My Representation's Response on H.R. 1022

[stator]

I've heard back from Zoe Lofgren and here is her response:

Dear Mr. Stator :



Thank you for contacting me with your opposition to H.R. 1022. I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts with me.



The purpose of H.R. 1022 is to reinstate the assault weapons ban, which prohibits the transfer of semiautomatic rifles and pistols. H.R. 1022 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, on which I serve. Should this come before the full Committee for debate, I will keep your thoughts in mind.



Again, thanks for being in touch. If I may be of assistance to you or your family, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely

Zoe Lofgren

Member of Congress

Please post your Rep.'s response here as well. We'll put some sunshine on H.R. 1022. If you have not done so, please write your Rep. about H.R. 1022.

BTW, Zoe Lofgren more often than not signs up for being a co-sponsor on McCarthy's previous AWB attempts, I believe.

[Paratus et Vigilans]

Maybe Zoe will keep your vote in mind, too!

[Paratus et Vigilans]

If I may be of assistance to you or your family, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Hey, Zoe, he just DID contact you. You want to be of assistance to him and his family? Vote against the bill so he can defend himself and his family with the firearm of his choice - maybe even a black rifle!

[Prc329]

O.K., I just emailed my representative. Lets see if she rights back.

[johnny_22]

Mike Honda gives more details, but...

Thank you for contacting me regarding gun safety issues. I always appreciate hearing the views of my constituents, and I am glad you took the time to correspond with me.

Please know that I understand your concerns with gun safety legislation in Congress. I know the importance of making sure that there are appropriate safeguards against firearms ending up in the wrong hands, be they the hands of an untrained child or of a criminal. I also appreciate the Constitutional right to bear arms, and will always consider carefully the implications of any gun safety legislation. As an avid sportsman, I understand the concerns of gun owners with unreasonable government restrictions. As a Member of Congress, you can rest assured that I will pursue rational and effective gun safety policy for our nation.

Once again, I thank you for taking the time to share your position with me. Your views help shape the way I represent our district.

Sincerely,
Mike Honda
Member of Congress

[SemiAutoSam]

They are always so very non committal on subjects like these.

Its like they are trying to please every constituent and will not take a stand on one side or another until the time for a vote.

[Prc329]

Well, I tried to email Juanita Millender-McDonald my rep and the website is broken and the email address I was given when I called her office came back undeliverable. I hope they get the sight fixed soon.

[Kevlarman]

This is what Buck McKeon wrote back (via email):

Thank you for contacting my office with your concerns
regarding the assault weapons ban. I appreciate your input, and as
a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I do not support
legislation reauthorizing the so-called Clinton-Gore-Feinstein
assault weapons ban.

As you know, earlier this year Congresswoman Carolyn
McCarthy of New York introduced HR 1022, the Assault Weapons
Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act, which would
reauthorize the assault weapons ban that was contained in the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,
requiring background checks for the transfer of lawfully possessed
semiautomatic assault weapons, as well as toughen the ban on
possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding
devices. The bill also outlaws unlawful weapons transfers to
juveniles, and expands the definition of what classifies as a
"semiautomatic assault weapon." It has been referred to the House
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland
Security, but no hearings have been held.

While I understand concerns of gun control advocates, I
believe that these bills blatantly disregard Second Amendment
rights while failing to deter crime. First, all of the proposed bills
are based on visual characteristics such as pistol grips and barrel
shrouds, thus banning guns simply because they look like semi-
automatic weapons - not because they act like them. It is
important to remember that true assault weapons were banned
under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which established strict
registration requirements and a transfer tax on machine guns and
short-barreled long guns.

Second, a recent study of the assault weapons ban shows
that it does not deter crime and will not make our streets safer.
Specifically, an Urban Institute study mandated by the original law
stated that, "At best, the assault weapons ban can only have a
limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons
and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction
of all gun murders." Neither that study nor two follow-up studies
by the same authors found the law to have any effect on attacks
against police officers. In short, the assault weapons ban does
nothing to deter crime.

Throughout my tenure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, I have always been a strong advocate for your
Second Amendment rights as a law-abiding citizen.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. If I can be of
any further assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Buck McKeon
Member of Congress

[Prc329]

its sad that if you write the cali reps it will fall on deaf ears. the c word come to mind

You are probably right but if enough of us make our voices heard, someone will listen. All it takes is one to listen and make others listen.

[hoffmang]

Today's decision in Parker v. DC helps us here. The law of the land that surrounds our reps and senators offices is that the Federal Government must respect the right of "the people" to own military style arms.

-Gene

[SemiAutoSam]

That's a good thing but its really too bad the idiots in DC cant be slapped with a personal suit for violating or at the least attempting to violate the US Constitution when they spit out legislation like HR1022.

Today's decision in Parker v. DC helps us here. The law of the land that surrounds our reps and senators offices is that the Federal Government must respect the right of "the people" to own military style arms.

-Gene

[E Pluribus Unum]

The law of the land that surrounds our reps and senators offices is that the Federal Government must respect the right of "the people" to own military style arms.

Where do I go to start the background check and 10 day wait on my thermo-nuclear weapon??

I would also like a Light Antitank Weapon.... thank you....

[hoffmang]

EPU,

You need to read today's decision. It made clear what we've always suspected. It specifically mentioned WMD and said those were not the arms in question. The arms that are protected are the ones carried by an infantryman. Grenade launcher is probably in. TOW missiles and shoulder launched SAMs are an interesting in between. Artillery and tanks are not protected.

-Gene

[E Pluribus Unum]

EPU,

You need to read today's decision. It made clear what we've always suspected. It specifically mentioned WMD and said those were not the arms in question. The arms that are protected are the ones carried by an infantryman. Grenade launcher is probably in. TOW missiles and shoulder launched SAMs are an interesting in between. Artillery and tanks are not protected.

-Gene

There was a shoulder-fired infantry-level nuclear device developed shortly after World War 2.

Light Antitank Weapon or LAW is the modern version of the Bazooka and is carried ONLY by infantryman.

[hoffmang]

So you are pointing out the interesting items at the margin.

I think if you read the Militia acts of the Second Congress, you'll see what dynamics will be used to determine the extent of the right to bear arms.

-Gene