Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Maine Senator Collins rationalizations for her yes vote on S 649

Discussion in 'Activism' started by MacTech, Apr 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MacTech

    MacTech Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    752
    Location:
    Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
    Just received this form letter response from Senator Collins, time to pick it apart...




    April 25, 2013

    Thank you for contacting me in opposition to gun legislation recently considered by the Senate. I appreciate your comments in defense of our constitutional right to bear arms. Unfortunately, Mainers have recently been flooded by advertisements and mailings from out-of-state special interest groups that not only include distortions, but also blatant misrepresentations about my position. In an effort to set the record straight, I have attached a fact sheet that I hope will be helpful.

    I grew up in northern Maine, where responsible gun ownership is part of the heritage of many families. Throughout my Senate service, I have worked to uphold this heritage, and have opposed legislation that would infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. I am strongly opposed to a national gun registry and national buyback programs. As you are no doubt aware, Maine has one of the highest rates of gun ownership, yet the lowest rate of violent crime in the country.

    I supported a bipartisan agreement between Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) that would have improved the background check system to help prevent convicted criminals and those with dangerous mental illnesses from purchasing guns without infringing on law-abiding gun owners' Second Amendment rights. The Manchin-Toomey proposal represented a vast improvement over the provisions authored by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) currently in the bill. Senator Schumer's language, which I opposed, would have required a father giving a gun to his daughter, or a brother selling a hunting rifle to his brother, to undergo a background check, which I found to be onerous and completely unnecessary. The Manchin-Toomey compromise took a much more common sense approach by requiring background checks only for commercial transactions and exempts family gifts and transfers. To improve the quality and completeness of the data in the NICS, their bill would have mandated improvements that would require states and the federal government to send all relevant records on criminals and the people who are dangerously mentally ill through state plans developed in conjunction with the Department of Justice. It was critical to my support that the Manchin-Toomey bill explicitly banned the federal government from creating a national firearms registry and imposed serious criminal penalties on any person who misused or illegally retained firearms records.

    The Manchin-Toomey amendment would have created a National Commission on Mass Violence, a proposal I have long endorsed, that would convene experts to study all aspects of these violent attacks, including the exposure to excessive violence in the media and the lack of mental health services.

    As a nation, we must examine the fact that serious mental illness is a factor in many violent crimes. As was the case in the Connecticut, Colorado, and Arizona shootings, mental illness is a common factor in many of these tragedies. We should evaluate how we as a society can better identify and care for troubled individuals who pose a threat to themselves and others. That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Excellence in Mental Health Act, a bipartisan bill that would expand access to mental health care for individuals through our nation's Community Mental Health Centers. It would also improve the quality of mental health care by holding these centers accountable to higher standards.

    I am also the coauthor of anti-crime legislation that would strengthen current laws that prohibit an individual from deliberately purchasing a firearm on behalf of another who is already barred from buying a gun. This bill would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This conduct, called "straw purchasing," is already a felony. Yet, under current law, it amounts to little more than a paperwork violation. The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act would give law enforcement the tools they need to investigate and prosecute these crimes more effectively, while protecting legitimate sales. The bill does not in any way change who is prohibited from owning a gun. Straw purchasing and trafficking serve one purpose: to put guns in the hands of a criminal. We worked with law enforcement officials, the NRA, and licensed gun dealers in drafting this bill.

    I also believe that Congress should examine school safety. I am the lead cosponsor of the School and Campus Safety Enhancements Act, which would provide matching grants to help cover the cost of stronger security measures in schools.

    Thank you again for taking time to contact me. As Congress continues to address violence in our schools and communities, I will continue to work to ensure that the Second Amendment rights of our nation's law-abiding citizens are protected.


    Sincerely,


    Susan M. Collins
    United States Senator

     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2013
  2. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,386
    Location:
    South Western, OK
  3. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,413
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    I thought she might have actually been on our side at one point but it's clear she has to go.
     
  4. jon_in_wv

    jon_in_wv Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,816
    This statement alone makes her sound stupid. Since when is a "felony" a "little more than a paperwork violation". Does that somehow make the prison time you serve, or being permanently stripped of your second amendment rights better?
     
  5. mcdonl

    mcdonl Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,228
    Location:
    Southern Maine
    She is blasting the airwaves with two different ad campaigns too... trying to clear her name and put the "rumors" to rest. I wrote her and told her no need to clear anything up. Your voting record said all I need to know at the next election.
     
  6. jon_in_wv

    jon_in_wv Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,816
    These are two of the most egregious lies of the Tooney-Mansion Amendment (it wasn't a bill, lie # 40000000) The fact is Mansion-Toomey granted the government access to medical RECORDS, not court orders or adjudications of a mental defect. The one and only reason they would need access to your records is so they could institute a process where THEY could decide who is mentally defective. They would no doubt disqualify millions of people who have sought help for depression, veterans with PTSD, or any other condition they wanted. Then like the VA, they could have some administrator strip you of your rights, calling it "adjudication, then maybe if you are lucky you can appeal to a federal judge to overturn it. Good luck with that. Democrats even universally defeated and amendment to the Toomey-Mansion Abortion that would have pretected Vets and others by defining "adjudication" as an action of the court. Ask your self why they would not want you to have the right to argue on your behalf (due process) before you are stripped of your rights.


     
    Last edited: May 8, 2013
  7. Pilot

    Pilot Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    6,650
    Location:
    USA
    New England seems to breed several RINO's, not that they aren't present in other parts of the country once considered truly American. She is clearly anti 2A, and trying to satisfy both sides of her constituency, just like Toomey.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page