TexasCHLforum.com

Dear Sen. Casey,

I am a single issue voter and if you vote for anything that "infringes" my rights, you will not receive the favor of my vote...EVER. Additionally, I will work tirelessly to defeat you by donating my money, volunteering my time, and posting on every social network that I can about your vote and your stance on this issue.

Good Day

Dear Mr. Branam:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about recent proposals related to guns. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

As you know, on December 14, 2012, an individual in Newtown, Connecticut forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and opened fire on teachers and staff in the building. In total, the perpetrator murdered 20 students between the ages of six and seven years old, as well as six adults, many of whom heroically sought to stop the shooter and save the lives of children. Like many Americans, I was deeply affected by the scope and brutality of this act. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

The motives that led to this senseless massacre will likely never fully be comprehended. However, I believe that all public officials have a responsibility to work to prevent such an event from occurring again. This incident reflects a complex problem that requires a comprehensive strategy, including funding for law enforcement officers and the mental health care system. Too many individuals with mental illness are not receiving the services they need and tragically, sometimes a small number of these individuals turn violent. I have supported access to affordable and accessible mental health services for all Americans and I will continue to review proposed solutions to improve our mental health system. As lawmakers consider an appropriate response to this challenging issue, we should consider all of the factors that could prevent such heinous acts.

As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania has a fine hunting and sporting tradition, and I will defend the right to bear arms as it is enshrined in our Constitution. I will continue to back the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense, recreation, sporting and collection. However, I also believe that the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School highlights very serious dangers posed to public safety by the misuse of certain weapons and technology originally developed for warfare. According to reports, the shooter was able to kill many children and adults very quickly because he possessed a military-style semiautomatic weapon. He also allegedly used magazines containing up to 30 rounds of ammunition and carried hundreds of rounds more. After much reflection and careful study of the issue, I have decided to support a federal assault weapons ban as well as legislation restricting high capacity magazines. In light of what occurred at Sandy Hook, these are two measures that will lessen the chances that this will happen again. Before supporting such a law, I would first and foremost ensure that it did not unduly abridge the right to bear arms as established by the Second Amendment.

Our Nation has already begun a critical dialogue as we examine what steps must be taken to prevent this type of tragedy in the future. On January 17, 2012, President Obama unveiled a package of proposals to reduce gun violence, which included strengthening the system of background checks, reinstating the assault weapon and high-capacity magazines ban, improving school safety and expanding access to mental health services. I look forward to reviewing these proposals in detail and to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this complex issue.

On January 24, 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would explicitly permit the possession of affected firearms that were owned prior to the bill’s enactment; firearms that are manually operated; firearms used by military, law enforcement and retired law enforcement; and antique weapons. Further, this legislation lists 2,258 hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns that are entirely exempt from the ban.

This legislation would ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of all semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of seven specified military features. S. 150 would further ban semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of certain listed military features, as well as ammunition magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds. The Assault Weapons Ban would also regulate the transfer and storage of permitted, grandfathered weapons and allow local law enforcement to use certain federal funds for voluntary gun buyback programs. The Assault Weapons Ban was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that should this legislation come before the full Senate for consideration, I will have your views in mind.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

P.S. If you would like to respond to this message, please use the contact form on my website: http://casey.senate.gov/contact/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sir,
Last I checked, United States Senators worked for the people. They are supposed to put aside their own views and do what their constituents want, not what the Senator wants. This being said, I am fairly certain that the vast majority of the citizens of Pennsylvania, to which you are paid to listen to and follow THEIR guidance, do not want any sort of restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Could you please do me a favor and read over the Bill of Rights again and find the legal definition for "shall not be infringed"? Because last I checked it means that it is not to be messed with, restricted or nor restrictions imposed upon it. Like Senator Feinstein's S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 clearly does.
And while you are at it, please look at the 10th Amendment and what the Enumerated Powers are?
Also, look at most of the issues this country is having internally. Many (not all) of these issues are due to lack of personal responsibility on behalf of the perpetrator as well as the parents of many of these so called "innocent children" who are committing felonies.
Few criminals are getting the punishment that they truly deserve (ex: murderers getting set free for instance, instead of death, or instead of getting set free, mooching off of hard working, HONEST taxpayers for 50+ years).
Many of the worst crimes are committed in areas with strict gun control. Schools are gun free zones, but that does not prevent a CRIMINAL from BREAKING THE LAW. Currently Chicago and D.C. have the highest crime rates in the country, WHERE FIREARMS ARE BANNED. The murderer from Newtown was able to kill so many, because GUNS ARE BANNED IN SCHOOLS. It isn't because he possessed a military style, semi automatic rifle with a "high capacity magazine", its because no one possessed that great equalizer of men. A gun.
All gun control does is hurt the honest law abiding citizen. Will a felon turn in a weapon that he is not allowed to own that has been used in a murder? No, he isn't that stupid. Will the law abiding citizen turn in a weapon for fear of breaking the law and being branded a criminal because their Senator did not stand up for their 2nd Amendment rights? Probably.
Per the letter you sent me you are supporting a ban that lists 7 "military features". You are wrong on how many military features their are. There is really only one "military feature", it is known is either burst or full auto firing. This being said why are you calling semi automatic rifles that look like military rifles assault weapons when DHS, who just ordered 7000 "personal defense weapons" which are the same exact thing as military rifles (including fully automatic firing capability) "personal defense weapons"? Why do they get full auto "personal defense weapons" while civilians get "assault rifles"? Aren't civilians allowed "personal defense weapons as well"?
The 2nd Amendment was intentionally put into place to prevent exactly what Senator Feinstein is trying to do. If you are so insistent that magazine size restriction will curb UNLAWFUL violence committed by CRIMINALS then I want you to convince all the Senators that they do not need their armed guards with "high capacity" magazines. Tell them to get rid of their security personnel and then let me know how they feel about that. That is how I feel about someone trying to limit my right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
How are you better than the average citizen? How is it that all those that talk about gun control have ARMED security personnel guarding them? In short because there are hypocrites in this world and I see you as among them. You claim to be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but you are not. A supporter of the 2nd Amendment would have enough of his or her own mind to look at history and what happens when gun control happens. Look at the crime stats from England and Australia, the last AWB and then look at what happened in the 1930's in Germany and Russia. Just in case you don't want to waste any of your precious time I'll tell you. Since guns have been banned in England and Australia their violent crime rate has skyrocketed, including their violent crime with FIREARMS. In the 1930s in Germany, all weapons were first restricted, then registered, then banned and then millions were rounded up illegally and MURDERED because they couldn't defend themselves. The same exact thing happened in Russia.
You and I have both taken the same oath. You and I have both sworn to DEFEND and SUPPORT the Constitution. What has been proposed by Senator Feinstein is nothing short of unconstitutional and quite possibly treason (Merriam Webster definition: treason is the betrayal of a trust). We have been entrusted with DEFENDING and SUPPORTING the Constitution. Senator Feinstein and many others have betrayed that trust and therefore, technically committed treason. If you want to do something about gun control, read the Constitution, there is a way to change Amendments.
Just remember that my brothers and sisters in arms will not enforce any sort of legislation that restricts what we have. We will follow the Constitution of these United States of America, not laws that contradict it. I have already contacted several of them that are citizens of New York and California and they are contacting their Representatives and some are preparing lawsuits, suing their state government for unconstitutional laws.
As a last parting shot, I, your constituent, want you to do a little research and see how much "hundreds of rounds weigh" and let me know (hint, start with .223 Winchester, which is a fairly low-powered round compared to most rifle rounds).