PDA

View Full Version : From the Office of John Garamendi (House CA-10) re Magazines/HR 308


bluenoise
10-07-2011, 4:17 PM
A friend just forwarded me a reply he got from John Garamendi regarding "hi-cap" magazines:

October 7, 2011


Mr. L
Livermore, CA

Dear Mr:

Thank you for sharing your concerns with me about gun rights in America. I have reviewed your comments and welcome this opportunity to share my views.

The Second Amendment has been discussed, deliberated and debated since the founding of the United States. The tragic shootings in Tucson, AZ, on January 8, 2011, in which six people were killed and 13 wounded, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, has prompted discussion on gun control in the United States especially the regulation and accessibility of large capacity feeding devices and right to carry concealed firearms. The United States Constitution guarantees citizens the right to keep and own guns but that does not mean we should reject commonsense safeguards to keep our communities protected. We must make our country safe from those who would use guns to attack and kill other human beings.

I along with 100 of my Democratic colleagues cosponsored H.R. 308, legislation that would prohibit the transfer, importation, or possession of high capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds) manufactured after the bill is enacted. I believe that no civilian needs more than ten rounds in a magazine for hunting or personal safety. High capacity magazines already in existence would be prohibited from being transferred to other parties. This would help prevent the spread of the devices and phase out their availability. Thus, I will continue to support the work and regulation actions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Unfortunately, not one Republican joined this common sense approach to gun ownership. I hope that the Republican majority will join us in creating and passing laws designed to keep our neighborhoods safe and Americans protected from gun violence.

Correspondence from constituents like you is essential to my work in Congress, and I hope that you will continue to share your concerns with me as I represent the 10th District and help shape national policy. For more information this issue and other legislative work or to sign up for my e-newsletter, please visit my website at www.garamendi.house.gov. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact my office in Walnut Creek at (925) 932-8899 or in Washington at (202) 225-1880.


Sincerely,

<signature>

JOHN GARAMENDI
Member of Congress





Washington DC Office 228 Cannon HOB Washington, DC 20515. Phone: (202) 225-1880. Fax: (202) 225-5914

bluenoise
10-07-2011, 4:18 PM
I'd like to point out to Mr. Garamendi the existing California law regarding such magazines and ask how much it's helped to make California's gun crime significantly lower than the rest of free America.

Jsapata
10-07-2011, 4:34 PM
Commonsense.

email
10-07-2011, 4:42 PM
I wonder if he has guns protecting him with more than 10 round capacity.

What's good enough for the People is good enough for all.

Jsapata
10-07-2011, 4:44 PM
I did a quick search. I think 8 states restrict capacity from what I found in 2 mins of searching. Anyone have that locked down for sure?

RRangel
10-07-2011, 7:13 PM
Well, bluenoise, you know what your friend has to do. Tell Garamendi to stick it.

The gun prohibitionists like Garamendi, are living in fantasy land, if they believe this has support from anyone other than like minded extreme hoplophobes. No doubt an Obama administration loves it, but that means the president would be solidifying, his one term in the White House.

wheels
10-07-2011, 7:22 PM
Commonsense.

Yep.

I'm beginning to think commonsense = ignore all facts

Ubermcoupe
10-07-2011, 8:11 PM
no civilian needs more than ten rounds in a magazine for hunting or personal safety

soooo (and I hate to say it like this buuuuuttt) LEOs use guns for safety right? & they get < 10 rd mags to use in said safety devices right?

I fail to see how he can't realize this logic. O that's right he refuses to... :facepalm:

Don29palms
10-07-2011, 9:44 PM
The United States Constitution guarantees citizens the right to keep and own guns

WTF is this?

thrasherfox
10-07-2011, 9:52 PM
WTF is this?

Yeah, he conveniently replaced "bear arms" with "own guns"


"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"




Two totally different things.

Bhobbs
10-07-2011, 9:55 PM
I guess he believes that law abiding citizens should be at a disadvantage when confronting attackers.

huntercf
10-07-2011, 10:09 PM
Another libidiot who feels that guns are only for his personal protection and for criminals. Common sense? Really? How does he know that 10 rounds are enough to fend off an attack? What experience or studies can he produce that backs this up?

Paul S
10-07-2011, 11:16 PM
How about writing Garamendi and telling him the limit should really be nine rounds instead of ten. Noting that favoring a 10 round magazine is akin to something horrible. (I don't know what...but you can come up with something)
I'd love to see a response to that one.

What a D-bag. G is.

Falconis
10-07-2011, 11:48 PM
Anyone want to start this as a letter writing campaign where you bombard his office with the inaccuracies in his letter and his ideals? Basically make sure he knows he is the douchebag we know he is

Trailboss60
10-07-2011, 11:56 PM
Duplicated..

Trailboss60
10-08-2011, 12:01 AM
I believe that no civilian needs more than ten rounds in a magazine for hunting or personal safety........Unfortunately, not one Republican joined this common sense approach to gun ownership.


And some California gun owners proudly declare their loyalty to the Democrat party....:rolleyes:


Yeah, he conveniently replaced "bear arms" with "own guns"


"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"




Two totally different things.


To him, it's a "living document" for him to twist, tear, and take a dump on.


Garamendi: We must make our country safe from those who would use guns to attack and kill other human beings.


Great job you did keeping the people in Cupertino safe the other day, johnny boy.

Trailboss60
10-08-2011, 12:10 AM
How about writing Garamendi and telling him the limit should really be nine rounds instead of ten.

don't give him any Ideas, he would probably think that comment is a stroke of genius and run with it...

Ford8N
10-08-2011, 5:14 AM
"Commonsense", Bradyspeak for more gun laws.

That's all any gun owner needs to know.

Slim///
10-08-2011, 5:42 AM
Commonsense.I'm really starting to hate this term

Write Winger
10-08-2011, 6:27 AM
He forgot to mention the 2A guarantees us mere citizens the right to defend ourselves against government tyranny... and we need matching magazine capacity :D

Trailboss60
10-08-2011, 7:39 AM
Originally Posted by Jsapata;
Commonsense.


I'm really starting to hate this term

Bradysense...

Kinda funny how the same people say, I support the second amendment but...

rbetts
10-08-2011, 8:57 AM
I think he's forgotten who his employer is. He needs to REPRESENT his constituents. Thats the problem with knucklehead politicians, they think once they get in office, they don't have to listen to us anymore. Garamandi is just a trolling tool!!! Here's what goes on in his mind. . . . How do I stay publically employed, I know run for every office under the sun and train wreck everyone of them.

Time to break our the pitchforks!!!

donw
10-08-2011, 9:24 AM
some of you give Garamendi and his constituents too much credit.

notice his "between the lines" attack on republicans?

it's my belief, he has NO RIGHT to overide MY belief with HIS beliefs! :mad:

CycloSteve
10-08-2011, 9:25 AM
x2. Most of these "Politicians" think they work for the Government, and not the People. That corner has turned, and it is our duty to expose them for the frauds that they are (self-serving, not public-servants) and vote them out of office.

dfletcher
10-08-2011, 11:27 AM
Garamendi is beyond any help. He's been anti-gun for years, that's not going to change in part because the people who vote for him don't want it to change; or, don't care that he holds this position and vote for him anyway.

The Shadow
10-08-2011, 11:38 AM
Could a federal preemption law be made that makes it illegal for states to ban certain types of guns and their components ? You know, kind of like how the United States sets the standards for cars.

emc002
10-08-2011, 11:42 AM
I've been shooting with the Garamendi's (John included) on their ranch in Calaveras County. Let me just say "hypocrite" and leave it at that.

Bhobbs
10-08-2011, 11:54 AM
I bet that guy is surrounded by armed security with plenty of +10 mags. I seriously hate hypocrites like him.

safewaysecurity
10-08-2011, 12:06 PM
I emailed him a long time ago about the same issue and got the same response.

SJgunguy24
10-08-2011, 1:16 PM
I've been shooting with the Garamendi's (John included) on their ranch in Calaveras County. Let me just say "hypocrite" and leave it at that.

That term goes for many who sit in power and are anti gun.

Colt-45
10-08-2011, 1:22 PM
What a load of crap. :mad: I hope that bill is "shot down" before it goes anywhere important.

safewaysecurity
10-08-2011, 1:26 PM
I've been shooting with the Garamendi's (John included) on their ranch in Calaveras County. Let me just say "hypocrite" and leave it at that.

I find this very interesting. Sounds like him a DeLeon would have a great time together.

tackdriver
10-08-2011, 1:32 PM
I think he's forgotten who his employer is. He needs to REPRESENT his constituents. Thats the problem with knucklehead politicians, they think once they get in office, they don't have to listen to us anymore. Garamandi is just a trolling tool!!! Here's what goes on in his mind. . . . How do I stay publically employed, I know run for every office under the sun and train wreck everyone of them.

Time to break our the pitchforks!!!

Yup, if this dip represents anyone here they should send him his quote and remind him of the stupidity of his statement. I "represent my constiuents" but I will do whatever the hell I, and my fellow dumbOcrats, want...

Dreaded Claymore
10-08-2011, 3:28 PM
I think he's forgotten who his employer is. He needs to REPRESENT his constituents. Thats the problem with knucklehead politicians, they think once they get in office, they don't have to listen to us anymore.

Trick is, the argument can be made that once in office, politicians have a duty to do what (they think) is right, regardless of what their constituents want. If I'm a representative from Alabama, don't I have a duty to vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act even though the people I represent would prefer that blacks be slaves?

(Of course, even though he thinks it's right, Garamendi is actually doing wrong, and I'm going to vote against him.)

tackdriver
10-09-2011, 12:29 PM
Trick is, the argument can be made that once in office, politicians have a duty to do what (they think) is right, regardless of what their constituents want. If I'm a representative from Alabama, don't I have a duty to vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act even though the people I represent would prefer that blacks be slaves?

(Of course, even though he thinks it's right, Garamendi is actually doing wrong, and I'm going to vote against him.)

Whoa. Actually it's (should be) just the opposite of what you propose. Regardless of what the politicians own beliefs may be, he is there to enforce the desires of those who elected him. Hence the name "represenative"...
Sadly, your interpretation is what is currently in use.
Regarding this situation with the stumble bum politician this thread is discussing, it would be interesting if one could find out how many calls he got for the mag limitation vs those against. Bet ya a dollar to a doughnut he got more against and still voted for his personnel agenda.....