Resources

[snuzzo29]

Dear:

Thank you for contacting me about gun violence prevention in light of the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. I appreciate hearing from you.

I share with all Americans a profound sense of sorrow at the senseless act of violence committed at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The nation mourns this event and many Americans wonder what can be done to prevent this type of tragedy in the future.

I am an original cosponsor of the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act which would reinstate a ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The ban on multi-round magazines expired along with the federal assault weapons ban in 2004. I am a cosponsor of a bill that would reinstate the ban on assault weapons and would expand the definition of assault weapons to close loopholes that allow gun manufacturers to work around the previous ban.

I support universal gun background checks, which prevent the transfer of firearms without a background check by non-licensed gun sellers. I am a cosponsor of “terror gap” legislation that would give the Attorney General discretionary authority to deny gun sales to individuals who are known or appropriately suspected to be engaged in terrorism.

The majority of Americans and the majority of thoughtful gun owners and hunters agree that there must be reasonable limits on gun ownership and weapons. 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.

The United States Supreme Court has raised questions about the Second Amendment and the protections and responsibilities under this Constitutional amendment. I plan to hold a Senate Judiciary Hearing in the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights Subcommittee to address this Constitutional question and how to forward on gun control.

My heart and prayers go out to the victims and their families in Newtown, Connecticut, as we remember the children and teachers who lost their lives.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

Can't say I didn't expect this. Still have yet to hear back from Sen. Mark Kirk but he seems to be a strong anti as well.

[Mayvik]

tl;dr "Issues are important to me. I will think about issues. Thank you for writing, XOXO A Robot"

Dear (Mayvik):

Thank you for writing regarding gun control in Colorado. This is an important subject, and we appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts and concerns.

Throughout the past six months in Colorado and across the nation, we have experienced an unprecedented level of tragedy due to gun violence. The shooting that occurred in Aurora on the night of July 20th is an event that will remain in our hearts and minds forever. And while our lives will never be the same again, these experiences showed the strength and resilience of individuals to come together as a community. Now, as a community, we must come together to discuss ways we can prevent similar tragedies in the future.

Your letter is one of thousands we have received expressing sympathy and sharing your opinions on everything from banning assault weapons, to increasing mental health availability, to the rights of citizens to carry concealed weapons. The diversity of opinions on how best to address this issue is proof positive that we should not shy away from this discussion. We are confident that through thoughtful and mindful debate we can find reasonable solutions that respect the rights of law-abiding Coloradans to own firearms while maintaining the health and safety of our communities.

This is a multifaceted issue and part of this dialogue should focus on mental health access. So, we have asked the Colorado General Assembly to support a comprehensive overhaul of our state’s mental health system so we can better identify and help people who are a threat to themselves and others.

This is a conversation that will continue throughout the course of this legislative session, so we also encourage you to share your thoughts with your legislators. To contact the House of Representatives, please call 303-866-2904. To contact the Senate, please call 303-866-2316. These contacts will direct your call to the appropriate office. Or, you can find your legislators online at http://www.colorado.gov/esri/webmaps...f453d209bc81d9

Once again, thank you for your input, and for taking the time to contact our office. We will keep your thoughts in mind as we move forward.

Sincerely,


Office of Governor John W. Hickenlooper

[hso]

Ok, that's scripted by a functionary that doesn't have an opinion on the issue themselves.

[creitzel]

This is pretty much what I expected. He's been anti-gun his whole career. Sure wish we could get this guy voted out of office.

From: Senator Carl Levin [mailto:senator_levin@levin.senate.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:43 PM
To: redacted
Subject: Re: Your Concerns


Dear Mr. Reitzel:

Thank you for contacting me about gun safety issues. I appreciate you sharing your views with me.

I support sensible gun safety laws and strict enforcement of those laws to help prevent crimes, suicides and violence committed with firearms. I support the steps President Obama outlined recently to curb the gun violence that plagues our nation, and I believe Congress can and should work to enact legislation to prevent gun violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I was an original cosponsor of the Brady Law (P.L.103-159). This law requires prospective handgun purchasers to undergo criminal background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The background check system is able to make 92 percent of background check determinations on the spot, and since 1994, has prevented more than 1.5 million firearm purchases. Additionally, according to Centers for Disease Control statistics, since the Brady Law went into effect, the number of gun deaths in the United States dropped 22 percent, from 39,595 in 1993 to 30,769 in 2007. The number of gun homicides dropped by more than 29 percent, from 17,024 in 1993 to 12,129 in 2007.

While the Brady Law has been successful in reducing gun violence, I believe more has to be done. For example, only 60 percent of all gun sales in the United States take place at licensed federal dealers, where background checks are mandatory. The remaining 40 percent of gun sales are conducted by unlicensed individual sellers, often at gun shows, and a background check is not required. This means that across our nation, any dangerous individual can go to a gun show and purchase a deadly weapon without any form of background check. To close this ‘gun show loophole,’ I am a cosponsor of the Gun Show Background Check Act. This bill would enact the common sense principle that anyone who wants to purchase a firearm at a gun show should be able to pass a simple background check. Ten national police organizations support closing this loophole.

Additionally, I am a cosponsor of the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, a bill that seeks to reduce gun violence by keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists and criminals. Although hard to believe, nothing in current law prohibits individuals on terrorist watch lists from purchasing firearms, unless they fall into another disqualifying category. This “terror gap” in federal law must be closed, and this bill would do just that. This legislation would deny the transfer of a firearm when a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the purchaser may use the firearm in connection with terrorism. Keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists is just common sense.

I also have always supported the rights of sportsmen and hunters. Hunting is a way of life for millions of Americans and plays an integral role in modern wildlife management. But military style assault weapons have no sporting purpose. Because of these weapons, our nation’s citizens are in greater danger and police officers across the country are encountering criminals armed with highly lethal military style weapons.

To support our law enforcement community and to save lives, I am a cosponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would prevent the future possession, manufacture, sale and importation of assault-type weapons while grandfathering weapons lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment. It would ban firearms with detachable magazines and military style features, such as grenade launchers, protruding pistol grips, and barrel shrouds. It would support law enforcement officers across our nation, who should not be forced to confront lawbreakers toting military arms. And it would protect the rights of hunters by specifically naming thousands of firearms with legitimate sporting, sentimental or other value that would remain legal to possess.

This bill also would ban high capacity ammunition magazines. Studies have shown that high capacity ammunition magazines are used in 31 to 41 percent of fatal police shootings in cities across our nation. They also have been used by the perpetrators of numerous mass shootings, including at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, the Tucson shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others, the attack on a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and the horrifying shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The Newtown shooting alone left twenty six people dead, twenty of them children.

We must not wait until more places are added to this heartbreaking list. We can and should act swiftly to protect our families and loved ones from mass shootings. These measures have the overwhelming support of law enforcement communities around our nation, who have implored us to make changes to stop the flood of these types of weapons into the hands of those who would use them for harm. I will continue to work for common-sense gun safety measures.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Carl Levin
levin.senate.gov

[bigfatdave]

Originally Posted by Sherrod Brown's correspondence drone

Dear Mr. BFD:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding firearms legislation.

When our children and families are no longer safe at our schools, in our malls, and in our movie theaters, we as a country must take action. The shocking numbers of public shootings throughout the country last year, culminating in Newtown, Connecticut, demand that we engage in a serious national discussion.

First, thank you for sharing your thoughts about assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and the calls to regulate or ban these items.

From 1994 to 2004, Congress enacted a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. The bill had three main components. The first section was comprised of a list guns that were banned by name, such as Uzi’s. The second section outlawed the future manufacture and sale of any new semiautomatic weapon with a detachable magazine and more than two of several assault-style features. The third section was an appendix which listed hunting rifles and shotguns that didn’t run afoul of the second section, and thus were exempted from the bill.

In 2011, law enforcement leaders such as Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Back, Oklahoma Police Chief Bill Citty, and Brockton, Massachusetts, Police Captain Emanuel Gomes, all separately discussed how their officers were being outgunned with assault weapons possessed by criminals.

While I have supported restrictions on the possession of semi-automatic assault weapons, and restrictions on the ability of criminals to possess handguns, I do not support an outright ban on guns or arbitrary restrictions on the right of law-abiding citizens to possess guns.

Secondly, thank you for sharing your thoughts on background checks for firearms owners.

I continue to receive numerous constituent letters voicing opinions on this issue. Gun shows have become a way for criminals and gun traffickers to purchase weapons without a background check and without a record of purchase. Gun sellers at these shows are not always registered the same way as owners of gun shops. This enables people to sell guns to criminals or the mentally unstable without any record being created for law enforcement. The International Association of Chiefs of Police supports improving and expanding the background check process to ensure that registration and background check is conducted for every gun sale.

Lastly, thank you for expressing your concerns over gun control and access to mental health care.

Many people have expressed concerns about holes in our mental health care system that contributes to violence. Though people with mental illness are not at an increased risk of behaving violently in general, there is a subset of individuals with mental illness who are at risk of violent behavior of the kinds we have seen in public gathering places.

Over the last few years, Congress has passed laws to improve the mental health system so individuals in need of psychiatric evaluation, treatment, and support do not fall through the cracks. Several components of these laws have yet to be fully implemented.

In a bipartisan effort to ensure that mental and behavioral health services are covered by insurance in a manner equivalent to medical and surgical services. Congress passed the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in 2008 This law prohibits insurance companies from arbitrarily limiting the number of hospital days or outpatient treatment sessions a patient is granted, as well as prohibiting higher copayments or deductibles for subscribers who seek psychological services. Such practices by insurance companies were both wrong and counterproductive. This legislation will help the 54 million Americans with mental illness gain access to appropriate and affordable treatment. My Senate colleagues and I have been working with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure this law is fully implemented. Additionally, I and several of my colleagues sent a letter to President Obama asking him and HHS to fully implement the law.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is also working to improve access to mental and behavioral health services. Individuals in Ohio who have been denied insurance coverage due to a pre-existing mental health condition can now access the new Ohio High-Risk Insurance pool. For more information on the high risk pool or to sign-up for coverage, please visit http://www.insurance.ohio.gov/Docume...skPoolFAQs.pdf

The ACA immediately eliminated pre-existing coverage exclusions for children. Kids will no longer be denied coverage — or have services excluded from coverage — as a result of pre-existing conditions. Additionally, parents of young adults can now maintain coverage for their children until age 26. Serious mental illness is often first noticed in the late teens or early twenties, when the brain is changing rapidly and when pressures to perform are great. It is crucial that young adults with existing or emerging mental illnesses not experience lapses in coverage at this time of high risk.

Beginning in 2014, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to individuals with mental illness and insurers cannot use mental illness as a reason to raise premiums. HHS also established an essential benefits package — a set of health care service categories that must be covered by most plans — that will take effect in 2014. Mental health and substance abuse disorder services will be part of this package.

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the ACA represent tremendous strides forward for mental health coverage and access. However, we must also re-examine our mental health safety net, which has faced unrelenting budget cuts, reducing access for some our most vulnerable citizens.

We must work to reduce the stigma attached to mental health treatment, and find ways to support families who are concerned about the mental health status of their loved ones. It is essential that families know about the mental health resources available to them, and that they understand they have allies and other resources to which they can turn. Education about signs of mental illness, how to obtain a mental health screening, and how to access treatment services are simple but key ingredients to a successful national plan for managing mental health crises.

Gun violence is a complex issue and we must work together to uphold our Constitution while at the same time ensuring that our communities are safe. We can and must act to make such tragedies less likely in the future. Should any legislation concerning firearms come before the Senate, I will keep your thoughts in mind. Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown
United States Senator

Expected and disappointing.
I'll ping him again for specific bills and ask why the CDC couldn't find any meaningful improvement from the AWB, as well as remind him of one very specific result of the previous AWB, firing a bunch of idiots who voted for it.

[bigfatdave]

response from Jan 14th, it seems that others have received different responses

Originally Posted by Rob Portman's correspondence drone

Dear BFD,

Thank you for contacting me about our Second Amendment rights. It is good to hear from you.

I am a gun owner who believes in the right to bear arms in defense of self, family and property. During my 12 years serving in Congress, I received an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association for defending our Constitutional Rights. I opposed the so-called "assault weapons ban" and opposed the Brady Bill. I supported repealing both the Clinton gun ban and the Washington, D.C. gun ban. I voted to protect the private information of gun owners; to protect state gun laws; and to protect firearm and ammunition manufacturers, dealers or importers from lawsuits and damages related to criminal misuse by a third party.

As a life-long hunter, I also believe the rights and freedoms of hunters must be guarded and I developed an executive order that the president signed to enhance hunting and fishing opportunities at wildlife refuges and national preserves. As your Senator, I will continue to protect our Constitutional freedoms and will be a strong advocate for preserving these rights and traditions for future generations.

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office. For more information, I encourage you to visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Rob Portman
U.S. Senator

Better, although I'll still be pinging on him for specific bills and to ask why he injected some nonsense about hunting into a discussion on RKBA.
I'll also ask min, "as a life long hunter" why he isn't ridiculing the idiots who claim that .223/5.56 "assault weapons" are powerful, when he MUST be using something more powerful to hunt anything larger than a coyote.

[bigfatdave]

Originally Posted by Marcy Kaptur's correspondence drone

silence

a complete, deafening silence

for over 2 weeks now

I blame the Ohio republican party for this one.
Marcy OWNS that seat in the HoR, last time the GOP put "Joe the plumber" up against Kaptur, they're not even trying to unseat her. I'm not exactly a fan of the GOP, but Kaptur needs to go.

[emb]

I wrote many letters to Florida democratic and republican Senators and Representatives. Mr. Rubio is the only one that responded.

"Dear ****:

Thank you for writing me regarding the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I understand this is an important issue and I appreciate hearing your thoughts.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I hold the fundamental belief the Second Amendment should not be altered. At the same time, I have always been open to measures that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

In light of the recent tragedies, some have suggested restricting gun ownership and have suggested ways to curb gun violence. I am always open to ideas on how to stop violent crimes, however I have concerns when these suggestions are solely directed toward restricting gun ownership. Given the Constitution's clear stance on gun ownership, I will continue to support an individual's right to own firearms.

It is an honor and a privilege to serve you as your United States Senator. I appreciate you offering your opinion on this issue. If I can ever be of any assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Marco Rubio
United States Senator"

[rjrivero]

Sen. Rubio writes a nice letter!

[rjrivero]

Received this recently:

Originally Posted by Sen. Rob Portman

Dear rjrivero,



Thank you for contacting me to express your views about the President's gun control proposals. It is good to hear from you.



As you know, President Obama recently issued 23 executive actions and endorsed gun control legislative initiatives following the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School.



I had hoped President Obama would look to address the root causes of senseless acts of violence and work with Congress to develop a comprehensive plan to lessen the likelihood of these kinds of tragic incidents in the future. Unfortunately, the President has chosen to act unilaterally wherever he can and focus on new gun bans which I believe would undermine the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.



In response to tragic attacks like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary, I remain committed to ensuring that those who suffer from mental illness, a common thread in these instances, receive proper care, that current gun laws are enforced, and that school safety is enhanced as we address the deeper issue of violence in our society.



Thank you again for taking the time to contact my office. For more information, please visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov. Please keep in touch. EMAIL.BEGINHIDE.MERGE



Sincerely,

A

Rob Portman

U.S. Senator



Sincerely,

Rob Portman
U.S. Senator

Not a very strong letter. Some have suggested that Sen. Portman has waivered in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings. This letter makes me wonder. What do you think?

[tiamat]

I sent the form letter provided at Ruger's site , and got this response from MI Senator Carl Levin (bolds/highlights are my additions):

Dear Mr. tiamat:

Thank you for contacting me about gun safety issues. I appreciate you sharing your views with me.

I support sensible gun safety laws and strict enforcement of those laws to help prevent crimes, suicides and violence committed with firearms. I support the steps President Obama outlined recently to curb the gun violence that plagues our nation, and I believe Congress can and should work to enact legislation to prevent gun violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I was an original cosponsor of the Brady Law (P.L.103-159). This law requires prospective handgun purchasers to undergo criminal background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The background check system is able to make 92 percent of background check determinations on the spot, and since 1994, has prevented more than 1.5 million firearm purchases. Additionally, according to Centers for Disease Control statistics, since the Brady Law went into effect, the number of gun deaths in the United States dropped 22 percent, from 39,595 in 1993 to 30,769 in 2007. The number of gun homicides dropped by more than 29 percent, from 17,024 in 1993 to 12,129 in 2007.

While the Brady Law has been successful in reducing gun violence, I believe more has to be done. For example, only 60 percent of all gun sales in the United States take place at licensed federal dealers, where background checks are mandatory. The remaining 40 percent of gun sales are conducted by unlicensed individual sellers, often at gun shows, and a background check is not required. This means that across our nation, any dangerous individual can go to a gun show and purchase a deadly weapon without any form of background check. To close this ‘gun show loophole,’ I am a cosponsor of the Gun Show Background Check Act. This bill would enact the common sense principle that anyone who wants to purchase a firearm at a gun show should be able to pass a simple background check. Ten national police organizations support closing this loophole.

Additionally, I am a cosponsor of the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, a bill that seeks to reduce gun violence by keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists and criminals. Although hard to believe, nothing in current law prohibits individuals on terrorist watch lists from purchasing firearms, unless they fall into another disqualifying category. This “terror gap” in federal law must be closed, and this bill would do just that. This legislation would deny the transfer of a firearm when a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the purchaser may use the firearm in connection with terrorism. Keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists is just common sense.

I also have always supported the rights of sportsmen and hunters. Hunting is a way of life for millions of Americans and plays an integral role in modern wildlife management. But military style assault weapons have no sporting purpose. Because of these weapons, our nation’s citizens are in greater danger and police officers across the country are encountering criminals armed with highly lethal military style weapons.

To support our law enforcement community and to save lives, I am a cosponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would prevent the future possession, manufacture, sale and importation of assault-type weapons while grandfathering weapons lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment. It would ban firearms with detachable magazines and military style features, such as grenade launchers, protruding pistol grips, and barrel shrouds. It would support law enforcement officers across our nation, who should not be forced to confront lawbreakers toting military arms. And it would protect the rights of hunters by specifically naming thousands of firearms with legitimate sporting, sentimental or other value that would remain legal to possess.

This bill also would ban high capacity ammunition magazines. Studies have shown that high capacity ammunition magazines are used in 31 to 41 percent of fatal police shootings in cities across our nation. They also have been used by the perpetrators of numerous mass shootings, including at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, the Tucson shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others, the attack on a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and the horrifying shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The Newtown shooting alone left twenty six people dead, twenty of them children.

We must not wait until more places are added to this heartbreaking list. We can and should act swiftly to protect our families and loved ones from mass shootings. These measures have the overwhelming support of law enforcement communities around our nation, who have implored us to make changes to stop the flood of these types of weapons into the hands of those who would use them for harm. I will continue to work for common-sense gun safety measures.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Carl Levin
levin.senate.gov

I also got a response from Senator Debbie Stabenow, which was much more succinct and basically summed up as

complacency and inaction until the next attack must not be an option.

[avs11054]

How does this letter make yoy wonder? He says that he thinks new gun control goes against the second amendment

[akv3g4n]

The letters that I have received all seem to indicate that he is strongly for the RKBA. I think he is firmly on our side....

Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about the rights of gun owners. It is good to hear from you.



As you may know, I am firm supporter of Second Amendment rights. Like you, I believe that infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens does not address the root causes of violence in our society.



As you may know, I am a gun owner who believes in the right to bear arms in defense of self, family and property. During my 12 years serving in Congress, I received an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association for defending our Constitutional Rights. I opposed the so-called "assault weapons ban" and opposed the Brady Bill. I supported repealing both the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the Washington, D.C. gun ban. I voted to protect the private information of gun owners; to protect state gun laws; and to protect firearm and ammunition manufacturers, dealers or importers from lawsuits and damages related to criminal misuse by a third party.



Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you have additional questions, please use the contact form on my website http://www.portman.senate.gov, and I will look forward to responding to you.




Sincerely,
Rob Portman
U.S. Senator

[Ryanxia]

Not bad, but I would write a response to him and let him know you don't support what they're calling "universal background checks". He might be on board with that at this point and we need to make sure that doesn't go through.

See NRA's response to universal background checks.
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/univ...#axzz2IwHMpPUB

[Ryanxia]

Make sure you let him know that if he stands for our Rights we will stand for him and if he doesn't we will work passionately to unseat him in his reelection.

[Ryanxia]

Time to tell him if he won't stand up for your Rights you will work passionately to unseat him during the reelection, then actually do it when the time comes.

[mbt2001]

Send it back with red paint over his writing saying

"READ MY LETTER AND RESPOND ACCORDINGLY NEXT TIME DOOFUS!"

i.e. Not a form letter...

[millertyme]

I'm getting pretty fed up by the notion that our Second Amendment rights are to preserve our firearm ownership for some "sporting purpose". Does anyone know when the idea that our right to firearms ownership became so strongly espoused to the fiction that our firearms are meant to be used primarily for recreation?

I understand that 30-40% of firearm crimes against cops (already separated them from the rest of us = elitist posture) use high-capacity magazines, but what percentage of firearms sold also just happen to have high-capacity handguns. I would bet a disproportionate majority of handguns sold can hold in excess and are designed around a magazine that holds in excess of ten rounds.

Does anyone have an accurate figure of how many times annually a firearm is used to deter or altogether stop a criminal act? Does anyone keep statistics on that kind of thing?

Additionally, I am a cosponsor of the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, a bill that seeks to reduce gun violence by keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists and criminals.

Yes, that would make sense until you showed us what it takes (how little it takes) to become a person on a terror watch list. And that would make even more sense if there had been some sort of evidence to back up that these terrorists (not just drug dealers and thugs) were buying up weapons and using them to make terror. I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist, but I haven't noticed a whole lot of terrorism happening. The couple times I can recall the would-be terrorists failed out of incompetence, not preventative action; and they didn't try to use a firearm, either.

We can and should act swiftly to protect our families and loved ones from mass shootings.

I'll act by arming myself and practicing as often as occasion permits (well, as soon as I can buy some more ammo). You talk about common sense but refuse to acknowledge that shootings happen in gun-free zones and places where firearms are lawfully prohibited by businesses (see movie theaters) that would otherwise be less-than-optimal targets if there were armed individuals there to defend those positions. If we really wanted to protect people from mass shootings we would get rid of the places that mass shootings are most likely to occur, not write something down on paper and put up a sign that reminds the would-be murderer that none of his/her potential victims has been empowered to shoot back

These measures have the overwhelming support of law enforcement communities around our nation, who have implored us to make changes to stop the flood of these types of weapons into the hands of those who would use them for harm.

Not to hate on cops, but when I hear something about a law enforcement officer coming out saying he/she is opposed to concealed carry, opposed to individuals owning semi-automatic, military-styled rifles I'm inclined to think this officer/official has the wrong idea about the citizens he serves. I had this kind of discussion with a criminal procedure law professor and the local chief of police. They forget the Constitution is there to protect and define our inalienable rights, the right to keep and bear arms being our right to defend ourselves from whatever evil may come upon us, whether the individual or the entity, and that by limiting when, where and what we may own to perform that task should not be open to debate. Yes, I think that we the people should be able to own full-automatic rifles (and we are as long as we pay the tax) unless we have proven ourselves to be a threat to the community.

I will continue to work for common-sense gun safety measures.

Then what's the deal with these dimwits coming out so strongly against barrel shrouds?

[Ryanxia]

Make sure your representatives understand that if they support our Rights (like their oath says they should) we will support them. If they don't we will work passionately to unseat them. And come next reelection we need to do just that if they are not on our side.

[rjrivero]

Originally Posted by avs11054

How does this letter make yoy wonder? He says that he thinks new gun control goes against the second amendment

The letter shown by akv3g4n is what I got from him a few weeks ago. The one I posted is the one I got a few days ago. Much more docile language.

There have been reports that Sen. Portman may be one of the pro 2nd Amendment types who is considering switching over. Like this article in the USA TODAY.

It's not that he said anything WRONG in the letter, it's that his stand isn't as strong as it has traditionally been (from my past correspondence with his office.)

[bnolsen]

Too bad CO went from a nice conservative state when I moved here into a trending hard left. The state house and senate are all dems and are actively voting against allowing people to defend themselves. Sadly it's becomming CA here.

[bnolsen]

Interesting reply. Unfortunately Mike's district was totally redrawn. He went from ~70% support to barely winning this last time. I've liked him a lot in the past. This reply looks like CYA.

[Gaiudo]

Dear Dr. Ellis:

Thank you for contacting me regarding some of the different gun proposals that have been introduced during the 113th Congress, including S.2 introduced by Senator Harry Reid, S.150 introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein, and the proposal put forth by President Obama. I appreciate hearing from you.
The numerous tragedies that our nation has had to face over the past year have been staggering. My own family, like all Americans, has been repeatedly shocked and deeply saddened by the violence we have witnessed, and my heart continues to be with the victims and their families. As Coloradans, we know how this type of tragedy can shake a community to its core and in the aftermath of these abhorrent acts our priority should be on supporting the survivors and families, and healing our communities.
We must have a real discussion in this country about finding ways to stop these senseless shootings. I believe a combination of improved access to mental health services, restrictions on certain weapons intended for warfare, and elimination of the gun show loophole are sensible steps that can protect our communities and particularly, our children. In Colorado, we support the right to bear arms and the ability of people to recreate, hunt, and protect their homes, and we want to keep the wrong weapons out the hands of the wrong people. I believe we can have a civil discussion that addresses these issues and as the recommendations by the President's task force are considered in Congress, we will ensure that Colorado's voices are heard.
In addition to the bills referenced above, there are a number of different legislative proposals on gun policy currently before Congress. I am evaluating all of the different bills, and I will keep your thoughts in mind as we work on this issue in the Senate. Let us all continue to keep the communities affected by these tragic acts in our thoughts and prayers.
I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.
For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/. Again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Michael F. Bennet
United States Senator

[ezkl2230]

Originally Posted by Ryanxia

Time to tell him if he won't stand up for your Rights you will work passionately to unseat him during the reelection, then actually do it when the time comes.

We HAVE been working to kick him out of office. But as long as the Metro Detroit area continues to back his welfare state agenda, they will continue to overturn the votes of the rest of the state.

[ezkl2230]

Originally Posted by millertyme

I'm getting pretty fed up by the notion that our Second Amendment rights are to preserve our firearm ownership for some "sporting purpose". Does anyone know when the idea that our right to firearms ownership became so strongly espoused to the fiction that our firearms are meant to be used primarily for recreation?

I understand that 30-40% of firearm crimes against cops (already separated them from the rest of us = elitist posture) use high-capacity magazines, but what percentage of firearms sold also just happen to have high-capacity handguns. I would bet a disproportionate majority of handguns sold can hold in excess and are designed around a magazine that holds in excess of ten rounds.

Does anyone have an accurate figure of how many times annually a firearm is used to deter or altogether stop a criminal act? Does anyone keep statistics on that kind of thing?


Yes, that would make sense until you showed us what it takes (how little it takes) to become a person on a terror watch list. And that would make even more sense if there had been some sort of evidence to back up that these terrorists (not just drug dealers and thugs) were buying up weapons and using them to make terror. I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist, but I haven't noticed a whole lot of terrorism happening. The couple times I can recall the would-be terrorists failed out of incompetence, not preventative action; and they didn't try to use a firearm, either.


I'll act by arming myself and practicing as often as occasion permits (well, as soon as I can buy some more ammo). You talk about common sense but refuse to acknowledge that shootings happen in gun-free zones and places where firearms are lawfully prohibited by businesses (see movie theaters) that would otherwise be less-than-optimal targets if there were armed individuals there to defend those positions. If we really wanted to protect people from mass shootings we would get rid of the places that mass shootings are most likely to occur, not write something down on paper and put up a sign that reminds the would-be murderer that none of his/her potential victims has been empowered to shoot back


Not to hate on cops, but when I hear something about a law enforcement officer coming out saying he/she is opposed to concealed carry, opposed to individuals owning semi-automatic, military-styled rifles I'm inclined to think this officer/official has the wrong idea about the citizens he serves. I had this kind of discussion with a criminal procedure law professor and the local chief of police. They forget the Constitution is there to protect and define our inalienable rights, the right to keep and bear arms being our right to defend ourselves from whatever evil may come upon us, whether the individual or the entity, and that by limiting when, where and what we may own to perform that task should not be open to debate. Yes, I think that we the people should be able to own full-automatic rifles (and we are as long as we pay the tax) unless we have proven ourselves to be a threat to the community.


Then what's the deal with these dimwits coming out so strongly against barrel shrouds?

OK - this is old material now, but it's the only information I have been able to find; statistics relating to defensive firearms use are not kept. If you find it in statistics anywhere, it might be under the heading of Homicides, Justified. This information appeared in an article entitled "A Nation of Cowards," published in the Fall '93 edition of The Public Interest. The author, Jeff Snyder, quotes FSU Criminologist Gary Kleck:

Other evidence also suggests that armed citizens are very responsible in using guns to defend themselves. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year. In 98 percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police.