They do not have to agree with me, but how can you respect anyone who is that blatantly dishonest?


You can NOT in good conscious respect them. Period.

I'm only one person, and can only do so much. I doubt he reads what I wrote. His secretary or staff will probably intercept it.

But if he DOES read it, I hope that what I wrote sits in the back of his mind, nagging at his consciousness.

Next time he's up for re-election his opponent (if pro-gun) will receive a healthy campaign contribution from yours truly. THAT is a fact. Durbin needs to go the way of the dodo bird.

We only get two senators in congress, and 95% of the land mass in Illinois disagrees with his view.
Dick Durbin as a long time anti-gunner. After losing both houses of congress in the 1994 election, anti-gun politicians found it expedient to declare support for our Second Amendment rights while concurrently acting to erode those rights.

Oh if I *really* spoke what's on my mind I'd probably have State Troopers knocking on my door right now.

I toned it down a lot. :)

And, to be honest, Politicians aren't really afraid of the lone peckerwood that lives in the hills with too many guns. They have bodyguards and law enforcement to protect them from that; it's a non-issue to them.

But they ARE afraid of people with money financing the people that run against them.

If it meant the difference between winning and losing, I'd sell off 75% of my gun collection to get the antigunner out of office, just to save the other 25% for my children.
thanks trent.. I'm hesitant to speak my mind because emotions get the better of me.. Our 400+ dictators have not a shred of honesty. They manipulate the english language to the point of useless dribble. They all must be fired
Here's the canned response from Sanford Bishop of Georgia. A better response than the one from Saxby Chambliss.


Thank you for contacting me about the individual right to bear a firearm enshrined in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. I appreciate hearing your views on this important issue, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

You will be pleased to learn that I received an A rating from the National Rifle Association for the 112th Congress (2011-2012). I have been a strong proponent of Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, so that law-abiding adults can exercise their Constitutional right to purchase and own firearms for the protection of their homes and families, collecting, target shooting, and hunting.

For example, I have been a sponsor of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. This legislation would permit any person with a valid concealed carry permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. I also have supported legislation which would roll back unnecessary restrictions and reform the operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Finally, I strongly agree that the Second Amendment guarantees individual rights to own and use firearms as opposed to collective rights to do so.

Again, I greatly appreciate your contacting me about this matter. I trust that you will continue to share your thoughts with me on other matters of concern. If I can ever be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call on me.

With warmest regards, I remain

Sincerely yours,

Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.
Member of Congress
Odd. Chris Coons gets an F from the NRA, but his auto-response doesn't mention anything about banning certain guns or restricting magazine size. Not sure how to interpret this one.

Dear Drew:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on gun control with me. I was deeply saddened to learn of the tragic shooting at the New Castle County Courthouse and extend my heartfelt condolences to the victims and their families. I was moved to hear of the heroic Capitol Police officers who risked their lives protecting those waiting in the courthouse lobby. At this difficult time, I also remember the families and victims of other mass shooting tragedies, including Newtown, Connecticut, Aurora, Colorado, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) and elsewhere, as well as victims of gun violence in Delaware and beyond.
I agree that the right to bear firearms, protected by the Second Amendment, is a fundamental freedom. In the wake of yet another unimaginable tragedy, however, we are reminded that no freedom is absolute. I am carefully considering a range of options to address gun violence that include strengthening mental health care, improving gun safety, and exploring ways to improve our system of background checks to ensure that violent criminals and those with mental illness cannot harm their fellow Americans. With all legislation that comes before the Senate, I will be certain to closely weigh the public safety interests of society with the civil liberties and freedoms afforded to all citizens.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I am honored to represent Delaware in the United States Senate and truly value hearing from Delawareans on issues of concern. My website,, can provide additional details about my work in the Senate, including legislation and state projects. I value your input and hope you will continue to keep me informed of the issues that matter to you.

Christopher A. Coons
United States Senator
California has

It's pretty intuitive to use.

ETA There is, however, an oft-encountered 'gotcha' in reading CA bills.

The Legislature uses text font conventions to indicate existing, deleted, and added text to the bill documents. In bills as submitted, existing law is shown as plain black text, new text is BLUE ITALIC, deleted text is [strike]RED STRIKEOUT[/strike]. (Older web site versions do not use the colors.)

Frequently someone will look at a bill and see existing law, and be very disturbed about something thought to be 'new'.

Then, as bills are amended, new versions are published - but the conventions are applied relative to the prior version of the bill. That is, unmodified additions from the prior version are displayed in plain black, just as existing law is, and unmodified deletions are, well, deleted, and no longer show as changes.

See my Calguns thread on how to read a bill.
Last edited:
How do we put this to use? "FYI"s are interesting, but the purpose of this forum is to provide clear implementable plans for other members to put to use.

I think the least we can do is to link this and other videos that break the Anti stereotype about 2A supporters. Include the Sheriffs' video to show LE support 2A. Include articulate young people, women, artists, ...
Last edited:
That's a great idea HSO. Make sure everyone knows there are all forms of gun owners; moms, dads, veterans, minorities, etc.
Reply to Ruger Email from Senator Ayotte (R-NH)

Just received a reply to my submission of the letter through Ruger to Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH):
Thank you for contacting me regarding recent gun control proposals and other efforts to reduce violence. I appreciate hearing from you.

Like all Americans, I was shocked and deeply saddened by the murders of innocent children and educators in Newtown, Connecticut. As the mother of two young children, it is difficult to imagine the pain felt by the parents of the children who were murdered. My thoughts and prayers remain with the victims, their families, and the Newtown community.

As President Obama said, "no single law or set of laws will eliminate evil." In the wake of this horrific tragedy, I welcome a renewed and thoughtful discussion in Washington and across the country about how we can best prevent senseless acts of violence.

Moving forward, we need to be careful to ensure that we do not infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. As a former murder prosecutor, I believe our focus should be on enforcing current federal laws to ensure that criminals and those who are "adjudicated as a mental defective" by reason of being a danger to himself or others (as defined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives at 27 C.F.R. Section 478.11 and prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(4)) do not possess firearms. We also should engage in an honest discussion about improving our mental health system, while working with law enforcement and local community leaders on school safety measures. These are areas where I believe we can achieve bipartisan consensus.

On January 16, 2013, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum outlining proposals to reduce gun violence. These proposals include a so-called "assault weapons" ban, universal background checks, prohibiting high-capacity magazines, increasing access to mental health services, and school safety measures. Subsequently, on January 24, 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced S. 150, a bill that would ban 157 firearm makes and models and also limit magazine capacities to 10 or fewer rounds. Other proposals may be offered, and I will certainly review each carefully.

First, any discussion about reducing violence must begin with our Constitution. Our Bill of Rights clearly protects the right to self-defense. The Second Amendment to the Constitution states: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In 2008, the United States Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570) that the Second Amendment does, in fact, confer an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

As well as respecting constitutional limits, I believe that our laws should protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. I appreciate that many New Hampshire citizens possess firearms for recreation, hunting, and self-defense. In fact, my husband, who is an Iraq war veteran, often participates in shooting competitions at our local fish and game club. Based on my experience as a prosecutor, I do not believe we will stop criminals or mentally ill individuals intent on illegally obtaining and misusing firearms by restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

With those principles as a guide, I do not support a so-called "assault weapons" ban or arbitrary limits on magazine capacities as contained in Senator Feinstein's bill. This legislation is very broad, banning many common models of semi-automatic firearms lawfully owned by citizens, including three very popular models of rifles. While the legislation would grandfather current firearm owners, allowing them to keep the newly banned guns, it would also take the unusual and confiscatory step of requiring the forfeiture of those firearms to the government upon the owner's death.

It is important to understand that there was an "assault weapons" ban in effect from 1994 to 2004. A report submitted in 2004 to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Institute of Justice evaluated the effectiveness of the ban. That study, conducted by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania, found no statistically significant evidence that either the "assault weapons" ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders.

I do believe that there are improvements we should make to our existing background check system to stop criminals and others prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law from obtaining them. For example, all federally licensed firearms dealers are required to contact law enforcement to conduct a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) search regardless of where they sell the firearms. However, there is a deficiency in what records are being entered into NICS. Although it is illegal to sell or transfer a firearm to an individual who is adjudicated as mentally incompetent, many states, including New Hampshire, are not entering all relevant records into NICS. It also appears that in many states, including New Hampshire, once an individual is in the system as mentally incompetent, there is no way to appropriately petition to be removed from this list if he or she has received treatment and is deemed to have recovered.

Following the Virginia Tech tragedy, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA; Public Law 110-180) was enacted to, among other things, encourage states to make more records available for use during NICS background checks. However, according to a July 2012 Government Accountability Office report, only 12 states dramatically increased the number of mental health records available for use during NICS background checks, and most states made very little progress in entering these records. As of October 2011, there were four states that had not submitted any mental health records at all, and 17 states that had submitted fewer than 10. New Hampshire had only submitted two records. Some states have not entered these records because of concerns that privacy laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA; Public Law 104-191), prevent them from providing mental health records to NICS.

We must eliminate legal barriers to ensure that records of individuals who are adjudicated as mentally incompetent get included in the NICS index. We also need to more effectively enforce current laws. Astonishingly, according to the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, of an estimated 80,000 people who failed background checks under NICS in fiscal year 2012 (e.g., fugitives, domestic abusers, felons, and mentally ill individuals), the DOJ prosecuted only 44 for attempting to purchase a firearm-essentially sending a signal that individuals who are prohibited by law from owning a gun won't be punished for breaking the law by trying to obtain one.

While I believe there is much we can do to improve our background check system and enforce existing laws, I do have concerns with "universal" background check proposals that retain the records of law-abiding citizens in a way that could be used to create a firearms registry that would infringe on privacy rights. I also believe we should respect the current rights of law-abiding citizens to transfer their firearms to family members.

Finally, any discussion of how we stem violence must address the deficiencies in our mental health system. We should re-examine our laws to ensure they are effective. Having worked with law enforcement, I recognize that there are not enough treatment options for mentally ill individuals. A 2006 DOJ study found that 56 percent of state prisoners, 45 percent of federal prisoners, and 64 percent of local jail inmates suffer from mental health challenges. There appears to be a bipartisan consensus that there is much more we can do to improve our mental health system.

That is why I have joined Senator Al Franken (D-MN) in introducing the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Act, which would expand mental health services available to inmates. I also worked with Senators Mark Begich (D-AK) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to introduce the Mental Health First Aid Act, which is designed to expand mental health first aid training in communities across the nation.

In the weeks ahead, I am willing to work with any of my colleagues who are serious about finding solutions that will prevent mass shootings without infringing on Americans' Second Amendment rights. With a firm commitment to our Constitution, I will carefully review and evaluate all proposals to reduce violence. While there are no easy answers to address mass gun violence in our society, there are steps we can take right now to ensure our background check system is fully enforced while working to improve early intervention with mentally ill individuals.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator, it is important to hear from you regarding the current issues affecting New Hampshire and our nation. Please do not hesitate to be in touch again if I can be of further assistance.
Sounds pretty good. Still not 100% on her stance for universal background checks though. Might want to fire off another e-mail/mail/phone call and let her know we do NOT support a universal background check.
Reply to My Email to Senator Angus King (Maine)

A few weeks ago I wrote Senators King and Collins of Maine urging their no vote on S 150 or any other gun control legislation being discussed in the senate. Today, I received this response from Senator King. It's an interesting read. While it sounds like he will not be supporting any AWB-type legislation, he is now a co-sponsor of both S. 443, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act and S. 34, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. His letter, sent as part of a mass mailing, follows:

Thank you for contacting me to share your views on guns and gun violence; I appreciate your taking the time to be in touch. I have received thousands of letters, emails and phone calls from Maine people on this issue and have personally met with gun owners and representatives of Maine's sportsmen's community as well as Maine citizens who have long advocated for stronger gun laws.

I have listened in order to understand the various points of view in this debate and to search for practical, effective steps that can be taken to lessen the toll that guns take in our society (some 30,000 deaths each year) while respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

I am sending this response to everyone who has written or called so that people on both sides of the debate can better understand my approach to this complicated issue. Though you may not fully agree with my conclusions, I want to you know my thinking and how I am reaching my decisions.

Our experience here in Maine proves that access to guns doesn't necessarily mean an increase in gun violence. Our state has a relatively high rate of gun ownership but a comparatively low level of gun crime. I believe Maine's experience speaks to the long-standing heritage and traditions of the hunting community and of our gun-owning citizens which has instilled a standard of responsible firearm ownership that is passed down from generation to generation.

(For a fascinating and well-balanced discussion of the role that the culture of gun ownership can play in this issue, I suggest an article in the February 15 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Why the Gun Debate is Off Target by Dan Baum).

As you know, there are many ideas currently under discussion that seek to address the problem of gun violence in various ways. In thinking about these proposals--and Maine's experience--I start with the premise that the most important single thing we can do is to keep guns out of the hands of people who are demonstrably not responsible and pose a danger to themselves or others. Along these lines, I have recently co-sponsored two bills: S. 443, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act and S. 34, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act.

The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act targets straw purchasing and gun trafficking, two common ways that criminals acquire firearms. Unclear language in current laws regarding these practices means that they amount to little more than lying on a government form, which is difficult to prosecute and carries minimal penalties. This bill would strengthen that language and increase the related penalties, allowing law enforcement and the Justice Department to crackdown on these dangerous practices.

Currently, individuals known or suspected by the FBI to be involved with terrorist activities can purchase firearms or acquire an explosives license. The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act would add these individuals to the existing group of people prohibited from buying firearms or obtaining an explosives license. I recognize that there are rare cases where an individual may wrongly be identified as a known or suspected terrorist. This bill contains a vital element of due process which allows a denied individual to challenge and overturn any such mistake.

I support the effort to implement universal background checks, with common sense exemptions such as transfers within families. Currently, 40% of gun sales fall outside the instant check system, which makes little sense and actually disadvantages licensed gun dealers in Maine and elsewhere. I am still reviewing ways that we can make these checks more effective, but I believe there is a clear need to close the current loopholes in order to keep guns out of the hands of those proven to be dangerously mentally ill or criminally violent. Taking further steps to prevent these individuals from getting firearms can be accomplished without creating a national gun registry or limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I am also considering the possibility of limiting the size of ammunition magazines. In the recent gun massacres, a jammed magazine or the time necessary to reload has often provided the opportunity to stop the shooting.

After a great deal of thought, however, I still have serious concerns about the proposed ban on so-called assault weapons--principally because I just don't think it will work. I believe that such a bill places too much emphasis on the cosmetic appearance of particular firearms rather than their actual functionality.

Banning guns because they look a certain way will not, in my opinion, have a significant impact upon gun violence. In addition, manufacturers made minor adaptations which rendered the previous ban largely ineffective, and I expect the same thing would happen this time around.

It is important to emphasize that these weapons have exactly the same firing mechanism as the common semi-automatic hunting rifles owned by thousands of Maine residents. Although their looks may be more menacing, these weapons do not shoot any faster, farther, or with more power than conventional hunting rifles. In addition, the vast majority of gun crimes--over 90%--involve handguns, not rifles, assault or otherwise.

The answer to gun violence does not lie solely in tougher gun laws, however. Equally important are the questions that recent incidents raise about the breakdown of community and the adequacy of our mental health system to identify and treat potentially violent individuals. We clearly need to do a better job understanding and reporting mental illness so that we can enforce existing laws.

Thanks again for your message. I know how strongly people feel about these questions--on both sides--and am working hard to find positive steps that will diminish the terrible toll of gun violence while also respecting the Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Maine and across the country. Not an easy task, but one I'm convinced we can accomplish.

Best Regards,

United States Senator

P.S., Many of you have written expressing the view that the Second Amendment is absolute and prevents the passage of any kind of gun laws whatsoever. Without getting into a long discussion about Constitutional interpretation, this view is not supported by Supreme Court opinion or the general history of our Constitutional law.

Probably the best example of this history is the apparently absolute prohibition on infringements on freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”) which has long been interpreted to have limits--that free speech does not include the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater, for example.

Likewise, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Second Amendment to allow the regulation of certain kinds of guns and gun commerce. Fully automatic (Tommy) guns and sawed-off shotguns have been heavily regulated for 80 years, for example. This governmental power was reconfirmed as recently as 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller which declared the District’s heavy restrictions on handguns unconstitutional. Following the heart of the opinion which struck down the District’s law, Justice Antonin Scalia went on to make this point very clearly,

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
My email exchange with Rick Larsen

Just hit the 'Send' button on this five minutes ago...

Congressman Larsen,

In response to your statement: "...I continue to hold my position that Congress should reinstate the assault weapons ban and ban high-capacity ammunition clips above 10 rounds per clip. These military-grade weapons serve no legitimate purpose in civilian life...", the Second Amendment was not written to be limited to what you may feel is a 'legitimate purpose in civilian life'.

It was written to allow the populus to be armed, and armed with military-grade weapons, nonetheless. Pure and simple. I can understand that this doesn't sit well with politicians. It probably wasn't ever intended to.

According to the FBI's statistics, a rifle (and this includes rifles of all sorts - not limited to those with high capacity magazines) is a whole lot less likely to be used to kill someone than a bladed instrument, blunt instrument, or bare hands/feet.

If you care to, you may look up the statistics yourself:

If you are successful in limiting the amount of firearms, or their capacity, what's next? Warning labels on knives? Not allowing me to buy a meat cleaver (These slaughterhouse-grade cutting implements serve no legitimate purpose in civilian life...) or a framing hammer?

Of course not. Because, knives and baseball bats don't really pose a threat to a government with auto-firing carbines.

So, how about following the intent of the Second Amendment, as opposed to attempting to eventually circumvent it by a series of iterations of laws designed to dilute it?

Sincerely, William J. Nielsen

PS: modern firearms generally use a removable box magazine, which holds rounds of ammunition inside; a clip is a device which bands/holds a number of rounds together, usually to be inserted into either a fixed or removable magazine. I mention it, because, if you're going to be making decisions regarding firearms, I'm sure you'll want to sound well-informed on the subject

--- On Mon, 3/11/13, Congressman Rick Larsen <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Congressman Rick Larsen <[email protected]>
Subject: Responding To Your Mail
To: [address redacted]
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013, 3:40 PM

Dear William :

Thank you for contacting me about steps we can take to prevent gun violence and make our communities safer. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Within the halls of Congress my colleagues and I are taking part in an important debate on the most effective manner of protecting the American people from gun violence. From the attack on Congresswoman Giffords that left six dead to the shootings in Colorado, Wisconsin, Oregon and Connecticut, it is too painfully clear that we must take meaningful action to make our communities safer. The 2008 Skagit County mass shootings that killed six brought this type of tragedy to our home. No single law can prevent the actions of a madman, but that is no excuse to not take action.

I continue to hold my position that Congress should reinstate the assault weapons ban and ban high-capacity ammunition clips above 10 rounds per clip . These military-grade weapons serve no legi timate purpose in civilian life and as such, I have cosponsored legislation that aims to remove these unnecessary weapons from our streets.

We must close the gun show and private sale loopholes and strengthen background check requirements to make sure criminal s and the mentally ill are unable to purchase guns. I am proud to have jo ined my colleague, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York, in sponsoring legislation that would provide for universal background checks to any individual wishing to buy, sell, or transfer a gun. Similarly, I support legislation that strengthens our ability to track the illegal flow of guns that too often fall through the cracks. This is not a matter of tracking gun ownership for those individuals who legally have the right to possess firearms, but is about identifying illegal activity that threatens our collective safety.

Legislation on gun safety is part, but not all of the solution. Mental illness has been shown to be a factor in some of these mass shootings. Mental illnesses are often misunderstood and under-diagnosed. Health providers need to give mental health the same attention that physical health is given. Congress should direct more research into mental illness and provide more funding for effective care of mentally ill patients. The Mental Health First Act, which I am a cosponsor of, seeks to address the short falls that exist in mental health training.

We have not seen the last of violent crimes in our country, but if Congress and the President act, we can make our communities safer and shrink this cycle of violence.

If you are interested in receiving periodic updates about my work in Congress, please sign up for my newsletter by clicking here. I also invite you to follow me on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.


Rick Larsen
United States Representative
Washington State, 2nd District

Anybody else want to email Mr. Larsen?

Last edited:
When the appropriate response to a person who is advocating, or committing treason, through the willful disregard of their oath to uphold the Constitution, is a tersely worded email...

Well I don't even know how to finish that sentence, but it sure is depressing :(
Got this from my Representative earlier today. Wish my senators shared his views, but alas, they don't (and introduce bills like S.150)

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding gun control efforts. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

As you know, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states that "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." Our Founding Fathers preserved the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment for purposes of self-defense and as a safeguard against tyranny.

In the aftermath of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, Senator Diane Feinstein introduced S. 150, a bill which would regulate assault weapons. Previously, Congress passed an assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban in 1994, which expired in 2004. S. 150 would define assault weapons as any firearm which can accept a detachable magazine and has one military feature (collapsible stock, etc.) or a firearm which can hold more than 10 bullets. It would also ban magazines and clips with capacities larger than 10 bullets. This wide definition would outlaw numerous weapons currently owned by private citizens. Companion legislation has yet to be introduced in the House.

I am concerned with the overly broad definitions being employed to designate which firearms are deemed an 'assault weapon' in current proposals. Misnomers such as 'military accessories' serve only to unnecessarily frighten the public at a time when we should be working to solve the root causes of violence and mass-casualty shootings. There is no conclusive evidence that the previous such ban had any significant impact on crime levels, and I am concerned that adding a multitude of new gun laws may only prove to burden law-abiding gun owners with new hurdles while overlooking the true causes of gun violence.

I have been and will continue to be a solid supporter of our Second Amendment rights, in fact I have an A rating from the NRA. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution grants the right to law-abiding citizens to own firearms. This essential right must be protected to guarantee safety and freedom. Banning assault-weapons, imposing waiting periods, and creating large bureaucratic databases of gun owners has done nothing to prevent the scourge of illegally obtained weapons, which are the primary cause of serious crimes.

Once again, thank you for your correspondence. Rest assured, as a gun owner, I will continue to preserve our Second Amendment rights. I hope you will continue to contact me regarding issues of importance to you and your family. In the meantime, I encourage you to visit my website at and sign up for my weekly e-newsletters. For urgent updates on critical issues, follow me on Twitter (@KenCalvert) and check out my Facebook page (Congressman Ken Calvert).


Member of Congress
One more instance of a Democrat who shouldn't be voted for by anyone who values the right to keep and bare arms.
New Reply from Se. Bill Nelson - Mar '13 (adds SCOTUS text)

Dear Mr. XXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me about protecting Second Amendment rights.

I grew up on a ranch and have been a hunter since I was a boy. I have had guns all my life. I support a person's constitutional right to bear arms. I support the Second Amendment.

In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to military service, and to use that firearm for traditional lawful purposes like self-defense within the home. This is the law of the land.

I appreciate hearing your views on this subject. Hearing from you helps me to better serve you in the Senate.

Bill Nelson