Grand Combined Letter Thread: Templates, Examples and Replies

[barnbwt]

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]

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]

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/defa..._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]

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]

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]

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?

[Trent]

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]

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

Disgusting!

[Trent]

Originally Posted by ATBackPackin

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]

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]

Trent, VERY GOOD JOB!!!!! I wish I could put on paper what I think like you can.

[Trent]

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]

Multi-round magazines? Really getting extreme aren't we?

[sansone]

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

[DeadMoneyDrew]

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

[archigos]

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]

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]

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]

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...e-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]

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]

Larsen is a true gun and Constitution hater. Simply start a campaign to vote against him and vote for his opponent next year.

[JSolie]

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]

One more instance of a Democrat who shouldn't be voted for by anyone who values the right to keep and bare arms.

[Akita1]

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

[Ryanxia]

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