Write your reps today, we might win!


PDA






Ryanxia
March 6, 2013, 09:56 AM
It looks like the main republican backer for the ‘universal background check’ is going to back out and we have a real chance of winning. Please write your Senators and ask them NOT to support any ‘universal background check’ Bills.

Article (they are expected to submit the Bill this evening so may be voted on tomorrow)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/background-check-bill_n_2814310.html

My letter to Senator Collins;

To Senator Collins,
It seems the time will come shortly to vote on the "Universal Background Check". Please be aware there are many issues with this Bill that will severely affect law abiding citizens and will not stop criminals who primarily steal the firearms they want. Your constituents urge you NOT to support this Bill or any other like it.

This means a great deal to many of us and those committed to our Second Amendment Rights are just now getting into full swing and will do everything in our power to make sure during the reelection process that only those who uphold their Constitutional Oath will remain our Congressional representatives.

I urge you to look at the political backlash that occurred after the 1994 AWB, the last time our Rights were jeopardized.


Sincerely,

XXXX XXXXXX
Maine resident
Registered voter


I have sent her e-mails on the subject several times before so I didn't feel the need to give a lot of supporting data/facts again.

If you enjoyed reading about "Write your reps today, we might win!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
theautobahn
March 6, 2013, 03:16 PM
I've e-mailed her before with more emphasis on some of the other points that I didn't touch on as strongly this time (AWB, etc.), but figured I'd send another:

Dear Senator Collins,

I continue to urge you to reject any additional gun legislation. It has been proven time and again that it does nothing to decrease crime, and only penalizes law-abiding gun owners. Maine has a strong tradition of gun ownership, yet we have one of the lowest violent crime rates of any state.

Specifically, I would urge you to vote against any measures for universal background checks. Criminals will continue to buy their guns illegally, so this additional legislation would only serve to hurt responsible gun owners. I understand there are provisions suggested to allow selling a gun to a family member, but what if I loan a rifle to a friend to hunt with? Universal background checks is legislation looking for a problem that doesn't exist. I strongly urge you to push law enforcement and the judicial system to enforce and prosecute the existing gun laws before enacting any additional legislation.

As far as "assault weapons", the majority of owners are law-abiding citizens who use them for recreation and hunting. I urge you to reject any legislation banning "assault weapons".

In regard to "high-capacity" (really "standard capacity, as that was the way they were designed) magazines, please realize that a skilled shooter loses very little time incorporating additional magazine changes (check youtube for proof), and a deranged psychopath will simply bring more magazines, as was the case at Virginia Tech.

In closing, I promise to support any ally to the Second Amendment as vehemently as I would work to unseat any legislator who votes against our Second Amendment rights.

Sincerely,

XXXX XXXX

JayBird
March 6, 2013, 06:41 PM
Oh, it is even better. It sounds like Schumer is going to submit his same ole same ole 'background check' bill.

And that not even Manchin will support it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/schumer-to-move-ahead-alone-on-gun-background-check-plan/2013/03/06/1bfc7b0c-8682-11e2-999e-5f8e0410cb9d_story.html

It is unclear if even Kirk will co-sponsor it now too. lol.

Schumer and Manchin and Kirk are still going to try to shop around for some other republican(as Kirk doesnt count) to support their version with Schumer's record keeping criteria in place, but they have been unsuccessful finding anyone up until now.

Schumer's same ole same ole bill probably is not going to get any of the red state democrats without Manchin backing it. So this maybe going the same route as Feinsteins 'AWB'. ie, nowhere quickly.

snakeman
March 6, 2013, 07:21 PM
i've wriiten mine

XD 45acp
March 7, 2013, 09:33 AM
I keep pestering my Senators. I keep getting the Chain letter response of "Thanks for your opinion, but we have to do something".... basically "Kiss off, I'm doing it anyway".

Ryanxia
March 7, 2013, 10:08 AM
Make sure they know you will work passionately to unseat them at their next reelection and then don't forget to follow through when the time comes. Regardless of what happens we have to at least try to get the right representatives in place.

NosaMSirhC
March 7, 2013, 04:32 PM
Senator Schumer went it alone.

The Senate bill number is in the Popvox thread.

Be Safe!

Nosam!

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

theautobahn
March 8, 2013, 11:18 AM
Make sure they know you will work passionately to unseat them at their next reelection and then don't forget to follow through when the time comes. Regardless of what happens we have to at least try to get the right representatives in place.

Nobody responds well to threats (and some, like perhaps myself, will cut off my nose to spite you if you threaten me with something). Someone suggested in another thread, and I've followed this advice, to throw in that you will support their reelection as strongly as you will work to unseat anybody who votes "incorrectly". This way the threat is in plain site, but is made in a non-threatening manner, plus you offer the herringbone of support if they vote the "correct" way.

Ryanxia
March 8, 2013, 12:45 PM
Nobody responds well to threats (and some, like perhaps myself, will cut off my nose to spite you if you threaten me with something). Someone suggested in another thread, and I've followed this advice, to throw in that you will support their reelection as strongly as you will work to unseat anybody who votes "incorrectly". This way the threat is in plain site, but is made in a non-threatening manner, plus you offer the herringbone of support if they vote the "correct" way.
That's a better way of phrasing it, and in fact that's pretty much how I phrased my first 5-10 e-mails to my reps. :)

Warrior1256
March 10, 2013, 07:48 PM
I'm constantly pestering my senators and reprsentitive with phone calls. Will continue to do so.

mrvco
March 11, 2013, 01:59 PM
Just sent a note to my Senators.

Ryanxia
March 13, 2013, 02:27 PM
Great guys, apparently it HAS made it out of committee but that doesn't mean much. All of the GOP members of committee voted no so I still have hope.

theautobahn
March 14, 2013, 04:32 PM
I received a canned response from Senator King a while ago and it's been irking me, so I finally wrote back. I probably could have been more mature / well-written, but I went TLR instead...

Dear ________,

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 our state'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, there are several proposals which strike me as simple common sense, including:

Denying firearms and access to explosives to individuals known or suspected to be involved in acts of terrorism;
Strengthening laws against falsifying information when buying a firearm;
Specifically making gun trafficking illegal under federal law;
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.”

Dear Senator King,

The analogy in your post-script is misapplied. It's completely legal and ethically correct to yell "fire" and/or shoot guns at a shooting range. It is not legal (or ethical) to shoot guns or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. There are already laws that place restrictions on how one exercises their Second Amendment rights (e.g: homicide with a gun). But as long as one does not have an intent to hurt someone, there is no issue with exercising either your First or Second Amendment rights.

Here's a more apt analogy: arguing in support of any of the proposed firearms legislation (magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, universal background checks) because a gun "might" be used to hurt someone would be like cutting out people's tongues because they "might" yell "fire" in a theater.

As far as Class III items (the "Tommy Gun" in your example) being "heavily regulated", people in Maine who can purchase a handgun can purchase a fully automatic or "sawed off" gun as long as they're willing to wait 8-10 months, pay a $200 tax stamp, and can actually afford the item to begin with. Besides a higher cost and longer wait, there is nothing that would keep you (I assume) or me from owning a full-auto machine gun or a "sawn off" shotgun.

I maintain my position that you should VOTE AGAINST ANY ADDITIONAL GUN CONTROL MEASURES! We need to enforce the laws that are on the books now. All that these new laws would accomplish is to make people who don't know better feel good. Don't pass laws just for the sake of making people feel good. I would support you in pushing to enforce the laws that are on the books.

Sincerely,

__________

Ryanxia
March 15, 2013, 12:40 PM
Well said autobahn.

If you enjoyed reading about "Write your reps today, we might win!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!