Discussion in 'Activism' started by hso, Feb 2, 2011.
Response from Rep. Dan Moul PA
Finally a positive response.
Response from our Rep.
Received a letter response from the letters and emails to our elected officials today. From (the office of) Spencer Bachus, 6th District, Alabama. Long post but I will put the important part in bold.
He rambles on for two more paragraphs about how EOs work so that is the important stuff.
Yet another one:
And another too!
They're both garbage and they need to go.
that's a good response
did you put it in the combined letter thread as well?
Heres another pair of replies I received this week:
IN State Representative Hal Slager:
This response isn't as concrete in support of the 2nd Amendment as I would like, but I take him at his word that he is going to weigh all options. Need to keep a dialog going with him.
Heres the response I sent to Mr. Slager:
IN US Representative Peter Visclosky
This is as anti 2A as I have received so far. Need to write him and prove with data that this viewpoint is patently wrong.
State Legislation Resources
The state of Tennessee makes it easy to search for legislation up for consideration concerning firearms. This then makes it easy to send letters to your state officials supporting or opposing specific pieces of legislation up for consideration. I sent 7 this evening.
I found the above by browsing the categories of legislation here - http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/subjectindex/default.aspx
It would be good if we had this sort of information on each state so everyone would be able to look at and voice their opinion of legislation affecting RKBA.
Received a response from Congressman Ruben Hinojosa, Congressional District 15, Texas:
"It is my belief that a number of President Obama's recent proposals on gun safety are reasonable and common sense safety reforms that are long overdue. I have long supported reinstating the assault weapons ban, and limiting high capacity magazines........Some say that Presidents Obama's proposals are a violation of the second amendment. That is simply false. Like many of our constitutional rights, they are not limitless. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia put it best in the Supreme Court case District of Coumbia v. Heller opinion, which upheld our constitutional right to bear arms: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:......"
U.S Congressman from Texas Ted Poe's e-Newsletter:
Received this today, he is a very strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
The nation continues to grieve with the community of Newtown, Connecticut over the attack that stole the lives of dozens of innocent children and teachers. What happened was unconscionable evil that most of us will never understand. Since then, some elites in Washington have used the Newtown tragedy for political leverage to reignite the gun control debate.
Since the beginning of the year, we have seen a number of extreme proposals from the Senate and 23 executive edicts from the President. Not one of these proposals would have changed the outcome of the tragedy in Newtown. What they will do is redline the Constitution and bruise our right to bear arms which is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
Make no mistake--these proposals advocate for more government control not more gun control. I believe in the sanctity of the Constitution. The Bills Of Rights were designed to protect citizens from an oppressive government. This timeless document has guaranteed freedom for Americans for over 200 years; it is certainly not up for negotiation now.
Those who believe that more gun control will end violence should examine the evidence. Mexico, for example, has outlawed guns completely, but there has not been a decline in gun-related deaths. Chicago and Washington, DC have some of the toughest gun laws in America, but they are also two of the most dangerous cities in America. So, what now? The focus of any discussion or action should not be on the gun, but on the shooter. In my previous life as a judge and prosecutor in the Harris County courtrooms, I never saw a gun tried for a crime. That’s because we hold the shooter accountable, not an inanimate object.
And, yet here in Congress, we have legislators advocating for more restrictions on guns while they have the protection of armed guards at every door in the Capitol – hypocrisy at its highest.
I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, and I will continue to defend our constitutional right. More laws amount to more control - not more effectiveness. And more laws mean less liberty. And that’s just the way it is.
God and Texas,
Member of Congress
2nd District of Texas"
I received the form letter response from Levin that I'm sure has been posted already, if I don't find it I will post it up later. The more I thought about it the more it irked me so I decided to respond to him, copying the other Senator and my Representative (who actually gets it). I probably went too far but he needs to be called out for his not upholding his oath to defend the constitution.
This is the reply that I recieved from Minnesota State Senator Bill Weber.
(He grew up less than a mile from me, and his older brother hunted together when we were kids.)
First of all, thank you for your service to our great country!
I share your concerns on 2nd Amendment rights. I think it is possible that the federal government will overreach, and I have no doubt that the President will use executive order if he thinks he can get away with it. On the other hand, they will fail to evaluate the trash we see in movies, on TV and in video games claiming protection under 1st Amendment rights.
At the state level, we have a governor who is not on our side of this issue. I believe the Republican Caucus will need to reach out to the rural DFL members to hopefully prevent any state assault on gun rights. If we can achieve a status quo on this issue with the current political structure, it will be a victory within itself.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me. We will keep an eye on this issue and if we need to activate you as concerned citizens, we will alert you to those needs.
The reply from one of our U.S. Senators
Dear Mr. Lynch:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on guns. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important and timely issue.
As the former chief prosecutor of Minnesota's largest county, I worked to enforce the gun laws already on the books and have long supported efforts to promote gun safety, including background checks. I also believe the Second Amendment gives American citizens the right to own guns for collection, protection, and sport. This right is an important part of our shared history and heritage, and should be protected.
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I look forward to hearings on the President's recommendations and proposed public safety solutions that include school safety, addressing mental illness, limits on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons, and other efforts to combat violence.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. One of the most important parts of my job is listening to what the people of Minnesota have to say to me. I am here in our nation's capital to do the public's business and to serve the people of our state. I hope you will contact me again about matters of concern to you.
United States Senator
Form reply from Udall (D-CO):
Response from Jim Matheson Congessman
Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding firearms issues. I appreciate hearing about your interest in the issues facing our country and state, and I am glad for the opportunity to respond to your inquiry.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes the right to bear arms, which more commonly means owning or possessing a firearm. Our Founding Fathers recognized this right when they included it as one of the original 10 Amendments, or Bill of Rights, to the Constitution. The ability to purchase and own firearms can be traced to the founding and defense of our nation, and I believe in the continued importance of the Second Amendment today. I feel strongly that the vast majority of gun owners in Utah and across the country understand the serious responsibilities associated with gun ownership, and they possess and use firearms legally.
Across our country, we have all been shocked and saddened by recent tragedies involving gun violence perpetrated by disturbed individuals. As a result there has been a great deal of discussion in the public policy world about possible steps to prevent tragic acts of violence. I believe responsible individuals have a constitutional right to own firearms, and that this right should not be limited. However, even the staunchest defenders of Second Amendment rights are deeply troubled by acts of senseless and brutal violence. It is here that we need to start, as a country, a broad discussion about how to reduce acts of violence in our society. Each of us should have the expectation of safety in our daily lives.
There are three general topics that should be considered in this discussion. First, we should examine our existing gun laws to determine their effectiveness as they are currently being enforced. Second, we should address the current mental health system in our country and evaluate options to make improvements. Third, we should examine the culture of violence in today’s society and seek out ideas to counteract that culture.
As we attempt to find common ground on efforts to reduce violence in our country, we should keep in mind the importance of seeking pragmatic, bipartisan solutions. Any meaningful proposals should be based on facts and with data demonstrating how they will reduce incidents of violence. For example, the so-called Assault Weapons Ban was in place for ten years before it expired in 2004, and the consensus of dozens of studies of that law demonstrate that the law had no real effect on reducing acts of gun violence in our country. The discussion should be deliberative and not reactionary, broad based and not simplistic, and formed through consensus of a wide range of interests and not from a small group of people.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact my office.
Member of Congress
Someone send this guy a dictionary.
got one today too. It must not have been a form letter today cuase mine was a little different
Honest response. I didn't expect this. I wonder when I will get my response from him. It's a little encouraging that my representative, despite his party affiliation, is not just spewing the same anti drivel: "I respect the second amendment BUT....".
"Each of us should have the expectation of safety in our daily lives."
This is the only statement that seems ignorant to me. Safety is an illusion.
If his votes match his stated position, I may have to vote for him next time.
Trying to redefine the word "bear" seems a bit suspect to me. Probably will have to wait and see how he votes on things to be sure of his position.
Here is a response from VA senator Tim Kaine.
Bolding is mine.
Paul Gosar AZ house of reps
I've been sending all kinds of emails, like the rest of you.
here is Paul Gosar's response to my email asking him to oppose any new firearm legislation, as well as a promise to do my best to have someone else fill his seat if he does.
Dear Mr. Heslin,
Thank you for contacting me about the tragic events that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. This tragedy affected so many, and I am always glad to hear your thoughts, concerns, and opinions on the matter.
First, my thoughts and prayers are with all of those affected by the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. My deepest sympathies are with the families and loved ones of the staff and students who were killed or injured and those who witnessed this horrific event. We mourn the loss of the school children and adults whose lives were claimed by the heartbreaking acts on December 14, 2012.
We must now pause and reflect as to how we can prevent a repeat of the events in Newtown, Connecticut while preserving our liberties and values, including the right to bear arms. Our Constitution recognizes certain core liberties that we are endowed with by God—not by the Federal government. The right to defend oneself and one's family and property are among these. The founders of this country knew that having capable citizens willing to take up arms to defend the Republic was essential. For that reason, each individual was given the right to own, possess and responsibly use firearms.
In an effort to prevent other instances like the events in Newtown, we must also engage in a broader discussion that includes increased access to mental health care services. This should include educating the public about the warning signs of those who would harm themselves and others and addressing the stigma related to diagnosis and treatment. Most individuals with severe and persistent mental illness will not commit violent crimes but we need a system in place to recognize and intervene when a risk is posed.
It is crucial that we enforce existing gun laws already on the books. It is my hope that this tragedy results in solutions designed to prevent other similar occurrences.
Irresponsible and criminal use of arms cannot be tolerated, but I believe that using new gun control laws to address this case and others like it would be unwise and ineffective. The federal government must not sink to the lowest common denominator to punish responsible citizens and to infringe on Constitutional rights. I find it distasteful that some people seek to capitalize on a tragedy in order to trample on our Constitution for political gain.
Please know that as your Congressman, I fully support Second Amendment rights and the right to own and carry firearms in a responsible manner. I will oppose any unconstitutional efforts by the federal government to infringe upon Second Amendment rights. I have been a life-long supporter of responsible gun ownership. I have also been a hunter for most of my life, and I am well aware of our rights and duties relative to firearms. We must remain vigilant and enforce all of our constitutional rights, not simply pick and choose the ones we like. Our constitutional rights are not dependent upon which president, or which Congress, is in office.
Again, I appreciate your thoughts and concerns. It is a pleasure to serve Arizona as part of its Congressional Delegation. Your suggestions are always welcome, and if ever I may be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
This is Ted Poe's response to an email I sent. Emphasis is my own...
Dear Mr. MaterDei:
Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on firearms and the Second Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
The tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut was unspeakable, incomprehensible and unimaginable evil. There are no words that can offer enough comfort and solace to a grieving community. Since that tragedy, there have been calls for immediate action ranging from legislation for more and less gun control and a national discussion on mental health.
I am an ardent supporter of the individual right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second Amendment. As a former prosecutor and judge, I have tried many shooters in criminal cases, but never a gun. Some may misplace blame on videogames, Hollywood, or the media, but the blame should always be on the shooter. Nations, like Mexico, that have outlawed guns completely have not seen a decline in gun-related deaths. Additionally, Fox News reported that Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in America, but leads the nation in gun violence.
On January 16, 2013, the Administration issued 23 actions that they plan to take to address gun violence. Ranging from strengthening background checks to launching a national responsible gun ownership campaign, all actions are targeted to facilitate gun control. I do not believe executive orders are the way to control gun violence. The focus of any discussion or action must be on the individual, and I look forward to having that discussion with my colleagues in Congress.
Thank you again for contacting me with your thoughts. For additional information regarding current legislation and my representation of the 2nd District, please refer to my website: poe.house.gov. While you are visiting the website, be sure to sign up for my electronic newsletter.
God and Texas,
I wrote both my senators after the Newtown shooting, expressing my hope that they would focus their efforts on stopping these deranged individuals, rather than on weapons, and urging them not to squander this opportunity to address the mental health system and involuntary commitment of certain individuals, and instead jump on the easy and very public bandwagon of gun control.
Alas, Sen. Mark Warner chose to ignore that plea, and do just that. He has expressed support for Diane Feinstein's ASW ban (never mind that the last one had no effect whatever on crime, nor did it prevent mass shootings like Columbine). And in an interview recently, he said:
I have written back to his office since reading this, and informed him that I will never vote for him again, and that I will now spend time and money to make certain he loses his seat come the next election, and if he ever runs for public office again, I'll do it all over again.
Just as I couldn't support John McCain, after McCain-Feingold unconstitutionally restricted free speech, I can no longer support him. I cannot and will not support ANY politician who supports blatantly unconstitutional legislation, undermining my rights and liberties.
Maybe if he gets enough letters making it clear he's committing political suicide, supporting Feinstein's ASW ban in a state like Virginia, he'll rethink his support for that bill. I'm not holding my breath, but if you live in Virginia, write to him and let him know he's playing with fire on this one.
I didn't vote for Mark Warner to begin with. I will make absolutely sure that I devote time and treasure to unseat him.
I can only imagine what a response from Senator Kaine's office will read like...
Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk HD
Well, I tend to vote republican more than democrat. But Warner was one of the few seemingly genuine moderate, centrist democrats I could support. No more. As I said, I don't want to be a single issue voter, but when a politician crosses the line into supporting blatantly unconstitutional laws, then he's crossed a line that makes it impossible for me to support him.
Separate names with a comma.