I’ve written my congresscritters and misrepresentatives about the sudden push for gun control after the Sandy Hook shooting. I received my first response from Congressman Dennis Ross
Dear Mr. Allen:
Thank you for contacting my office. I appreciate that you took the time to express your views on this important matter and am happy to respond.
The senseless violence which occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School has no place in our society and certainly has no place in our classrooms. As a Christian, and as a father, I joined Americans across the country as I followed the heartbreaking reports pouring out of Newtown, Connecticut.Unfortunately, it did not take long for gun control advocates to begin using this disaster as a means to push for more restrictive and anti-gun legislation.
As your elected representative in Congress, I took an oath to protect the Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment, which provides the right to keep and bear arms by all law-abiding citizens. As we move forward through the 113th Congress, you can be sure that I will fight against legislation that infringes upon your Constitutional freedoms.
It is an honor and a privilege to represent constituents like you of the 15th District of Florida. To learn more on how I may serve you, please visit http://dennisross.house.gov. Please feel free to continue to contact me in the future.
Sounds like Mr. Ross is on the right page. This doesn’t mean I stop writing / calling though, nor does it mean you should either. Those on our side need constant reminders that they have support behind them for their decisions. I don’t know Dennis Ross from Bob Ross (I don’t even know if Dennis has a fro or if he can paint happy trees) and while I appreciate his response, I still feel it’s important to continue the ‘conversation’ to reinforce how important this situation is.
So, thank you Mr. Ross and I look forward to having you stand up for our Second Amendment rights.
Comments
"Dear Mr. Hornor,
Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on the Second Amendment. I am committed to putting the needs of my constituents first, and it is important that I have a direct line to you and other residents of the 1st District of Arkansas. Your correspondence plays a vital role in the legislative process, and I welcome your views and ideas.
In light of the recent tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut there have been calls for more stringent gun laws and restrictions for gun owners. While I share in the Nation's grief over this senseless act of violence, I do not believe that just passing additional gun control laws is an appropriate solution. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states "a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This passage clearly establishes the basic right of Americans to own firearms. I do not believe the federal government should compromise that right, whether for hunting, for protection, for sport, or for any lawful use.
I fully support the initiation of thoughtful dialogue on how to prevent similar tragedies in the future. It is imperative that we identify ways to improve early identification, diagnosis, and treatment for those living with serious mental illnesses. In addition, there must be a national dialogue addressing violence that is showcased on movies, video games, television and the internet. Lastly, we need to promote responsible gun ownership to ensure that common sense measures are taken by those in possession of firearms.
My thoughts and prayers continue to be with the families who lost their loved ones, and I hope you will join me in praying for the victims' families so they might find peace after this shocking tragedy. As always, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Rick Crawford
Member of Congress"
http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-warns-obama-push-for-gun-control-will-be-met-with-white-house
TS
Of the many many problems with the '94 Assault Weapons Ban, the most annoying was that the definition of 'assault weapon' was defined by bloomin' idiots.
A strike-while-the-iron-is-hot approach might be for someone to propose a new assault weapon ban and define 'assault weapon' in a rational way: a weapon that has been used in a crime of violence.
The criminal is banned from owning that weapon (not necessarily a firearm).
Such a weapon shall be disposed of at public auction and proceeds go towards victim's restitution.
Pre-emption: no other definition of 'assault weapon' shall be used anywhere in the United States. No feature, quality, capacity or accessory shall be the basis of a ban on specific model or class of firearms that have a sporting purpose or a reasonable utility to a well regulated militia. (US vs Miller standard) Violations of this preemption to be prosecuted under 18 USC § 242