If I remember right, I politely asked her why she felt the way she did and that I hadnt made up my mind. Here is the canned response I received.
Dear Mr. XXXXXX:
Thank you for writing to me about the Second Amendment.
I have spent a great deal of time working with this issue and would
like to share my thoughts and analyses.
The National Rifle Association would like people to
believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution gives
every individual the right to own any kind of weapon, no matter
how powerful or deadly, and that the government has no right to
regulate in this area. However, the record is clear: the Supreme
Court has never struck down a single gun control law on Second
Amendment grounds. I feel strongly about correcting what I call
Athe Second Amendment Myth,@ so let me go through some facts
regarding this debate.
The Second Amendment says: 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.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) rarely mentions the
words Awell-regulated militia@. In fact, most of their literature
shortens the clause so that the amendment simply reads A... the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.@
Clearly, the NRA is leaving out half the story B the story of a time
when our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that individual States
would be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical Federal
government by arming well-regulated State militias B in other
words, today=s National Guards.
The meaning of the Second Amendment has been
well-settled for more than 60 years B ever since the 1939 U.S.
Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Miller. In that case, the
defendant was charged with transporting an unregistered sawed-off
shotgun across state lines. The Court held that the Aobvious
purpose@ of the Second Amendment was Ato assure the
continuation and render possible the effectiveness@ of the state
militia. Because a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would
be used by a state militia (like the National Guard), the Second
Amendment was not applicable to that case, said the Court.
All told, the Supreme Court has only chosen to address this
issue two more times after the Miller case. And each time, the
verdict was clear B the Second Amendment is not a bar to gun
control laws. In 1969, in Burton v. Sills, the Supreme Court
dismissed a challenge to New Jersey=s strict gun control law, Afor
want of a substantial federal question.@ Then, in the 1980 case of
Lewis v. United States, the Supreme Court held that AThese
legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based
upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any
constitutionally protected liberties.@ And the Court continued that
Athe Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a
firearm that does not have >some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.=@
In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court had another
opportunity to address this issue, but simply ruled to leave the
established precedent in place, rather than take up the Second
Amendment argument. Furthermore, at least twice -- in 1965 and
1990 -- the Supreme Court has held that the term Awell-regulated
militia@ refers to the National Guard.
And the history is clear through countless cases in the
lower federal District Courts and Courts of Appeal as well. Let me
just cite a few recent examples. In 1999, in the case of Gillespie v.
City of Indianapolis, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held
that there is no individual right to bear arms.
Also in 1999, the Ninth Circuit even more specifically
addressed the Amilitia@ question, clarifying that only a State militia,
not a private militia, is covered by the Second Amendment.
In the 1998 case of Peoples Rights Organization v.
Columbus, the Sixth Circuit refused to overturn an ordinance
banning assault weapons on Second Amendment grounds.
In U.S. v. Scanio, also in 1998, the Second Circuit held that
the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to bear
arms for States in organizing militias, and not an individual right.
The Third Circuit held in the 1996 U.S. v. Rybar case that
the defendant=s possession of machine guns was not connected
with militia-related activity and that the Second Amendment
furnished no absolute right to firearms.
The list of cases goes on and on B dozens of instances in
Federal Courts of Appeal around the country, and countless others
in the lower Federal District courts.
Perhaps this history is what led former Supreme Court
Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1991 to refer to the Second
Amendment as Athe subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I
repeat the word >fraud,= on the American public by special interest
groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...[the NRA] ha(s)
misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had
far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as
a citizen I would like to see -- and I am a gun man.@ This was
Warren Burger B a Nixon appointee to the Court.
Burger also wrote, AThe very language of the Second
Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee
every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...urely
the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person
the constitutional right to have a >Saturday Night Special= or a
machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support
in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state
governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such
firearms...@
And the NRA is clearly aware of this history. Despite all
of the NRA=s rhetoric and posturing on this issue, they know that
the Second Amendment does nothing whatsoever to limit
reasonable gun control measures. In fact, in its legal challenges to
federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and my Assault Weapons
Ban, the National Rifle Association has made no mention of the
Second Amendment.
Nonetheless, many on the other side of this issue may point
to the one, single, lone exception to the long history of Second
Amendment jurisprudence.
On March 30, 1999, a United States District Judge in Texas struck
down a federal law making it a felony to possess a firearm while
under a domestic restraining order. In the Texas case, a man in the
midst of a divorce proceeding was accused of threatening to kill
his wife=s lover. Although put under a restraining order and
therefore barred from possessing a firearm under federal law, the
man was subsequently caught with a gun and indicted for violating
the ban. U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings dismissed the
indictment, in part because the federal law, he said, had the effect
of Acriminalizing@ a Alaw-abiding citizen=s Second Amendment
rights.@
This was the first time such a decision was made by a
federal judge, but it is important to note that this decision has been
appealed. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the
Supreme Court, if the case reaches that level, would uphold this
decision. Since that 1999 decision, two federal courts, including a
higher Circuit court, have ruled that the Second Amendment does
not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Once again, thank you for writing me with your concerns.
I have given a
great deal of thought to this issue and so I hope this letter serves to
clear up my position on this issue.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Dear Mr. XXXXXX:
Thank you for writing to me about the Second Amendment.
I have spent a great deal of time working with this issue and would
like to share my thoughts and analyses.
The National Rifle Association would like people to
believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution gives
every individual the right to own any kind of weapon, no matter
how powerful or deadly, and that the government has no right to
regulate in this area. However, the record is clear: the Supreme
Court has never struck down a single gun control law on Second
Amendment grounds. I feel strongly about correcting what I call
Athe Second Amendment Myth,@ so let me go through some facts
regarding this debate.
The Second Amendment says: 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.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) rarely mentions the
words Awell-regulated militia@. In fact, most of their literature
shortens the clause so that the amendment simply reads A... the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.@
Clearly, the NRA is leaving out half the story B the story of a time
when our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that individual States
would be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical Federal
government by arming well-regulated State militias B in other
words, today=s National Guards.
The meaning of the Second Amendment has been
well-settled for more than 60 years B ever since the 1939 U.S.
Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Miller. In that case, the
defendant was charged with transporting an unregistered sawed-off
shotgun across state lines. The Court held that the Aobvious
purpose@ of the Second Amendment was Ato assure the
continuation and render possible the effectiveness@ of the state
militia. Because a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would
be used by a state militia (like the National Guard), the Second
Amendment was not applicable to that case, said the Court.
All told, the Supreme Court has only chosen to address this
issue two more times after the Miller case. And each time, the
verdict was clear B the Second Amendment is not a bar to gun
control laws. In 1969, in Burton v. Sills, the Supreme Court
dismissed a challenge to New Jersey=s strict gun control law, Afor
want of a substantial federal question.@ Then, in the 1980 case of
Lewis v. United States, the Supreme Court held that AThese
legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based
upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any
constitutionally protected liberties.@ And the Court continued that
Athe Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a
firearm that does not have >some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.=@
In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court had another
opportunity to address this issue, but simply ruled to leave the
established precedent in place, rather than take up the Second
Amendment argument. Furthermore, at least twice -- in 1965 and
1990 -- the Supreme Court has held that the term Awell-regulated
militia@ refers to the National Guard.
And the history is clear through countless cases in the
lower federal District Courts and Courts of Appeal as well. Let me
just cite a few recent examples. In 1999, in the case of Gillespie v.
City of Indianapolis, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held
that there is no individual right to bear arms.
Also in 1999, the Ninth Circuit even more specifically
addressed the Amilitia@ question, clarifying that only a State militia,
not a private militia, is covered by the Second Amendment.
In the 1998 case of Peoples Rights Organization v.
Columbus, the Sixth Circuit refused to overturn an ordinance
banning assault weapons on Second Amendment grounds.
In U.S. v. Scanio, also in 1998, the Second Circuit held that
the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to bear
arms for States in organizing militias, and not an individual right.
The Third Circuit held in the 1996 U.S. v. Rybar case that
the defendant=s possession of machine guns was not connected
with militia-related activity and that the Second Amendment
furnished no absolute right to firearms.
The list of cases goes on and on B dozens of instances in
Federal Courts of Appeal around the country, and countless others
in the lower Federal District courts.
Perhaps this history is what led former Supreme Court
Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1991 to refer to the Second
Amendment as Athe subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I
repeat the word >fraud,= on the American public by special interest
groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...[the NRA] ha(s)
misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had
far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as
a citizen I would like to see -- and I am a gun man.@ This was
Warren Burger B a Nixon appointee to the Court.
Burger also wrote, AThe very language of the Second
Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee
every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...
the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person
the constitutional right to have a >Saturday Night Special= or a
machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support
in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state
governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such
firearms...@
And the NRA is clearly aware of this history. Despite all
of the NRA=s rhetoric and posturing on this issue, they know that
the Second Amendment does nothing whatsoever to limit
reasonable gun control measures. In fact, in its legal challenges to
federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and my Assault Weapons
Ban, the National Rifle Association has made no mention of the
Second Amendment.
Nonetheless, many on the other side of this issue may point
to the one, single, lone exception to the long history of Second
Amendment jurisprudence.
On March 30, 1999, a United States District Judge in Texas struck
down a federal law making it a felony to possess a firearm while
under a domestic restraining order. In the Texas case, a man in the
midst of a divorce proceeding was accused of threatening to kill
his wife=s lover. Although put under a restraining order and
therefore barred from possessing a firearm under federal law, the
man was subsequently caught with a gun and indicted for violating
the ban. U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings dismissed the
indictment, in part because the federal law, he said, had the effect
of Acriminalizing@ a Alaw-abiding citizen=s Second Amendment
rights.@
This was the first time such a decision was made by a
federal judge, but it is important to note that this decision has been
appealed. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the
Supreme Court, if the case reaches that level, would uphold this
decision. Since that 1999 decision, two federal courts, including a
higher Circuit court, have ruled that the Second Amendment does
not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Once again, thank you for writing me with your concerns.
I have given a
great deal of thought to this issue and so I hope this letter serves to
clear up my position on this issue.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Maybe she would better spend time working on healthcare to children, HMO and pharmacutical company abuses, and other more public services that mean something. How about trying to weed out the corruption and over administration of our human services in education and family care so our tax payers money does more in stopping young children to be criminals so us citzens who are legal don't loose more rights that her blinded demigod minded ideals seem to choose?