In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
emailed my senator. c&p response
joshmb1982
Member Posts: 8,929
i emailed one of my senators the other day tell him my stance on gun control laws. here is his response. what BS
Dear Mr. Burkhart:
Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to additional gun control laws. I am sorry that we see this issue from different points of view.
I have long believed the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees law-abiding Americans the right to own a gun. The U.S. Supreme Court recently said the same; but, like every other constitutional right, it is not unlimited in all circumstances.
Current federal law, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-618) bans the possession of a firearm by persons convicted of any non-business related felony, minors, users of illegal drugs, and persons found to be mentally incompetent. I supported the Brady law, which mandates background checks to ensure that those seeking to buy guns are lawfully allowed to do so and have cosponsored legislation that would close the gun show loophole - which allows convicted felons and people on terrorist watch lists, among others, to evade the Brady background checks. You may also be interested to know that I have voted to reauthorize the assault weapons ban. In addition, I have previously supported efforts to require that all new handguns be sold with trigger locks, as well as measures to prohibit the transfer of handguns to minors.
Gun crime remains a critical public safety problem. We must prosecute those who violate existing laws related to guns and gun-related violence, while also keeping guns away from children. For too long, it has unnecessarily divided the Congress; and the American people have been left to suffer the consequences. However, the reality is that many Americans agree on most of the critical questions: that the laws on the books should be enforced, that the rights of law-abiding gun owners should be protected, and that guns should be kept out of the hands of those who cannot use them responsibly.
Thank you again for sharing your views and concerns with me. I hope you will continue to visit my web site at http://lieberman.senate.gov for updated news about my work on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.
Sincerely,
Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR
JIL:tcs
Dear Mr. Burkhart:
Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to additional gun control laws. I am sorry that we see this issue from different points of view.
I have long believed the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees law-abiding Americans the right to own a gun. The U.S. Supreme Court recently said the same; but, like every other constitutional right, it is not unlimited in all circumstances.
Current federal law, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-618) bans the possession of a firearm by persons convicted of any non-business related felony, minors, users of illegal drugs, and persons found to be mentally incompetent. I supported the Brady law, which mandates background checks to ensure that those seeking to buy guns are lawfully allowed to do so and have cosponsored legislation that would close the gun show loophole - which allows convicted felons and people on terrorist watch lists, among others, to evade the Brady background checks. You may also be interested to know that I have voted to reauthorize the assault weapons ban. In addition, I have previously supported efforts to require that all new handguns be sold with trigger locks, as well as measures to prohibit the transfer of handguns to minors.
Gun crime remains a critical public safety problem. We must prosecute those who violate existing laws related to guns and gun-related violence, while also keeping guns away from children. For too long, it has unnecessarily divided the Congress; and the American people have been left to suffer the consequences. However, the reality is that many Americans agree on most of the critical questions: that the laws on the books should be enforced, that the rights of law-abiding gun owners should be protected, and that guns should be kept out of the hands of those who cannot use them responsibly.
Thank you again for sharing your views and concerns with me. I hope you will continue to visit my web site at http://lieberman.senate.gov for updated news about my work on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.
Sincerely,
Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR
JIL:tcs
Comments
Just another piece of snit that the Founders would have driven out of this country, had he dared to run his mouth with such drivel.
Here, today, he is a conquering hero.
People who sell guns ILLEGALLY will continue to sell guns ILLEGALLY.
People who buy guns to do horrible violent crimes against others will continue to find a way to obtain guns and continue their violent behavior.
We can parallel this the war on drugs--- all of the money spent on prevention and enforcement, all of the "tough" legislation that makes penalties harsher and jail time longer--has not worked.
The only difference is we do not have a Fundamental Right to do drugs, whereas we have a Fundamental Right to arm ourselves.
Can the United States Gov. guarantee the safety of my family?
Guarantee my wife will not be raped?
Guarantee my home will not be invaded?
My Children will not be killed?
The answer is an emphatic NO!
I believe in justice but we must be able to protect ourselves from those who do not follow our laws.
1. They do not have 'public' support.
2. There are not enough resources to enforce them.
We have to continue to 'educate' people of the ignorance of gun laws.
We must get more 'resources' applied in the opposite direction to fight this crap. But education is the key. We MUST get 'The People' to support what we see as a flagrant violation of our individual rights.[:(!]
and you have strong laws compared to us...if you are a first time offender getting sentenced for armed robbery on a shop you would be unlucky if you spent 12 months behind bars [V]..then they are put back out in society for us to deal with...they have rights...law abading people have no rights at all!![xx(]
why doesnt he introduce laws that will make it impossible for someone convicted of armed robbery or rape while armed or any other crime commited while armed...with anything from a gun a knife, or a brick to be released from prison..and build more prisons if need be..it could be a groth industry for about 5 years..by then people might...just might get the message that commiting these crimes isn`t worth getting caught!
and you have strong laws compared to us...if you are a first time offender getting sentenced for armed robbery on a shop you would be unlucky if you spent 12 months behind bars [V]..then they are put back out in society for us to deal with...they have rights...law abading people have no rights at all!![xx(]
Good question Dan!
Part of the problem is we spend inordinate amounts of resources prosecuting some drug use and the underground economy that surrounds it. Ironically, that is where most of our gun crime stems from too. The marginalization of drug trafficking business means its disputes are settled with violence instead of seeking relief in a court of law. The exorbitant prices propped up artificially by legisilation create desperate situations for addicts where they do stupid desperate things. How many people rob or kill for a beer in Australia? Not very many here either. You can get one in the convenience store on the corner most places for less than a buck.
Long sentences for real crime and decriminalization of non crimes so that our LEOs have the time and resources to really protect us.
The constitution IS FOR local,state and the federal government to ABIDE by.
why doesnt he introduce laws that will make it impossible for someone convicted of armed robbery or rape while armed or any other crime commited while armed...with anything from a gun a knife, or a brick to be released from prison..and build more prisons if need be..it could be a groth industry for about 5 years..by then people might...just might get the message that commiting these crimes isn`t worth getting caught!
He should not because our Federal Government should not be involved in the sentencing of criminals for other than Federal crimes. There is no Federal Statute against murder, rape, pillage, or plunder unless, of course the assailant is of a lighter hue than the victim. Our Feds have used Civil Rights wording in Constitutional Amendments and legislation to extend the reach of the Federal Government into local jurisdictions in matter of race. Granted, our history is such that reasonable people can see the justification, but it does not change the fact that these intrusions have opened the door for Federal mandatory sentencing as you suggest.
Sentencing guidelines remain for the most part within the power of the States (as it should be). I personally see little advantage in trading gun rights restrictions for Federal sentencing guidelines, the effective take-over of our entire Criminal Justice System.
The bottom line remains, however. Mr. Lieberman is supporting gun rights restrictions that have no more effect on the supposed target than a Federal law that makes felonies illegal.
The actual target, by any reasonable review of the evidence, is the gun owner or potential gun owner that has never committed a felony, which is precisely why these restrictions are anti-Constitutional.
Brad Steele