My Senator's Reply


PDA






Trumpet
July 9, 2004, 08:41 PM
Well,
At least I got a reply from one of 'em. Mikulski, must be too short to read my letter or something.
Here's what he said...

Dear Mr. XXXXXX,
Thank you for contacting my office to express your concerns about S. 1431, the Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this important issue.

As you may know, S. 1431 extends the assault weapons ban established by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which was signed into law on September 13, 1994. This legislation forbids the manufacture, sale, or possession of nineteen assault-style weapons typically used in criminal activity. The assault weapons ban established by the 1994 crime bill is set to expire next year. S. 1431 is intended to extend the assault weapons ban, as well as include several other types of assault weapons, that are not covered by the ban.

You should know it is my belief that assault weapons are more suitable for harming people than hunting or target shooting and are used by criminals to commit violent crimes against police officers and ordinary citizens. Therefore, I must tell you frankly that I am a co-sponsor of S. 1431. Since its introduction in the United States Senate on July 17, 2003, S. 1431 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. While i do not serve on this committee, you can be sure that I will keep your views in mind I should S.1431 come before the full Senate for debate.

While we may not fully agree on these issues, you may be sure that I will continue to consider the interests of hunters, target shooters, and people who use firearms for authorized security purposes as the Senate considers this legislation. Again, thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts to me on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or other matters that may be of concern to you.

With best regards,

Sincerely,


Paul Sarbanes
United States Senator




Now,
Should I reply? Do I even bring up his "I believe assault weapons are more suitable..." is full of crap? How about how his "I believe..." is irrelevant? What his consituents believe is what's relevant, and judging by the fact that a "underdog" Republican handed an incumbent Kennedy her ass (one of the main reasons is over gun control) in the gubernatorial race should matter to him. How 'bout the fact that it's obviously a form letter from 2003 (almost identical ot the one he sent me a year ago)? How bout the fact that most police departments, including the MD state police (his home state) think that the AWB is a useless POS? Or that by supporting the AWB that he's NOT considering the "hunters, target shooters...." that he claims to love so? Not to mention *** does he mean in the last sentence of the second to last paragraph?! Do I even bother?


R

If you enjoyed reading about "My Senator's Reply" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GnL
July 9, 2004, 08:49 PM
You could write a reply if you have the time, but frankly, Maryland's senators are a lost cause just like New York. No way in a million years will Sarbanes or Mikulski ever support the demise of the Klintoon Cosmetic Features Gun Ban.

As a former Marylander, I would welcome the disappearance of those two losers.

Mulliga
July 9, 2004, 09:00 PM
and people who use firearms for authorized security purposes
Yeech! He can't even bring himself to say "self-defense"! Or maybe he just means security guards and police officers should have guns, and not us serfs... :fire:

Don't waste your time. Instead, get fence-sitters shooting. It'll help a heckuva lot more.

Desertdog
July 9, 2004, 09:05 PM
It would probably do as much good as me writing my estemmed senators Boxer and Feinstein.:cuss:

Nathaniel Firethorn
July 9, 2004, 09:15 PM
Or me writing to Corzine and Lautenstein -er - ...berg... :rolleyes:

- pdmoderator

ksnecktieman
July 9, 2004, 09:19 PM
He is responding to you as if he thinks you are a stupid redneck,,, I think you should respond in kind... Email him and ask if his opponent in the next election will vote different than he will, and ask if he can provide his opponents website, so you can check:)

Maybe even add a P.S. and tell him nevermind, You found the other guys website (include web addy) and he DOES believe in the second amendment as you understand it?

Stebalo
July 9, 2004, 09:37 PM
You should know it is my belief that assault weapons are more suitable for harming people than hunting or target shooting


I really hate that "not suitable for hunting or target shooting" BS. Neither of those activities is mentioned in the Second Amendment. As SCOTUS said in US vs. Miller, ownership of a firearm could be restricted if, and only if, it had no connection to military or militia activity.

Norton
July 9, 2004, 10:07 PM
At least you got a reply......I haven't. I guarantee that I'll get the same form letter.

All I can say is to cast your vote for Pitkin in the upcoming election and try to get Mikulski out.....

Partisan Ranger
July 9, 2004, 10:11 PM
I advise you, in all good faith, to pull up stakes and move to Virginia. You'll be much happier.

RooK
July 10, 2004, 01:15 AM
What if Virginia falls? What next? Sometimes it's easier to run, but eventually you'll run out of places to hide.

SB88LX
July 11, 2004, 04:34 PM
Hey, looks just like mine...



Dear Mr.*EDIT*:

Thank you for contacting my office to express your concerns about S. 1431, the
Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003. I appreciate having the benefit of your
views on this important issue.

As you may know, S. 1431 extends the assault weapons ban established by the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which was signed into law
on September 13, 1994. This legislation forbids the manufacture, sale, or
possession of nineteen assault-style weapons typically used in criminal
activity. The assault weapons ban established by the 1994 crime bill is set to
expire next year. S. 1431 is intended to extend the assault weapons ban, as
well as include several other types of assault weapons, that are not covered by
the ban.

You should know it is my belief that assault weapons are more suitable for
harming people than hunting or target shooting and are used by criminals to
commit violent crimes against police officers and ordinary citizens. Therefore,
I must tell you frankly that I am a co-sponsor of S. 1431. Since its
introduction in the United States Senate on July 17, 2003, S. 1431 has been
referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. While I do not serve on this
committee, you can be sure that I will keep your views in mind I should S. 1431
come before the full Senate for debate.

While we may not fully agree on these issues, you may be sure that I will
continue to consider the interests of hunters, target shooters, and people who
use firearms for authorized security purposes as the Senate considers this
legislation. Again, thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts to
me on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this
or other matters that may be of concern to you.

With
Thanks for contacting me, in the future please visit my web site at
http://sarbanes.senate.gov rather than clicking reply.

With best regards,
Paul Sarbanes
United States Senator

Dbl0Kevin
July 11, 2004, 05:31 PM
What if Virginia falls? What next? Sometimes it's easier to run, but eventually you'll run out of places to hide.

I understand you're point, but sometimes you have to come to the realization that a certain battle is unwinnable. Even the military will retreat when they know they are fighting when they can't win.

Now I can't speak for Maryland, since I've never lived there. BUT I have lived in New Jersey for about 97% of my life and can pretty much tell you the fight for gun rights is lost. There is NO WAY short of a rebellion that this state will become any more friendly to gun owners.

Now some people say we should stay and fight. My opinion, however, is that it is pointless to have a small band of people banging their head against a wall in a useless battle. Instead if more people moved to a pro-gun state, or at least one that is teetering on the edge they could then provide useful help in keeping such a state in the freedom it enjoys.

Spot77
July 11, 2004, 09:28 PM
Well that makes FOUR of us that have received the same exact reply from Sarbanes. I posted mine in another thread here at THR somewhere, but the board's antics of late keep me from searching for it:p


I wonder how many letters Sarbanes gets asking him to vote FOR it?

molonlabe
July 11, 2004, 10:18 PM
Hey, Thats the same letter I got. Why reply ? Mikulski didn't even have the courtsy to reply.

Spot77
July 12, 2004, 12:41 PM
Ditto again. No reply from Mikulski.

I'm glad she feels the need to respond to her constituents who oppose her....


Vote for Pipkin.

Dave R
July 12, 2004, 01:40 PM
and are used by criminals to commit violent crimes against police officers and ordinary citizens.

He shows his ignorance here. "Assault Rifles" are used in a tiny % of crimes.

Its another case of taking it away from the law-abiding, and having no impact on crime.

Leatherneck
July 12, 2004, 02:09 PM
If you do reply, I'd suggest a bit of gender research first...:D

TC
TFL Survivor

Spot77
July 12, 2004, 06:26 PM
:confused:

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