PDA

View Full Version : Here's a load from Diane Feinstein and my response


GunOwner
08-13-2007, 12:11 PM
Dear Mr. XXXX:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007" (H.R. 1022). I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

In 1994, the Omnibus Crime Bill was signed into law. This bill banned the transfer or possession of semi-automatic assault weapons for a period of ten years. Semi-automatic assault weapons are weapons of war that do not belong on the streets or in our communities.

As you may know, the assault weapons ban expired in September 2004, despite several attempts to re-authorize it. Since the ban was allowed to expire, criminals are now able to obtain the most dangerous types of military-style assault weapons.

Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) investigations increased from 31 assault weapons cases in 2003 and 31 in 2004 - the last two years of the ban - to just 13 cases in 2005, and only 1 case in 2006. Since the ban expired, the ATF has essentially stopped investigating assault weapons cases. Local law enforcement must deal with the results. In Houston, Texas, where homicides were up by 25% in 2006, Police Chief Harold Hurtt has stated that the AK-47 assault rifle has become "kind of a weapon of choice" for warring gangs, major drug distributors and immigrant smugglers. Even in California, where state law bans assault weapons, we are seeing the negative impact of the Federal assault weapons ban's 2004 sunset. California's Department of Justice reports that in 2006, 2,054 weapons were seized in the state, including 1,008 assault weapons. Approaching 50% of weapons seizures, this number is far higher than the 33% seen in previous years.

These numbers answer the argument of critics that criminals will obtain and possess assault weapons regardless of what laws Congress passes. However, according to Department of Justice data, the number of assault weapons that were declared off-limits, and which were traced to crime, went down dramatically after the assault weapons ban - down by 66% from the pre-ban rate.

While I am aware that some argue that the 1994 ban had only limited effect, with the ban expiring, we are left with monthly, weekly, and even daily accounts of killings and maimings that occur because these weapons have fallen into the wrong hands. These weapons are not just a law enforcement problem. They are a homeland security and counterterrorism problem. We need to take action to ensure that assault weapons cannot simply be purchased by a terrorist operative, drug cartels, or others in preparation for attacks within the United States.

The bill you reference, H.R. 1022, is currently pending before the House of Representatives and there is no Senate counterpart. While this may be an issue on which we disagree, please know that I do value your opinion. Be assured that should the Senate debate this or similar legislation in the future, I will keep your thoughts in mind.

Once again, thank you for your letter. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on matters of importance to you. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

My Response:

Dear Senator Feinstein:

I am disappointed in your message. Unfortunately, you are poorly informed on the topic and seem to be very naive. You should not take positions on issues unless you have given a fair opportunity to the other side to present their case and studied both sides of the issue. The statistics you present are selective, erroneous and misleading. Further, you fail to state what you have stated in other forums that - if you had the votes your would take away all the guns.

I am not sure where you get the idea that assault weapons do not belong in our communities. In the hands of law abiding citizens they can form an important adjunct to government agencies in time of crisis. I am disappointed that you have not studied history and other international examples of how an armed citizenry is of benefit to a nation.

We all agree that the use of guns in the commission of crimes is a terrible thing. I suggest you focus on that. Dramatically increase the sentences for crimes where guns are used - consider life sentences for the commission of any rape, robbery, burglary or other similar crime where a gun is used. Then enforce that law diligently.

As you are undoubtedly aware annually the far and away highest number of violent deaths come from drunk driving. Yet I have not heard you call for the ban of cars. Of course, it would be foolish to do so. We as a society attempt to solve the problem by addressing the combination of drinking and driving - not the inanimate object associated with the violent activity. We should take the same approach with guns.

Guns provide many benefits to those that choose to possess them. You do not have a right to substitute your feelings about guns for those of a free people. Perhaps the single mother living in a marginal area feels safer having a gun to protect herself - as a Senator you are well protected so you might not have that concern but real people do have that concern. It is a fact that thousands of crimes are averted every day by law abiding citizens with guns.

Unfortunately, as is often the case with you and other legislators, in an attempt to solve problem A (criminals using gun) the proposed solution ignores the unintended consequences and fails to recognize the impact on their free constituents thus creating a bigger problem B (unarmed population lead to slaughter as was the case in Virginia). Criminals fear an armed populace more than they fear the police or being caught. Law abiding citizens that WANT to be somewhat responsible for their own safety and security should be able to do so - and you should not try to take that right away. Shame on you for trying to do so and I pray you will open your mind to new information and ways of thinking about this problem so that a better solution can be found.

Respectfully,

XXXXX

C.G.
08-13-2007, 12:18 PM
Unfortunately it will be read by her staff and tossed, I doubt she will read it herself.

jumbopanda
08-13-2007, 12:18 PM
Very good response, but all it's going to do is help wear out her delete key.

GunOwner
08-13-2007, 12:24 PM
Very good response, but all it's going to do is help wear out her delete key.

That's why I printed it here ;-) Plus while I think my contribution is trivial if enough of us continue to rain down truth on their BS - someday - I hope things will change.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."

joel1316
08-13-2007, 12:44 PM
Bravo! Yeah, it will end up the garbage probably.... But can you imagine if everyone wrote a letter frequently?!?!?! They won't be throwing them away anymore.

gose
08-13-2007, 1:27 PM
Bravo! Yeah, it will end up the garbage probably.... But can you imagine if everyone wrote a letter frequently?!?!?! They won't be throwing them away anymore.

No, because they would get caught by their spam filters ;)

WokMaster1
08-13-2007, 6:52 PM
She doesn't read any of our letters & emails. Even her mid level staff does not do this "****ty work". Only the most junior interns are given the task of going thru the correspondense & sending out cookie-cutter replies.

She is totally out of touch with her constituents. In fact she is untouchable. In fact she looks at all of us & laughs........ho! ho! ho! Sad but true!

Patriot
08-13-2007, 7:48 PM
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) investigations increased from 31 assault weapons cases in 2003 and 31 in 2004 - the last two years of the ban - to just 13 cases in 2005, and only 1 case in 2006. Since the ban expired, the ATF has essentially stopped investigating assault weapons cases. Local law enforcement must deal with the results.

Am I missing something here :confused:

However, according to Department of Justice data, the number of assault weapons that were declared off-limits, and which were traced to crime, went down dramatically after the assault weapons ban - down by 66% from the pre-ban rate.

(A) No, really? :rolleyes:
(B) Is that good or bad news...?

Unless I totally missed something, whoever drafted that letter must have had a bad hair day.

slick_711
08-13-2007, 7:52 PM
Very well written response.

Solidmch
08-13-2007, 10:00 PM
Its funny how everyone on this form urges people to write their politicians. When one does, they are sometimes met with negative comments. Good job dude!. Keep it up! We all need to be doing this.

SvenFrost
08-13-2007, 11:13 PM
Good Job Gunowner:

You motivated me to write Feinstein as well. Here is my version. I tend to agree that e-mails get deleted too easily. I have heard that facsimile transmissions and letters carry more weight. Accordingly, for those who care to use it, here is the body of my letter and the address and fax number to the national office.

Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954

Dear Ms. Feinstein:

I am writing to express my opposition to the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007" (“H.R. 1022”). I appreciate your response with regard to my concerns.

Rest assured that I am aware of your belief that since the assault weapons ban enacted by the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill has expired, criminals can now obtain dangerous “military-style” assault weapons. However, convicted felons are already prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms of any kind. Further, “military-style” firearms were effectively banned by the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (“FOPA”)(Pub. L. No. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449 (May 19, 1986). The firearms H.R. 1022 will ban are in fact only cosmetically similar to the weapons banned by FOPA. Further, tens of millions of Americans possess and enjoy the types of firearms which will fall within the ambit of H.R. 1022.

I am also aware of your belief that after the 1994 ban, the number of assault weapons involved in crimes went down dramatically. However, prior to the ban assault weapons were involved in only 1% to 2% of crimes involving a firearm nationally. Based on these estimates, assault weapons were used in such a small number of cases as to be statistically insignificant. Further, assault weapons continue to be used in only 1% to 2% of crime involving use of a firearm after the ban’s expiration.

In counter to these unwarranted concerns, there are many within this state, and even more nationally, who have come to the conclusion that politicians have seized upon this issue not because there is a problem but because this is a dramatic and highly visible issue which appears to affect few people. The growing concensus is that that some politicians are willing to trade the Second Amendment rights of Americans for the publicity they obtain in trumpeting this “grave danger.”

As the opinion polls following such tragedies as the Virginia Tech massacre show, Americans firmly believe in gun ownership. I ask you to put aside your own beliefs, listen to your constituency and stop this legislation.

Best Regards,
XXXXXXXX

Blue
08-13-2007, 11:18 PM
Why dont these hags go fight against the tobacco industry? More people die from lung cancer every day in the US than bullet wounds. I'd be all for them doing that and I'm a smoker. Tobacco is bigger than guns :D

wilit
08-14-2007, 8:49 AM
Am I missing something here :confused:


Yeah, I found it amusing too that they only investigated 62 cases in 2 years. Wow, that's definitely keeping our children safe with ALL THOSE GUNS off the street. :rolleyes:

Bruce
08-14-2007, 10:02 AM
I can't think of a bigger waste of time than writing pro-gun letters to DiFi.

Writing letters to Babs Boxer comes to mind. :rolleyes: