hso
March 26, 2013, 09:39 AM
The Lee Amendment vote tells us who our friends are in the Senate (even thought it didn't pass by one vote).
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00087

YEAs ---50
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---49
Baldwin (D-WI)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

theshephard
March 26, 2013, 09:25 PM
I know this is old news, but since it hasn't been mentioned I think I should point it out:

I believe this recounting of the NRA's history is inaccurate as told in this video.

I'd really, sincerely appreciate someone correcting me on this. My understanding is that the NRA was started earlier than the instances cited, specifically by two union soldiers upset at the lack of Northern aptitude at reconciling POA & POI.

It's true that some local chapters were organized for the reason he states and that the national organization chartered those local organizations, but the NRA as a national organization wasn't started for these reasons, AFAIK.

The NRA can and should rightly take credit for their involvement in helping freed slaves defend themselves from the KKK, but it's important to qualify this video up front with an acknowledgement that the history isn't quite accurate. Being honest and upfront about this avoids putting us in the position of losing credibility for promoting something that isn't historically accurate and thus distracting from the truly valuable substance of what's discussed.

Again, I'd really like it if someone more knowledgeable on this would correct me. Don't hate - just posting this in the spirit of helping improve our strength of representation and argument.

kwguy
March 26, 2013, 09:57 PM
It's not the NRA making that statement, but those individuals.

It may be a case of them talking about the NRA from their particular perspective and context (local chapters, being chartered by the national organization) and not simply being concerned about when the 'national organization' actually formed.

Either way, that's a powerful statement, and since it flies in the face of the MSM, and reinforces the NRA as a positive organization, it'll never make 'prime time'. But I hope more people see it.

Prophet
March 27, 2013, 01:33 AM
theshepard, I've been doing a lot of research on this lately. Here's something I came across that may or may not be of value to the conversation. It concerns the rifle club that was created by civil rights activist Robert Franklin Williams and chartered by the NRA.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0266/excerpts/excerpt_8789.html


DAVID CECELSKI:What did the rifle club do?
MABEL WILLIAMS: We practiced shooting. We were all members. I was a member as well. We taught the kids how to shoot. We'd—we got our charter. We'd have our little meetings. And that was the backbone of our defense group.

DAVID CECELSKI: And it was like a NRA type thing.
MABEL WILLIAMS: It was affiliated. It was a branch of the National Rifle Association.

DAVID CECELSKI: That [unclear] to white people.

MABEL WILLIAMS: They didn't know for sure because when Robert sent off for the charter he had himself as an author. He had Dr. Perry as a doctor. He had some of the—. Oh, he had one of our officers, McDowell, as a businessman. He had, I think, the women he put down housewives. And he put construction, contractor for the construction workers. And we got our first charter like that. And it's really fun. The year that Rob passed away, the National Rifle Association wanted him to come to Texas to speak about how we survived in the south with guns.

DAVID CECELSKI: [unclear] to do it.

MABEL WILLIAMS: He was going to but his cancer got the better of him and he was unable to go. But he sent a message to them, which they read. And I have a tape that they—. At their anniversary celebration they talked about Robert Williams and how his rifle club allowed them to survive in the racist state of North Carolina. [Laughter]

DAVID CECELSKI: I bet it did.

MABEL WILLIAMS: Oh yeah. And we were just tickled to death that they did that.

DAVID CECELSKI: I like that.

MABEL WILLIAMS: I'm sure when we joined and the years after then, had they known we were a black group, they would have revoked our charter.

DAVID CECELSKI: I think they would have too.

MABEL WILLIAMS: I'm sure they would have. But in the later years when they were under such attack for guns, they came up with the fact that they were proud of the fact that, "Well, if it hadn't been for guns in North Carolina, that man would have been dead", you know. [Laughter]

DAVID CECELSKI: That's great.

MABEL WILLIAMS: "If he hadn't been affiliated with the rifle association." [Laughter] And that's true. But the ironic part that I want people to know is that although we had an association with guns, we knew how to use guns. We trained other people how to use guns, our children included. We never had the occasion to have to shoot anybody. And that if, you know. That's remarkable because a lot of people, when they think about having guns, they think about killing folks. And Robert always—. He was the ultimate teacher, always. He always taught the other people and us that a gun is a weapon that can do terrible damage to people. And the only reason you would ever pick up a gun is for self-defense and not for anything aggressive or not to scare off anybody, and not to play with anybody. But it was serious business when you really had to pick up a gun.

I'd love to read the letter Robert Franklin Williams sent to the NRA.

45crittergitter
April 1, 2013, 05:31 PM
In MS, you can look over all the bills: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2013/pdf/all_measures/notdead.xml

or do keyword searches: http://index.ls.state.ms.us/2013Session.html

You may need to start with the main legislature page in future years:
http://www.legislature.ms.gov/Pages/default.aspx

FourTeeFive
April 4, 2013, 06:42 PM
More reading on this subject:

http://constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...f-guns/308608/

Hunt480
April 5, 2013, 07:20 PM
Bump!

Ryanxia
April 17, 2013, 05:59 PM
theautobahn mentioned King sent out an e-mail and I just checked and sure enough this is what he wrote.



Thank you for contacting me about guns and gun violence. I recently wrote an editorial for the Bangor Daily News outlining my position on this issue. I've decided to share that editorial here so that you know my most recent thoughts and how I'm approaching the current debate:

(orriginally published in the Bangor Daily News on April 11, 2013)

In the coming days, the U.S. Senate will take up gun control. In my short tenure, no issue has generated as much interest, public engagement or passion as this one. As the debate in the Senate begins, I think it is appropriate that I lay out my position as clearly as possible to the people of Maine. In thinking this through, I have sat with gun owners, hunters, long-time gun control advocates and citizens from across Maine. After a great deal of thought, here is where I stand:

1. The problem of gun violence in our society simply cannot be ignored. Every year, more than 30,000 people die from gun-shots — either accidental, suicide or crime related. Gun murders now total more that 10,000 a year — which is the equivalent of a Newtown tragedy every single day. Put another way, it's as if a town the size of Auburn was wiped out — every man, woman and child — every year, year in and year out. No society that calls itself civilized can accept self-inflicted tragedy on this scale.

2. The Second Amendment is a fundamental and important part of our Constitution and must be respected and observed, and any legislation we pass must square with its terms and respect the rights of law-abiding citizens. I believe the steps outlined below meet that test.

3. Our experience here in Maine demonstrates that widespread gun ownership does not equate to widespread gun crime; we have one of the highest percentages of gun ownership in the country and one of the lowest rates of gun violence. This suggests to me that the key questions are "who can obtain a gun?" and "what are reasonable ways that guns can be kept out of the wrong hands?"

4. I have therefore concluded that the single most effective step we can take is to expand the current system of criminal background checks to all firearm transactions, with common sense exceptions for transfers within families. Just as is the case under the current gun dealer-only system, this can be done without creating a national gun registry and without burdening law-abiding citizens. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those few mentally ill persons who are prone to violence is the best defense we have against gun crime.

5. We should make it a federal crime to traffic guns between states for the purpose of providing them to people who could not purchase them legally and increase the penalties for straw purchasing — buying a gun for transfer to another who is legally prohibited from purchasing it themselves.

6. It is time to limit magazine size to no more than 10 rounds. Gun owners and sportsmen have told me that this limitation would not significantly inhibit their use of firearms and could save lives, particularly in a Newtown or Aurora-type situation.

7. After a great deal of thought, however, I am not prepared to support the proposed ban on so-called assault weapons — principally because I just don't think it will work. It is important to emphasize that these weapons have exactly the same firing mechanism and functionality as the common semi-automatic hunting rifles owned by thousands of Maine residents. Although their looks may be more menacing, they do not shoot any faster, farther, or with more power than conventional hunting rifles; and contrary to popular belief, they are not fully automatic, with the ability to to spray bullets with one pull of the trigger. In addition, the vast majority of gun crimes — well over 90 percent — involve handguns, not rifles, assault or otherwise.

The proposed ban is really about the appearance of particular firearms rather than what they do — and banning a gun because we don't like its looks will not, in my opinion, have a significant impact upon gun violence. In addition, at the time of the 1994 ban, manufacturers simply made minor cosmetic changes whereby banned guns were made exempt from the law, which rendered the ban largely ineffective. I expect the same thing would happen this time around.

8. Finally, it is essential that we do a better job of identifying — and helping — those with mental illness who may be prone to violent acts and take reasonable steps, including universal background checks, to limit their access to firearms.

This is a complex issue, and there are no simple answers, but I am convinced that the steps outlined above — particularly expanded background checks — will diminish the terrible toll that gun violence is taking in our society, while at the same time respecting the Second Amendment and the rights of our law-abiding neighbors who own and use firearms safely every day.

We owe ourselves and our children no less.


Best Regards,

ANGUS S. KING, JR.
United States Senator

P.S., Many of you have written expressing the view that the Second Amendment is absolute and prevents the passage of any kind of gun laws whatsoever. Without getting into a long discussion about Constitutional interpretation, this view is not supported by Supreme Court opinion or the general history of our Constitutional law.

Probably the best example of this history is the apparently absolute prohibition on infringements on freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”) which has long been interpreted to have limits--that free speech does not include the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater, for example.

Likewise, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Second Amendment to allow the regulation of certain kinds of guns and gun commerce. Fully automatic (Tommy) guns and sawed-off shotguns have been heavily regulated for 80 years, for example. This governmental power was reconfirmed as recently as 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller which declared the District’s heavy restrictions on handguns unconstitutional. Following the heart of the opinion which struck down the District’s law, Justice Antonin Scalia went on to make this point very clearly,

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”


My brief response.
So long as you support the infringement of Constitutional Rights on Americans and Mainers, myself and many others will work passionately to unseat you at your next election.

Sincerely,
XXXXX XXXXX
Maine resident
Registered voter

MasterSergeantA
April 17, 2013, 06:28 PM
I thought #5 was already a federal crime.

bigdaa
April 17, 2013, 06:49 PM
The reason for high capacity magazines is simple:

They are the tools we use to level the field against tyranny in this Nation.


The progression by the left is simple:

High cap>15 round>10 round>7 round>wheelguns only>38 caliber and smaller only>single shot>no shot

bk42261
April 17, 2013, 08:16 PM
We have looked at this in so many different ways..and we wanted to make sure it was enforceable.

barnbwt
April 17, 2013, 08:23 PM
I love how his logic in #6 is completely counter to his reasoning in #7 :D:D

"It is important to emphasize that these [magazines] have exactly the same functionality as the common semi-automatic [magazines] owned by thousands of Maine residents"

Some people just have a whole mess of spaghetti for a world view. At least he's up front with his "gun violence" code language right in the first bullet (:D) point; saves us some time hashing out his position based on the rest of his letter--very efficient. I can't believe these guys are still trying to work the Fudd angle--don't they know there's precious few of those left, these days?

"Probably the best example of this history is the apparently absolute prohibition on infringements on freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment ... which has long been interpreted to have limits--that free speech does not include the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater, for example."

And yet the freedom of speech allows us to set fire to an American flag in a crowd of people--see, I can come up with non-sequitors, too!:D

The First Amendment isn't about shooting off a blank in a crowd, and the Second isn't about hunting :banghead:

I do give the man credit for writing a lengthy letter. I've been irritated by one-sentence (form) responses from some the very gun-supportive folks here in Texas. King at least still feels the need to defend his actions.

TCB

bk42261
April 17, 2013, 09:28 PM
More time now.
To expand on his response to assault weapons ban:
Every time a weapon is prohibited, the manufacturer makes slight changes to get around the ban. We have looked at this is so many different ways, and we wanted to make sure it was {ENFORCABLE}.

Yo Mama
April 17, 2013, 09:36 PM
The words I have to say are not allowed on this forum. :banghead::fire::banghead::banghead:

dc.fireman
April 18, 2013, 12:18 AM
Here's a searchable index for Virginia:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?131+sbj+SBJ

bk42261
April 18, 2013, 12:24 AM
Should be fine, though, because he's (not kidding) looking to the federalist papers to see if drones are okay.
I sh** you not.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 18, 2013, 10:51 AM
I have updated a list of all the Senators up for election in 2014 to reflect their recent votes; because of the amount of work and the difficulty in editing it for THR, please go to:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1420444_UPDATED__Senators_Up_for_Re_election_in_2014_and_Second_Amendment_Stance.html

Ryanxia
April 18, 2013, 05:50 PM
Should be fine, though, because he's (not kidding) looking to the federalist papers to see if drones are okay.
I sh** you not.
Wonderful :rolleyes:
And he JUST got elected :(

Ash
April 19, 2013, 07:17 AM
I don't know, I'd reserve anger somewhat and this is why:

7. After a great deal of thought, however, I am not prepared to support the proposed ban on so-called assault weapons — principally because I just don't think it will work. It is important to emphasize that these weapons have exactly the same firing mechanism and functionality as the common semi-automatic hunting rifles owned by thousands of Maine residents. Although their looks may be more menacing, they do not shoot any faster, farther, or with more power than conventional hunting rifles; and contrary to popular belief, they are not fully automatic, with the ability to to spray bullets with one pull of the trigger. In addition, the vast majority of gun crimes — well over 90 percent — involve handguns, not rifles, assault or otherwise.

This means he's no foe. What we need to do is educate him on magazine length rather than write him off. It seems to me, though I could be wrong, that he just needs a better understanding of the issue. I'd say work with him on that. If he can understand an AK is functionally no different than a Garand (rotating bolt semi-automatic) which is not really any different from a hunting rifle, then he perhaps can better understand magazine size.

Midwest
April 19, 2013, 09:24 AM
Just be aware that Mr. King allegedly said this....


"Anyone seeing anyone buying components, any type of BBs or ball bearings -- a large amount of nails, even -- report that to police," he said.

( Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), a member of both the House Homeland Security Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, wants retailers to tell police about people who buy innocuous items that could be used to make a bomb.)



Source:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-pete-king-merchants-selling-ball-bearings-beauty-products-should-notify-police

mcdonl
April 19, 2013, 09:26 AM
He voted yea on AWB, mag capacity and of course UBC. I have set up a Facebook page "Remember S.649" to keep the fire stoked until election time.

I'm looking for the post with the voting records right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mcdonl
April 19, 2013, 09:53 AM
I just posted this on his facebook page in response to people saying they did not feel represented...

"I was very represented. I called, emailed and wrote our Senators from Maine. It did no good, but I was not alone. Millions of others like me acted by supporting SAM, the NRA and other groups to put pressure on the Senate and it worked. If the Gun-Control Lobby truly had the 90% they say they had than where was the grass roots efforts? The fact of the matter is the American people embrace the second amendment and our freedom and we realize that guns are not the problem. Violence stemming from mental health system failures and the collapse of morals are. Senator King... now is where the rubber meets the road. If this was truly to make our children safer I expect to see action to address the root causes of murder... not just the tools used. We will remember S.649 and how you voted and we will take that to the polls just like we did in 1994. Now is your chance to do some real work."

Ryanxia
April 19, 2013, 02:46 PM
Just be aware that Mr. King allegedly said this....


"Anyone seeing anyone buying components, any type of BBs or ball bearings -- a large amount of nails, even -- report that to police," he said.

( Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), a member of both the House Homeland Security Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, wants retailers to tell police about people who buy innocuous items that could be used to make a bomb.)



Source:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-pete-king-merchants-selling-ball-bearings-beauty-products-should-notify-police
Thanks for the input but that's the wrong King :)
We are speaking of Senator Angus King of Maine.

Keep up the good work Mcdonl!

MarshallDodge
April 26, 2013, 01:56 PM
You can take Max Baucus off the list, he is retiring (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/04/25/179037820/max-baucus-says-he-was-montanas-hired-hand-on-gun-vote).

winterhorse290
April 28, 2013, 10:01 AM
Mary Landrieu (D) is on our "do not re elect list" here in louisiana. David Vitter is also on notice that we,re watching him too.

Piratesailor
April 28, 2013, 10:20 AM
In my opinion, if they have served more than two terms they need to go anyway.

25cschaefer
April 28, 2013, 10:20 AM
You can take Max Baucus off the list, he is retiring.


He is also a two faced weasel. He voted against the Toomey bill and sent me letter explaining how much he supports an armed citizenry, then he voted against a measure that would have prevented the US from entering into an arms treaty with the UN. So basically he thinks that it is bad for the US to impose gun control on us but okay for a foreign force to.

We need to see whom he is going to support and make sure they don't make it in.

Keep an eye on Tester, I know he is not up this go-round but he voted for the Toomey bill because he felt it did not effect him and he thinks the second amendment protects our "hunting and fishing heritage."

Comrade Mike
April 28, 2013, 10:27 AM
Good luck ever getting Durbin out of office.

phil dirt
April 28, 2013, 11:06 AM
As both Diamondback 8 and Skribs have already said, Washington state has two very anti- Second Amendment Senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. Neither of them have ever seen a gun control proposal they didn't like, and both voted yea on the UN arms treaty. Though Washington is a fairly liberal state, we do have a lot of gun owners. When these two run for re-election, as they certainly will, I would love to see Second Amendment supporters go all out to defeat them. I, for one, would be more than happy to work on a campaign to remove these two horrible creatures from the US Senate. We do have some strong pro- gun forces in Washington state that could help us start to get organized. Let's do it!

Dframe
April 28, 2013, 01:26 PM
I'd give anything to replace our worthless dick durbin. I've voted against him everytime I could, and will do so again. In fact I'll work for the campaign for ANYONE who'll run against him. So should EVERY gun owner in Illinois!

baz
April 28, 2013, 10:19 PM
Even the "D's" who have voted our way recently -- such as my senator, Pryor of AR, need to be replaced by pro-gun "R's," in order to give the "R's" control of the Senate. If the D's retain control of the Senate in 2014, they will take that as vindication of their agenda, and will continue to whittle away at our RKBA. I'm hoping that we can find a good solid candidate to run against Pryor here in AR. I hope the same happens in the other "Red" states that have "Blue dog" D's in the Senate. Don't vote just on NRA/GOA rankings. In the current political environment, Republicans need to gain control of the Senate. I know that any given Republican can be a curse (there are one or two here from AZ that come to mind), but we need R's in control of the Senate (and House) as long as Obama remains President.

dc dalton
April 29, 2013, 12:00 PM
Don't know if you have seen the new thread I posted yesterday about our new organization but now you have one place where you can track all new laws from all 50 states and the federal government.

http://amgoa.org

You can also sign up (100% free) and add laws you want to keep track of to your watch list and be sent an email any time something in those laws has changed.

This was one of the driving forces for us to build this thing, it's always been a giant PITA too keep track and be informed about new laws.

Enjoy!

Showman
May 4, 2013, 02:07 PM
Just wanted to let all in the forum know: Senator Saxby Chambliss from Georgia will be retiring and not seeking re-election. His seat will almost certainly go to a Republican (Georgia is a very red state).

If you enjoyed reading about "Resources" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!