Sen. Claire McCaskill's response

Status
Not open for further replies.
wow6599

wow6599

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
2,417
Location
Wildwood, MO
I recently sent Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) a letter regarding my concerns with President Obama's upcoming address on gun legislation - here is her response:

"January 30, 2011

Dear Mr. XXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control policy and gun safety. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the chance to respond.

As you know, the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans the fundamental right to bear arms. I strongly support legal and safe gun ownership by law-abiding citizens and have consistently voted to uphold this constitutional right. At the same time, we have to make sure that guns do not fall into the hands of individuals who should not have them. While gun control has traditionally been a divisive topic, I believe we can all agree that law enforcement authorities should work to reduce the number of criminal firearm-related injuries and fatalities while upholding individual gun rights.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the long-standing ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. In this 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the existence of an individual right to bear arms and found this right to be fundamental and firmly based in the Constitution. I joined many Missourians in supporting this ruling.

Moreover, since coming to the Senate in 2007, I have voted to support gun rights. For example, in the 111th Congress, I voted to permit gun owners to carry firearms in their checked bags when traveling on Amtrak trains and to require the National Park Service to honor state gun laws when gun owners enter National Parks in their states. I am pleased that both of these common sense provisions, which enhance the ability of sportsmen to enjoy activities like hunting, have become law. Please know that I will continue to support the right of law-abiding citizens to safely own firearms.

Defending individual gun rights while at the same time reducing gun crime and improving gun safety is a delicate balance. All too often, Missourians wake up to poignant news reports of shootings, armed assaults and gun-related deaths of the previous night. Similarly, over the past decade approximately 130 elementary through high school-level students lost their lives in school shootings. These tragedies have left countless families and communities across the country shaken by senseless gun violence. Incidents such as these show the need for the proper balance between protecting individual gun rights and keeping guns out of the wrong hands. As a former prosecutor, I have seen the disturbing consequences of gun-related crime firsthand. Law enforcement authorities should improve the process of background checks for court-determined, dangerous mental conditions at the time of all gun sales. Also, I think we should consider placing certain restrictions on assault weapons and closing the gun show loophole.

Ultimately, it is important that any attempt to promote appropriate gun safety measures not infringe upon law-abiding citizens' right to own firearms or unduly burden the hunting and sportsmanship culture of Missouri. As your United States Senator, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind anytime Congress considers gun-related legislation.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.



Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill
United States Senator

P.S. If you would like more information about resources that can help Missourians, or what I am doing in the Senate on your behalf, please sign up for my email newsletter at www.mccaskill.senate.gov."
Click to expand...

Typical politician type answer or a sign of hope? She has received a grade of "F" from the NRA and GOA in the past.
I hope people from Missouri, and other states with anti-gun politicians, will contact them NOW regarding the upcoming fight.

Regards,
Chris
(wow6599)
 
Lots of beating around the bush to arrive at this:

Law enforcement authorities should improve the process of background checks for court-determined, dangerous mental conditions at the time of all gun sales. Also, I think we should consider placing certain restrictions on assault weapons and closing the gun show loophole.
Click to expand...

It remains unclear about how these well-meaning statutes can be enforced against those it proposes to control, and prevent what they intend too do. Apparently the senator thinks that retail stores and gun shows are the only places prohibited persons can obtain arms. :banghead:
 
Why don't you ask her, "Since no "assault weapons" have been involved with any of the high-profile shootings nor are statistically making greater appearances in crime data why should any restrictions beyond the current ample laws be put in place? Also since there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole" what are you referring to?"
 
Wonder how she proposes to "close" the gunshow loop hole, since there ain't one in the first place. Sounds like she eats supper at Sarah's house quite often from the tone of things.
Does she not know or realize kids steal guns or buy them on the street when they use them in crimes? Gangbangers and criminals don't buy 'em at the local gun store.
Typical politician: one person screws up so lets blame everybody.
 
hso said:
Why don't you ask her, "Since no "assault weapons" have been involved with any of the high-profile shootings nor are statistically making greater appearances in crime data why should any restrictions beyond the current ample laws be put in place? Also since there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole" what are you referring to?"
Click to expand...
But but your assault weapons are killing Mexicans by the thousands! Doesn't that count as high profile to you? :evil:
 
You should spread her response around. Post the email you received at local gunstores and such, word spreads fast.
 
I would like to see the letter/email you sent her. Just from a journalistic perspective: Question...response...
 
This should end the debate here as to the validity of the upcoming push for more gun control. MO. is middle America and if she considers a few limits on our rights for the safety of us all then there are others.
 
"Similarly, over the past decade approximately 130 elementary through high school-level students lost their lives in school shootings."

Even though I am a parent and a grandparent, I'm not going to play that game. I regret the young lives lost anywhere, for any reason, but I am not going to let anyone hide behind them to forward a bogus agenda: That's shameless pandering.

I am assuming Sen. McCaskill is speaking of students in Missouri. If the Senator thinks the death rate of Missouri juveniles calls for more gun control, perhaps she should consider the Chicago experience. In Chicago, a city with some of the tightest restrictions on gun ownership, 98 school children were murdered in the three school years from 2006 to 2009. A record 36 died in the 2008-2009 school year.

One city, three years, equals 75% of the juvenile homicides in an entire state for a decade.

In fact, if we look at the 2004 firearms homicides per 100,000 population (the most recent year available), we find almost no correlation between gun laws and gun deaths. The top state is Louisiana, which has fairly reasonable gun laws. Maryland, with very restrictive gun laws, is second. California is fifth and Illinois is eighth. Vermont, the state with the least restrictive gun laws at the time (the current Arizona laws weren't in effect in 2004) was 49th with fewer gun deaths per 100,000 people than Hawaii. New Hampshire, an open carry state was 50th. New York and New Jersey were 25th and 26th, which might comfort the anti-gun crowd some until you point out that both states had higher rates than Alaska.

Missouri, by the way, was No. 13 on the list, just ahead of Texas.

Obviously, there must be some other factor, unrelated to guns, at work here.
 
I just sent Senator McCaskill an email with a link to this thread and asked her to please read it.....and to look at the facts and to please keep an open mind. We'll see what (if any) response I get.
 
That's just a generic form letter response that is framed around a specific issue. I've gotten plenty of them. I don't believe for a minute that she sat down and wrote that in response to your letter. She might not have even read your letter. Her admins read it, and they dug out the appropriate response letter and sent it to you. These types of 'responses' don't directly address anything you said in your letter, and they definitely don't/won't answer any questions. I imagine that she even has a form letter that is aimed at constituents who contact her demanding more gun control. Pick your issue, any issue, they have framed letters ready to reply to both sides of every issue.

When I would write to Ken Salazar, who used to be the Attorney General in Colorado, but is now in the BHO administration, I would receive a generic template response within a minute or two of sending the email. The response was lengthy enough that there would have been no way that it could have been typed in that quick of time. It's like his staff wasn't even trying to make me believe it was coming originally from him.

Only once, only one time, have I gotten a response letter that was not a generic formed template response. The representative answered direct questions, addressed specific remarks I made, and used my name a few times in the body of the response letter. It was amazingly obvious that she had actually read the letter I sent her, and responded with specificity.
 
You know, I written a lot of letters, emails, and made phone calls to my elected "representatives" over the years...I try to be polite, however, I have started to answer letters like Ms. McCaskill's with something akin to the following:

To the Honorable (fill in the blank):

I have received you response to my most recent email, and I admit I am somewhat disappointed. It does not truly state your position in regards to firearms ownership and gun control (as evidenced by you current rating by the National Rifle Association), but it is misleading at best. You appear to have been, throughout your career, unabashedly against the Second Amendment and the mistaken view enspoused by gun-control advocates. The Second Amendment provides a written application to the rights and freedoms inherently endowed by our Creator. The right to self-defense of one's person and property, kith and kin. This right is just as crucial and should be accepted as any other right including your normal audience's, the First Amendment. I would hope at some point that this would become clear as you read the Second Amendment in a more in depth fashion. I sincerely wish at some point that you would devote yourself to promoting and protecting the liberties afforded to the citizens of these United States, preserved and protected in the Bill of Rights, and the Us Constitution.

Sincerely,

XXXX
 
Regarding so-called "assault weapons", perhaps you could point out that fighting to ban the most popular civilian sporting rifles in the United States, when rifles are the least misused of ALL classes of weapons, is hardly consistent with protecting the rights of law-abiding shooters.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

Total murders...........................13,636.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,452......47.32%
Firearms (type unknown)..................1,928......14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,864......13.67%
Edged weapons............................1,825......13.38%
Hands, feet, etc...........................801.......5.87%
Shotguns...................................418.......3.07%
Rifles.....................................348.......2.55%


The 5-year trend 2005-2009, again per the FBI Uniform Crime Reports:

2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348

Modern-looking rifles are not a crime problem in the United States and never have been.
 
over the past decade approximately 130 elementary through high school-level students lost their lives in school shootings
Click to expand...

Is that a national statistic? Does that include any shooting that occurs on school property whether during school hours or not? Does that include students engaged in gang-related activities on the property, but not in class? Does it include "drive by" shootings? What validity does a claim like this have when it doesn't parse the type of shooting and the circumstances to tell us if a student attending class and engaged in normal legal behavior was killed?
 
wow6599...First off, she never saw your letter
Click to expand...

I know. She was probably hundreds of miles away when some staffer/intern typed my name into the template. Just sending it makes me feel better though..........;)
 
The more letters we send politely telling our hired help what we want them to do the more they get the idea they need to follow our directions instead of those from the other letters they've received.
 
hso said:
Is that a national statistic? Does that include any shooting that occurs on school property whether during school hours or not? Does that include students engaged in gang-related activities on the property, but not in class? Does it include "drive by" shootings? What validity does a claim like this have when it doesn't parse the type of shooting and the circumstances to tell us if a student attending class and engaged in normal legal behavior was killed?
Click to expand...

From the letter, I would assume the Senator was talking about Missouri schoolchildren and it would be tough (unless you're the Senator with a staff) to find the specifics and perform a detailed analysis. She may even be simply parroting some statistic she heard elsewhere or got from the Brady bunch.

Statistics like this have validity because no one checks them: it's a statistic and most people don't question those when they come from a person either in authority or perceived to be an authority. That's why the Brady Bunch and VPC have gotten away with their bogus numbers for so long.

Another reason they work is very few people rebut them. It took me a little while to research the evidence I presented in my rebuttal - fortunately for my search, Chicago has had a high rate of children killing other children with handguns for some time and there is the well-known problem of drive-by shootings claiming additional lives. Yet I would be surprised to learn that anyone, at any time, had presented these figures to Sen. McCaskill.
 
Don't be fooled by politicians telling you what you want to hear when their re-election is on the line. Below is Senator's McCaskill's response to my request that she sign the amicus brief in support of the RKBA during the Heller case - 55 senators signed it but McCaskill DID NOT SIGN ON TO THE BRIEF SUPPORTING OUR RIGHTS.


Dear ___________:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the “DC Gun Ban.” I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the chance to respond.

As you may know, in 1976, the Washington D.C. City Council passed laws banning handguns and restricting the possession of rifles and shotguns. Last November, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would take up the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, which will determine if DC’s gun laws violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is the first time since 1939 that the Supreme Court will rule on Second Amendment rights. I am encouraged that our nation’s highest court will review this case – this is the correct forum to determine such important matters of Constitutional law.

As your United States Senator, I will work to ensure that any efforts in Congress to promote appropriate gun safety measures do not unduly infringe upon law-abiding citizens’ right to own firearms or burden the hunting and sportsmanship culture of Missouri.

Again, I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding other matters of interest or concern to you.

All best,
Senator Claire McCaskill

Blonde
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top