Any Indiana THR members get responses from Lugar or Bayh on AWB sunset?

[emc]

Unfortunately, I don't trust either of them at all, nor have they given me any reason to trust them. After all, Lugar voted in favor of the AWB back in 1994. The last time that I contacted his office on this (3-4 years ago), they still defended the choice. Anyone have any recent responses on this topic from either "Senator?"

 

[cordex]

I think I got some responses a year or two ago, I'll have to try to find 'em.

Lugar was pro-AWB (I remember seeing a copy of one of his letters taped up at a gun store not too long ago)
I don't remember what Bayh said.

 

[emc]

Lugar has always p*&&ed me off with his voting record. He votes like a left leaning moderate, but comes back to Indiana and acts like a conservative. One more lying politician (am I being redundant or what?) to throw out of office at the earliest opportunity.

 

[glocksman]

Neither one has answered my emails or my snail mailed letters on the issue. This could be because they are simply waiting to see which way the wind is blowing on the issue.

Both of them would do well to remember what happened to our last 'unbeatable' Senator.

If he needs to, Senator Bayh can just ask his Dad.

 

[dance varmint]

This is not about the AWB, but during his reelection campaign in 2000, Lugar was running commercials boasting that he stood up against Congressional Republicans who wanted to "cut school lunch programs" (taking food out of the mouths of children!!). This of course was a Democrat myth and distortion of Newt's 1995 proposed block grant replacements for federal programs (with 5% annual increases included).

...For those not in IN, Lugar is a "Republican".

The Senate can't be trusted to defeat the AWB, with friends like these. The House is where it dies.

 

[revlar]

I've had a bad feeling about Lugar ever since my high school days in Indianapolis back in the late sixties (Shortridge H.S. - don't even know if it's still there). The educational experience gave me some unforgettable memories though - race riots, arsons, teachers assaulted - I was badly beaten and nearly shot after a school function one night.
Sorry - don't miss the place at all.

Maybe I'm transferring those experiences to Lugar - I don't know. After all these years I can't quite put my finger on it - but from the very beginning, that guy definitely has made my skin crawl.

 

[nick89302]

I have not received a reply from either, even after requesting one. GOA has given them both F's for good reason

http://www.gunowners.org/108srat.htm

They're traitors, plain and simple.

 

[Hutch]

During one of Lugar's abortive runs for President, he did blather on about "No one needs an Uzi to hunt. <yadda yadda yadda>" You Hoosiers, run his rear-end out of office, okay?

 

[ARperson]

You Hoosiers, run his rear-end out of office, okay?

Would love to, but he's got virtually no competition. No Democrat can beat him, an no Republican really runs against him. Not in a manner that actually threatens his seat.

I'd like to run them both out of town. What amazes me is that we've got some of the absolute best U.S. representatives coming from this state and chopped liver for the senate. (Don't even get me started on Bayh.) Except for Julia Carson. God, that woman pisses me off.

 

[MPFreeman]

ARPerson,

Ms. Carson is the worst. <Shudder>

 

[txgho1911]

From Lugar's staffer

After Lugar votes for all the bad amendments and for the final bill 1805 his staffer told me he wants to keep the AWB because some FBI or other agency report/s had possitive feedback on crime stats directly resulting from the Clinton Gun Ban.

 

[cordex]

Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 1805, the "Protection of
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." I welcome your thoughts and comments on
this matter.

Throughout my career in public life, I have opposed legislation that
fails to appropriately balance the need to maintain a safe society with the ability of law-abiding Americans to own and use firearms responsibly. In general, laws relating to firearms should place the highest priority on putting criminals who use guns in jail and second on ensuring that law abiding citizens use their guns responsibly.

As you may know, the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"
sought to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the unlawful use of their products by third parties. This legislation did not pass the Senate on March 2, 2004 by a vote of 8 to 90. As the debate on S. 1805 concluded, neither gun control advocates nor gun rights advocates supported this bill. We need to find a balanced approach to preserve the rights of citizens to own firearms and companies to make them while supporting reasonable rights and responsibilities for gun owners. Given that 90% of the Senate did not support the legislation as amended, it is obvious that most believed, including myself, that we did not find the right balance.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that the information that I have
provided is helpful. My website, http://bayh.senate.gov, can provide additional details about legislation and state projects, and you can also sign up to receive my monthly e-newsletter, The Bayh Bulletin, by clicking on the link at the top of my homepage. Having your input is valuable to me, I hope that you will continue to advise me on matters of importance to you.

Best wishes,






Evan Bayh
United States Senator

EB/

 

[emc]

Question for ghobrien......Did you ask the staffer or did they offer to provide a copy of the report that they were allegedly basing his stance on? I have never heard of ANY FBI report that indicated that the AWB was responsible for ANY change in the level of crime.

Curious,

emc

 

[txgho1911]

emc

I asked for anything he was allowed to tell me about why he voted one way or another on every amendment profered for 1805. This staffer mentioned a few percentages in the 30s range and the 60s range. I do not remember the numbers.
I left my phone number and my email address. I requested any possible reference to the documentation he used and this included a copy of or shortcut to these references. I have not recieved anything from him to date.
I am mad enough to chew nails to hear this bafoon will believe anything from FBI, BATFE, or any questionable Gov source. I will never believe what the Gov says except when I can see or am familiar with the point of fact or issue.

 

[burbanite]

Both are pro AWB.

Both say they support 2A.

Lugars track record in respect of guns is well known and will not change, he is on his way to other things if GWB is re-elected and cares not a toss about what the residents of his former State think or how they vote.

Bayh says he was not around to vote on the ban the first time but does support its re-introduction.

 

[Frohickey]

the nice thing is that the pool of potential future senators are usually congressmen/women first.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Would love to, but he's got virtually no competition. No Democrat can beat him, an no Republican really runs against him. Not in a manner that actually threatens his seat.

So where's El Tejon? He's already a lawyer, a Senator isn't much lower.

 

[Rhinodogg]

Bayh sent me a letter last week. It's pretty much the same as cordex's letter. I'll post it when I get home from work this evening.

 

[Stickjockey]

...I have opposed legislation that
fails to appropriately balance the need to maintain a safe society with the ability of law-abiding Americans to own and use firearms responsibly.

What is it about this tired, overused, and entirely politically-motivated concept that just makes me want to :banghead: until I ?

 

[Nick1911]

I never got a responce... I would love to rid my state of them however.

Nick

 

[emc]

I've read the response that Cordex received a couple of times, and in the finest tradition of Politspeak, it doesn't really say anything other than Bayh voted against 1805. Bayh reveals nothing about WHY he did so.

Just remember, he was the one who bleated about "Hoosier Values" during his campaign, and then voted to acquit Bubba. Every time there's been an issue of any sort of import, Bayh has voted WITH party leadership. Hoosier Values my &$$!!

I just don't know what we have to do to get the voters to wake up and realize that Lugar and Bayh are selling them down the river every minute that they are in Washington. :banghead:

FWIW,

emc

 

[Rhinodogg]

March 24, 2004


Mr. Rhinodogg
Beech Grove, Indiana 46107-2421

Dear Mr. Rhinodogg:

Thank you for your letter concerning the reauthorization of
the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. I welcome your thoughts and
comments.

The primary purpose of any gun control legislation must be
to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals or juveniles.
Throughout my public life, I have opposed legislation that fails to
appropriately balance the need to maintain a safe society with the
ability of law-abiding Americans to own and use firearms
responsibly. I have always supported the second amendment and
have opposed efforts to impose burdensome regulations on gun-
owners. I believe that tough and effective enforcement of existing
firearms laws is the best way to save lives.

As you may know, the Assault Weapons Ban passed as part
of the 1994 Crime Bill. This legislation prohibited the
manufacture, transfer or possession of 19 specifically named
assault weapons, all semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can
accept a detachable magazine and have at least two features
outlined by the statute, and all large-feeding ammunition devices.
The Assault Weapons Ban will expire after September 14, 2004
unless Congress and the President approve the reauthorization of
the law before this date.

On March 2, 2004, the Assault Weapons Ban was offered
as an amendment to S. 1805, the Protection of Lawful Commerce
in Arms Act. While the Assault Weapons Ban amendment passed,
with my support, S. 1805 did not pass the Senate. While
reasonable people can disagree about the effectiveness of the
Assault Weapons Ban, in the post-September 11th world, I believe
that it is most prudent to err on the side of caution.

Thank you for taking the time to advise me on this
important matter. I value your input and hope that you will
continue to share your thoughts with me.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that the
information that I have provided is helpful. My website,
http://bayh.senate.gov, can provide additional details about
legislation and state projects, and you can also sign up to receive
my monthly e-newsletter, The Bayh Bulletin, by clicking on the
link at the top of my homepage. I value your input and hope you
will continue to keep me informed of the issues important to you.


Best wishes,






Evan Bayh
United States Senator

EB/

Sincerely,

Evan Bayh

 

[Justin]

A few weeks ago, when the Senate was debating the 'Lawful Commerce In Arms Act' and Feinstein/Schumer etc. introduced a reauthorization of the ban, Lugar voted for the reauthorization.

As a former Hoosier, I called their office and told them that I'd be contacting everyone I still know in IN and telling them to vote against Lugar.

 

[txgho1911]

Stumping around

Now may be a good time for individuals to find those candidates who belong in congress who lose primaries and figure out witch of these would be the healiest replacement for Lugar next time he is up.
I know of one race where two competent conservative/constitutionalist may fit this bill. One is Andy Horning and the other is Bob Croddy. I do not know if one or the other would aspire to the senate. The sooner the silent majority speaks up and passes the word. The sooner the BOR can be fully restored.
Also another question people don't ask but could. "What can be done to fix this state's voting methods." Approval Voting is one way to avoid the infamous spoiler candidate.

 

[emc]

Let's take a look at the response that Rhino received from Bayh:


"While reasonable people can disagree about the effectiveness of the Assault Weapons Ban, in the post-September 11th world, I believe that it is most prudent to err on the side of caution."

If we were to apply the same logic to the remainder of the Bill of Rights, then we should "err on the side of caution" regarding the First Amendment, because of all that nasty free speech and church-going, you know....

We should also "err on the side of caution" in regards to the Fifth Amendment, because those people who might want to make use of it could be "troublemakers."

We should "err on the side of caution" blah blah blah......

Where does it stop? More importantly, why should it even START?

FWIW,

emc