"Did you contact your Reps today?" Roll Call

[Remek 771]

This response makes me want to run for his office. Too bad I have to wait for 6 years

 

 

 

Dear Xxx

 

Thank you for contacting me to share your views on proposals to reduce gun violence. I appreciate hearing from you.

 

No one can deny that gun violence is a serious problem in this country today. We owe it to the victims of the growing number of mass shootings to vigorously debate specific and comprehensive proposals that can keep our communities safer. The right approach focuses on many issues - improvements to the mental health system, better security protocols and common sense rules about gun use, including keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals.

 

When I was on the Richmond City Council in the 1990s, our city was mired in an epidemic of gun violence that included the city having the second-highest homicide rate in the United States. The most successful step we took was implementing Project Exile, a program that involved federal prosecution and tougher penalties for gun crimes that were previously treated more leniently in state courts. Celebrated by diverse groups engaged in the gun violence debate - including the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign - the program helped drive down Richmond's homicide rate by nearly 60 percent within a few years.

 

In 2007, the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech revealed glaring weaknesses in campus security protocols at colleges and universities, in our mental health system and the gun background check system for gun purchases. In a bipartisan spirit, I worked with then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell to immediately improve our background check system and issued an executive order ensuring that those adjudicated to be mentally ill and dangerous would be entered into a national database and barred from purchasing weapons. We also changed standards for mental health treatment and increased funding for community health programs while dramatically improving campus security and efforts to assist college students suffering from mental stress.

 

In January I attended a round-table event in Richmond with Vice President Biden on gun violence, to talk about the lessons learned in Virginia and the need for a comprehensive approach to these problems. As your U.S. Senator, I will work to bring that kind of comprehensive approach that will strengthen the safety of our communities, while protecting our Second Amendment rights. As a gun owner who worked with others to constitutionally guarantee Virginians the right to hunt, I know that you can be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment without tolerating the gun tragedies that are too often a part of our daily lives.

 

Concerning specific proposals, I am a strong supporter of universal background record checks. This is the only way we can enforce existing laws that prohibit dangerous individuals from purchasing guns. I am open to supporting legislation placing reasonable limits on high capacity magazines, combat-style weapons and gun trafficking if they are carefully drafted.

 

Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as Congress continues to debate strategies to reduce gun violence. Thank you once again for contacting me.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Tim Kaine

 

Any suggestions on questions to pointedly ask him are welcome. I am brain dead. Something along the lines of "how effective was the last AWB considered, by FBI"?? What a jerk.

[RED333 1,025]

Same here I have responded to my state and federal elected officials. Unfortunatly here in MN I really don't have high hopes with the rise of proposed bills. Especially with an assualt weapons ban being discussed on a state level in Minnesota

Welcome to the forum.

Just keep sendind the e-mails.

Here is one I sent today, of 4.

I send it about every week.

 

The Presidents news conference 1/16/2013

 

I was able to listen, as a HUSBAND, FATHER,

A TRUE BELIEVER IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT, a TAX

PAYER, and a FIREARM owner.

All He did was show me just how bad He wants to disarm the American people.

Firearm owners do not do harm with their

firearms, we protect our family's and our

country.

The 2nd was written to HAVE us defend our self's and our country.(yes we HAVE to)

For the government to even talk of anything to limit in ANY WAY, our GOD GIVEN RIGHT, to

defend our self's our family's and our country is, NOT ALLOWED, PERIOD!!!

"SHALE NOT BE INFRINGED" means a LOT to me, and should mean a LOT to you.

As you swore an OATH to defend these RIGHTS,

I expect you to do the job, as WE elected

you, WE can elect someone else that will do as "WE THE PEOPLE" want you to.

Edited February 9, 2013 by RED333

[Squishy 1,149]

Check this;

 

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/texas-senator-ted-cruz-needs-letters-supporting-the-second-amendment/#axzz2KNreAik4

 

Supposedly this is for the hearings coming up Tuesday...could end up in the congressional record.

[SgtRaven 531]

That's a good one, Squishy. Thanks!

Letter sent; article reposted on other forums.

 

Response from Renee Ellmers (R-NC).

(It appears that 'bama's good ol' boys club's David Price (Dem, of course) got a hold of last zoning database in his late reply.

Thank God, he's not my Congressman any longer.

 

It just seems like absolute majority of the Democrats are like diseased rabid dogs, following their sick and incompetent narcissist leader, pissing on us from the high cliff.

Well, hope their sick pack fill follow their fuhrer straight off that cliff,and right into the abyss of mid-term elections next year.

 

Let's not forget who was backstabbing We The People and shredding the Constitution.

Take notes and let's take the bastards down!

 

And same time, let's write a brief "Thank you" note to the Lawmakers who stand their ground, are loyal to the Oath taken, and serve We The People to their best ability.

Thank you, Representative Renee Ellmers (R-NC) and Senator Richard Burr (R-NC)!

 

---

 

 

February 8, 2013

Dear Mr. (SGT Raven):

Thank you for contacting me regarding recent proposals for gun control. It is good to hear from you, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

The recent tragedies in Aurora, Colorado and Newtown, Connecticut were indeed horrifying. We all agree that we need to protect our children, but we need to take a reasonable approach and not react in a way that damages the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. We must look at the facts and make well thought out decisions.

Guns did not perpetrate these crimes, evil people did. There are certainly many things we can do to prevent these events from happening in the future, but restricting gun ownership for those who use them responsibly is not one. We need to look at a number of factors, including mental health and overall school security.

Additionally, the 2nd district of North Carolina is overwhelmingly against additional regulation. In fact, a poll taken during my recent tele-townhall showed that over 65% of my constituents are against any further laws restricting guns, magazines, or ammunition.

As a woman and a mother, I object to anyone telling me which tools I may use to protect myself and my family. Please know that I will continue to protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, which are the foundation of our republic.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me on this matter. I look forward to communicating with you in the future as I serve the people of the Second District of North Carolina. If you would be interested in receiving my e-newsletter, or for other information, please visit my website at www.ellmers.house.gov to sign up or contact me.

Sincerely,

Renee Ellmers
Member of Congress

Edited February 9, 2013 by Sgt. Raven

[RED333 1,025]

Just sent this and 2 more.

 

" "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Thomas Jefferson

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

What is going on in this Great Country is the disarming of THE PEOPLE,
WE THE PEOPLE WILL STAND BY AND LET THIS HAPPEN!!!

WE THE PEOPLE voted you into office.
WE THE PEOPLE will vote you out of office.
Do as we want!"

[RED333 1,025]

Sent my letter to Sen Cruz.

[RED333 1,025]

2 phone calls and 3 e-mails.

[Juggernaut 11,054]

response from Dave Camp

[Squishy 1,149]

response from Dave Camp

 

Appears to be a good response.

 

Frankly I'm to the point where I don't automatically give positive points for "I support the Second Amendment".

 

After all, this is from the Democratic platform;

 

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.

They changed their tactics from denying the intent of the Second Amendment and/or debating the meaning of it to accepting the words but always adding "with common sense restrictions". This way they can appear to not be against gun ownership.

 

But it's all smoke and mirrors. They've stated their clear intentions on more than one occasion, an end to citizen ownership of firearms of all kinds.

 

Make no mistake about it.

[RED333 1,025]

3 today

[Remek 771]

All in.

 

My letter to Senator Tim Kaine

 

Senator:

 

I thank you for your letter. I understand you don't really care what I am about to say, but I hope you will reconsider.

 

Please do not be "open" to magazine size reatrictions. They do have a reasoned basis in logic, and so to arrive any size, save 1, or none, is logical. We ahould not make irrational laws. The fact is that the same people who you affect in any such ban (law abiding citizens) are the ones who face actual crime while it is going on. The police, at the very least should be equally restricted, or more restricted. Mr. Dorner comes to mind as some indication that police are equally capable of doing the same, and to more effect. If not Mr. Dorner, how about the LAPD who shot up a whole neighborhood thinking that two women, driving a different car, with different plates, should be banned from having such magazines. The pause in reloading new magazines might have given them time to think if they were acting crazy, by the same token as for any ban's intent. Moreover, the police having gone rough the regimen of brutilization, desensitization, classical and operant conditioning, and role model conditioning, are already more likely to shoot then any law abiding citizen. And the police usually arrive in numbers, so the decreased mag size is good, because the amount of response is multiplied by police. So, if you are going to sign a mag size restriction, I implore you to also require the police to have the same size restrictions. The same goes for you and the rest of non-military government. If its good for us, show us, by making it good for you. These one laws are unacceptable, particularly when it comes to safety, such as this case concerns. Further size bans didnt work under Clinton's ten year ban, even the NY Times admitted that. The FBI investigation on the same issue also came to the same conclusion. So, in sum, please oppose magazine size limitations, and if you do vote for them, represent the people you represent and at least create parity with state and federal law enforcement, and yourselves.

 

With regard to the scary-looking weapons and required NICS checks at every transfer, I will save most argument for tomorrow's letter, but suffice parallel arguments to those above are part of the issue. To the scary-looking guns, the scope is nonsensically taken, except for the basis of their looks, and is clearly protected under the second amendment. The functionality has nothing to do wi their operation. DHS has already recognized they are particularly suited to self defense, whoch is protected under the second amendment. Further, the universal checks are expensive, inhibit commerce, create burdens on family and friends, and create a comstructive registry which invades our privacy and provides basis for confiscation. If you expect actual compliance, even from the law abiding, my experience with gun owners, these issues are all off the table. They don't solve the problem anyway. I would point out the crime you supposedly helped solved wi your laws actually came from increased gun ownership and loosening CHP laws in virginia.

 

Lastly, I ask you to consider representing, rather than dictating to your constituents. Clearly VA is against all these proposed laws. Just look at all the laws that went through VA increasing gun ownership and carry. We understand firearms and their importance. Please respect our vote for you, by voting against these issues.

[patriot 7,197]

Yep! Bug them to death.

[Remek 771]

Sent mao this letter:

 

 

Please oppose further firearm/ammo/accessory restrictions and/or mandatory NICS checks which are not anonymous.

These are not the problem. It is the mentally ill and criminals who are the problem. Moreover, each of them is nonsensical.

Please instead push for school security and getting rid of gun-free kill zones.

Feigning listening to the majority of americans, at least put the federal and state enforcement agencies on the same restrictions. They pose a more serious problem, because they are already trained with brutalization and desensitization. Moreover, they show up in numbers and there is no break to reload, because there is more than one of them. And, they dont show up at the time of crime, but afterward. If anyone needs the weapons, its the citizenry. Just look at the LAPD and what they did shooting up a neighborhood. Do you really think authority should hold that strong a force over the people? Also, if it is good for the people, the governed should be held to the same level.

Lastly, I should point out that Feinstein's bill with a purpose to prove the second amendment is not unlimited is not a basis for any law, and has already been proven by the supreme court, as I believe you know.

Robert M. Kelly

[RED333 1,025]

Steped it up a bit today, made a few phone calls to Washington.

[Squishy 1,149]

Today's letter to my Senators;

 

 

Dear Sir,

I write to you today to again voice my strong opposition to the flurry of attacks presently underway against law abiding American gun owners and the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

As days pass the true agenda of Anti Gun Rights forces are becoming clear. It is not to reduce violent crime and gun related deaths but to take away the ability of Americans to defend themselves and their families by making it illegal for citizens to own guns of any kind. Not only are these efforts unconstitutional but they fail to address many of the real causes of gun deaths.

With regard to Hadiay Pendleton the young lady from Chicago who was murdered 8 days after participating in the Presidents inauguration, if effective laws were in place for unlawful use of a firearm this tragedy would never have occurred.

If the shooter, Micheail Ward had been given a proper sentence after being convicted of unlawful use of a firearm instead of probation Ms. Pendleton might be alive today.

This from Reuters;

"Ward, who police say confessed to the shooting, had previously been arrested in 2011 on charges of unlawful use of a firearm and was sentenced to two years of probation.

McCarthy (Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy) said if mandatory minimum sentences for unlawful firearm use had existed in the state of Illinois, "Micheail Ward would not have been on the street to commit this heinous act."

The are the kinds of issues that need to be addressed, not the disarming of law abiding citizens which does nothing to stem the tide of gun violence in our cities.

How long will we ignore the true causes of gun violence and gun deaths?

Respectfully,

[Remek 771]

all in. here's my letter to Kaine (funny, Kaine/Kain)

Senator Kaine:

Continuing with yesterdays letter, in which I espoused the reasons that magazine size restrictions should be opposed, herein I will continue with why mandatory NICS checks should be opposed.

NICS checks should be opposed because it is so de minimus on its effect that nothing is to be gained, it poses a serious burden on transfers, create a constructive registry, and are not required to be performed by criminals. With regard to the de minimus effect, it is noted that the cited poll stating 40% of transfers occur without one, such was made BEFORE the present laws were put in place, in 1994 I believe. A further study of the data indicates that less than 3% of transfers would be effected. Please research this before you go further. I would further note that any poll can provide any answer you want, if the questions are framed properly. With regard to burdens on transfers, whenever someone sells a firearm for $100, or inherits one or gives one as a gift, an NICS check can cost close to the amount of the gun itself. This will stifle trade and be a further burden on family and friends who are inheriting/getting firearms as gifts. With regard to constructive registries, the documents then being electronic allow quick and painless access to bureaucrats who can then do the same things as has happened in Canada (please research this), and put many innocent and law-abiding persons out on the street. With regard to criminals, we both know the supreme court has already said that a criminal need not undergo a NICS check, because of the right to not incriminate ones self. Therefore, the legal ramifications of such a required NICS check do not even reach the individuals you wish to stop.

Instead I propose you make, and enforce, laws that stop people from transferring firearms to people that are known to the person to be criminals or mentally ill. I also propose you look toward school security and removing the gun free kill zones that entice these maniacs in the first place.

Please understand, the people you represent are clearly for civil liberty, including the second amendment. To vote against them means that you are not representing them, but instead dictating to them.

I also again note your thoughts about how you stopped gun crime with laws, but I propose that the concurrent changes in gun ownership and concealed carry were the real cause, and it is proven by cause-and-effect in many states (please research it if you do not believe me). Can you say your laws have shown such cause-and-effect?

Represent us, by voting our will, do not dictate to us what you want.

Thank you for your Consideration,

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

Sent two today

[RED333 1,025]

3 More calls and 3 e-mails.

[SgtRaven 531]

Another URGENT reason to contact.

 

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=62404746

 

Action Alert

Gun Owners Message to the U.S. Senate:
Defeat Every Word of Gun Control!

Gun Owners of America today submitted testimony at the request of the Ranking Member of the Senate Constitution Subcommittee. GOA took a strong stance against all the gun control legislation on the table and urged the Senate to put forth real solutions to school violence -- like letting teachers and principals protect their students.

Also, GOA wants to thank all of you who participated in our online poll over the past week. With 20,897 votes cast so far, the poll results indicate that 96% of GOA’s membership OPPOSES “universal background checks” -- and, hence, opposes the very guts of the gun legislation that is expected to move in the Senate.

Now, it's time to talk strategy -- that of the anti-gunners, and of ours, as well.

Within the next three weeks, we expect Senator Patrick Leahy's Senate Judiciary Committee will move a national gun registry bill to the Senate floor.

The Judiciary Committee bill will probably not contain the Feinstein semi-auto gun ban, and it may or may not have a magazine ban which would render most of the nation's guns unusable, at least for the foreseeable future.

But the Judiciary Committee bill will almost certainly ban all private sales of firearms -- or any private exchange where the gun buyer does not first get permission from the FBI. And it’s this background check requirement that will inevitably set up a framework for a universal gun registry.

The Leahy bill will most certainly have a "gun trafficking" section that is based on other legislation (S. 54) that he’s already introduced. This would turn everyone who lives under repressive state gun laws into a federal "prohibited person," as well. Hence, if your state requires a license to possess a gun, you would also become a federal prohibited person. Oh, and the Leahy bill would also send you to prison for 20 years for unknowingly selling a firearm to a marijuana user. So, the next time you're thinking of selling a gun, all we can say is: "Are you felling lucky?"

Anyway, here's Harry Reid's strategy: He has at least eleven Democratic senators running for reelection in pro-gun states in 2014 -- and they don't want to SEEM anti-gun. The eleven Democratic senators in pro-gun states are: Mark Begich (Alaska), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Mark Udall (Colorado), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Al Franken (Minnesota), Max Baucus (Montana), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), Tom Udall (New Mexico), Kay Hagan (North Carolina), Tim Johnson (South Dakota), and Mark Warner (Virginia).

All of these Democrats will vote for the national gun registry and gun licensure. And, in exchange, Reid will allow them to vote against the Feinstein gun ban, which will be the sacrificial lamb to the more important gun control which Democrats really want.

But aside from the fact that the Democratic "non-controversial" gun control bill is, in many ways, worse than the "controversial" bills, there are two additional problems.

First, if gun control gets to the Senate floor, all bets are off. There are dozens of horrific gun control proposals that could easily be added on the floor. For example, a Lautenberg amendment -- supposedly intended to "combat terrorism" -- would allow Obama to ban guns for every gun activist in America just by putting their names on a secret "watch list."

Second, if gun control makes it to a House-Senate conference committee, all bets are off. The conference could report a bill which contains a Feinstein amendment, even though neither the House nor the Senate voted for that language. The conference report is unamendable, and, under the recent anti-gun changes in the Senate rules, there is no way to keep a Senate-passed bill out of the hands of an anti-gun conference.

THE SOLUTION TO ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS

First, we cannot allow one word of gun control to move to the Senate floor. NOT ONE WORD.

Second, the way we keep gun control from reaching the Senate floor is to defeat the “motion to proceed” to the Leahy Bill. (The “motion to proceed” is usually offered by the Senate Majority Leader -- in this case Harry Reid -- to bring up a bill for consideration. The Senate quite often brings up legislation under a Unanimous Consent agreement, but if there is not unanimity, the “motion to proceed” can usually be debated, if not filibustered.)

ACTION: Urge your Senators to vote against the Motion to Proceed to any gun control bill reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This bill cannot be allowed to get to the Senate floor, or Harry Reid will then have a free-hand to start his “let’s make a deal” game.

 

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=62404746

Edited February 13, 2013 by Sgt. Raven

[Remek 771]

All in. Here is Tim Kaine's letter:

 

 

Senator:

As I have stated the past few days, I wish to oppose all of these restrictions on gun control. On previous days I argued against magazine size restrictions and mandatory transfer checks. Today I will address the "assault weapons" ban proposals.

First, I note that "assault weapons" are a think-tank derived term, provided by The Violence Policy Center, head Josh Sugarmann, The Center stated: "Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." Moreover, in keeping with District of Columbia v. District of Columbia (US 2008), these weapons, being among the wildly successful weapons in history, are common and the semi-automatic rifle, which is the single most common rifle in existence, is also common, taking them from being, to any reasonable person, possible to ban. The Supreme Court clearly elucidated to me in this cited case, and I assure you, it would do so for you too, if you read it. Clearly, the attempt to ban these weapons is simply based on fear, rather than rational reasoning. In order create law, law must be created in reason, and therefore, you must do everything to stop these bans from passing. With regard to the features, these features do not influence the functionality of these rifles, and therefore, again I am left to wonder why, except as a basis in fear to drum up support from the ignorant-to-the-issue, these arms being targeted. I believe it should also do the same for you, if you use a reasonable mind. Moreover, I would point out that, contrary to the assertions of the police associations that have come in favor of such bans, the government itself has allowed the Department of Homeland Security to purchase them, under the guise that they are "particularly suited to self defense in closed confines [like in a home]". I would propose that you cannot say that these arms have no self-defense purpose, as such is their sole purpose.

Lastly, contrary to the organizational heads the various associations of legal enforcement that have come out for banning these arms, there are many more LEO agencies which have come out against such bans. Further, I, myself, have discussed the issue with several Legal Enforcement Officers, and categorically they have all said that they do not want a ban, that they will not enforce it if it comes of issue, and if told to do so, they'd quit on the spot.

I propose, instead, you look toward better avenues to deter crime, which is not limited to particular types of semi automatic rifles, nor is it limited to even guns. I propose instead, you look to security forces within our schools, working against the desensitization and brutilization of our children by movies and games violence (even up to age seven, most children cannot understand the distinction between reality, and movie/game fantasies, and focus on training for people on the same use, storage, transport of arms, as well as who not to let possess arms.

Please also note that your attempts to curtail gun crime in VA were on the back of the much bigger, and cause-and-effect proven, increase in law-abiding citizen ownership and concealed carry, and cause-and-effect is real, whereas your work is merely associated. I do not believe you are representing your people by voting for any of these bills, as Virginia has shown itself against these laws time and time again. To dictate to us is wrong, and you must represent us instead. Please vote against all of these votes, and work actively to get them thrown out.

[Juggernaut 11,054]

Response from Carl Levin

Dear Mr. Toth:

Thank you for contacting me about changes to the rules and procedures of the Senate. I appreciate hearing your views on this matter.

For more than 200 years, the rules and traditions of the United States Senate have protected minority rights and the system of checks and balances through the right of Senators to extended debate, which is commonly referred to as a filibuster. The filibuster can have a profound effect on how the Senate conducts floor proceedings. Senate rules require 60 votes to end debate and bring most matters to a vote. Throughout the Senate’s history, this rule has served not only to protect the minority, but also to encourage Senators in the majority and the minority to work out their differences.

The greatest difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives is the approach to minority rights. Senate rules protect the rights of the minority; the House rules do not. With those rights, a minority or even a single Senator can influence the legislative process. Without those rights, a simple majority can render a minority irrelevant and powerless to influence the legislative process.

In the recent past, when my party was in the minority, we used the protections afforded the minority to block a series of bills that would have unwisely restricted the reproductive rights of American women. We beat back special-interest efforts to limit Americans’ ability to seek justice in our courts when harmed by corporate wrongdoing. We used those protections to seek an extension of unemployment benefits for millions of Americans. We used them to oppose the nomination of nominees to the federal courts who we thought would do great harm to the law. People who are distressed that the recent fiscal cliff agreement raised the estate tax exemption to more than $5 million should recall that without the protections afforded the Senate minority, a total repeal of the estate tax would have passed the Senate in 2006. Forty-one Senators prevented that from happening.

No one should confuse the defense of the minority’s rights in the Senate with a defense of the current use, and abuse, of those rights. It is not a defense of a few who routinely threaten to prevent consideration of judicial nominees unanimously approved in committee or to prevent debate on legislation. The abuse of the Senate rules must end so the Senate can conduct the necessary business of the nation.

On January 24, 2013, the Senate reached a bipartisan compromise to address many of current abuses of the rules. The Senate passed Senate Resolutions 15 and 16, which strike a balance between the need for the Senate to function more productively and protecting the rights of the minority in the Senate. This compromise was based on the bipartisan framework I crafted with Senators McCain, Schumer, Kyl, Cardin, Alexander, Pryor and Barrasso. Our proposal was born out of the sincere belief that, even in today’s hyper-partisan environment, it is still possible for Senators from both parties to work together to restore the deliberative traditions for which the Senate was once known. In crafting this agreement, we looked past our frustrations with the recent practices of the Senate and acted together for the sake of this vital institution.

Senate Resolution 15 provides the Majority Leader with a path to proceed to a measure quickly by limiting debate on the motion to proceed from 30 hours to 4 hours. When used by the Majority Leader, this alternative procedure will guarantee consideration of some minority amendments. Specifically, two amendments each for both the majority and the minority would be the first amendments in order at the beginning of consideration of a measure. This resolution also reforms the consideration of nominations. First, for district court nominations, it will reduce post-cloture time from 30 hours to 2 hours. Second, it will shrink the cloture process on subcabinet nominations by reducing post-cloture time from 30 hours to 8 hours.

Senate Resolution 16 (S.Res.16), which is also modeled on our bipartisan framework, amends the Standing Rules of the Senate to allow the Senate to move quickly when both the Majority and Minority Leaders agree we should proceed to a measure or matter. Specifically, when 8 Senators from each side, including the two Leaders, sign a cloture petition on the motion to proceed, then the cloture vote will occur the day following the filing of the motion with no post-cloture debate if cloture is invoked. S.Res.16 also will reform the process of moving to conference by collapsing the three motions currently required to move to conference into a single motion and shrinking the cloture process on that motion from 30 hours to 2 hours.

These are significant reforms designed to end the abuse of the filibuster on the motion to proceed to a bill — that is, the abuse of the Senate’s minority protections to obstruct the Senate from even taking up and debating legislation. Reform in this area is vital, because abuse of the rules on the motion to proceed has prevented the Senate from engaging in what our rules are supposed to promote: debate of the important issues our nation must face.

If you would like to read my full statement before the Senate about these changes, you can do so at [http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/levin-statement-on-bipartisan-senate-rules-agreement]. Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Carl Levin
levin.senate.gov

[Squishy 1,149]

This made my head hurt.

 

Doesn't want to allow the current minority party to be able to use the same tactics his party used when they were in the minority?

 

Is that it?

[RED333 1,025]

This made my head hurt.

 

Doesn't want to allow the current minority party to be able to use the same tactics his party used when they were in the minority?

 

Is that it?

UA YEA, I think.

4 e-mails to day, GOA in there as well.

[Remek 771]

This made my head hurt.

 

Doesn't want to allow the current minority party to be able to use the same tactics his party used when they were in the minority?

 

Is that it?

Ding Ding Ding! Pick anything from the mid-level shelf!

[SgtRaven 531]

Another round this morning.

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=62408466

--

 

ACT NOW: kill ALL GUN CONTROL in the House:
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=62408466

Gun Owners of America

We also deserved a vote, Mr. Obama,
but we didn’t get it from Harry Reid!

Stockman, Broun answer the call to
KILL ALL GUN CONTROL in the House

Note to Barack Obama: Spare us the snide sarcasm and the dripping contempt. Obama's condescending state of the union speech shows, once again, why gun owners don't trust him.

"They deserve a vote," hollered Obama, pointing to drooling anti-gun activists in the galleries.

Well, so did we.

Veterans deserved a vote on whether they would receive due process from a court of law before having their constitutional gun rights taken away. But, when Senator Chuck Schumer threatened to filibuster the DoD authorization bill in order to block that amendment, it didn't happen.

Gun owners deserved a vote on Sen. John Thune's reciprocity legislation -- allowing concealed carry holders to carry their firearms from one state into another. But Democratic Leader Harry Reid made sure each controversial bill coming before the Senate was filled with the maximum number of allowable amendments, so Thune's amendment couldn't be offered.

Gun owners deserved a vote on appropriations language to block 16,000 IRS agents from imprisoning those who refused to comply with the anti-gun ObamaCare law. But Reid carefully manipulated the Senate rules to insure the ObamaCare-related votes were kept to a minimum.

From responsible budgeting to gun rights, Reid's office became the graveyard for votes on issues of interest to conservatives.

Reps. Stockman & Broun circulate letter to KILL ALL GUN CONTROL

So what can gun owners do? We can create a groundswell of support for what Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) is doing in the House.

Rep. Stockman has just told GOA that he and Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) will be circulating a letter asking the House leadership to refuse to bring up anti-gun legislation that is NOT supported by a majority of the Republican members of the House of Representatives.

Stockman’s effort could potentially kill ALL GUN CONTROL in the House.

We know, we know. We believe that gun control should die if only one constitutionalist-representative opposes it -- or even if none do. But, as a practical matter, if 117 congressmen sign a letter demanding that Boehner not bring up a gun control bill opposed by those 117 congressmen, gun control will die. Without that letter, Democrats will join with anti-gun Republicans, and gun control will pass.

ACTION: Click here to contact your Representative and urge him or her to cosign the Stockman-Broun letter. Please note that there are two different action responses for you to send, and the system will automatically send that response, depending upon whether your congressman is a Republican or Democrat.

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

Hit those two last night. Keep sending people.

[Remek 771]

All in again today: 1 letter re universal background checks (below) and 1 letter (to be posted, when finished).

 

Here is the letter to the most evil Senator Kaine:

 

 

Senator Kaine:

This letter is to urge you to represent your constituents by opposing the "Universal Background Checks" for firearms bills.

Do not be fooled by this system. This misleading label is designed to create confusion in order to pass legislation quickly through the Senate. When did we become a country that has to resort to misleading statements and titles and hidden texts deep in bills in order to trick people into accepting a bill?

This bill would criminalize private arms transfers between family members, like grandfathers and granddaughters, father-in-laws and son-in-laws, or two long-time friends who have known each other for years. It is a direct infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.

In addition, it creates a de facto registry by having all transfers electronically logged. As soon as that is in place, all the government has to do to determine who owns firearms, and which firearms, is to check the system of universal checks. We have already seen where the government has illegally gone into FFL dealers and photocopied all their 4473 forms, this will just make their illegal information easily held without even our knowledge. Then they have free access to pressure people to give up their firearms, much like what was done in Canada, and subsequently made illegal. Its an invasion of our privacy, and an invasion on a right meant to, in its ultimate form, keep those very people from doing nefarious deeds against gun owners.

Still further, it poses a serious burden on the buyers and sellers of firearms in the private system. Many firearms are not worth very much, even $100 or less. When these people then go to pay a mandatory fee to get the firearm transferred, they will then be faced with fees from an FFL that ranges from $25 to over $100. This tax on the law-abiding citizens is unacceptable, and impedes trade. This same tax is even further invasive in stopping the surprise of a gift, by requiring a check prior to transfer, and poses a new death tax on inheritances.

Even further, as you know, the US Supreme Court has already ruled that background checks are against the fifth amendment, and therefore, criminals are not required to submit to one. Here is the clear evidence from a logical body that holds high esteem that criminals do not follow the law, and are not even required to follow the law, and hence, the background check will not do anything to stifle crime.

Next, as a concession, the only scheme in which a background check would be acceptable, at least for me, is under the circumstance where the check is anonymous. The computer system must be freely accessible, and provide a receipt, but then delete all evidence of a check in the first place. At this point, you can have a universal background check, but also maintain my rights to privacy, and not impose a stifling fee to all transfers, and not create a de facto registry. Only under such circumstance does this system actually respect the people while working in any way toward limiting crime.

Lastly, I would ask: what would this universal background check do to limit incidents like the one which has sparked this attack on the second amendment? The answer is NOTHING. The mother was not a criminal, the mother was not insane, and the mother owned the firearms. To me, what would go much further is to provide education for firearms owners. Education is always more productive than laws and criminalization of innocent people. If you are really serious about stopping this sort of crime using "common sense" solutions, you must instead recognize that the person was insane, and the only way to stop them from doing the same in the future is to educate the people as to who they should let possess their firearms.

Please do not dictate law to us, but instead represent us as we are. Virginia is very pro-second amendment, and voting for these universal background checks is clearly against our wishes. Oppose these non-common-sense measures at all turns.

[Remek 771]

I decided to attack my Senator Kaine's argument that his "Project Exile" in Richmond was effective. Here is the second letter to him:

 

 

Senator Kaine:

You recently argued to me that Project Exile, which you helped to enact, reduced crime. I wish to discuss the point that this type of legislation: making something "more illegal" than others, does little to solve any problem, and is unfair to the truth that crime is crime and must be treated equally bad. Further, this law, even if successful, does not mean that any law you sign would be equally effective, or have only good ramifications.

As a very experienced scientist (among my degrees, I hold a Ph.D. in biochemistry), I can tell you that statistics indicating a correlation do not, by themselves, indicate a cause-and-effect relationship.

Project exile, as you know, occurred in a series of measures designed to curb crime. The measure forced illegal technical gun possession to being adjudicated in Federal court, where the minimum penalties were higher, being 5 year mandatory imprisonment, as well penalties for people who were not legally allowed to own a firearm and falsified information for obtaining a firearm, or providing a gun to a convicted felon. This in itself sounds quite good, but its effects do not seem to have been felt, despite the decrease in crime.

One need only look to Norfolk during the same period of time. Norfolk, as provided by Bobby Scott's own testimony experienced a greater drop in crime, without imposing any such legislation like Project Exile. One then has to ask, if this is the case, did Project Exile have any meaningful effect on reducing crime in Richmond? Or, was it something else? The only way to address this, is to fish for more data so we can make a reasoned conclusion.

From the the mid-1990s, and continuing to today, organizations like Virginia Citizen's Defense League (VCDL) have worked at removing restrictions on the rights of citizens to carry firearms, and restrictions on firearms in general. We know that this corresponds to the time frame that crime was reduced in both Richmond and Norfolk. Throwing out things like the idea that Richmond criminals/gangs are not as bright as Norfolk criminals/gangs, as being outrageous, there can be only one conclusion. The conclusion is that the opening of defensive carry laws to trust in our law-abiding citizens have lowered the rate of crime, because the criminal knows he will likely face active response, at the scene, at the time of the crime. It seems almost ridiculous that the criminal would say "Well, I can commit this crime, I won't have to go to federal prison, I will just be adjudicated under state laws, if caught". No, the criminal clearly simply goes through with a crime, believing he will not be caught, and knowing if he is caught he will be in trouble, but also knowing that he is not likely to be caught because he will take measures to avoid doing it when police are present.

Therefore, it seems to me, applying common sense, we see that Project Exile does not appear to have been effective, or at least not statistically significant in its effectiveness, and we can easily reason why.

I would point out further that increased concealed carry has been repeated in many states, and we were actually a repeat of two other states, AZ and FL, and in every case, crime was reduced. But, with regard to project exile, the success is much less shown by way of cause-and-effect. To wit, Camden New Jersey remains a extremely dangerous place, and Philadelphia, PA has shown little improvement. There has been no more attempts to emulate this argued-successful legislation. If it was success, it seems reasonable it would be tried everywhere, like the massive increase in defensive carry laws.

Now, while I am not against criminals being treated as criminals, the law itself is not effective. Common sense dictates that criminals are criminals and do not avoid crime just to avoid prison, if they did, we'd have no crime whatsoever. Moreover, it demonizes guns, and lets knife-wielding, bat wielding, and any other weapon crimes go through with lesser sentences. These criminals should all be treated equally, with equally tough laws. It does not matter if you are violent with any weapon, they are all completely unacceptable. Again it is not the tool, it is the person who commits the crime.

Lastly, I would propose that these laws have nothing to do with the current legislation being attempted to be passed in the Senate. Simply because you view one project "successful" does not mean that any other law you sign will be similarly successful. And, I remind you, you must tread lightly when it comes to infringing our rights as citizens. Particularly in this instance, when the right is the very right meant to protect us from Tyranny.

Please do as you were voted to do: vote for our wishes, and do not dictate law you decide for our benefit. Virginia is clearly pro-second amendment, and voting to infringe those rights will surely lead to getting voted out of office.

Sincerely,

[Remek 771]

all in again today:

 

 

Senator Kaine:

I ask that you oppose all gun control bills.

I want to stress that the most likely to pass is the bills to require universal background checks. This is unconstitutional as it amounts to a constructive registry, and we already know that BATF is photocopying the records of FFL dealers and keeping the data, illegally. If you ever expect gun owners to get behind any of this, you must instead cause the federal government to throw out its records of these transactions. In addition, it creates a burden on checks between family and friends, inheritances and more, and also puts a burden on paying large fees to transfer an inexpensive gun. Honestly, I am sure every gun owner, and you know, the ranks have been swelling greatly since these latest attacks, to ever vote for you again, I would seriously consider representing the wishes of the majority of voters, who do not wish these background checks.

The same goes for the balance of the gun control legislation.

Instead, use common sense solutions, and put security in schools, identify the mentally ill and treat them, and enforce laws that disallow transfer to known mentally ill and criminals. Further, while you are at it, ask the President to pardon the Marine who is to be dishonorably discharged for guarding a school with his presence. He did nothing wrong, except to appear in fatigues, and this was the best dress for the job at hand. I would note, that under his watch, no one attacked the school.

Sincerely,

[RED333 1,025]

As I was out buying a new(to me) firearm I did not get to post lastnight.
I did send 3 e-mails yestarday and 4 today.