Got a Reply Concerning H.R1022 From Rep. Randy Forbes.

[GlenJ]

No big earth shattering news. The letter puts quotation marks around the words assault weapons. Does anyone read that as an encouraging sign?

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the Assault
Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. I appreciate your
taking the time to share your thoughts on this matter with me.

On September 13, 2006, the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, commonly known as the "Assault Weapons Ban",
expired. As you may know, Title XI of this legislation banned the
manufacture or importation of certain firearms defined by Congress as
"assault weapons." These firearms were categorized as such by certain
features, namely cosmetic and ergonomic, that present a military-like
appearance, but have no effect on the weapon's lethality. The Act also
banned so-called "high capacity" magazines.

Several legislative efforts have been made to renew and extend provisions
of the Assault Weapons Ban. Among these is H.R. 1022, as you may know,
the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007,
introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.

H.R. 1022 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it is
being carefully reviewed. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, rest
assured that I will continue to monitor this important issue and will
certainly keep your comments in mind should I have the opportunity to
consider H.R. 1022.

As your Representative in Congress, I appreciate your input in this
matter. As always, if I may be of assistance to you on this, or any other
issue, please feel free to contact me in my Washington DC office at (202)
225-6365 or online at http://randyforbes.house.gov. With kind personal
regards, I am

Yours truly,



J. RANDY FORBES
Member of Congress
JRF:SEM

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Sounds like a thank you letter for writing to him, but it doesn't show where he stands on the bill at all. In fact, the entire thing is a recap on what has happened the last 10 years and completely skirts answering where he stands.

 

[Thain]

You can always expect a politican to play poltics, Cesiumsponge.

But, its something... if he gets more action from shooters, and none from antigunners, then we win.

I find it encouraging that there are numerous active, vocal, and polite pro-gun forums... anyone ever notice the distinct lack of a Million Mom forum?

Stay vocal, stay alert.

 

[Sodbuster]

Mr. Forbes sounds either against it or afraid to committ to its support. As one long time THR member would say, he is a spineless creature.

Sheesh, edited to make sense. He's either for 1022 (against RKBA) or against 1022 (but afraid to show support for RKBA). Still a creature, though.

 

[gazpacho]

Get all the local gunstore owners in your area to ask their customers to voice their opinion to their representative. Or even start a petition to mail to him.

 

[Autolycus]

Did anyone else notice that the date the Clinton AWB was wrong?

 

[K3]

Yeah, I thought it expired in '04.

 

[davhina]

Glen,
At least you recieved a reply. I did not, even though he is my rep. as well.

Yes it did expire in 2004.
I guess that 1+1=2 is not necessary math for congressmen.

 

[Bruce H]

Mr. Forbes needs thrown up against a wall and smacked a few times. Then show him his response and ask him to tanslate.

 

[rantingredneck]

I kindof read it as minimally encouraging that he acknowledges that the original ban was based on cosmetics alone. He also refers to "so called" high capacity magazines. Seems like he's on our side on this one even if he is playing politics and not standing firm. Again spineless, but minimally encouraging at least.

 

[thexrayboy]

Typical politician double speak. He basically acknowledges that the original AWB of 94 has expired, that a new version labeled HR1022 has been proposed and is now in committee and that he may at some time in the future have an opportunity to discuss or vote on it. Well DUH!.

The number one thing that inquiring minds wanted to know from this politico tonque wagger is how will he vote on this issue. Will he work and vote to deep six it or will he be the typical beltway polly who will sell a vote in favor of it in exchange for some other favor that he wants or needs. That letter was no answer to a question, it was just canned bull****. Light a fire and hold it to his feet till you get an answer. My rep is a freshman but I know where he stands on this issue.

 

[GreenFurniture]

Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship

Statistics: Carolyn McCarthy has sponsored 92 bills since Jan 6, 1999, of which 89 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). McCarthy has co-sponsored 1887 bills during the same time period (Exceedingly Many, relative to peers).

 

[Erebus]

These firearms were categorized as such by certain
features, namely cosmetic and ergonomic, that present a military-like
appearance, but have no effect on the weapon's lethality. The Act also
banned so-called "high capacity" magazines.

Leads me to believe that he won't support it, but nothing in the letter indicates that he is committed to one position or the other.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

He hasn't said anything at all regarding what his position is.

Take this statement:

H.R. 1022 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it is being carefully reviewed. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, rest assured that I will continue to monitor this important issue and will certainly keep your comments in mind should I have the opportunity to consider H.R. 1022.

That could EASILY mean "Now that I understand your concerns, we can be more certain to carefully craft this legislation to ensure that we nail your hide to the barn door." And rest assured, that is often how gummint works.

Notice how he's waffling? He acknowledges that the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee, he acknowledges that he is a member of said judiciary committee, but then he says he'll keep your comments in mind "should [he] have the opportunity to consider H.R. 1022." The only way he WON'T have an opportunity to consider it is if he plays hooky from ALL the committee sessions at which it is discussed. How likely is that?