jimpeel
Member
You guys better get one Hell of a write-in campaign going, then. Specter is a specter of what is wrong with the idiotic thinking of Senators who have outlived their usefulness.
Critical: Feinstein/AWB on Senate Calendar!
- Thread starter CentralTexas
- Start date
- Status
TooTaxed
Member
Let's not forget President Bush, who has stated that he supports extension of the ban.
Note that the NRA still has not endorsed President Bush, as stated by NRA-ILA Exec. Director Cris Cox at the NRA annual meetings in May.
Besides this particular issue, we need to insist that the government pass legislation to guarantee the basic rights of good citizens to possess and use firearms.
Barbara Boxer is up for reelection this year. I have donated money to the California Republican Party requesting that it be used anti-Boxer.
Note that the NRA still has not endorsed President Bush, as stated by NRA-ILA Exec. Director Cris Cox at the NRA annual meetings in May.
Besides this particular issue, we need to insist that the government pass legislation to guarantee the basic rights of good citizens to possess and use firearms.
Barbara Boxer is up for reelection this year. I have donated money to the California Republican Party requesting that it be used anti-Boxer.
Nick1911
Member
My handwritten letters have been mailed...
I don't think it'll make any difference to those two
-ing morons
Nick
I don't think it'll make any difference to those two
-ing moronsNick
alan
Member
Nick1911, and other interested persons:
Your effort, while perhaps invain, should certainly be supported.
"Problem" with such effort might be as follows, and please note, I would NEVER knock the efforts of someone who did something more than sit in front of their television set, and bitch.
I did however, see the following commentary on one of the sites I view/conbtribute to. It was the writers evaluation of public input. Letters written be the individual were likely weighted highest, with phone calls coming next. E-mail, the writer offered, was least valued, due to what he described as it's "ease of sending". I personally, am not certain as to this aspect, for no matter how written material is sent, it has to be composed first. Of course, there might well be a tremendous volume of E-mail messages to contend with. I do not recollect what value, if any, was placed on pre-printed postal cards, which I suspect you have seen elsewhere.
I do not know if the writer was correct in his evaluation, a subjective conclusion perhaps, however what with "security measures" these days in place, and the significant delay in the delivery of "snail mail", to government offices, the following question comes to mind. Will your carefully composed, thoughtful, personally written letter get anywhere close to the addressee, in a timely manner?
Likely not, which is why I would suggest the following. Use the telephone. Call the local offices of your "elected things", and their D.C. offices. These can be reached TOLL FREE via the following number: 1-800-839-5276, where you can, at the least, leave a message, these messages are tallied. You might also speak with the particular staffer who is involved with the subject of your interest, whatever that might be, particularly should the matter be the subject of pending legislation. Faxing your comments might be a way to go also, as faxes escape the "irradiation process", and it's delays.
Your effort, while perhaps invain, should certainly be supported.
"Problem" with such effort might be as follows, and please note, I would NEVER knock the efforts of someone who did something more than sit in front of their television set, and bitch.
I did however, see the following commentary on one of the sites I view/conbtribute to. It was the writers evaluation of public input. Letters written be the individual were likely weighted highest, with phone calls coming next. E-mail, the writer offered, was least valued, due to what he described as it's "ease of sending". I personally, am not certain as to this aspect, for no matter how written material is sent, it has to be composed first. Of course, there might well be a tremendous volume of E-mail messages to contend with. I do not recollect what value, if any, was placed on pre-printed postal cards, which I suspect you have seen elsewhere.
I do not know if the writer was correct in his evaluation, a subjective conclusion perhaps, however what with "security measures" these days in place, and the significant delay in the delivery of "snail mail", to government offices, the following question comes to mind. Will your carefully composed, thoughtful, personally written letter get anywhere close to the addressee, in a timely manner?
Likely not, which is why I would suggest the following. Use the telephone. Call the local offices of your "elected things", and their D.C. offices. These can be reached TOLL FREE via the following number: 1-800-839-5276, where you can, at the least, leave a message, these messages are tallied. You might also speak with the particular staffer who is involved with the subject of your interest, whatever that might be, particularly should the matter be the subject of pending legislation. Faxing your comments might be a way to go also, as faxes escape the "irradiation process", and it's delays.
Hi, may I suggest going here and signing our petition? http://patriotpetitions.us/nogunban/
orygunmike
Member
Letters Sent
A copy of the letter I am sending to both of my Senators (R-Smith, D-Wyden) and to President Bush (slightly modified). I borrowed portions of my letter from something I had seen written by Senator George Allen (R-VA)
===========================================
Dear Senator:
I write to request that you fight against extension of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (also known as the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban) currently being sponsored by California Senator Dianne Feinstein under S.2498. This symbolic ban of nineteen firearms chosen for cosmetic reasons is a meaningless law that has virtually no impact on crime, and serves only to deny law-abiding citizens the right to own certain weapons due to their cosmetic features.
Police reports and federal felony surveys have consistently shown
that so-called assault weapons are used in only one to two percent of
violent crimes. Crime victim surveys indicate the figure is only
one-quarter of one percent. Murders with knives, clubs and hands far
outnumber those with “assault weapons†by over 20-to-1. Put another way,
notwithstanding this ten-year ban of nineteen firearms, criminals continue
to commit illegal acts; they just do so with other weapons; with other
guns, knives or objects.
The simple fact is the Assault Weapons Ban only attacks the cosmetic
features of a gun, banning some guns even though they function exactly the
same as hundreds of other semi-automatic firearms. The ban does not refer to the fully automatic firearms or machine guns that many Americans view as assault weapons – the Uzi and the AK-47. It also does not refer to guns that can be readily or easily converted to fully automatic firearms. Current federal law already bans the sale of such guns.
Most importantly, I am concerned that reauthorizing this gun ban legislation will serve as a platform, inviting added restrictions on Second Amendment rights. Extending the current law, then, only makes sense if the ultimate goal it is to ban more and more guns in the future; something I hope no American who understands the Constitutions of our country and the state of Oregon can support.
I hope that you will take a stand for all Americans who enjoy exercising this part of our heritage, guaranteed to us by the founders of this country, and secured by those who took up arms in defense of these and other American freedoms. I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter.
A copy of the letter I am sending to both of my Senators (R-Smith, D-Wyden) and to President Bush (slightly modified). I borrowed portions of my letter from something I had seen written by Senator George Allen (R-VA)
===========================================
Dear Senator:
I write to request that you fight against extension of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (also known as the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban) currently being sponsored by California Senator Dianne Feinstein under S.2498. This symbolic ban of nineteen firearms chosen for cosmetic reasons is a meaningless law that has virtually no impact on crime, and serves only to deny law-abiding citizens the right to own certain weapons due to their cosmetic features.
Police reports and federal felony surveys have consistently shown
that so-called assault weapons are used in only one to two percent of
violent crimes. Crime victim surveys indicate the figure is only
one-quarter of one percent. Murders with knives, clubs and hands far
outnumber those with “assault weapons†by over 20-to-1. Put another way,
notwithstanding this ten-year ban of nineteen firearms, criminals continue
to commit illegal acts; they just do so with other weapons; with other
guns, knives or objects.
The simple fact is the Assault Weapons Ban only attacks the cosmetic
features of a gun, banning some guns even though they function exactly the
same as hundreds of other semi-automatic firearms. The ban does not refer to the fully automatic firearms or machine guns that many Americans view as assault weapons – the Uzi and the AK-47. It also does not refer to guns that can be readily or easily converted to fully automatic firearms. Current federal law already bans the sale of such guns.
Most importantly, I am concerned that reauthorizing this gun ban legislation will serve as a platform, inviting added restrictions on Second Amendment rights. Extending the current law, then, only makes sense if the ultimate goal it is to ban more and more guns in the future; something I hope no American who understands the Constitutions of our country and the state of Oregon can support.
I hope that you will take a stand for all Americans who enjoy exercising this part of our heritage, guaranteed to us by the founders of this country, and secured by those who took up arms in defense of these and other American freedoms. I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter.
alan
Member
orygunmike:
For reasons related to the significant delay in the delivery of "snail mail" to our federal elected things, all that security you know, I've given up that sort of communication. This is solely a PERSONAL DECISION, and is NOT intended as a criticism of anyone who opts to use the mails. At least you are trying.
I think that you might consider the following though.
1. Assuming that you have a copy of the letters, fax them to your Senators, and House member.
2. Use the telephone. Call their local offices and or use the following TOLL FREE PHONE NUMBER. 1-800-839-5672. The ladies who answer identify themselves as Capitol Switchboard, and will put calls through to any congressional or senate offices. You can leave a message with whomever it is that answers the phone, or ask to speak with the staffer who involved with the type of legislation you are interested in, in this case, firearms.
3. Try E-mail. Some claim that this sort of communication tends to be dismissed, do to "the ease of dispatch". Possibly so, but even if sent via E-mail, one still has to compose whatever it might be that they are saying. Otherthan this, one cannot force the recipient to pay attention to whatever it is that others might have to say, nomatter how the message might be sent, however standing mute accomplishes nothing.
For reasons related to the significant delay in the delivery of "snail mail" to our federal elected things, all that security you know, I've given up that sort of communication. This is solely a PERSONAL DECISION, and is NOT intended as a criticism of anyone who opts to use the mails. At least you are trying.
I think that you might consider the following though.
1. Assuming that you have a copy of the letters, fax them to your Senators, and House member.
2. Use the telephone. Call their local offices and or use the following TOLL FREE PHONE NUMBER. 1-800-839-5672. The ladies who answer identify themselves as Capitol Switchboard, and will put calls through to any congressional or senate offices. You can leave a message with whomever it is that answers the phone, or ask to speak with the staffer who involved with the type of legislation you are interested in, in this case, firearms.
3. Try E-mail. Some claim that this sort of communication tends to be dismissed, do to "the ease of dispatch". Possibly so, but even if sent via E-mail, one still has to compose whatever it might be that they are saying. Otherthan this, one cannot force the recipient to pay attention to whatever it is that others might have to say, nomatter how the message might be sent, however standing mute accomplishes nothing.
orygunmike
Member
Hey Alan
Thanks for your feedback......much appreciated, and I don't disagree with your reasoning or approaches.
I really posted this here as I find that people sometimes don't do anything because they don't know where to start or how to put their thoughts into words. Perhaps someone can borrow from what I wrote to send their own letter, fax, or smoke signal.
Anyway, take care.
Thanks for your feedback......much appreciated, and I don't disagree with your reasoning or approaches.
I really posted this here as I find that people sometimes don't do anything because they don't know where to start or how to put their thoughts into words. Perhaps someone can borrow from what I wrote to send their own letter, fax, or smoke signal.
Anyway, take care.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
HEADS UP
The Class Action Fairness bill (S. 2062) is scheduled for debate on July 6th. This is the bill that Feinstein told the Virginia MMM group in a conference call that she would try and attach the semi-auto ban to.
This bill has good support in the Senate; but the Association of Trial Lawyers opposes it and they are the fourth all-time donor of political money in the U.S. (90% of it to Democrats). Chances are good that Feinstein will try to attach the ban as an amendment hoping to kill the bill outright.
CALL YOUR SENATORS!
The House version of this bill has already passed without any anti-gun amendments, so we still have conference committee and the final vote to fall back on; but it would be a lot safer to kill any ban renewal in the Senate.
The Class Action Fairness bill (S. 2062) is scheduled for debate on July 6th. This is the bill that Feinstein told the Virginia MMM group in a conference call that she would try and attach the semi-auto ban to.
This bill has good support in the Senate; but the Association of Trial Lawyers opposes it and they are the fourth all-time donor of political money in the U.S. (90% of it to Democrats). Chances are good that Feinstein will try to attach the ban as an amendment hoping to kill the bill outright.
CALL YOUR SENATORS!
The House version of this bill has already passed without any anti-gun amendments, so we still have conference committee and the final vote to fall back on; but it would be a lot safer to kill any ban renewal in the Senate.
alan
Member
Bartholomew Roberts offered:
CALL YOUR SENATORS!
The House version of this bill has already passed without any anti-gun amendments, so we still have conference committee and the final vote to fall back on; but it would be a lot safer to kill any ban renewal in the Senate.
By all means, call your senators, if you hadn't already been doing that.
Bart, with reference to your reference to A Conference Committee being something to "fall back on", assuming that I didn't misunderstand, have a care there, especially given the fact that one never knows, respecting conference committees, who did what to whom.
It is, as you noted, ever-so-much better to kill nastyness in committee or on the floor.
CALL YOUR SENATORS!
The House version of this bill has already passed without any anti-gun amendments, so we still have conference committee and the final vote to fall back on; but it would be a lot safer to kill any ban renewal in the Senate.
By all means, call your senators, if you hadn't already been doing that.
Bart, with reference to your reference to A Conference Committee being something to "fall back on", assuming that I didn't misunderstand, have a care there, especially given the fact that one never knows, respecting conference committees, who did what to whom.
It is, as you noted, ever-so-much better to kill nastyness in committee or on the floor.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that a conefrence committee was a good solution, only that we weren't dead yet if we didn't win in the Senate; but going to a conference committee is not a positive step.
LiquidTension
Member
Senator Lindsey Graham actually wrote me back. Well, I'm sure it's a form letter, but the envelope was signed in ink at least 
===========================
Dear LiquidTension:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have always believed that it is every law-abiding citizen's right to possess firearms. Please be assured that I will continue to fight to uphold the true spirit of the Second Amendment.
Accordingly, in 1996, I supported H.R. 125, the Gun Crime Enforcement and Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1996, which would have repealed the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. This legislation passed the House of Representatives on March 22, 1996, but was never considered by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary before Congress adjourned on October 4, 1996.
During the current Congress, Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator Frank Lautenberg have introduced the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act, which has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am a member. I do not support reauthorization of the ban and will vote against it should the ban be considered.
Thank you again for contacting me regarding this important issue. If I may be of any further assistance to you or your family, please do not hesitate to call on me.
Sincerely,
Lindsey O. Graham
United States Senator
=======================================
Cool
===========================
Dear LiquidTension:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have always believed that it is every law-abiding citizen's right to possess firearms. Please be assured that I will continue to fight to uphold the true spirit of the Second Amendment.
Accordingly, in 1996, I supported H.R. 125, the Gun Crime Enforcement and Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1996, which would have repealed the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. This legislation passed the House of Representatives on March 22, 1996, but was never considered by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary before Congress adjourned on October 4, 1996.
During the current Congress, Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator Frank Lautenberg have introduced the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act, which has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am a member. I do not support reauthorization of the ban and will vote against it should the ban be considered.
Thank you again for contacting me regarding this important issue. If I may be of any further assistance to you or your family, please do not hesitate to call on me.
Sincerely,
Lindsey O. Graham
United States Senator
=======================================
Cool
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
The bill that they plan to amend is scheduled for debate this afternoon. As of now, it has not yet come up as they are still tied up with judicial nominations.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
They barely managed any debate on this last night. Senate will reconvene at 9am this morning and they will handle routine business and Senate leaders will wheel and deal until about 10-10:30am when debate on the bill will begin again.
No word on amendments yet other than both sides have asked that there be no non-germane amendments.
No word on amendments yet other than both sides have asked that there be no non-germane amendments.
SnakeEater
Member
<----SnakeEater daydreaming of an oath taken not so long ago, can't quite remember, oh yes ....."protect the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic...."
alan
Member
themic
Member
orygunmike:
i got that letter from Allen in an e-mail recently, too. it appears to be directed at people who do not support our views, and i thought it was an excellent to-the-point message.
i got that letter from Allen in an e-mail recently, too. it appears to be directed at people who do not support our views, and i thought it was an excellent to-the-point message.
Schuey2002
Member
What's the latest news on this?
crewchief
Member
Boy this is turning into a real nail bitter. I have sent my letters, but unfortinately I live in NC at the moment. I will be moving to Ohio though in two days, what is the stance of the Ohio legislation on this. Although they don't have the best CCW (too new) neither does NC and at least Ohio is better about other firearms law like purchace requirements and private sales. I am looking forward to the move.
71Commander
Member
crewchief.
Don't go.
Don't go.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
